Archived decisions

Agenda Item: 3

MAIN REPORT

1) Purpose of the Report:

1.1. This report presents an overview of the Environment Department Capital Programme and highlights a number of changes to the previously agreed list of schemes and sub-programmes since May 2008.

2) Contextual Information:

2.1. The department capital programme approvals are currently £116.5 million across all the programme areas discussed in this report. The total spend expected this year is currently £52 million.

2.2. The capital programme comprises over 800 individual schemes, and these are grouped into the programme areas discussed in this report. Each area is reviewed regularly and the changes proposed in this report ensure that an up to date and relevant capital programme is maintained throughout the year.

2.3. Detailed monitoring continues throughout the year, and these regular reports enable various issues to be highlighted and discussed, particularly when there are financial and programming decisions to be made.

2.4. The information in this report is correct as at July 2008.

3) Key Issues:

3.1. New schemes proposed for inclusion in the 2008/09 integrated capital programme.

3.2. Schemes deferred to a preparation programme pending land and legal issue resolution.

3.3. Proposal to allocate funding towards the preparation costs of a business case for the Bus Rapid Transit major project.

3.4. Outturn costs of completed schemes, including details on significant over and under spending (+/- 10%).

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORT PROGRAMMES

4) Integrated Transport Programme

4.1 Delivery and expenditure during the first quarter was on target and in accordance with forecasts.

4.2 Of the 25 named schemes in the 2008/09 programme the majority are still in the design phase and 15 are currently planned for delivery in quarters 3 and 4. These 15 represent an estimated £1.5 million spend this year, of which less than £100,000 is LTP funded.

4.3 There were also 19 schemes completed in quarters 1 and 2 this year from the 2007/08 programme, and these are listed in Appendix 3 for information. There are a further 4 schemes from 2007/08 programmed for completion during quarter 3 and these represent £2.9 million spend, evenly distributed across LTP and developer contributions.

4.4 Whitehill/Bordon Market Towns Project, Forest Centre (£591,000) is currently undergoing a detailed review following calculation of pre-tender estimates. The scheme, which was due to start on site this September, is likely to be delayed until the new year while revisions to the project are agreed.

Proposed New Schemes

Hawley Pedestrian Access Improvements, Hart - £75,000 (Developer Contributions)

4.5 This scheme has come forward from the Contributions Action Team (CAT) project and the contributions are specific to the Hawley area. The scheme seeks to provide a pedestrian phase at an existing set of signals on Hawley Road and Fernhill Road and an additional refuge on Hawley Road opposite Holy Trinity Church. It is also intended to coordinate with new parking restrictions being promoted by Hart District Council. The scheme aims to increase walking levels in the area and reduce the perceived severance issues caused by congestion.

Ramshill to Tor Way Cycleway, Petersfield - £130,000 (Developer Contributions)

4.6 The objective of this scheme is to provide an extension of the cycle link between the Ramshill development and Petersfield Town Centre. This extension route will assist and encourage cycling for school students, residents and visitors to the area by linking the town centre and its existing cycle routes onto Ramshill and the new residential housing. The route between Tor Way and the town centre has seen a 27% increase in cycle use since construction in 2005 and it is expected this extension will also achieve similar patronage.

Perins School Footpath, Alresford - £58,000 (Developer Contributions)

4.7 This scheme has come forward from the Alresford Town Partnership health check, from which a `putting pedestrians first' project is being promoted by the Town Council to reduce traffic movements within the town by removing parked cars and promoting more sustainable transport. This element of that project proposes to make it easier to access the town centre by constructing a new footway from the Grange Road development through Perins School and accessing The Avenue. The route of the footpath follows close consultation with the school, town partnership and Local Member and is eagerly anticipated.

Bus Rapid Transit

4.8 In April 2008 Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH) submitted an expression of interest to the Government's Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) to deliver the early phases of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) for South East Hampshire (Gosport-Fareham-North Fareham-Cosham- Portsmouth with extensions). The complete scheme is expected to cost in the region of £175 million and will be the subject of applications for funding to the Regional Transport Board for the period after 2016. In late July the Government confirmed that the £20 million bid for BRT's early phases had been short-listed. Following this, applicants on the short-list are invited to prepare and submit a Full Business Case by October 2008. An announcement is expected to be made in February 2009 confirming which schemes are successful and will be supported with funding. If the bid for the early phases of BRT is successful the scheme will need to be completed by 1 March 2011.

4.9 Although the focus is on the early phases of BRT, it will be necessary to provide the business case for the whole £175 million scheme and its benefits to the community. This Business Case preparation now calls for a significant amount of design and appraisal work to be undertaken prior to and without any absolute guarantee of securing scheme approvals or fee reimbursement. An initial fee estimate of £1.3 million has been suggested.

4.10 It is likely that PUSH New Growth Point (NGP) funding for Strategic Access to Major Development Areas can be programmed for this scheme.

4.11 There are approximately £600,000 of developers' contributions still available that have been collected in respect of the former South Hampshire Rapid Transit Scheme that could be set aside for this purpose. Of this, £100,000 is currently programmed for improvement works at Brockhurst Roundabout in Gosport, leaving £500,000 to programme towards BRT.

4.12 However, there are risks associated with this approach and if the CIF bid is unsuccessful the County Council may be required to repay the contributions used in this way.

4.13 £100,000 can be met from the department's `scheme development' budget, funded by local resources. There are currently no immediate commitments against this budget, so it is suggested that the remaining £200,000 is also earmarked for BRT as reserve.

4.14 The final potential source of funding is the £4 million Access to Gosport LTP allocation. Though it is not expected that any additional funding will be required prior to the bid result, it is proposed that this funding be held against the BRT until more detailed costs and sources of funding for BRT Phase 1 delivery are established.

4.15 Together, these funding sources will meet the initial estimated £1.3 million preparation costs and, should the CIF bid be successful, costs following confirmation in March 2009 can be claimed against the £20 million funding.

5) Capital Highways Maintenance programme 2008/09

5.1 The Highways Maintenance current approvals total £24.3 million (excluding QoP and Bridge strengthening and maintenance), comprising £11.9 million LTP and £12.4 million Local Resources.

5.2 The first quarter has seen a slower than usual, but satisfactory start to delivering this year's capital maintenance programme.

5.3 The Major Maintenance Scheme on Southampton Road, Eastleigh started at the end of June and is progressing according to programme. It is expected to complete in November this year at a cost of £1.3 million.

5.4 The new Term Highways Contractor (THC), Amey, started the new THC on 1 May 2008. As anticipated, mobilisation of the contract has led to a reduced level of delivery compared to previous years, but those early challenges have largely been overcome and it is expected that the maintenance programme will be delivered in full by the end of the year.

5.5 Additionally, the early summer wet weather has played its part in hindering the mobilisation, in that resources have been diverted to attending weather emergencies rather than other service activities expected at this time of the year. Currently the position is recoverable, but should the weather continue to be wetter than average it will have further impacts on surface dressing programmes and other maintenance work. A close watch on groundwater levels will be undertaken over the next few months and, should the rainfall continue at current levels, it is likely to lead to groundwater flooding on the highway and resources will be redeployed to deal with these issues.

6) Bridge Strengthening and Maintenance Programme

6.1 The Bridge Strengthening and Maintenance current approvals total £4.077 million, funded from the Local Transport Plan (LTP) maintenance allocations.

6.2 Good progress has been made so far this year and the programme is on target for full completion by year end.

6.3 Of note are the bridge replacement schemes at Aldern Bridge, Newtown and Boars Bridge, Bramley and flood alleviation schemes at Bull Hill, Boldre and Foxcotte Lane, Andover, which all commenced on schedule during May and June.

7) Proposed Deferred Schemes

Alençon Link, Bus Interchange Improvements, Basingstoke - £520,000 (Developer Contributions)

7.1 This scheme has been subject to significant delays related to land ownership, legal advice and redevelopment proposals of the site. First entered into the 2006/07 programme the difficulties in developing the scheme, and the links to the New Road, New Street project, were soon realised and it was rescheduled to 2007/08. In 2007/08 proposals for a major redevelopment of the interchange area emerged and this, together with the ongoing land ownership issues, created further delay. The feasibility design has progressed, albeit slowly, and there are real benefits that this scheme will make in support of the New Road, New Street scheme, but with so many uncertainties still unresolved it may not be prudent to commit to a construction year at this time.

7.2 With that in mind, it is proposed to defer this scheme from the delivery programme and enter it onto a `preparation' list while the complicated legal negotiations continue and a way forward for the redevelopment emerges.

New Road, New Street, Basingstoke - £400,000 (Developer Contributions)

7.3 This scheme has also been in the programme for a number of years. It originally entered as part of the 2004/05 programme, but was rescheduled to 2006/07 while a new traffic model for Basingstoke was developed. Delivery of the model saw some significant delays and was only completed last year. A feasibility study using the new model was undertaken during 2007/08, but unfortunately highlighted some fundamental problems with the existing model network. The model has since been re-coded and tested and a revised study for this scheme is imminent.

7.4 The scheme is currently in the 2008/09 programme, but as the detailed design has yet to start in earnest, and as the proposals will require significant consultation with Members and the district council to gain their approval, is it unlikely to be implemented this year. Furthermore, the effect expected from the Alençon Link Bus Interchange scheme will have an impact on the success of this scheme. Though they are both independently achievable, the benefits of both complement each other and could be delivered as a packaged scheme.

7.5 With this in mind, it is proposed to defer this scheme from the delivery programme and enter it onto a `preparation' list, to re enter the programme when stakeholder approval is obtained.

Fleet Area Cycles - £248,000 (Developer Contributions)

7.6 This scheme has been subsumed within the Fleet Town Access Plan (FTAP) which is currently at consultation stage. It is expected that two distinct strategies will emerge from the Plan, Congestion and Accessibility (which includes this cycle strategy). Schemes emerging from these two strategies will be implemented over the next 20 years, though it is expected that the Fleet Area Cycles scheme could be one of the first to be implemented next year.

7.7 With this in mind it is proposed to reschedule this scheme to 2009/10.

8) Amendments to the Programme

8.1 The published programme of 27 May included three duplicate entries which have now been deleted - Access to Countryside (£100,000), Passenger Transport Information (£200,000) and Basingstoke Footways (£100,000 developer contributions). These have been removed from the programme that is attached as Appendix 1.

8.2 Significant amendments include the programming of developer contributions for various schemes within the Safer Routes to School Programme +£113,000, Minor Works +£94,000, and Casualty Reduction +£40,000 Sub-Programmes. Other minor changes are identified in bold on Appendix 1.

8.3 Consequently, the Emerging Externally Funded schemes element has been reduced from £2.0 million to £1.5 million to reflect the above changes and new entries.

8.4 The Safe and Secure Communities project (Village 30s) has also been granted an additional £500,000 from savings identified corporately. It is proposed that this funding will bridge the £270,000 funding gap on Village 30 and bring the programme forward by one year, leaving £230,000 to be released from capital resources in a later year.

8.5 Appendix 1 summarises the latest 2008/09 programme and includes the above amendments, plus minor changes and new schemes. The deferred schemes are also listed for reference.

9) Outturn Cost of Capital Schemes:

9.1 In accordance with the County Council's financial procedures, the outturn cost of schemes completed between 1 September 2007 and 31 March 2008 are listed in Appendix 2. Schemes completed between 1 April 2007 and 31 August 2007 were reported on 11 September 2007. `Completed' in this context means when the final payment has been made. Some of these schemes may have been in operation prior to April 2007 but the final payment was only made in 2007/08.

9.2 The overall outturn position on the 35 schemes summarised in Appendix 2 is £44,000 less than the latest approvals for those schemes. This variation in expenditure has already been taken into account in assessing resources available to support other schemes in the capital programme.

9.3 Appendix 2 presents the completed schemes for information. The significant variations (+/- 10%) are explained below.

Significant variations on completed Schemes

9.4 Rumbridge Street, Totton. Phase 1. Last approved budget £600,000. Outturn £426,000 (-29%). The original allocation assumed that all work would be undertaken in a single phase, however during the latter stage of design a serious drainage problem emerged which meant that it was prudent to split the scheme into two deliverable phases. £168,000 of the above approval was transferred to Phase 2, leaving £432,000 for completion of Phase 1. Therefore the variation is only -1.3%.

9.5 London Street/Newbury Street (Andover Cycles). Last approved budget £160,000. Outturn £136,000 (-15%). Planned contingencies were not required and the scheme was delivered within budget by Test Valley Borough Council on the County Council's behalf.

9.6 The Quomp Road Closure, Ringwood. Last approved budget £48,000. Outturn £23,000 (-52%). Proposed street lighting improvements were withdrawn from the scheme as column replacements were already programmed.

9.7 Basingstoke Route 3 Quality Bus Partnership. Last approved budget £200,000. Outturn £177,000 (-12%). Estimate included provision for kerb replacement in the vicinity of most bus stops, but the extent required was lower than anticipated.

9.8 Kipling Road Traffic Management, Eastleigh. Last approved budget £88,000. Outturn £67,000 (-23%). The works estimate included provision for reconstructing small areas of carriageway in the vicinity of the proposed speed cushions. Once on site the extent of this work was much reduced, as the levels and carriageway condition were better than anticipated. Furthermore, little of the planned contingency was required. Eastleigh Borough Council designed and implemented the scheme on the County Council's behalf.

9.9 Havant Quality Bus Partnership. Last approved budget £500,000. Outturn £567,000 (+13%). Contractor submitted higher than expected costs. As work progressed extra work was identified, such as extra kerbing and complications at one site relating to unforeseen utility issues which resulted in a re-design of that element.

9.10 Southampton to Waterside Quality Bus Partnership. Last approved budget £400,000. Outturn £483,000 (+21%). Final cost from contractor was significantly above tendered price. This was exacerbated by vandalism of the new footway and kerb works and theft of bus stop poles, all of which had to be replaced. The local Member also requested extra stops and associated footpath improvements which were incorporated at a late stage. Additionally costs of alterations to Staplewood Lane junction were higher than the estimates as the existing surface required deeper planing than originally expected.

9.11 Selborne Traffic Management. Last approved budget £160,000. Outturn £197,000 (+23%). Once works commenced it was found that various sections of carriageway and footways were in a poorer state of repair than had originally been identified. The fee spend was much higher than normal for a scheme of this nature due to prolonged correspondence with a few local residents that took place after the scheme had been completed. This continued for approximately nine months.

9.12 Charles Street/Lavant Street (Station to Town Centre cycles), Petersfield. Last approved budget £80,000. Outturn £100,000 (+25%). One of many schemes that required a level of re-design following handover at the end of the previous Professional Services Contract. The scheme included a cycle route through an East Hampshire District Council owned car park, and in order to meet with approval the design needed to be re-evaluated several times before being accepted. These costs were not expected and emerged after the Project Appraisal was approved.

9.13 North Camp Traffic Management Phase 2, Farnborough. Last approved budget £157,000. Final spend £177,000 (+13%). Once on site, extra drainage requirements were identified by the highways sub-unit.

9.14 Sandhurst Road Footway, Yateley. Last approved budget £117,000. Final spend £154,000 (+32%). The most significant increase surrounds the number of tree removals required as part of the site clearance. Nine trees were included in the original Bill of Quantities (BoQ), but once on site this was increased to 58, resulting in an increased cost of almost £20,000. The footway surfacing was also extended by 12 metres compared to the BoQ at a cost of £5,000. A range of other smaller increases and changes were also required, including £8,000 additional fees compared to the appraisal value.

WASTE AND QUALITY OF PLACE PROGRAMMES

10) Waste Programme

10.1 The waste management current approvals total £4.367million, including £4.147 million for Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) and £220,000 for Closed Landfill Site Management, funded from Local Resources.

10.2 Progress towards the replacement site at Andover, valued at £1.2 million, has started well and has cost £125,000 to date, with further costs for the year expected to be in the region of £800,000. Other improvements at HWRCs in Gosport and Casbrook are expected to cost in the region of £100,000 this year, continuing into next year.

10.3 At the closed landfill sites, a small amount of work has taken place on decommissioning redundant leachate wells at Bramshill and Somerley, as well as some new fencing at the Somerley site. Work on a replacement landfill gas control system at Hook is expected to start in the autumn.

10.4 Of note is the £1.6 million capital costs associated with the former Marchwood Incinerator site at Bury Lane. Ground conditions at this site are poor and contaminated and improvements are required before the new transfer station on the site can be built. The new transfer station will provide a strategic site that is capable of handling and storing HWRC waste generated in and around the New Forest, and will provide a centralised collection point for wood waste for recycling and a direct delivery point for kerbside collected green waste.

10.5 There are no amendments to the programme approved on 27 May, and the schemes are progressing satisfactorily. Total outturn this year is currently expected to be in the region of £1.581 million, which is in line with planned spend for the year.

Quality of Place Programme

10.6 Previously called the Environmental Improvements Programme and Quality of Place Programme (highways maintenance), these two areas of the capital programme have been amalgamated, for reporting purposes, in order to link the similar types of spend.

10.7 Delivery of the programme has generally started well, and Feasibility work has now begun on the new schemes. Delayed delivery of the Forest Centre Bordon project, which is part funded through the Country Towns Initiative (CTI) is noted in paragraph 4.4. Priority 1 maintenance enhancement projects (Quality of Place) are already being delivered. The remainder are due to be released with the A3 contingency funding package. These are listed on Appendix 4 for information.

10.8 It should be noted that the held back Quality of Place maintenance enhancements are unlikely to progress if the A3 decision is much later than September 2008. Though the basic maintenance schemes will go ahead as programmed this year, a long delay in releasing QoP funding is likely to result in an underspend of this budget, as many of the planned schemes will have already been completed as part of the basic maintenance programme. It is therefore recommended that priority schemes are released and delegated approval is sought to achieve this.

10.9 Current approvals for these sub-programmes are £8.512 million, and the expected payments this year are in accordance with the planned spend at £2.6 million; based on the timely release of funding as discussed above.

11) Outline of Options:

11.1 Option 1: Release the financial contingency, or part of it, in advance of the A3 funding resolution in order to progress the held back programmes.

a) Releasing the ROUA and Waste contingency areas ahead of the decision will not advance the proposed delivery schedule of the held-back schemes as expenditure on the development of these schemes can be funded from existing approvals.

b) The held back Quality of Place maintenance enhancements however are unlikely to be delivered if the A3 decision is much later than September 2008. A review of the latest delivery schedule is underway to reduce the number of schemes affected by the A3 decision.

c) Should the A3 funding resolution be inadequate to cover the shortfall, a contingency fund will still be required.

11.2 Option 2: Funding the BRT preparation costs from the LTP programme has been discounted because this would require the deferral of most LTP funded named schemes within the 2008/09 programme that have yet to start on site, and potentially some in the following year also.

a) Deferral of schemes will be unwelcome across the County Council. Most named schemes have progressed to the detailed design stage, and will have already incurred a significant proportion of their total costs.

b)There is approximately £4 million LTP approvals already programmed for 2010/11, and there have been discussions about the alternative projects though few firm commitments.

c) Using developer contributions avoids any borrowing costs, it will ensure their expenditure by due-dates; it fits with the existing terms of use, and links with the department's aim to release resources to deliverable projects.

12) Conclusions:

12.1 That the capital programme has progressed satisfactorily during the first quarter of 2008/09 and is currently on target to successfully deliver schemes to time and within overall approval levels.

12.2 That the release of the whole A3 contingency fund at this time is not recommended while no formal decision on the funding shortfall has been made, but a review of the QoP maintenance scheme delivery programme should be undertaken and funds for priority schemes released.

12.3 That approximately £1.3 million estimated preparation costs for BRT can be funded through £500,000 developer contributions, £100,000 local resources and external funding, with the Access to Gosport allocation used if necessary to meet any shortfall.

13) Summary Recommendations:

13.1 That the three schemes proposed for inclusion in the 2008/09 Integrated Transport Programme be approved, in order to progress with the design and ensure delivery within the current year.

13.2 That the proposal to add £600,000 Bus Rapid Transit preparation funding be approved for inclusion in the 2008/09 Transport Programme, in order to progress the full business case relating to the Community Infrastructure Fund bidding process.

13.3 That the deferral of three integrated transport schemes, proposed in section 7, be approved, until uncertainties relating to land ownership, legal negotiations and delivery timetables are clarified.

13.4 That amendments to the integrated transport programme 2008/09, as summarised in section 8 and detailed in Appendix 1, be approved.

13.5 That the Director of Environment, in consultation with the Executive Member for Environment, be authorised to release high priority schemes within the held back Quality of Place maintenance enhancements which are time critical.

13.5 That the outturn costs of completed schemes in 2007/08, detailed in Appendix 2, be noted, as required by the County Council's financial procedures.

1736Rpt/227/HA

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

1736Rpt/227/HA

COMPREHENSIVE RISK & IMPACT ASSESSMENT:

With respect to the three proposed new schemes in section 5, each project has been subject to an equalities assessment as part of the Gateway Project Control Process. The business case for each scheme, upon which the assessment is carried out, evidenced that customer impacts and risks have been considered during the feasibility stages, and that they have clear customer involvement consultation plans and risk mitigation measures for the design and implementation stages.

With respect to the Bus Rapid Transit scheme, there are a number of areas of risk to be considered. Firstly, there is no guarantee that the BRT Business Case will be successful and the development costs are substantial. Secondly, if the CIF Business Case is unsuccessful the County Council may be asked to pay back any used contributions. However, these contributions must be spent by June 2009. In the current economic climate it is now likely that developers will be more proactive in reclaiming monies owed.

The proposals in this report are derived from the departmental service plans and LTP objectives, and are in accordance with the budget strategy and the County Council's financial management policy. An impact assessment of the departmental service plans and the financial management policy has been carried out and the proposals in this report are not considered to be discriminatory.

Financial outturn of completed schemes

Quality of Place Programme

'

Schemes marked with * are estimated completion dates.