Local Pinch Point Fund
Application Form
Guidance on the Application Process is available at:
Please include the Checklist with your completed application form.
The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the scheme proposed. As a guide, for a small scheme we would suggest around 25-35 pages including annexes would be appropriate.
One application form should be completed per project.
Applicant Information
Local authority name(s)*:Sheffield City Council (lead);
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive
Bid Manager Name and position: Dick Proctor, Transport Vision and Strategy Manager,
Sheffield City Council
Contact telephone number: 0114 2735502
Email address:
Postal address:Dick Proctor, Sheffield City Council,
Room G30, Town Hall, Surrey Street,Sheffield, S1 2HH.
When authorities submit a bid for funding to the Department, as part of the Government’s commitment to greater openness in the public sector under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they must also publish a version excluding any commercially sensitive information on their own website within two working days of submitting the final bid to the Department. The Department reserves the right to deem the business case as non-compliant if this is not adhered to.
Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published:
SECTION A - Project description and funding profile
A1. Project name:A61 Penistone RoadJunction Improvements, Sheffield
A2. Headline description:
Please enter a brief description of the proposed scheme (in no more than 100 words)
The A61 is the main strategic route travelling north from Sheffield towards Barnsley and the M1 – and hence to Leeds and the North East. Almost 60,000 vehicles use this road daily.
Extensive queues build up throughout much of the day, especially at four key junctions which struggle to cope with conflicting turning movements. Strict UTC regime maintains priority for main roadat expense of access to key development sites in Upper DonValley
This scheme proposes linked improvements at these four “pinchpoint” junctions, designed to improve access to existing and new employment whilst protecting the effectiveness of the main arterial route.
A3. Geographical area:
Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (in no more than 100 words)
The corridor forms the spine of a three mile section of the Upper DonValley,a wide river valley immediately to the north-northwest of the city centre and the birthplace of much of the Steel Industry.
The Upper Don is one of Sheffield’s two main employment clusters for private sector economic growth and job creation, and continues to be a focus for engineering industries with a heritage of high-end specialist manufacturing. It has been identified by the Sheffield City Region LEP as a key economic zone with an important focus for both existing and new businesses.
----
OS Grid Reference: SK 33868946 (and thereabouts)
Postcode: S6 2GY (and adjacent codes)
Appendix 1 is a map illustrating the route of the A61 within the Upper DonValley, the several key development sites, areas of existing employment, and geographical constraints.Appendix 2 shows the juxtaposition of the Upper DonValley within the Strategic Regeneration Areas of Sheffield; and Appendix 3 shows some outline designs for the scheme.
A4. Type of bid (please tick relevant box):
Small project bids(requiring DfT funding of between £1m and £5m)
Scheme Bid
A5. Equality Analysis
Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty?
Yes – a full Equal Opportunities Impact Assessment has been created as part of formal Council approval to the outline objectives and design for the scheme, this can be supplied upon request.
A6. Partnership bodies
Please provide details of the partnership bodies (if any) you plan to work within the design and delivery of the proposed scheme. This should include a short description of the role and responsibilities of the partnership bodies (which may include Development Corporations, National Parks Authorities, private sector bodies and transport operators) with confirmatory evidence of their willingness to participate in delivering the bid proposals.
Key private sector organisations involved are Sainsburys and Morrisons supermarket chains – the former planning to build a new store at the northern end of this section of the A61 (and providing a significant proportion of the local funding contribution to this scheme); the latter keen to resolve existing access problems at another of the junctions involved, as described above.
Numerous other businesses would benefit from the proposals, most notably Union Carbide and other owners of land-locked development sites along the corridor.
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (PTE), First and Stagecoach are principal stakeholders along with the Council in the recently launched Sheffield Bus Partnership. The Penistone Roadcorridor has been agreed as a priority for the bus partnership, and separate (complementary)bus priority measures have been collectively agreed for funding through the Partnership.
Letters of support are appended from Sainsbury’s and the PTE – see Appendices4A and4B.
A7. Local EnterprisePartnership/ Local Transport BodyInvolvement
It would be beneficial (though not essential) if the relevant LEP or LTB (or shadow(s)) have considered the bid and, if necessary, prioritised it against other bids from the same area. If possible, please include a letter from the LEP / LTB confirming their support and, if more than one bid is being submitted from the area, the priority ranking in order of growth significance.
Have you appended a letter from the LEP / LTB to support this case?
Yes –see Appendix 5
SECTION B – The Business Case
You may find the following DfT tools useful in preparing your business case:
- Transport Business Cases
- Behavioural Insights Toolkit
- Logic Mapping Hints and Tips
B1. The Scheme - Summary
Please select what the scheme is trying to achieve (this will need to be supported by evidence in the Business Case). Please select all categories that apply.
Improve access to a development site that has the potential to create housing
Improve access to a development site that has the potential to create jobs
Improve access to urban employment centres
x Improve access to Enterprise Zones
x Maintain accessibility by addressing the condition of structures
Ease congestion / bottlenecks
Other(s), please specify:
Improve the reliability and punctuality of public transport (bus) to reverse its decline along
this corridor. The bid is entirely compatible with other bus priority measures planned for this
corridor under the “Better Bus Area Fund” proposals recently submitted to DfT by SYPTE
on behalfof the Sheffield Bus Partnership.
B2. The Strategic Case
This section should set out the rationale for making the investment and evidence on the strategic fit of the proposal. It should also contain an analysis of the existing transport problems, identify the barriers that are preventing growth, explain how the preferred scheme was selected and explain what the predicted impacts will be. The impact of the scheme on releasing growth potential in Enterprise Zones, key development sites and urban employment centres will be an important factor in the assessment process.
In particular please provide evidence on the following questions (where applicable):
a)What is the problem that is being addressed, making specific reference to barriers to growth and why this has not been addressed previously?
The Upper DonValley is the second most importantemployment zone in Sheffield, recognised in the Sheffield Economic Masterplan and the Sheffield City Region (SCR) Economic Strategy; and subsequently highlighted in the SCR Transport Strategy (see Appendix 2).
At present, extensive queues build up throughout much of the day throughout the whole week, especially at three or four key junctions which are now struggling to cope with conflicting turning movements. A proven Urban Traffic Control regime maintains priority for the main road, but at the expense of access to/from key businesses and development sites along the corridor. Some development sites are in effect landlocked under the current constraints, particularly along Claywheels Lane (an extensive brown-field “complex” of approx 25Ha adjacent to the proposed Sainsbury’s development).
A “Gateway Action Plan” has been identified in the current Sheffield Local Development Framework as a long term plan to improve the economic attractiveness of this corridor, and has attracted some developer interest in consolidating the focus on manufacturing sites and other employment hubs. But access constraints continue to be an issue.
Previously, a more comprehensive “major scheme” estimated at around £11m was developed with the backing of the LEP, but, although achieving a good BCR in 2010 this wasn’t able to satisfy DfT as being the best “reduced cost option” and did not proceed. This proposal now seeks a more cost-effective solution.Some limited low-cost improvements have recently been made by the City Council and a significant developer contribution enables some progress to be made at the northern end of the corridor but further access improvements are needed, these are outside the scope of the LTP Integrated Transport programme.
b)What options have been considered and why have alternatives have been rejected?
As described above, a more comprehensive proposal for the “Penistone Road Smart Route”
was developed between 2007 and 2010 (as part of a previous round of Yorkshire and the
Humber regional transport priorities). This major scheme included a considerable degree of
road widening to provide bus priority measures closer to the City Centre. This did achieve a
relatively good BCR in 2010 but could not demonstrate an appropriate “lower cost option” to
DfT.
The Executive Summary from the 2010 major scheme submission, and aTechnical Notedescribing the BCR and benefits accruing from that (principally at the junctions inquestion) are shown in Appendices 6 and 7.
The economic challenges of unlocking significant amounts of brown-field land on either side of the “transport spine” still exist, and are ever more important to the City Region in enabling the transformation of the local economy.
This proposal now uses the most cost-effective and deliverable elements of that previous major bid, with a separate but compatible strategy being developed to assist public transport as part of the recently launched – and unique – Sheffield Bus Partnership.
c)What are the expected benefits / outcomes? For example, job creation, housing numbers and GVA and the basis on which these have been estimated.
The Upper Don Valley Regeneration Strategy (2007) identified improved access from the A61 as being an essential pre-requisite to the provision of increased jobs in this part of the Upper Don. The figures were refined in 2010 within the City Economic Strategy using guidance from English Partnerships and Yorkshire Forward for the ratios between site size, land use and predicted job creation.
The work concluded that improved access to the sites in this part of the Valley should result in enabling the unlocking of 37 Ha of vacant / mainly vacant development land for B2 land uses (including the Sainsbury’s development), linked to creating 2400 new jobs.This translates into an additional £37.1m of GVA based on 2011 rates (source ONS)
The scheme is highly deliverable – it has already been the subject of extensive consultation to obtain necessary local community support. A full MSBC was previously submitted in April 2010 and much of the cost-benefit analysis remains valid.
d)What is the project’s scope and is there potential to reduce costs and still achieve the desired outcomes? For example, using value engineering.
The scope of the project has been refined from previous more comprehensive strategies, to
Concentrate on the four core congestion Pinch Point locations. Previous options for the major schemehad already undergone extensive value engineeringand scope reduction (for example, omitting a proposed Park & Ride site). In the interim, theCity Council has also been able to make low-cost adjustments to the approaches to one ofthe junctions which further reduces the cost of remaining design solutions.
This current proposal completes that process by concentrating on the most problematic
stretch of road and, importantly, by combining increased developer contributions with cost
savings associated with aligning the “Streets Ahead” Highways Maintenance PFI
programme.
This last factor is proving to reduce the cost of highway modifications by approx20%and is being adopted by the City Council as a primary factor in programming its overalltransport capital programme during the next five years (the PFI “Core Investment Period”during which the entire network will be brought up to specification).
Consequently, the Council is confident it can offer the DfT an opportunity to get the
best possible valueengineering for this scheme
e)Are there are any related activities, that if not successfully concluded would mean the full economic benefits of the scheme may not be realised. For example, this could relate to land acquisition, other transport interventions being required or a need for additional consents?
There are no land requirements outside of the public highway. There are no outstanding
planning requirements; and other potential transport interventions (public transport priorities and cycleroutes) can and will be designed to be compatible with the “core pinchpoint treatment” nowproposed. Theconsent of the two main developers previously described has been obtained,together withsubstantial developer contributions to assist with access improvements –funding is the soleremaining obstacle
f)What will happen if funding for this scheme is not secured - would an alternative (lower cost) solution be implemented (if yes, please describe this alternative and how it differs from the proposed scheme)?
This is now the “lowest cost option” – without DfT support the only feasible alternative would
be to “dripfeed” existing LTP funds into addressing the improvements on a phased basis
over a period of up to ten years (given the many other competing claims upon the
SouthYorkshire LTP), this would inevitably increase overall costs and reduce cost-effectiveness. There would also be the added complication of working around the PFI programme if the current “window” is missed, with further cost implications as a result. In the meantime, the economic rejuvenation of the area would continue to be constrained by pooraccess.
g)What is the impact of the scheme – and any associated mitigation works – on any statutory environmental constraints? For example, Local Air Quality Management Zones.
The “do minimum” nature of the current scheme, not relying on any land outside of the public
highway (other than issues specific to the development proposals for Sainsburys, already
addressed within approved Planning Conditions) means that there are no other
environmentalmitigations required. The original major scheme formed the “footprint” for
separateenvironmental improvements to be made, but these do not rely on the proposals
nowsubmitted, they rely on a phased development programme for the brown-field sites
themselves.
B3. The Financial Case – Project Costs
Before preparing a scheme proposal for submission, bid promoters should ensure they understand the financial implications of developing the scheme (including any implications for future resource spend and ongoing costs relating to maintaining and operating the asset), and the need to secure and underwrite any necessary funding outside the Department’s maximum contribution.
Please complete the following tables. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10).
Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms)
£000s / 2013-14 / 2014-15 / 2015-16 / TotalDfT funding sought / 361 / 2,670 / 3,031
Local Authority contribution / 400 / 500 / 0 / 900
Third Party contribution / 1,200 / £0 / 0 / 1,200
TOTAL / 1,961 / 3,170 / 0 / 5,131
Table B: Cost estimates (Nominal terms)
Cost heading / Cost (£000s) / Date estimated / Status (e.g. target price)Works / 3,707 / Feb 13 / Estimate
Statutory Undertakers / 740 / Feb 13 / Estimate
Fees / 376 / Feb 13 / Estimate
Risk / 235 / Feb 13 / Based on Risk Analysis (see Appendices8,9)
Inflation / 73 / Feb 13 / 2.5% in year 2
TOTAL / 5,131 / Feb 13
Notes:
1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2014-15 financial year.
2) A minimum local contribution of 30% (local authority and/or third party) of the project costs is required.
3) Costs in Table B should be presented in outturn prices and must match the total amount of funding indicated in Table A.
B4. The Financial Case - Local Contribution/Third Party Funding
Please provide information on the following points (where applicable):
a)The non-DfT contribution may include funding from organisations other than the scheme promoter. If the scheme improves transport links to a new development, we would expect to see a significant contribution from the developer. Please provide details of all non-DfT funding contributions to the scheme costs. This should include evidence to show how any third party contributions are being secured, the level of commitment and when they will become available.
Sainsbury’s have secured detailed planning permission to build a new retail superstore at
the northern end of this section of Penistone Road. They are contributing approx. £1.2m towards highway improvements inthis area, this forms an integral element of the “Pinch Point” scheme now submitted as part of the Council’s traffic management strategy for the corridor.
The Council is contributing approx £0.9m towards the scheme now proposed, comprising £0.4m towards new infrastructure and £0.5m for complementary management andmaintenance measures – dovetailed with the PFI contract.
In total therefore, the local contribution amounts to approx £2.1m, representing slightly over 40% of the total scheme costs.
b)Where the contribution is from external sources, please provide a letter confirming the body’s commitment to contribute to the cost of the scheme. The Department is unlikely to fund any scheme where significant financial contributions from other sources have not been secured or appear to be at risk