Levelling Up Fund Application Form
This form is for bidding entities, applying for funding from the Levelling Up Fund (LUF) across the UK. Prior to completing the application form, applicants should read the LUF Technical Note.
The Levelling Up Fund Prospectus is available here.
The level of detail you provide in the Application Form should be in proportion to the amount of funding that you are requesting. For example, bids for more than £10m should provide considerably more information than bids for less than £10m.
Specifically, for larger transport projects requesting between £20m and £50m, bidding entities may submit the Application Form or if available an Outline Business Case (OBC) or Full Business Case (FBC). Further detail on requirements for larger transport projects is provided in the Technical Note.
One application form should be completed per bid.
Applicant & Bid Information
Local authority name / Applicant name(s)*: Brighton and Hove City Council
*If the bid is a joint bid, please enter the names of all participating local authorities / organisations and specify the lead authority
Bid Manager Name and position: Toni Manuel, Seafront Development Manager
Name and position of officer with day-today responsibility for delivering the proposed scheme.
Contact telephone number: 01273 290394 Email address: Toni.Manuel@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Postal address: Hove Town Hall, Norton Road, Hove, BN3 3BQ
Nominated Local Authority Single Point of Contact: Donna Chisholm, Assistant Director Culture, Tourism and Sport, Donna.Chisholm@Brighton-Hove.gov.uk
Senior Responsible Officer contact details: Nick Hibberd Executive Director for Economy, Environment and Culture, Nick Hibberd@Brighton-Hove.gov.uk
Chief Finance Officer contact details: James Hengeveld, Acting Deputy Chief Finance Officer, James.Hengeveld@Brighton-Hove.gov.uk
Country:
England
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
Please provide the name of any consultancy companies involved in the preparation of the bid:
Mott MacDonald
For bids from Northern Ireland applicants please confirm type of organisation
Northern Ireland Executive Third Sector
Public Sector Body Private Sector
District Council Other (please state)
|
PART
1 GATEWAY CRITERIA Failure to meet the criteria below will result in an application not being taken forward in this funding round |
|
|
1a Gateway Criteria for all bids
Please tick the box to confirm that your bid includes plans for some LUF expenditure in 2021-22
Please ensure that you evidenced this in the financial case / profile.
|
Yes
No |
|
1b Gateway Criteria for private and third sector organisations in Northern Ireland bids only
(i) Please confirm that you have attached last two years of audited accounts.
|
Yes
No |
|
(ii) Northern Ireland bids only Please provide evidence of the delivery team having experience of delivering two capital projects of similar size and scale in the last five years. (Limit 250 words)
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
PART 2 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY ANALYSIS
|
|
2a Please describe how equalities impacts of your proposal have been considered, the relevant affected groups based on protected characteristics, and any measures you propose to implement in response to these impacts. (500 words) |
|
Equality and inclusion are essential considerations for Brighton and Hove City Council (BHCC) in all of its work. The Council frequently uses equality analyses to help improve services and make sure they do not discriminate against any sections of the community as far as possible, minimising any negative consequences and maximising opportunities for promoting cohesion between local communities[1].
Photo 1&2: Access issues to be addressed by Kingsway to the Sea
Source: Brighton and Hove City Council
Kingsway to the Sea has been developed in a way that maximises its equalities impacts as tailored to the needs of the local community and visitors to the area. These include:
Ø Age: The residents of Wish, Westbourne and South Portslade are on average younger than both the Brighton average and the national average[2]. A youthful population, especially in areas of deprivation, requires employment opportunities and opportunities for young family recreation. The scheme will install new leisure facilities to increase greater footfall by young people, as well as encourage a vibrant commercial environment that provides jobs through redevelopment of derelict buildings and new outdoor events space. Ø Deprivation: The adjacent areas to the seafront (Wish, Westbourne and South Portslade) contain some lower super output areas (LSOAs) which rank amongst the most deprived quintile of wards nationwide[3]. This deprivation spans numerous domains, from economic to health to living environment. Kingsway to the Sea will address the issue of deprivation in West Hove by securing and providing new employment, as well as ensuring public open space that is free to use in a densely populated area with acute shortage of adequate green spaces. Ø Disability: The number of Disability Living Allowance claimants in Wish, Westbourne and South Portslade is almost 50% above the national average[4]. Coupled with the scarcity of quality green space in a densely populated area, local people with disabilities are currently largely deprived of access to recreation and leisure. Disabled access to West Hove Seafront has been carefully considered, with ramps, paths and flatter surfaces envisioned to enable access for wheelchair users. Ø Race: In Brighton, people of Black or Black British ethnicity were least likely to do the recommended levels of physical activity on five or more days a week (4%) with low levels also reported by people from Asian or Asian British people (14%)[5]. The Kingsway to the Sea scheme will provide outdoor recreation space that is focused on outdoor family activities and creative play. This would differ from the current offer of bars and nightclubs along the seafront in Central Brighton. This is particularly welcoming to families whose faith excludes alcohol consumption. Wish, Westbourne and South Portslade has a high representation of Asian or Asian British people—a family-oriented beachfront offering is thus needed in the community. |
|
When authorities submit a bid for funding to the UKG, 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 five working days of the announcement of successful bids by UKG. UKG reserves the right to deem the bid as non-compliant if this is not adhered to. Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published: https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/leisure-and-libraries/sports-and-activity/leisure-centres-and-sports-facilities |
|
PART 3 BID SUMMARY
|
||
|
3a Please specify the type of bid you are submitting |
Single Bid (one project)
|
|
|
3b Please provide an overview of the bid proposal. Where bids have multiple components (package bids) you should clearly explain how the component elements are aligned with each other and represent a coherent set of interventions (Limit 500 words). |
||
|
Kingsway to the Sea is an integrated proposal that has been developed by Brighton and Hove City Council (BHCC) with local community organisations to regenerate a run-down and underused area of the city’s seafront. The scheme will provide enhanced leisure and sporting facilities for local people, some from deprived areas. It will also attract visitors to a part of the seafront beyond the city’s tourist ‘hotspots.’
This seafront area contains some striking heritage seaside architecture as well as a number of sports courts and some play space. Despite the central location, the Kingsway to the Sea area is currently marked by significant dilapidation, with the Council having been unable to invest in its renewal for many years due to budget constraints. The planned Council investment into the adjacent King Alfred Leisure Centre is welcome; however, it will not address the fundamental issues of the West Hove Seafront.
Once completed, the project will transform a highly visible and substantial community asset, providing facilities in line with current and future expectations. The intervention will deliver significant remodelling and landscaping of the public parkland between the King Alfred Leisure Centre and Hove Lagoon (marked in magenta on Map 1), as well as the repair of dilapidated infrastructure, replacement buildings and rejuvenation of the urban realm.
Map 1: Kingsway to the Sea – location within Brighton and Hove
Source: Mott MacDonald GIS, 2021
Map 2: Kingsway to the Sea at a glance
Source: Brighton and Hove City Council, 2021, West Hove Background Brief
The scheme would include the following elements. They are displayed on the plans below:
· Park Garden East (Section 1) · Events Space (Section 2) · Bowls, Buildings & Garden (Section 3) · Rockwater Garden (Section 4) · Courts & Pitches East (Section 5) · Courts & Pitches West (Section 6) · Park Garden West (Section 7) · Skate & Pump (Section 8) · Hove Lagoon (Section 9)
Map 3: Kingsway by the Sea – scheme elements (eastern side)
Source: Untitled Practice, 2021
Map 4: Kingsway by the Sea – scheme elements (western side)
Source: Untitled Practice, 2021
The scheme will improve the public realm, create new routes for pedestrians and cyclists, enhance safety for visitors, and expand outdoor family facilities at Hove Lagoon. The remodelling and landscaping of the area will improve biodiversity and attractiveness for the green space across the intervention area.
Map 5: Kingsway by the Sea – aerial view
Source: Untitled Practice, 2021
Kingsway to the Sea complements other proposed public investments in the area, in particular the redevelopment of the King Alfred Leisure Centre. The scheme is consistent with BHCC’s seafront investment strategy, which seeks to expand the usage of the seafront beyond the core area around central Brighton, as well as spread usage throughout the year. This will help to support the further sustainable development of the visitor economy in the City.
The scheme can be delivered efficiently and cost effectively. It will be delivered entirely on sites in BHCC ownership. The Kingsway to the Sea scheme will most likely employ the Strategic Construction Partnership the council has in place to deliver the Kingsway to the Sea project completed by March 2024.
|
||
|
3c Please set out the value of capital grant being requested from UK Government (UKG) (£). This should align with the financial case: |
£9.5m
(nominal), |
|
|
3d Please specify the proportion of funding requested for each of the Fund’s three investment themes |
Regeneration and town centre |
100% |
|
Cultural |
0% |
|
|
Transport |
0% |
|
|
PART 4 STRATEGIC FIT |
|
|
4.1
Member of Parliament Endorsement (GB Only) See technical note section 5 for Role of MP in bidding and Table 1 for further guidance. |
|
|
4.1a Have any MPs formally endorsed this bid? If so confirm name and constituency. Please ensure you have attached the MP’s endorsement letter. |
Yes
No |
|
A letter of support for the project has been received for the project by the Rt Hon Peter Kyle, Member of Parliament for Hove. The letter has been attached to this application.
The Member of Parliament voices his concern about the decline of the historic West Hove Seafront and reaffirms its role as an area for sport, wellness and rare green space in the constituency it is a key area for families, the elderly and visitors. Peter Kyle MP acknowledges that in its current state, the area offers little of quality for the hundreds of local families heading there, especially those from the more deprived areas of the Hove constituency.
He emphasises that his regular community meetings with groups and forums in Hove demonstrate a very high level of support for the health and wellbeing facilities to be regenerated. Moreover, the MP envisions how regeneration of the area will secure jobs and revenues for the local economy.
|
|
|
4.2
Stakeholder Engagement and Support See technical note Table 1 for further guidance. |
|
|
4.2a Describe what engagement you have undertaken with local stakeholders and the community (communities, civic society, private sector and local businesses) to inform your bid and what support you have from them. (Limit 500 words) |
|
|
The proposals enjoy a strong level of local support within private, civic and community based organisations. Numerous letters of support have been received by BHCC and have been appended to this form.
As part of project development, a number of consultation exercises have been undertaken. In total, 16 separate stakeholders have been consulted. These all belong to the West Hove Seafront Action Group (WHSAG) group. The stakeholder group aims to secure a broad representation of local residents, businesses, membership clubs related to the traditional sports activities in the area, and voluntary organisations.
· West Hove Seafront Residents’ Organisations: All three seafront residents’ associations continue to engage with the Council in designing the Kingsway to the Sea scheme. Resident organisations are keen to see improvement to the public realm and recreational opportunities, as well as to car-free access (cycling and walking) from West Hove eastwards into Brighton.
· Western Lawns and Seafront Membership Clubs: These clubs are long established users of the lawns providing for the traditional recreational activities of croquet, bowling and tennis in West Hove. The clubs unanimously welcome the potential contribution in terms of increased patronage that the Kingsway to the Sea scheme is expected to bring.
· West Hove Seafront Voluntary Organisations. There are three voluntary organisations on or very near the seafront, and all support the proposal to establish an Action Group to deliver the Kingsway to the Sea scheme, as it would complement and enhance their work on behalf of the local community.
· Private Sector Seafront Businesses: the area currently includes four cafés, bars and restaurants, as well as a B&B facility for tourists and business guests. Stakeholders have pointed out the accessibility issues around West Hove Seafront were a barrier to their business growth. The Kingsway to the Sea scheme will provide substantial improvements to pedestrian and cyclist accessibility, thereby brining more footfall and custom.
As a group, the various categories of stakeholders agreed that there is increasing need for improved recreational facilities, both in terms of usability and safety, as an increasing number of young families have been moving into the area.
Consultees also noted that an improvement scheme such as Kingsway to the Sea not only has potential to provide improved facilities for locals, visitors from elsewhere in the city, and tourists, but also to complement the major proposed public investment in the King Alfred redevelopment.
During the production of project designs in May 2021, the landscape architects hired by BHCC conducted another stakeholder consultation exercise with WHSAG. Around 30 local stakeholders attended the meeting to discuss their requirements and aspirations for the project. The project plans were thus produced with the input of the stakeholder group. This demonstrates that BHCC not only engaged stakeholder opinions on an already-developed scheme, but actively sought their input in the development of Kingsway to the Sea.
Local councillors have also been involved in galvanising community support and in testing local opinion. They are supportive of the plans and will play an active part in benefits realisation.
|
|
|
4.2b Are any aspects of your proposal controversial or not supported by the whole community? Please provide a brief summary, including any campaigns or particular groups in support or opposition? (Limit 250 words) |
|
|
The local community approached the Council to work together on plans to develop the area. The Kingsway to the Sea scheme was thus developed at the request of the local community. As noted in section 4.1, BHCC established a register of Seafront Community Stakeholders and received a very positive response. A total of 16 seafront organisations participated: three residents associations, four membership clubs, three voluntary organisations and six private-sector enterprises. All 16 voiced their support for an Action Group to develop the Kingsway to the Sea scheme. Local councillors are also involved and supportive of the development.
|
|
|
4.2c Where the bidding local authority does not have the statutory responsibility for the delivery of projects, have you appended a letter from the responsible authority or body confirming their support? |
Yes
No N/A |
|
For Northern Ireland transport bids, have you appended a letter of support from the relevant district council |
|
|
4.3
The Case for Investment See technical note Table 1 for further guidance. |
|
|
4.3a Please provide evidence of the local challenges/barriers to growth and context that the bid is seeking to respond to. (Limit 500 words) |
|
|
Context
Brighton and Hove is a popular coastal city dependent on the visitor economy. In 2019, the city attracted over 12 million trips and £886 million of spending[6]. Tourism accounts for around 17%[7] of all local employment.
The seafront, stretching for over 13 kilometres, is the city’s flagship destination for visitors and residents and central to its economic vibrancy. Due to historical underinvestment, parts of the seafront have fallen into disrepair. The seafront is therefore a priority for regeneration for the Council.
In non-pandemic times, central Brighton is above carrying capacity in terms of the number of tourists it can serve, and space for further development is limited. If this bottleneck is not addressed through increasing space for visitors along the seafront, the growth potential of the city’s economy will be threatened at a time when it could reap the benefits of increased appetite for domestic tourism[8].
The city contains a number of deprived communities. In 2015, 7% of Brighton and Hove residents lived in areas in the top deprivation quintile in the country[9].
Map 6: Brighton and Hove deprivation
Source: Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2019
Attractions that maximise the value of the seafront are essential for tackling deprivation, which provides employment opportunities for residents in deprived communities.
West Hove Seafront – changing user needs West Hove seafront comprises a mixture of buildings, outdoor sports facilities and public open space. Trends in sports participation have altered which has led to a drop in use of existing facilities. There is a policy presumption to retain, safeguard and enhance existing outdoor sports facilities within the city; local spatial strategies[10] seek to secure more effective and appropriate use of open space.
Photos 1: West Hove Seafront – historic arches
Source: Brighton and Hove City Council
Photos 2: West Hove Seafront – dilapidated public parkland
Source: Brighton and Hove City Council, 2021
Photo 3: West Hove Seafront – toilet (on the left) and promenade (on the right)
Source: Brighton and Hove City Council, 2021
Underused and
degraded infrastructure Users of the facilities in West Hove seafront are facing increasing physical barriers. The overwhelming perception of the local community is one of years of neglect of the seafront as a major city open space.
The degradation of the public realm also threatens the viability of local businesses—cafes, restaurants, bars—which rely on footfall and a functioning public realm to drive revenue.
Access issues
The lack of access provisions is a major constraint on the number of visitors to the seafront. There is a need to enhance cycle paths and provide a better environment for children and families. Parkland areas across Kingsway to the Sea are inaccessible to wheelchair users.
Figure 1: The Case for Investment - summary
Source: Mott MacDonald
|
|
|
4.3b Explain why Government investment is needed (what is the market failure)? (Limit 250 words)
|
|
|
In the West Hove seafront area, the public realm has remained underfunded for some time due to ongoing (and increasing) budget constraints at BHCC. The seafront itself, and the adjacent lawns and facilities are in public ownership, as in most of the UK. The seafront, like a public park, is arguably a public good, and there is therefore no commercial rationale for investment in most aspects of the Kingsway to the Sea scheme.
The Council has considered the possibility of greater commercialisation of certain aspects of the seafront, such as the sports and leisure facilities. However, charging full market rents to operators, many of whom are non-profit and community organisations, would arguably run contrary to the social role of the seafront as an inclusive provider of recreation.
Other funding opportunities have also been considered, such as the creation of a business improvement district in the study area. However, the Council’s judgement is that the area lacks sufficient commercial activity at present to generate significant funding sources for the Kingsway to the Sea scheme. Wider options such as a tourist levy would require national policy change.
There
is also co-ordination failure between businesses in central
Brighton and those in West Hove. Central Brighton is often
overcrowded, leading to negative externalities (noise, littering)
for residents and businesses. However, a system for redirecting
visitors east and west of the central area is not in the individual
interest of hospitality and leisure facilities in the centre, so
cannot be realised without public intervention. |
|
|
4.3c Please set out a clear explanation on what you are proposing to invest in and why the proposed interventions in the bid will address those challenges and barriers with evidence to support that explanation. As part of this, we would expect to understand the rationale for the location. (Limit 500 words) |
|
|
The Kingsway to the Sea scheme aims to regenerate the West Hove Seafront so that it can again become a pillar of the visitor economy in Brighton, as well as support the recreation needs of locals. Full details of the scheme designs can be found appended to this form.
Map 6: Intervention Area, West Hove Seafront
Source: Brighton and Hove City Council
The intervention will deliver significant remodelling and landscaping of the public parkland between the King Alfred Sports Centre and Hove Lagoon (outlined in red on Map 1). This part of the intervention will improve the public realm, create new routes for pedestrians and cyclists, enhance safety, and expand outdoor family facilities at Hove Lagoon. The remodelling and landscaping will also improve biodiversity and attractiveness for a significant green space across West Hove and South Portslade. New and improved sports facilities for residents and visitors will be provided.
These facilities will include padel (a form of tennis), beach tennis, croquet, traditional tennis, five-a-side football and bowling. Such recreational facilities have been a staple for the local population and have the potential to attract tourists[11]. The scheme will also provide new leisure facilities such as a pump track and skate park to encourage greater footfall by young people. This footfall supports local restaurants, cafes and sports-related services.
In addition, the scheme will create new business opportunities at the West Hove Seafront through the redevelopment of dilapidated buildings and the creation of outdoor events space.
Sports clubs are significant for social cohesion and heritage institutions in Hove. The scheme will provide new accommodation for existing tenants, such as the bowling club, as well as for newcomer tenants, thereby creating a cluster for sports and recreation to be frequented by locals and tourists.
In this way, the proposed intervention will transform underused and degraded infrastructure into a series of highly-valued leisure and commercial spaces across a large expanse of public land at the West Hove seafront. This will unlock the potential of the area for tourism, sport, leisure and events to create a new landmark, must-visit location in a densely populated area, with limited green space. Brighton, which suffers from overcrowding in central areas around Brighton Pavilion, will benefit from the scheme through the creation of additional capacity away from central Brighton. The visitor economy will thus overcome capacity barriers and continue growing. The scheme will diversify Brighton’s tourism offering, bringing about expansion of the visitor economy into Hove with a focus on family days out, in contrast to the intensity of Brighton for the under 30s and over 55s.
The scheme will also bring about the rejuvenation of a highly visible part of the city in need of capital investment that secures the public realm and opens commercial opportunities. In line with sustainable transport policy priorities, the intervention will provide a destination for cyclists and pedestrians that is highly accessible and contributes to health and wellbeing of users.
|
|
|
4.3d For Transport Bids: Have you provided an Option Assessment Report (OAR) |
Yes No |
|
4.3e Please explain how you will deliver the outputs and confirm how results are likely to flow from the interventions. This should be demonstrated through a well-evidenced Theory of Change. Further guidance on producing a Theory of Change can be found within HM Treasury’s Magenta Book (page 24, section 2.2.1) and MHCLG’s appraisal guidance. (Limit 500 words) |
|
|
The proposed scheme will allow BHCC to deliver upon their local strategies. These include supporting their socio-economic, spatial planning and environmental strategies, as well as wider regional and national policies in relation to Building Back Better from Covid-19 and the UK governments Net Zero strategy.
The scheme has five central objectives which are linked to the Brighton and Hove City Council’s Development Plan objectives and are thematically cross cutting:
1. Transform underused and degraded infrastructure into a series of highly valued leisure and commercial spaces across a large expanse of public land at the seafront in West Hove.
2. Unlock the potential of the area for tourism, sport, leisure and events to create a new landmark, must-visit location for family days out in a densely populated area with limited green space.
3. In a major coastal resort, create new and additional capacity away from central Brighton which enables the visitor economy to continue growing.
4. Rejuvenate a highly-visible and central part of the city which urgently needs capital investment to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour.
5. Provide a destination for cyclists and public transport users that is highly accessible and contributes to the health and wellbeing of local people and visitors.
Achieving these objectives will significantly help BHCC to achieve their strategic policy goals.
Brighton and Hove is highly reliant on its visitor economy, but capacity constraints are beginning to emerge in its congested centre. The visitor economy across the city demonstrates strong demand-side growth, pent-up demand and caters for people seeking clean air and open spaces. In order to meet this demand, the city needs to increase the quality of its seafront offering away from central Brighton. Kingsway to the Sea will provide not only a high-quality recreation destination for visitors but also serve the local communities of Hove, some of whom are in the most deprived quintile of areas nationwide.
The proposed scheme directly addresses these needs, which will have a number of positive outcomes. These impacts include:
A logic map capturing the Theory of Change for the scheme is captured on Figure 2.
Figure 2: Logic map
Source: BHCC, Mott MacDonald, 2021
|
|
|
4.4
Alignment with the local and national context See technical note Table 1 for further guidance. |
|
|
4.4a Explain how your bid aligns to and supports relevant local strategies (such as Local Plans, local economic strategies or Local Transport Plans) and local objectives for investment, improving infrastructure and levelling up. (Limit 500 words) |
|
|
Inclusive economic development
· Business investment, thriving visitor, retail, leisure and cultural offer, better quality places. · Economic and social inclusion and business responsibility
Brighton & Hove Visitor Economy Strategy 2018-2023[13] sets out the Council’s policy vision for the development of tourism, a crucial sector for Brighton (it welcomes almost twice as many day visitors than Cambridge or Southend[14]). The West Hove scheme will expand the visitor economy away from the overcrowded centre of Brighton and into Hove. It will shift the focus on family days out, in contrast to the current offering for the under 30s and over 55s.
Spatial planning
Brighton and Hove City Council Seafront Strategy[15]
· To create new sport and recreational facilities for on the Seafront to improve health and well-being. · To support the location of the Seafront as a base for sports clubs. · To identify and prioritise the long-term maintenance needs of the Seafront. · To improve the accessibility both along and to the Seafront.
The Kingsway to the Sea scheme would meet all of the above needs for West Hove Seafront by ensuring that its accessibility is improved, that it is properly maintained, and that is serves local needs for recreation.
· Develop commercial activity in the city’s open spaces, which Kingsway to the Sea will support through increasing footfall and attracting people to the sports facilities.
Environmental As part of the BHCC’s Our Plan 2020 to 2023[17], the Council seeks to support initiatives that: · Create and improve public open spaces, a major part of which is restoring the seafront. · Deliver a transport system which provides sustainable travel with investment in walking, cycling and smart traffic signalling.
Through the development at West Hove Seafront, these aims are furthered through the enhancement of cycle paths and the pedestrian environment.
|
|
|
4.4b Explain how the bid aligns to and supports the UK Government policy objectives, legal and statutory commitments, such as delivering Net Zero carbon emissions and improving air quality. Bids for transport projects in particular should clearly explain their carbon benefits. (Limit 250 words) |
|
|
The Government’s Build Back Better plan directly encourages greater investment in infrastructure through the Levelling Up Fund, to ensure investment reaches local areas to encourage regenerative growth at a local level[18]. Through transforming West Hove’s seafront visitor economy offer, the area will support the government initiative to support the visitor economy, which is particularly susceptible to economic shocks.
Levelling Up Fund
Net Zero In addition to declaring climate emergency[19], BHCC will support the Net Zero target through the outcomes of this scheme. An attractive pedestrian and cycling environment will further connect western Hove to central Hove and onto Brighton. In addition, the rejuvenated West Hove Seafront will provide a destination for cyclists and public transport users that is highly accessible and contributes to the health and wellbeing of local people and visitors.
|
|
|
4.4c Where applicable explain how the bid complements / or aligns to and supports other investments from different funding streams. (Limit 250 words) |
|
|
The Kingsway to the Sea scheme is highly complementary to a number of schemes within Brighton and Hove, where the seafront defines the city. It strongly counterparts the Madeira Terrace restoration scheme, which involves the restoration of a set of outstanding Victorian arches that have fallen into disrepair on the eastern side of Brighton centre. Together, the two schemes address capacity constraints on the growth on the city’s visitor economy by enriching the range of seafront attractions and the quality of the environment in highly visible locations, stretching out the offer for visitors and residents across a greater area.
In central Brighton, the new seafront landscaping around the British Airways i360 tower and the Shelter Hall is now complete and includes refurbishment of Victorian architecture, flexible outdoor public spaces and hospitality venues. The Kingsway to the Sea scheme will continue the rejuvenation of the seafront west of these investments in an area less frequented by tourists and less commercially attractive.
Adjacent to the West Hove seafront is the King Alfred Leisure Centre, the city’s largest indoor sports facility. The centre offers many sport and leisure opportunities and plays a valuable part in meeting the city’s sports demands. It is currently being considered for redevelopment by BHCC because the building is at the end of its life. Combining the new indoor sports and recreation offering of King Alfred with the outdoor amenities of a renovated West Hove seafront would ensure that visitors could choose from a complete spectrum of leisure activities.
|
|
|
4.4d Please explain how the bid aligns to and supports the Government’s expectation that all local road projects will deliver or improve cycling and walking infrastructure and include bus priority measures (unless it can be shown that there is little or no need to do so). Cycling elements of proposals should follow the Government’s cycling design guidance which sets out the standards required. (Limit 250 words) |
|
|
The Kingsway to the Sea project will support improvements to cycling and walking infrastructure through the provision of a destination for cyclists and public transport users that is highly accessible and contributes to the health and wellbeing of local people and visitors. There will also be provisions for to improve pedestrian access to the Lagoon area, a popular attraction in Brighton which is currently experiencing accessibility issues. This will create an enhanced seascape area with a shared user path, providing better, low carbon alternatives to cars to connect the visitor economy offer in Central Brighton and West Hove.
|
|
|
PART 5 VALUE FOR MONEY
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.1 Appropriateness of data sources and evidence See technical note Annex B and Table 1 for further guidance.
All costs and benefits must be compliant or in line with HMT’s Green Book, DfT Transport Analysis Guidance and MHCLG Appraisal Guidance. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.1a Please use up to date evidence to demonstrate the scale and significance of local problems and issues. (Limit 250 words)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The West Hove seafront is popular with local residents, and could become another important visitor attraction for the city, however it is not fulfilling this potential at present due to a lack of investment over an extended period. The existing leisure and sporting facilities are in a very poor state of repair, and are not well suited to contemporary expectations, particularly as the demography of the area is changing, with an increasing number of young families moving to Hove. There are also potential health hazards from the degradation of these facilities and the wider public realm.
This situation discourages usage outside of the local community, and inhibits Hove seafront attracting visitors from across the city and beyond, placing pressure on the city’s highly popular central seafront area. In a tightly contained city (between the South Downs and sea), with high population density and a high proportion of people living in apartments without access to outdoor space, and a city which features areas with elevated levels of deprivation, the public realm offered by the seafront is a significant community asset, and its decline in this area of Brighton Hove has detrimental socioeconomic impacts.
The current uses need updating to meet the high standards expected of the seafront of Brighton and so that the area can share in the prosperity that central Brighton enjoys and to boost the visitor economy as a whole.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.1b Bids should demonstrate the quality assurance of data analysis and evidence for explaining the scale and significance of local problems and issues. Please demonstrate how any data, surveys and evidence is robust, up to date and unbiased. (Limit 500 words) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Throughout the modelling of the economic benefits, datasets from the Office for National Statistics have been used as inputs for the appraisal of benefits. These ensure that the appraisal techniques used remain robust, as these datasets are the most appropriate to use for local authority analysis for Brighton and Hove. The ONS datasets used include:
Bespoke inputs provided by BHCC were also used, such as:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.1c Please demonstrate that data and evidence chosen is appropriate to the area of influence of the interventions. (Limit 250 words)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the assessment of Value for Money, best available data from reputable national, regional and local sources has been used.
Data pertaining to the calculations of the rateable value and house price increases is granular data (a 500m ring from the intervention) that utilises price paid data published by UK Government sources.
Table 1: Variables, sources and level of geography
Source: Various
AMAT and VURT was also utilised. Data sources underpinning those models are sourced in the model.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.2 Effectiveness of proposal in addressing problems |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.2a Please provide analysis and evidence to demonstrate how the proposal will address existing or anticipated future problems. Quantifiable impacts should usually be forecasted using a suitable model. (Limit 500 words) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The current public realm and the sports and leisure facilities at West Hove are in significant need of capital investment if they are to be transformed from their underused and degraded state. There is potential to turn the facilities into a series of highly valued leisure and commercial spaces across a large expanse of the area’s seafront. This will unlock the potential of the area for tourism, sport, leisure and events to create a new landmark, must-visit location for family days out in a densely populated area, with limited green space.
The scheme will also bring about the rejuvenation of a highly visible and central part of the city in need of capital investment that extends the attractiveness of Brighton’s public realm, reduces crime and discourages anti-social behaviour. In line with local and national sustainable transport priorities, the intervention will provide a destination for cyclists and public transport users that is highly accessible and contributes to the health and wellbeing of local people and visitors, as well as another way to travel carbon-free between western and central Hove, alleviating the pressure on the single bus line currently connecting the two.
The scheme hopes to overcome several prevalent economic barriers in Brighton and Hove. The following benefits have been quantified and the methodology we have used is presented in the Technical Note.
Table 2: Summary of monetiseable benefits
Source: Mott MacDonald
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.2b Please describe the robustness of the forecast assumptions, methodology and model outputs. Key factors to be covered include the quality of the analysis or model (in terms of its accuracy and functionality) (Limit 500 words) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Analysis for economic cases needs to be balanced, proportional and credible, whilst following MHCLG and HM Treasury appraisal methodology. For this economic case, a wide range of tools have been utilised by Mott MacDonald’s experts in economic development. From the Government’s guidance, given the nature of the scheme, the analysis (set out in detail in the Technical Note) focuses on monetisable non-cash releasing benefits and estimates labour supply benefits from safeguarded employment.
Several data sources were utilised, outlined in section 5.1c, to produce the economic benefits. There were three models that were utilised - AMAT, VURT and a residential land value uplift calculator – to enter the data into. Any assumptions that have been made are justified in the accompanying Technical Note.
The
assumptions that were used for the quantification of the
monetisable non-cash releasing benefits are presented in the table
below. These assumptions
are standard economic assumptions that are regularly
used in appraisals of this kind. Further assumptions used for each
benefit can be found in the Technical Note. Non monetised
benefits are described in Section 5.5b. Table 3: Summary of monetiseable benefits
Source: Mott MacDonald
As part of the economic appraisal, a Do Minimum scenario has been identified for the intervention. The do minimum in this case is no change to the current public realm and sporting facilities. This would mean the area continues to deteriorate, would remain unattractive to tourists and would continue to fail to meet the expectation of people living in the area. The importance of the seafront being viewed as a community asset should not be underestimated.
The technical note provides more detail on the method applied.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.3 Economic costs of proposal |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.3a Please explain the economic costs of the bid. Costs should be consistent with the costs in the financial case, but adjusted for the economic case. This should include but not be limited to providing evidence of costs having been adjusted to an appropriate base year and that inflation has been included or taken into account. In addition, please provide detail that cost risks and uncertainty have been considered and adequately quantified. Optimism bias must also be included in the cost estimates in the economic case. (Limit 500 words)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To calculate economic costs inflation has been excluded (as per MHCLG guidance) and costs have been discounted at a rate of 3.5% (in line with HMT Green Book guidance). All costs have been reported in a consistent 2021/22 price base.
Table 4: Cost Profile (exc. optimism bias) by West Hove Seafront Component (2021/22 discounted prices)
Source: Brighton and Hove Council
The costs include 15% Overheads & Profit; 12% Prelims; 20% reducing to 10% Contingency; 12.5% Surveys & Fees. Contingency equates to 10%. Cost risks and uncertainty have been considered and adequately quantified by a qualified Quantity Surveyor.
As per the Government’s green book appraisal guidance, an Optimism Bias of 24% was applied to the costs above. The guidance advises that 24% is an appropriate uplift for ‘standard’ schemes and we have deemed this as appropriate given Brighton and Hove Council’s Major Projects Team will be able to oversee delivery of this project as part of their day-to-day operations. The figures which include optimism bias are presented below.
Table 5: Cost Profile (inc. OB) by West Hove Seafront Component (discounted to 2021/22)
Source: Brighton and Hove Council and Mott MacDonald Calculations
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.4 Analysis of monetised costs and benefits |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.4a Please describe how the economic benefits have been estimated. These must be categorised according to different impact. Depending on the nature of intervention, there could be land value uplift, air quality benefits, reduce journey times, support economic growth, support employment, or reduce carbon emissions. (Limit 750 words) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To capture the full range of benefits of the scheme, the economic analysis has included the following monetisable benefits. A full breakdown of benefits and methodologies can be found in the Economic Case Technical Note attached to this application.
Residential Land Value Uplift captures the social value of the land use change linked to this scheme applying MHCLG appraisal guidance. The value of residential properties within 500m of the intervention has been assessed for their existing value. To calculate the LVU taking place, assumptions have been taken on the value of regeneration uplift based on a CBRE research study completed in London27. This research details a 3.6% premium on land value appreciation as a result of regeneration projects in the area. Conservatively, it has been assumed a 2% regeneration uplift applies to residential properties in Brighton and Hove with the 500m catchment area, as well as applying the benefit for only two years after the completion of the project. This discounted benefit is valued at £23.73m (2021/22 prices) for the whole scheme.
Pedestrian movement benefits have been appraised using DfT’s WebTAG-compliant Active Mode Appraisal Toolkit (AMAT) model. AMAT automatically generates an estimate of the present value of benefits of an improved environment for pedestrians. Underpinning this analysis is a set of assumptions, which are identified in the Technical Note. The central estimate has been used for this assessment.
The current number of walking trips in the scheme area are inputted into the model. Based on scheme designs, the specific monetisable benefit modelled is an improvement in pedestrian journey quality. This discounted benefit is valued at £3.3m (2021 prices) for the whole scheme
Rateable Land Value Uplift, utilising the Valuing Urban Realm Toolkit (VURT), has been assessed for the public realm improvements. VURT has been developed by Transport for London (TfL) to quantify the uplift in the value of existing businesses within an area by applying an uplift to the rateable values of those businesses in proportion to the scale of the enhancement to the public realm.
A Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) link assessment process, as those used in VURT appraises improvements in the following six factors:
· Personal security; · Lighting of pedestrian zones; · Quality of the pedestrian environment; and,
·
Maintenance. Using rateable values from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), the total rateable value for the businesses assessed to be directly impacted by the enhancement is calculated. These have been used to calculate an uplift of rateable value of £ £76,087 (in 2021/22 prices). To remain conservative, 0% per annum real terms growth rate is used as an appreciation rate over the appraisal period. This results in discounted present value benefits of £1.45m (2021/22 prices).
Labour supply benefits from the safeguarding of employment has been calculated. The commercial operations in the intervention employ a range of staff in the local leisure economy. Without the improvements to the West Hove seafront, it is expected that some employment would be lost and in the current climate that would lead to long term unemployment.
MHCLG guidance quantifies the welfare benefits of moving locally unemployed workers into employment. In this case we are avoiding this having to take place. The guidance utilises WebTAG A2.3 (Appraisal of Employment Affects) to calculate welfare impacts over and above user benefits to the Exchequer. These are the tax revenues resulting from labour supply impacts and can be estimated as 40% of the resultant change in GDP. This tax revenue impact reflects both the increase in tax revenue (income tax, national insurance contributions and corporation tax) and the reduction in out-of-work subsidies. This benefit is valued at £0.82m (2021/22 prices) for the whole scheme.
Table 6: Monetised benefits
Source: Mott MacDonald
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.4b Please complete Tab A and B on the appended excel spreadsheet to demonstrate your:
Tab A - Discounted total costs by funding source (£m) Tab B – Discounted benefits by category (£m) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.5 Value for money of proposal |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.5a Please provide a summary of the overall Value for Money of the proposal. This should include reporting of Benefit Cost Ratios. If a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) has been estimated there should be a clear explanation of how this is estimated ie a methodology note. Benefit Cost Ratios should be calculated in a way that is consistent with HMT’s Green Book. For non-transport bids it should be consistent with MHCLG’s appraisal guidance. For bids requesting funding for transport projects this should be consistent with DfT Transport Analysis Guidance. (Limit 500 words) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Value for Money (VfM) of a proposed project is judged on the size of the project’s monetised benefits relative to monetised costs – the project’s BCR – and the potential significance of any non-monetised impacts. The BCR of a project is the estimated Present Value Benefits (PVB) plus any divided by a budget constraint or the Present Value Costs (PVC). This can be interpreted as the estimated level of economic benefit per £1 of economic cost. This measures the overall level of public welfare generated by a policy.
This economic appraisal seeks to capture all the impacts (i.e. benefits and costs) associated with an intervention, including both private impacts and external impacts. All figures are discounted to 2021/22.
The BCR comprises of benefits where there is a strong underlying evidence base and these have been monetised consistently with the published guidance (i.e. Green Book, Green Book Supplementary, and relevant departmental guidance). For the purposes of this economic appraisal, the following benefits have been included in the Initial BCR:
· Residential land value uplift; · Labour supply benefits; · Rateable value uplift; and · Active mode benefits. The Benefit-Cost Ratio calculation has followed the instructions of the Levelling Up Fund policy paper, which stipulated that the BCR should be calculated as total discounted benefits minus total discounted private sector costs divided by total discounted social costs. The BCR is calculated on the following basis:
The BCR is estimated to be 2.48 and how this is calculated is presented in the table below. Table 7: Preferred Option Benefit Cost Ratio
Source: Mott MacDonald Calculations |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.5b Please describe what other non-monetised impacts the bid will have, and provide a summary of how these have been assessed. (Limit 250 words)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Construction Jobs
Table 8: Capital costs and full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs
Source: Mott MacDonald Calculations
For the West Hove Seafront LUF scheme, based on a construction cost of £10.1m or the equivalent to 6 FTE jobs. Over the duration of the construction £306,000 of GVA will be generated.
Other Non-monetised Benefits
The table below describes other non-monetised benefits.
Table 9: Nonmonetised benefits
Source: Mott MacDonald Calculations
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.5c Please provide a summary assessment of risks and uncertainties that could affect the overall Value for Money of the bid. (Limit 250 words) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 10: Summary assessment of risks
Source: Mott MacDonald Calculations
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.5d For transport bids, we would expect the Appraisal Summary Table, to be completed to enable a full range of transport impacts to be considered. Other material supporting the assessment of the scheme described in this section should be appended to your bid. |
|
PART 6 DELIVERABILITY
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.1 Financial See technical note Table 1 for further guidance. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.1a Please summarise below your financial ask of the LUF, and what if any local and third party contributions have been secured (please note that a minimum local (public or private sector) contribution of 10% of the bid costs is encouraged). Please also note that a contribution will be expected from private sector stakeholders, such as developers, if they stand to benefit from a specific bid (Limit 250 words)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The financial ask of the LUF is a nominal value of £9.537m spread over three financial years to be used alongside council funding of £1.111m (10.4% of total funding requirement) giving an overall project cost of £10.647m. The Council's funding for this proposal will be backed by a capital investment commitment within the councils capital programme, funded from a combination of Community Infrastructure Levy contributions, and council borrowing with the financing costs of the borrowing being covered by the increased net income generated through the completed project.
This figure excludes historic costs already incurred by the Council and delivery partners in developing the schemes to outline design, a significant investment of officer time and financial costs already.
The table below summarises the financial profile of the programme in nominal prices.
Table 11: Summary of project costs
Source: Brighton and Hove City Council, Mott MacDonald analysis
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.1b Please also complete Tabs C and D in the appended excel spreadsheet, setting out details of the costs and spend profile at the project and bid level in the format requested within the excel sheet. The funding detail should be as accurate as possible as it will form the basis for funding agreements. Please note that we would expect all funding provided from the Fund to be spent by 31 March 2024, and, exceptionally, into 2024-25 for larger schemes. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Attached.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.1c Please confirm if the bid will be part funded through other third-party funding (public or private sector). If so, please include evidence (i.e. letters, contractual commitments) to show how any third-party contributions are being secured, the level of commitment and when they will become available. The UKG may accept the provision of land from third parties as part of the local contribution towards scheme costs. Where relevant, bidders should provide evidence in the form of an attached letter from an independent valuer to verify the true market value of the land.
|
Yes No |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.1d Please explain what if any funding gaps there are, or what further work needs to be done to secure third party funding contributions. (Limit 250 words)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
With the inclusion of the proposed grant from the LUF, all design and construction costs are affordable, with no remaining funding gaps. As noted above, The Council's funding for this proposal will be backed by combination of Council taxes and levies, including CIL, as well as borrowing against future commercial income from the facilities upgraded through this project.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.1e Please list any other funding applications you have made for this scheme or variants thereof and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection. (Limit 250 words) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No other funding applications have been made for the scheme to date.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.1f Please provide information on margins and contingencies that have been allowed for and the rationale behind them. (Limit 250 words) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Risk contingency has been allowed for based on a qualified surveyors’ professional view (Sam Hassall of LandPRO) of the appropriate level of risk to apply based on previous similar schemes they have supported development of. Project costs include in Table 2 above include: · 15% for Overheads & Profit · 12% for Preliminaries · 20% for risk and contingency. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.1g Please set out below, what the main financial risks are and how they will be mitigated, including how cost overruns will be dealt with and shared between non-UKG funding partners. (you should cross refer to the Risk Register). (Limit 500 words) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Risks associated with infrastructure development occur when the costs of capital materials or labour increase beyond that of forecasted inflation, when third party delays in programme occur, or when adverse weather conditions affect the construction. The main financial risks to the scheme revolve around programme delivery, inflation, flooding and site condition risk. These risks are captured in the appended risk register.
Revenue risk Given the uncertain times in the events sector post Covid-19, BHCC members have determined that it is prudent to secure the Council’s contribution to the project, which is a matter of priority for BHCC’s Head of Finance and will be discussed at the next BHCC Committee meeting at the beginning of July. The combination of prudential borrowing and local taxation (CIL, Section 106), whilst presenting a revenue risk, that will ultimately be chosen for the Council’s contribution will not present a major risk as the Council is confident in its ability to raise the required funds within the appropriate timeframe.
Inflation risk Construction industry BCIS All-In Tender Price inflation has been used to forecast future material and labour price inflation. These values are the industry standard for construction inflation and the table below captures the effect on the prices based on May 2021 forecasts.
Table 11: Summary of project costs
Source:
Mott MacDonald analysis While best available construction inflation assumptions are applied, general feedback from suppliers and clients that Mott MacDonald are working with across England to deliver capital works projects suggests current inflation is higher than the forecast both for labour and materials. As a result, inflation is considered a larger financial risk than pre-pandemic.
Construction risk BHCC will look to pass risk, as far as possible around construction costs and timing to its lead contractor, as with its other capital projects, making use of the terms of its preferred procurement route via the Council’s City Build Strategic Construction Partnership.
Risk allocation BHCC accepts and understands the risk of cost allocations for cost overruns sits with the Council and the Chief Financial Officer has signed off the submission on this basis. Should cost overruns occur, the experienced Council delivery team will either: a) draw down upon the allocated risk contingencies; b) seek additional funding; or c) work collaboratively with contractors to value engineer proposals.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.2
Commercial See technical note Section 4 and Table 1 for further guidance. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.2a Please summarise your commercial structure, risk allocation and procurement strategy which sets out the rationale for the strategy selected and other options considered and discounted. The procurement route should also be set out with an explanation as to why it is appropriate for a bid of the scale and nature submitted.
Please note - all procurements must be made in accordance with all relevant legal requirements. Applicants must describe their approach to ensuring full compliance in order to discharge their legal duties. (Limit 500 words)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Commercial structure and procurement strategy
The West Hove Seafront project is a conventional public works scheme, similar to projects that BHCC is experienced in planning, procuring and maintaining. The proposed arrangement is for the council to use their City Build Strategic Construction Partnership to deliver all stages of the project, let via a single procurement package. This is an established delivery route, used on multiple major projects over the past 17 years, including the following completed schemes:
· Downsview School – New build extension and refurbishment: £5,500,000 · Hillpark School – New build extension and refurbishment: £2,300,000 · Buckley Close Housing – New build: £2,800,000 · Selsfield Drive – New build housing: £8,000,000
A national report by Sir John Egan ‘Rethinking Construction’ (1998) recommended changes to the delivery of construction projects where the needs of the client are central and a partnership approach is taken to project delivery in order to avoid conflict and ensure value for money. The Egan approach has subsequently become an established and recognised form of procurement. The benefits of partnering have now been proven and result in more projects delivered on time and on budget and reduced financial risk to clients. The early involvement of the constructor and subcontractors ensures that design risks are minimised and deliverability improved.
Morgan Sindall Ltd is the lead contractor on the partnership, and manages a wider supply chain including cost consultants, H&S advisors, civil engineers, and a range of construction subcontractors. The partnership operates under the PPC2000 form of partnering contract, which was specifically developed to be an alternative to the adversarial JCT form of contract which had been the industry standard for many years. PPC2000 recognises the need and importance of the early involvement of the contractor and sub-contractors in the design process and stipulates that the partnership should appoint a Partnering Advisor to adjudicate on any issues which the Core group is unable to resolve. To date the partnering advisor has only been required two times in the 17 years the Council has been using this form of contract.
Morgan Sindall Ltd were appointed as lead Strategic Partner under an OJEU procurement process authorised by the Policy & Resources Committee on 5th October 2016. The procurement process was open to all construction companies in the European Union and therefore enabled core costs and service offer to be tested against the market ensuring a fair, competitive process and value for money.
Operational strategy The operation of the West Hove facility follows the City Parks strategy. This is a well-established management plan for the upkeep of the city’s public spaces and seafront locations. The City Parks strategy has an approved budget which includes allowance for the upgraded West Hove Seafront project.
Risk allocation strategy A project risk register has been prepared, identifying who owns the risk, the likelihood and impact of each risk, as well as actions to mitigate these risks. Risks are to be managed through regular reviews of the risk register and identification of potential emerging risks to the project. The SRO will implement a hierarchy of risk management that aims to eliminate risks where possible, then mitigate any impacts of foreseeable risks.
Risks can be allocated into different categories relevant to the different stages of the project lifecycle (e.g. land availability, project consents, construction risk, funding risk etc). In each case, BHCC will look to pass responsibility for the risk to the party in the supply chain best placed to manage this risk using the contractual agreements it puts in place. The degree to which this can be done will vary by risk. Residual risk will ultimately lie with BHCC as the funding and delivery client.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.3 Management See technical note Section 4 and Table 1 for further guidance |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivery Plan: Places are asked to submit a delivery plan which demonstrates: · Clear milestones, key dependencies and interfaces, resource requirements, task durations and contingency. · An understanding of the roles and responsibilities, skills, capability, or capacity needed. · Arrangements for managing any delivery partners and the plan for benefits realisation. · Engagement of developers/ occupiers (where needed) · The strategy for managing stakeholders and considering their interests and influences. · Confirmation of any powers or consents needed, and statutory approvals eg Planning permission and details of information of ownership or agreements of land/ assets needed to deliver the bid with evidence · Please also list any powers / consents etc needed/ obtained, details of date acquired, challenge period (if applicable) and date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them.
6.3a Please summarise the delivery plan, with reference to the above (Limit 500 words) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivery plan
The
West Hove scheme is a relatively
straightforward public works scheme with an anticipated
lifecycle of two years. The table below sets out the
milestones planned to date for the project, the duration for each
task, and the time contingency allowed. Table 13: Project programme
Source: BHCC, Untitled Practice
As BHCC owns the land and the project is mostly upgrade works, there are no anticipated dependencies.
Roles and Responsibilities
BHCC will use a well-established management arrangement for the West Hove project. The proposed management structure can be seen in the organogram below.
Figure 3: Proposed management structure
Source: BHCC and Mott MacDonald.
BHCC’s approach to project management is based on a clear structure with lines of accountability running throughout the delivery team. BHCC has a long track record of delivering successful projects across a number of portfolios using this structured approach to project management.
Ultimate responsibility for the scheme sits with the Policy and Resources Committee (PRC). The PRC is a democratic body within BHCC that consists of senior councillors. The PRC will receive a quarterly report which is prepared by the SRO and outlines the progress of the project and its RAG (red, amber, green) rating.
Other relevant stakeholders within the project delivery structure include the funders for the project, in this case the MHCLG and BHCC itself. The West Hove Seafront Action Group will be the consultation body that reviews and proposals and presents any comments. Stakeholder voices will be heard through this body.
Managing delivery partners
For the West Hove Seafront scheme, the design team will be led by an architect from the Council’s Architecture & Design team and will include the constructor (Lead Contractor), who will work with the client right from the start of the project.
On-going project assurance will be provided through regular meetings and contact between the delivery team and the project team, led by the Project Manager. Meetings will include representatives of the contractors, and all elements of the project shall be reviewed.
Benefits realisation plan
A benefits realisation plan (BRP) will be produced to detail the expected benefits of the project, against which benefits realisation will be evaluated at defined points within the project lifecycle, to tie up with reporting to financers and partners.
Benefits will be evaluated in the immediate (Year 1) and medium term (Year 5). The immediate term report will assist in understanding what issues the scheme is experiencing in its early phase. The BRP will form part of the Monitoring and Evaluation plan, see section 6.4.
Planning and consents
BHCC own the land where the West Hove project will be built. The council are in the early stages of seeking planning permission for this project.
Word count: 442 words (excluding diagrams)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.3b Has a delivery plan been appended to your bid?
|
Yes No |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.3c Can you demonstrate ability to begin delivery on the ground in 2021-22?
|
Yes No |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.3e Risk Management: Places are asked to set out a detailed risk assessment which sets out (word limit 500 words not including the risk register):
· the barriers and level of risk to the delivery of your bid · appropriate and effective arrangements for managing and mitigating these risk · a clear understanding on roles / responsibilities for risk
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An effective risk management strategy for the project will be based on the principles for risk management contained within the PRINCE2 guidance. The procedure for identifying key risks should follow as below:
· Identify: complete the risk register (as appropriate to the area of the project and/or the producing organisation) and identify risks, opportunities, and threats; · Assess: assess the risks in terms of their probability and impact on the project objectives; · Plan: prepare the specific response to the threats (e.g. to help reduce or avoid the threat), or this could also be to plan to maximise the opportunity if the risk happens; · Implement: carry out the above in response to an identified threat or if one occurs; and · Communicate: report and communicate the above to relevant project team members and stakeholders.
The overall risk management strategy will be owned by BHCC’s Policy and Resources Committee. However, the day-to-day management of the strategy and project risk will be managed by the Project Manager. As an extension of this, discussion around the risk register will be a standing item on project meetings. This should enable active management of the project risks and wider communication between different members of the project team. This will include a monthly risk report to document risks and key actions relating to risk.
The process for escalation of risks is outlined below to demonstrate accountability levels within BHCC. Where an individual does not have appropriate accountability, the risk would need to be escalated and managed at a higher level. Risks may also require escalation if they cannot be resolved within the Delivery Team or if they have wider impacts beyond this project. The escalation process is as follows:
· The Delivery Teams Project Manager · BHCC’s externally appointed Project Manager · The BHCC Project Board · The Senior Responsible Owner · The Corporate Investment Board · The Strategic Delivery Board · The Policy and Resources Committee
The current project risk register appended to this form. The top five project risks have been summarised below:
· Staff capacity issues · Technical issues with sharing documents and remote working · Community stakeholders not fully supportive of detailed scheme · Unmarked utilities or unexploded ordinance discovered during groundworks · Main contractor going into liquidation or administration
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.3f Has a risk register been appended to your bid? |
Yes No |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.3g Please evidence your track record and past experience of delivering schemes of a similar scale and type (Limit 250 words) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
BHCC has a strong track record delivering major public work schemes. In the past five years they have delivered two major city parks projects, including:
Stanmer Park
Stanmer Park is Brighton’s largest park. It is a gateway between the city and the South Downs National Park. Designed in the 18th century, it is a grade II registered landscape which is historically and nationally significant. BHCC secured £5.1m for this project to restore 20 hectares of the 485-hectare park, with £3.8m of this coming from the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Big Lottery Funds “Parks for People” scheme. The restoration project focused on improvements to the Walled Garden and surrounding areas, and improving the 18th century landscape, notably the entrance and parkland to Stanmer House. The project opened to the public in April 2021, on time and to budget.
Valley Gardens
The two Valley Gardens schemes are due to complete in late July of 2021, and the council will be commencing with scheme 3 shortly. The total funding available for phases 1 and 2 was £10.126 million. The government made £8m available through the Local Enterprise Partnership. The schemes aim to improve road safety, air quality, and flood risk management, enhance access to public transport services and ease of movement throughout the area, and make access to the seafront.
The Valley Gardens scheme utilised the same major projects governance structure outlined in section 6.3A and has been well managed through all stages of the project.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.3h Assurance: We will require Chief Financial Officer confirmation that adequate assurance systems are in place.
For larger transport projects (between £20m - £50m) please provide evidence of an integrated assurance and approval plan. This should include details around planned health checks or gateway reviews. (Limit 250 words) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The council has put in place a well-structured governance framework to manage large regeneration and transport projects. This includes approval of capital schemes and their costs and planned outcomes through the Policy & Resources Committee, including any match funding requirements. This is followed by performance review of capital budgets through monitoring reports to Policy & Resources Committee. Reports to Policy & Resources cover the full range of legal, financial and technical advice and assurance that members require in order to make sound decisions, including identification and mitigation of associated risks. Ongoing Member oversight is also provided through a Strategic Delivery Board and officer oversight of large schemes is provided through the Corporate Investment Board chaired by the Chief Executive. All decisions of the council are made in accordance with the Council’s standing orders including its procedure rules and financial regulations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.4 Monitoring and Evaluation
See technical note Section 4 and Table 1 for further guidance.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.4a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan: Please set out proportionate plans for M&E which should include (1000 word limit):
· Bid level M&E objectives and research questions · Outline of bid level M&E approach · Overview of key metrics for M&E (covering inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts), informed by bid objectives and Theory of Change. Please complete Tabs E and F on the appended excel spreadsheet · Resourcing and governance arrangements for bid level M&E
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Objectives There are five core objectives of the schemes which are linked to the Local Transport Plan objectives and are thematically cross cutting:
1. Transform underused and degraded infrastructure into a series of highly valued leisure and commercial spaces across a large expanse of public land at the seafront in West Hove. 2. Unlock the potential of the area for tourism, sport, leisure and events to create a new landmark, must-visit location for family days out in a densely populated area with limited green space. 3. In a major coastal resort, create new and additional capacity away from central Brighton which enables the visitor economy to continue growing. 4. Rejuvenate a highly-visible and central part of the city which urgently needs capital investment to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour. 5. Provide a destination for cyclists and public transport users that is highly accessible and contributes to the health and wellbeing of local people and visitors. The proposed monitoring and evaluation approach will assess the success in meeting these objectives,
Monitoring and evaluation are essential parts of any project. When done well, they provide opportunity to improve performance by reviewing past and current activities, with the aim of replicating good practice in the future and eliminating mistakes in future work. BHCC has a responsibility to report on how funding is being utilised for this scheme and how its expenditure represents value for money to the taxpayer and how spending aligns with the main objectives of this project.
BHCC is committed to the ongoing monitoring of the impacts of the schemes that it introduces to ensure that benefits are realised, impacts are identified, and any unforeseen effects are understood. In the case of this project, the monitoring and evaluation arrangements will include significant reporting against the project’s business plan and financial performance, as well as the required construction monitoring and evaluation. The design of the monitoring and evaluation approach will be proportionate to the size of the investment, the risks, and the novelty of each project.
Overview of metrics to be monitored
Table 14: Key metrics
Source: BHCC and Mott MacDonald
The project will be monitored throughout, following the logic model developed for the project (see Section and associated indicators. A budget of £30,000 (plus inflation) has been set for monitoring and evaluation which will be met by BHCC. A number of data sources to feed into monitoring and evaluation activity are currently readily available (such as business rates and deprivation figures) and some will require additional research, for example visitor number surveys. Footfall monitors will be installed across the seafront and these will be used to monitor footfall levels before and after intervention. On-street surveys before and after intervention will identify the average time spent at the West Hove Seafront and average spend. Using this information, the benefit to the town can be calculated.
BHCC will oversee and monitor the project assurance and evaluation, maintaining up-to-date funding records. There will be monthly site meetings and review of any variances as part of the proposed internal monitoring approach.
In order to monitor the delivery of the project correctly, BHCC proposes to: · Create a detailed monitoring and evaluation plan, and a benefits realisation framework. · Monitoring and evaluation plans will be published on the BHCC website and will be available to the public. · Provide progress reports on the evaluation process throughout the project lifecycle through its rigid management structures. · Provide an initial report based on data collection annually throughout the project lifecycle.
Implementation Implementation considers whether the proposed activities took place as planned and how they affected the overall intended impacts. The monitoring of the implementation of the activities within the delivery of this project will focus on the project budget, the progress of construction and physical works, and the management of project risks. The budget will be closely monitored through tracking the actual spend against the estimated project spend, this will ensure that the project is delivered efficiently and within budget.
As part of the M&E plan, the project risk register will be reviewed regularly in order to ascertain whether risks are being managed appropriately, this will allow the project teams to assess the likelihood and impact of each risk and decide appropriate mitigation. The risk register will be reviewed formally at project site meetings and BHCC Project Board meetings and will implement a hierarchy of risk management that aims to eliminate risk where possible and deploy effective mitigation strategies in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Any adjustments to the programme and project schedule will be incorporated into the M&E plan once these have been confirmed.
Reporting A Baseline Report will be produced before construction begins to identify a baseline for the project which the impacts of the intervention can be measured. An annual monitoring report will subsequently be published throughout the lifetime of the scheme and for three years after its completion. This monitoring report will analyse the implementation, outputs, and outcome identified within this M&E plan, in addition to providing an accompanying qualitative assessment of the project. An Evaluation Report will be published in 2029, five years following the project’s completion. This will evaluate the project with respect to its impacts on the Hove Seafront and surrounding area, and will report the results, findings, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations of the evaluation. These reports will be made available to the public on the BHCC website.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PART 7 DECLARATIONS
|
|
7.1 Senior Responsible Owner Declaration |
|
|
As Senior Responsible Owner for [scheme name] I hereby submit this request for approval to UKG on behalf of [name of organisation] and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so.
I confirm that [name of organisation] will have all the necessary statutory powers and other relevant consents in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised. |
|
|
Name: Nick Hibberd, Executive Director for Economy, Environment and Culture, Brighton and Hove City Council |
Signed:
|
X04: DECLARATIONS
|
7.2 Chief Finance Officer Declaration |
|
|
As Chief Finance Officer for [name of organisation] I declare that the scheme cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that [name of organisation]
- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding contribution - accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the UKG contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties - accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the scheme - accepts that no further increase in UKG funding will be considered beyond the maximum contribution requested and that no UKG funding will be provided after 2024-25 - confirm that the authority commits to ensure successful bids will deliver value for money or best value. - confirms that the authority has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place and that all legal and other statutory obligations and consents will be adhered to. |
|
|
Name: James Hengeveld, Acting Deputy Chief Finance Officer, Brighton and Hove City Council |
Signed:
|
ECLARATIONS
0ECLTIONS
|
7.3 Data Protection
|
|
Please note that the The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is a data controller for all Levelling Up Fund related personal data collected with the relevant forms submitted to MHCLG, and the control and processing of Personal Data. The Department, and its contractors where relevant, may process the Personal Data that it collects from you, and use the information provided as part of the application to the Department for funding from the Levelling Up Fund, as well as in accordance with its privacy policies. For the purposes of assessing your bid the Department may need to share your Personal Data with other Government departments and departments in the Devolved Administrations and by submitting this form you are agreeing to your Personal Data being used in this way. Any information you provide will be kept securely and destroyed within 7 years of the application process completing.
You can find more information about how the Department deals with your data here. |
Annex A - Project One Summary (only required for a package bid)
|
Project 1 |
|
|
A1. Project Name |
|
|
|
|
|
A2. Strategic Linkage to bid: Please enter a brief explanation of how this project links strategically to the overall bid. (in no more than 100 words) |
|
|
|
|
|
A3. Geographical area: Please provide a short description of the area covered by the bid (in no more than 100 words) |
|
|
|
|
|
A4. OS Grid Reference |
|
|
A5. Postcode |
|
|
A6. For Counties, Greater London Authority and Combined Authorities/Mayoral Combined Authorities, please provide details of the district council or unitary authority where the bid is located (or predominantly located) |
|
|
A7. Please append a map showing the location (and where applicable the route) of the proposed scheme, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites, areas of existing employment, constraints etc. |
Yes No |
|
A8.
Project theme |
Transport investment Regeneration and town centre investment Cultural investment
|
|
A9. Value of capital grant being requested for this project (£): |
|
|
A10. Value of match funding and sources (£): |
|
|
A11. Value for Money
This section should set out the full range of impacts – both beneficial and adverse – of the project. Where possible, impacts should be described, quantified and also reported in monetary terms. However there may be some impacts where only a qualitative assessment is possible due to limitations in the available analysis. There should be a clear and detailed explanation of how all impacts reported have been identified, considered and analysed. When deciding what are the most significant impacts to consider, bidders should consider what impacts and outcomes the project is intended to achieve, taking into account the strategic case, but should also consider if there are other possible significant positive or negative impacts, to the economy, people, or environment (Limit 250 word |
|
|
|
|
|
A12. It will be generally expected that an overall Benefit Cost Ratio and Value for Money Assessment will be reported in applications. If this is not possible, then the application should include a clear explanation of why not. |
|
|
|
|
|
A13. Where available, please provide the BCR for this project |
|
|
A14. Does your proposal deliver strong non-monetised benefits? Please set out what these are and evidence them. |
|
|
A15. Deliverability Deliverability is one of the key criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set out any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed. |
|
|
|
|
|
A16. The Bid – demonstrating investment or ability to begin delivery on the ground in 2021-22
As stated in the prospectus UKG seeks for the first round of the funding that priority will be given to bids that can demonstrate investment and ability to deliver on the ground in 2021-22 |
|
|
A17. Does this project includes plans for some LUF expenditure in 2021-22?
|
No |
|
A18. Could this project be delivered as a standalone project or do it require to be part of the overall bid? |
No
|
|
A19. Please provide evidence |
|
|
A20. Can you demonstrate ability to deliver on the ground in 2021-22. |
Yes No
|
|
A21. Please provide evidence |
|
|
Statutory Powers and Consents |
|
|
A22. Please list separately each power / consents etc obtained, details of date acquired, challenge period (if applicable) and date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them. Any key dates should be referenced in your project plan. |
|
|
A23. Please list separately any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc, including the timetable for obtaining them.
|
|
Annex B - Project Two description and funding profile (only required for package bid)
|
Project 2 |
|
|
B1. Project Name |
|
|
B2. Strategic Linkage to bid:
Please enter a brief explanation of how this project links strategically to the overall bid. (in no more than 100 words) |
|
|
|
|
|
B3. Geographical area: Please provide a short description of the area covered by the bid (in no more than 100 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
B4. OS Grid Reference |
|
|
B5.Postcode |
|
|
B6. For Counties, Greater London Authority and Combined Authorities/Mayoral Combined Authorities, please provide details of the district council or unitary authority where the bid is located (or predominantly located) |
|
|
B7. Please append a map showing the location (and where applicable the route) of the proposed scheme, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites, areas of existing employment, constraints etc. |
|
|
B8.
Project theme |
Transport investment Regeneration and town centre investment Cultural investment
|
|
B9. Value of capital grant being requested for this project (£): |
|
|
B10. Value of match funding and sources (£): |
|
|
B11. Value for Money
This section should set out the full range of impacts – both beneficial and adverse – of the project. Where possible, impacts should be described, quantified and also reported in monetary terms. However there may be some impacts where only a qualitative assessment is possible due to limitations in the available analysis. There should be a clear and detailed explanation of how all impacts reported have been identified, considered and analysed. When deciding what are the most significant impacts to consider, bidders should consider what impacts and outcomes the project is intended to achieve, taking into account the strategic case, but should also consider if there are other possible significant positive or negative impacts, to the economy, people, or environment |
|
|
|
|
|
B12. It will be generally expected that an overall Benefit Cost Ratio and Value for Money Assessment will be reported in applications. If this is not possible, then the application should include a clear explanation of why not. |
|
|
|
|
|
B13. Where available, please provide the BCR for this project |
|
|
B14. Does your proposal deliver strong non-monetised benefits? Please set out what these are and evidence them. |
|
|
B15. Deliverability Deliverability is one of the key criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set out any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed. |
|
|
|
|
|
B16. The Bid – demonstrating investment or ability to begin delivery on the ground in 2021-22
As stated in the prospectus UKG seeks for the first round of the funding that priority will be given to bids that can demonstrate investment and ability to deliver on the ground in 2021-22 |
|
|
|
|
|
B17. Does this project includes plans for some LUF expenditure in 2021-22?
|
Yes No
|
|
B18. Could this project be delivered as a standalone project or do it require to be part of the overall bid? |
No |
|
B19. Please provide evidence |
|
|
B20. Can you demonstrate ability to deliver on the ground in 2021-22. |
Yes No
|
|
B21. Please provide evidence |
|
|
Statutory Powers and Consents |
|
|
B22. Please list separately each power / consents etc obtained, details of date acquired, challenge period (if applicable) and date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them. Any key dates should be referenced in your project plan. |
|
|
B23. Please list separately any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc, including the timetable for obtaining them.
|
|
Annex C – Project Three- description and funding profile (only required for package bid)
|
Project 3 |
|
|
C1. Project Name |
|
|
C2. Strategic Linkage to bid:
Please enter a brief explanation of how this project links strategically to the overall bid. (in no more than 100 words) |
|
|
|
|
|
C3. Geographical area: Please provide a short description of the area covered by the bid (in no more than 100 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
C4. OS Grid Reference |
|
|
C5. Postcode |
|
|
C6. For Counties, Greater London Authority and Combined Authorities/Mayoral Combined Authorities, please provide details of the district council or unitary authority where the bid is located (or predominantly located) |
|
|
C7. Please append a map showing the location (and where applicable the route) of the proposed scheme, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites, areas of existing employment, constraints etc. |
|
|
C8.
Project theme |
Transport investment Regeneration and town centre investment Cultural investment
|
|
C9. Value of capital grant being requested for this project (£): |
|
|
C10. Value of match funding and sources (£): |
|
|
C11. Value for Money
This section should set out the full range of impacts – both beneficial and adverse – of the project. Where possible, impacts should be described, quantified and also reported in monetary terms. However there may be some impacts where only a qualitative assessment is possible due to limitations in the available analysis. There should be a clear and detailed explanation of how all impacts reported have been identified, considered and analysed. When deciding what are the most significant impacts to consider, bidders should consider what impacts and outcomes the project is intended to achieve, taking into account the strategic case, but should also consider if there are other possible significant positive or negative impacts, to the economy, people, or environment |
|
|
|
|
|
C12. It will be generally expected that an overall Benefit Cost Ratio and Value for Money Assessment will be reported in applications. If this is not possible, then the application should include a clear explanation of why not. |
|
|
|
|
|
C13. Where available, please provide the BCR for this project |
|
|
C14. Does your proposal deliver strong non-monetised benefits? Please set out what these are and evidence them. |
|
|
C15. Deliverability Deliverability is one of the key criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set out any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed. |
|
|
|
|
|
C16. The Bid – demonstrating investment or ability to begin delivery on the ground in 2021-22
As stated in the prospectus UKG seeks for the first round of the funding that priority will be given to bids that can demonstrate investment and ability to deliver on the ground in 2021-22 |
|
|
C17. Does this project includes plans for some LUF expenditure in 2021-22?
|
|
|
C18. Could this project be delivered as a standalone project or do it require to be part of the overall bid? |
Yes
No
|
|
C19. Please provide evidence |
|
|
C20. Can you demonstrate ability to deliver on the ground in 2021-22. |
Yes No
|
|
C21. Please provide evidence |
|
|
Statutory Powers and Consents |
|
|
C22. Please list separately each power / consents etc obtained, details of date acquired, challenge period (if applicable) and date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them. Any key dates should be referenced in your project plan. |
|
|
C23. Please list separately any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc, including the timetable for obtaining them.
|
|
ANNEX D - Check List Great Britain Local Authorities
|
Questions |
Y/N |
Comments |
|
4.1a Member of Parliament support |
||
|
MPs have the option of providing formal written support for one bid which they see as a priority. Have you appended a letter from the MP to support this case? |
Y |
|
|
Part 4.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Support |
||
|
Where the bidding local authority does not have responsibility for the delivery of projects, have you appended a letter from the responsible authority or body confirming their support? |
|
|
|
Part 4.3 The Case for Investment |
||
|
For Transport Bids: Have you provided an Option Assessment Report (OAR) |
|
|
|
Part 6.1 Financial |
||
|
Have you appended copies of confirmed match funding? |
Y |
|
|
The UKG may accept the provision of land from third parties as part of the local contribution towards scheme costs. Please provide evidence in the form of a letter from an independent valuer to verify the true market value of the land.
Have you appended a letter to support this case? |
|
|
|
Part 6.3 Management |
||
|
Has a delivery plan been appended to your bid? |
|
|
|
Has a letter relating to land acquisition been appended?
|
|
|
|
Have you attached a copy of your Risk Register?
|
|
|
|
Annex A-C - Project description Summary (only required for package bid)
|
||
|
Have you appended a map showing the location (and where applicable the route) of the proposed scheme, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites, areas of existing employment, constraints etc. |
|
|
Annex E Checklist for Northern Ireland Bidding Entities
|
Questions |
Y/N |
Comments |
|
Part 1 Gateway Criteria |
||
|
You have attached two years of audited accounts |
|
|
|
You have provided evidence of the delivery team having experience of delivering two capital projects of similar size and in the last five years |
|
|
|
Part 4.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Support |
||
|
For transport bids, have you appended a letter of support from the relevant district council |
|
|
|
Part 6.1 Financial |
||
|
Have you appended copies of confirmed match funding |
|
|
|
The UKG may accept the provision of land from third parties as part of the local contribution towards scheme costs. Please provide evidence in the form of a letter from an independent valuer to verify the true market value of the land. |
|
|
|
Part 6.3 Management |
||
|
Has a delivery plan been appended to your bid? |
|
|
|
Has a letter relating to land acquisition been appended?
|
|
|
|
Have you attached a copy of your Risk Register?
|
|
|
|
Annex A-C - Project description Summary (only required for package bid)
|
||
|
Have you appended a map showing the location (and where applicable the route) of the proposed scheme, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites, areas of existing employment, constraints etc. |
|
|