ipswich wet dock crossing - suffolk county council · ipswich wet dock crossing ... 6.13 risk...

IPSWICH WET DOCK CROSSING OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE

DECEMBER 2015

Confidential

Project no: 3514243B-PTL Date: December 2015

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff 70 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1AF Tel: +44 (0) 20 7314 5000 Fax : +44 (0) 20 7314 5111 www.wspgroup.com www.pbworld.com

IPSWICH WET DOCK CROSSING

OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE

Suffolk County Council

Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T

ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3

Remarks DRAFT v1.0

For comment

DRAFT v2.0

For comment

Final Draft Final

Date 1st December 2015 23 December 2015 24 December 2015

Prepared by O Stanyon

A Liu

S Cooper

O Stanyon

A Liu

S Cooper

J Noble

A Sargent

J Noble

A Sargent

Signature

Checked by J Noble J Noble J Noble J Noble

Signature

Authorised by D Carter D Carter D Carter D Carter

Signature

Project number 3514243B-PTL 3514243B-PTL 3514243B-PTL 3514243B-PTL

Report number

File reference

ii

Ipswich Wet Dock Crossing WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Suffolk County Council Project No 3514243B-PTL

November 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................1

2 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................2

2.2 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE AND CONTENT .................................................... 2

3 SETTING THE SCENE .................................................................3

3.2 IPSWICH AND ITS REGIONAL CONTEXT ....................................................... 6

4 STRATEGIC CASE .................................................................... 12

4.1 BUSINESS STRATEGY ................................................................................... 12

4.2 STRATEGIC AIMS ........................................................................................... 13

4.3 PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED ................................................................................ 15

4.4 IMPACT OF NOT CHANGING ......................................................................... 28

4.5 SUPPORT FOR CHANGE - (INTERNAL DRIVERS) ...................................... 29

4.6 POLICY FIT – (EXTERNAL DRIVERS) ........................................................... 30

4.7 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................... 36

4.8 MEASURES FOR SUCCESS .......................................................................... 38

4.9 WHAT WE WILL DELIVER - (SCOPE)............................................................ 39

4.10 CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................ 40

4.11 INTERDEPENDENCIES ................................................................................... 43

4.12 STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................ 44

4.13 OPTIONS .......................................................................................................... 45

5 ECONOMIC CASE ..................................................................... 59

5.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 59

5.2 OPTIONS APPRAISED .................................................................................... 61

5.3 ASSUMPTIONS................................................................................................ 62

5.4 RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 68

iii


November 2015

5.5 SENSITIVITY AND RISK PROFILE ................................................................. 74

5.6 FURTHER BENEFITS ...................................................................................... 75

5.7 VALUE FOR MONEY STATEMENT ................................................................ 79

6 COMMERCIAL CASE ................................................................ 80

6.2 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 80

6.3 OUTPUT BASED SPECIFICATION................................................................. 81

6.4 PROCUREMENT STRATEGY ......................................................................... 82

6.5 CLIENT AND STAKEHOLDER PROCUREMENT OBJECTIVES .................. 82

6.6 SECURING ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL OUTCOMES THROUGH PROCUREMENT .................................................... 84

6.7 PROCUREMENT METHOD ............................................................................. 85

6.8 SOURCING OPTIONS ..................................................................................... 85

6.9 PREFERRED PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE .............................................. 86

6.10 DETAILS OF PREFERRED PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE ........................ 87

6.11 PAYMENT MECHANISMS ............................................................................... 89

6.12 PRICING FRAMEWORKS AND CHARGING MECHANISMS ........................ 90

6.13 RISK ALLOCATION AND TRANSFER ........................................................... 90

6.14 CONTRACT LENGTH ...................................................................................... 91

6.15 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES ......................................................................... 91

6.16 CONTRACT MANAGEMENT .......................................................................... 91

6.17 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION ..................................................................... 92

7 FINANCIAL CASE ...................................................................... 93

7.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 93

7.2 COST ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................... 94

7.3 BUDGETS/FUNDING COVER ......................................................................... 95

7.4 RISK ................................................................................................................. 96

8 MANAGEMENT CASE ............................................................... 97

8.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 97

iv


November 2015

8.2 PREVIOUS SCHEME DELIVERY .................................................................... 97

8.3 PROGRAMME /PROJECT DEPENDENCIES ............................................... 101

8.4 PROJECT GOVERNANCE, ORGANISATION STRUCTURE AND ROLES ............................................................................................................ 101

8.5 RISK MANAGEMENT .................................................................................... 104

8.6 PROJECT PROGRAMME / PLAN ................................................................. 105

8.7 IMPLEMENTATION OF WORK STREAMS .................................................. 107

8.8 PREVIOUS STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................... 108

8.9 FUTURE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ............................................... 109

8.10 BENEFITS REALISATION ............................................................................. 110

8.11 ASSURANCE ................................................................................................. 113

8.12 ASSURANCE AND APPROVALS PLAN ...................................................... 114

8.13 PROGRAMME AND PROJECT REPORTING .............................................. 115

8.14 RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ............................................................... 115

8.15 MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................................................... 118

8.16 MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN .................................................... 119

v


November 2015

T A B L E S

TABLE 3-1: ISSUES ........................................................................................................... 15

TABLE 3-2: INVESTMENT PRIORITIES FOR ACHIEVING PRIMARY OBJECTIVES ...... 36

TABLE 3-3: HOW OBJECTIVES ALIGN WITH AIMS ......................................................... 37

TABLE 3-4 JOURNEY TIMES AND JOURNEY TIME SAVINGS FOR ROUTES ACROSS IPSWICH (MM:SS) ............................................................ 51

TABLE 3-5 JOURNEY TIME AND JOURNEY TIME SAVINGS ON THE A14 OVER THE ORWELL CROSSING................................................................ 52

TABLE 4-1: OPTION A AND B............................................................................................. 61

TABLE 4-2: KEY APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................. 62

TABLE 4-3 TEE OPTION A .................................................................................................. 68

TABLE 4-4: PUBLIC ACCOUNTS TABLE (PA) OPTION A ................................................ 69

TABLE 4-5 ASSESSMENT OF MONETISED COSTS AND BENEFITS OPTION A .......... 70

TABLE 4-6 ADJUSTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF MONETISED COSTS AND BENEFITS -OPTION A ............................................................. 70

TABLE 4-7 TEE OPTION B .................................................................................................. 71

TABLE 4-8: PUBLIC ACCOUNTS TABLE (PA) OPTION B ................................................ 71

TABLE 4-9 ASSESSMENT OF MONETISED COSTS AND BENEFITS OPTION B .......... 72

TABLE 4-10 ADJUSTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF MONETISED COSTS AND BENEFITS -OPTION A ................................................ 72

TABLE 4-11 BCR RANGE ................................................................................................... 74

TABLE 4-12 YEARLY BENEFITS ........................................................................................ 78

TABLE 4-13 60 YEAR BENEFITS ....................................................................................... 79

TABLE 5-1: OPTIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF SCHEME DEVELOPMENT ....................... 86

TABLE 5-2: BUILDING BLOCKS ......................................................................................... 90

TABLE 6-1 ESTIMATED 2015 COSTS ................................................................................ 94

TABLE 6-2 RISK IN 2015 ..................................................................................................... 94

TABLE 7-1: KEY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................................ 103

TABLE 7-2: KEY TASKS AND DATES FROM THE PROJECT PLAN .............................. 105

TABLE 7-3: PLAN FOR LIAISON WITH LOCAL AND KEY STAKEHOLDERS ................ 109

vi


November 2015

F I G U R E S

FIGURE 2-1: HIGHWAY AND RAILWAY NETWORK ........................................................... 6

FIGURE 2-2: KEY LOCATIONS ............................................................................................ 8

FIGURE 2-3: PHOTOS OF THE MARINA ............................................................................. 9

FIGURE 2-4: PHOTO OF UNIVERSITY CAMPUS SUFFOLK ............................................ 10

FIGURE 2-5: MAP OF PORT FACILITIES .......................................................................... 11

FIGURE 3-1: FOUR KEY AIMS ........................................................................................... 14

FIGURE 3-2: EAST-WEST ROUTES IN IPSWICH ............................................................. 16

FIGURE 3-3: AVERAGE SPEED OF TRAFFIC IN IPSWICH DURING OFF-PEAK PERIOD ............................................................................................. 17

FIGURE 3-4: ORWELL BRIDGE ......................................................................................... 18

FIGURE 3-5: AVERAGE SPEED OF TRAFFIC OVER THE ORWELL BRIDGE ................ 19

FIGURE 3-6: EASTBOUND TRAFFIC OVER THE ORWELL BRIDGE .............................. 19

FIGURE 3-7: AVERAGE SPEED OF TRAFFIC ON ORWELL BRIDGE (PM PEAK PERIOD) –MILES PER HOUR .......................................................... 20

FIGURE 3-8: STAR LANE AS A BARRIER ......................................................................... 21

FIGURE 3-9: ST PETER’S STREET - THE GATEWAY TO IPSWICH TOWN CENTRE ... 21

FIGURE 3-10: PEDESTRIAN ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 22

FIGURE 3-11 DEVELOPMENT LAND IN THE REGENERATION AREA ........................... 23

FIGURE 3-12: PHOTO OF ISLAND SITE FROM ABOVE .................................................. 24

FIGURE 3-13: PRINCE PHILIP LOCK ................................................................................. 25

FIGURE 3-14: POLICY FIT GRAPHIC ................................................................................ 30

FIGURE 3-15: SUMMARY OF PRIMARY OBJECTIVES .................................................... 36

FIGURE 3-16: REGENERATION PROCESS ...................................................................... 39

FIGURE 3-17: RAILWAY LINES .......................................................................................... 41

FIGURE 3-18 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY FLOOD BARRIER WORKS .............................. 42

FIGURE 3-19: LOCATION OF NEW CROSSING ............................................................... 43

FIGURE 3-20 OPTIONS ASSESSED IN DETAIL................................................................ 47

FIGURE 3-21: SIFTING PROCESS ..................................................................................... 48

FIGURE 3-22 KEY ROUTES IN IPSWICH .......................................................................... 51

FIGURE 3-23 CHANGES IN TRAFFIC LEVELS WITH OPTION B IN 2036 PM PEAK (PCUS PER HOUR) ........................................................................... 53

FIGURE 3-24 CHANGES IN TRAFFIC LEVELS FOR THREE ROUTES ACROSS IPSWICH (OPTION B, 2036 PM) ....................................................... 53

FIGURE 3-25: MASTER PLAN VISUALISATION ................................................................ 54

FIGURE 3-26: DEPRIVATION MAP .................................................................................... 55

FIGURE 4-1: ECONOMIC APPRAISAL PROCESS ............................................................ 60

FIGURE 4-2: WIDER ECONOMIC BENEFITS APPRAISAL PROCESS ............................ 64

FIGURE 7-1: GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ..................................................................... 102

FIGURE 7-2: TEAM 107

vii


November 2015

A P P E N D I C E S

A. WALKING AND CYCLING ASSESSMENT

B. MEASURES FOR SUCCESS

C. OPTION ASSESSMENT REPORT

D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLE

E. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

F. RISK REGISTERS

G. PROJECT PROGRAMME

H. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

I. STAKEHOKDER ACTION PLAN

J. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL REPORT

K. LOCAL MODEL VALIDATION REPORT

L. TRAFFIC FORECASTING REPORT

M. LETTERS OF SUPPORT

N. FUNDING STATEMENT

O. ENTERPRISE ISLAND

1

Ipswich Wet Dock Crossing WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Suffolk County Council Project No 3514243B-PTL November 2015

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1.1 Ipswich is the county town of Suffolk, and a key regional centre in the East of England.

1.1.2 The Department for Transport has provided the funding to investigate a new road crossing near to the wet dock in Ipswich and Suffolk County Council and the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership are submitting this compelling business case to Government for funding.

1.1.3 The scheme has two intended outcomes which will improve Ipswich

Transport Improvements: –

relieve existing traffic congestion on east – west routes in the Ipswich area and on the A14

provide new routes and accesses for all road users

Economic Regeneration: –

enable the development of the Island Site

regenerate land near the Star Lane gyratory

1.1.4 The transformation of the Island Site into Enterprise Island will stimulate regeneration in the surrounding area, providing a concentrated area of new high value employment, residential and leisure development on land that is currently of low value.

1.1.5 The preferred option will achieve this by providing a bridge to the south of the island to connect the two banks of the river, a smaller access bridge between the west bank and the island, and a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the lock.

1.1.6 Key routes in Ipswich will see a 26% reduction in journey times during the PM peak and there will be a 5% reduction in journey times on the A14 across the Orwell Bridge.

1.1.7 The scheme will cost £81.1 million at 2015 prices, provides £524 million of benefits giving a benefit to cost ratio of 5.73 which means that every £1 invested in the scheme gives direct benefits of £5.73. This represents a very high value for money scheme.

1.1.8 A new crossing will provide wider benefits to the economy amounting to £6.5 billion over the 60 year life of the scheme.

1.1.9 If funding is secured for the project the preferred option could be constructed in 2020.

2


2 INTRODUCTION

2.1.1 The campaign for an Ipswich wet dock crossing was re-launched in 2014 by Ben Gummer, MP for Ipswich, supported by a wider group of stakeholders including New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership, Suffolk County Council, Ipswich Borough Council, Associated British Ports, University Campus Suffolk and Suffolk Chamber of Commerce.

2.2 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE AND CONTENT

2.2.1 This document has been prepared using the agreed standards and format for business cases, as set out in ‘The Transport Business Cases’, Department for Transport (DfT), January 2013. WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff has prepared this business case on behalf the scheme promoters: Suffolk County Council and New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership with input from a broad range of stakeholders.

2.2.2 The next chapter sets the scene for the project and is followed by a chapter for each of the five cases in the five-case business case model:

The Strategic Case: setting out the strategic and policy context, the case for change, and the supporting investment objectives of the scheme

The Economic Case: demonstrating that the scheme delivers optimal value for money as well as being the most economically advantageous investment option for achieving the supporting objectives

The Commercial Case: confirming that the scheme is commercially viable, in terms of structure, content and nature of the proposed investment deal

The Financial Case: outlining the scheme’s affordability and funding arrangements over the lifespan of the project

The Management Case: confirming that the scheme is deliverable and can be achieved within the bounds of cost, time and quality constraints

2.2.3 This document identifies the substantial wider economic benefits of a wet dock crossing and that clearly act as a transformative catalyst to regeneration in Ipswich. The focus of the investment is therefore much more than a transport scheme.

3


3 SETTING THE SCENE

3.1.1 Economic Regeneration In the DfT’s ‘Understanding and Valuing the Impacts of Transport Investment’ – Progress Report (December 2014); the need for an understanding of the specific economic context in which the transport scheme under consideration will effect change is recommended; as a means to both support the scene setting for the scheme, and also to set out the analytical programme to support scheme development. The following section is intended to achieve this.

3.1.2 The Wet Dock Crossing scheme has two intended outcomes which will make the change from the existing economic baseline to the desired economic future;

Transport Outcomes: – To relieve existing traffic congestion and provide new routes and access

To catalyse and drive Economic Regeneration: – To provide the catalyst for a major regeneration of Central Ipswich

3.1.3 Each outcome could potentially be achieved by a number of different means, but the preferred scheme has been designed to deliver both outcomes with greatest probability of success.

3.1.4 The regeneration of the Island Site, surrounding Waterfront and southern Town Centre areas is aimed at providing a concentrated area of new employment, residential and leisure on land that is currently of low value. It is intended to take advantage of the existing economic geography and transport assets in Ipswich to create in the long term a sustainable self-regenerating area; achieved by bringing a higher density of employment and residential accommodation that will link the existing lower density residential areas to the east and west.

3.1.5 The targeting of the new employment at knowledge, creative and digital industries both builds on what currently exists in Ipswich and follows the trajectory of the wider UK economy. This type of employment needs higher density urban locations in close proximity to academia, leisure and public transport connections to flourish due to the preferences of the employers and employees in this sector. It is unlikely that such a development in a peripheral out of town location would be successful.

3.1.6 Although not a rational economic factor, the water front setting directly connected to the Town Centre, will create higher value for both employment and residential development when built out to sufficient size that it becomes a definable and recognised area: recognised regionally and nationally as a discrete geography within Ipswich and a destination in its own right, synonymous with the knowledge economy.

3.1.7 Taken together these factors will result in regeneration having the following economic outcomes:

Create new employment of high value

Create uplifted land values (both employment and residential)

Accelerate employment agglomeration through dynamic clustering

Expand the tourist and leisure economies by drawing more people into Central Ipswich.

Increase the Tax Base in Ipswich through income tax, corporation tax, stamp duty and VAT

Increased Gross Value Added (GVA) - through both pure productivity gains and employment

4


3.1.8 These benefits equate to over £185 million of benefits per year or almost £6.5 billion over the 60 year appraisal period.

3.1.9 The regeneration requires public sector investment in transport infrastructure (the preferred option presented in the Outline Business Case) to ensure that regeneration outcomes listed above have the maximum probability of being realised by:

removing existing congestion on the roads surrounding the main development sites

providing new direct access to the Island Site, and

improving cross Ipswich connectivity by linking residential areas to the east and west of Ipswich.

3.1.10 Significant secondary benefits are the relief given to the A14, including the Orwell Bridge and the resilience to the wider network when either the A14 or Star Lane Gyratory is closed or there incidents or reduced capacity.

3.1.11 The Transport Outcomes will be measured predominately in user benefits which are largely independent of the very large regeneration benefits listed above. WebTAG limits regeneration and development benefits to land that could not be developed without the proposed scheme and agglomeration to existing employment. The following are examples of very large economic benefits which are likely to accrue from the scheme but are not currently quantifiable using WebTAG methodology:

A. Dependent development is not being claimed in the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the Economic Case as it can’t be proven that development could not take place without the scheme. In reality the delivery of the scheme will both stimulate development and ensure that it economic potential is maximised

B. Regeneration effects in the BCR have been limited to the Island Site as it is the only area where direct transport access is the limiting factor. However the wider regeneration is more likely to occur and its value maximised through the delivery of the scheme.

C. Agglomeration effects in the BCR are limited to existing employment in Ipswich, not new or uplifted employment (i.e. the benefits of additional higher paid employment). In reality, the creation of high value employment will ripple out to the existing workforce, by either increasing wages in through productivity gains, or by changing employers.

LIMITATIONS OF CONVENTIONAL WEBTAG ECONOMIC APPRAISAL

3.1.12 Put simply, some of the factors that are important economic measures of success to people, Ipswich and HM Treasure are beyond the scope of WebTAG; or are not directly attributable to Transport Infrastructure Investment

3.1.13 WebTAG looks at wider economic benefits that would definitely not accrue without the scheme in place; however crucially it will be the certainty of change delivered by the new Transport Infrastructure that is most likely to lock in the economic benefit of the regeneration. Although it is theoretically possible that over time the infrastructure would be delivered and the regeneration happen, such is the complexity of the design and planning required to facilitate the infrastructure delivery, and the scale of initial upfront capital investment required, it is unlikely that the Local Authorities and the private sector could achieve the same outcomes as the transformational effects of the preferred option.

5


3.1.14 The forecast economic outcomes of the regeneration listed in 2.1.7 has been assessed an reported in the Economic Case as other benefits (4.6), but they are fundamental to the Business Case of the scheme, despite the fact that a limited number of them can be used in calculating an adjusted BCR for the scheme.

3.1.15 Many of the non-WebTAG benefits will be realised through behavioural change; such as the economic uplift generated by removing traffic that doesn’t need to be in the Town Centre. Freed up capacity in the Town Centre will result in more people travelling into the centre to be economically active. Put simply, more journeys of economic importance to Ipswich’s economy will accrue.

3.1.16 The physical delivery of the scheme will also have a substantial psychological effect in attracting inward investment from the Private Sector, who will invest where it is easiest for capital to flow. This is a factor in what it often called ‘business confidence’ and in economics would be an increase in the propensity to invest.

3.1.17 While such measures are difficult to quantify absolutely they do demonstrably occur and will be at play, either directly or indirectly, in the overall economic success of the scheme.

6


3.2 IPSWICH AND ITS REGIONAL CONTEXT

3.2.1 Ipswich is the county town of Suffolk, and a key regional centre in the East of England.

3.2.2 It occupies a strategically significant position at the crossroads of the A12 and the A14 trunk roads. The A12 south of Ipswich connects the town and East Suffolk, including the Port of Felixstowe to London, the South East and beyond. The A14 is also a key part of the Strategic Road Network and is an internationally important route linking the Port of Felixstowe to the Midlands, the Northern Powerhouse, Wales and Ireland.

3.2.3 The A12 north of Ipswich is the strategic link to the national road network for Lowestoft and the whole of East Suffolk.

3.2.4 Greater London can be reached by car in an hour and fifteen minutes. Cambridge can be reached in an hour.

3.2.5 Ipswich is also an important rail interchange on the London to Norwich main line. Planned improvements to the Great Eastern Mainline will bring Ipswich within an hour of The City and 30 minutes from Norwich. Ipswich Railway Station also connects the mainline to:

the east-west line to Cambridge and Peterborough and then onto the East Coast Mainline;

the East Suffolk Line to Lowestoft; and

The Felixstowe line.

Figure 3-1: Highway and Railway Network

7


IPSWICH’S STRENGTHS

3.2.6 The town performs a regional role in delivering growth as a major employer and shopping and service centre. It is also a focus for regional transportation corridors.

3.2.7 Data from the Office of National Statistics showed that the East of England region was the third most productive region in the country in 2011, with a GVA of £113.7 billion. In 2013 the region contributed almost 9% of the total UK GVA, with an output of £130 billion.

3.2.8 In 2011 businesses in the region spent £3.6 billion on research and development, a 20% share of the total UK amount. This is the highest rate of business research and development expenditure of any English region or country of the UK.

3.2.9 Ipswich is developing; with a relatively new university, successful maritime, telecoms and financial industry. Finance, IT and business activities account for almost one quarter of the workforce, with a similar proportion for distribution, hotels and restaurants. The wider Ipswich area is host to BT's Global Research and Development Headquarters. The latter demonstrates the potential to develop high value technology led businesses in and around the town.

3.2.10 Investment in Ipswich, which is pivotal to the regional economy, will have clear wider benefits and have the potential to further boost the region’s fiscal contributions to the Exchequer.

PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN IPSWICH

3.2.11 Suffolk County Council has recently completed a £21 million major transport scheme in Ipswich which has delivered transport improvements for all modes. The scheme included rebuilding of the town’s two bus stations, the provision of real time information and bus priority. It also provided new and improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists in the local area. The scheme also included the introduction of an advanced urban traffic management and control system for the wider network.

3.2.12 In the past Ipswich has had significant investment in the Waterfront Quarter which includes the new University Campus Suffolk and Suffolk New College, a new further education college. This investment in education facilities will help to develop the workforce skills necessary to take advantage of the economic opportunities that the proposed scheme will facilitate.

IPSWICH WATERFRONT

3.2.13 Historically, the Waterfront area has been an important maritime industrial centre for the region. The dock was in operation as early as the 8

th Century and the town grew

up around the trade and maritime markets.

8


Figure 3-2: Key locations

3.2.14 The Waterfront area went through an industrial transformation in the 19th Century. A

new channel (the New Cut) was built to take the River Orwell inside its natural alignment. A man-made island was constructed between the new cut and the natural river alignment.

3.2.15 A lock at the southern end of the Island Site creates one of the largest enclosed wet docks in the UK.

3.2.16 Now, the Ipswich Waterfront area is a fantastic place for education, work, and to socialise and enjoy leisure activities.

3.2.17 The wet dock is now used predominately for leisure craft with Ipswich Haven Marina (owned by Associated British Ports) and Neptune Marina providing Five Gold Anchor-rated fully equipped facilities.

3.2.18 It is connected to the sea, the town, the Waterfront and the Mainline Railway Station (which is only a 10 minute walk away).

9


3.2.19 New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership has successfully secured Enterprise Zone status for a number of sites, following a theme of “Space to Innovate”. The Waterfront area, including some of the Island Site, has been included and this will assist with its regeneration.

3.2.20 Ipswich town centre and much of the Waterfront has been granted Assisted Area status, allowing local businesses to bid for additional funding and tax breaks to create jobs, invest in new premises or machinery and grow.

Figure 3-3: Photos of the Marina

3.2.21 University Campus Suffolk’s architecturally significant building faces onto the Wet Dock and is the visage for the relatively new and successful University in Ipswich.

10


Figure 3-4: Photo of University Campus Suffolk

IPSWICH PORT

3.2.22 The port of Ipswich is situated at the head of the River Orwell, 12 miles from the open sea. It is only a short sailing time from the North Sea Shipping Lanes.

3.2.23 The 275 acre port has an active railway line and so can offer freight connectivity between the railway, the Strategic Road Network and the North Sea Shipping Lanes.

3.2.24 The port handles around 2 million tonnes each year of:

Dry Bulks (aggregates, grain, animal feed, fertilisers, cement and bricks)

Forest products (timber products from Scandinavia and the Baltic States)

Containers and General Cargo

3.2.25 The port offers both ‘roll on roll off’ (RORO) and ‘lift on lift off’ (LOLO) facilities.

11


Figure 3-5: Map of port facilities

ADASTRAL PARK

3.2.26 Adastral Park is British Telecom’s global research and development centre, one of the world’s most pioneering centres of technology and telecommunications. It is located in Martlesham, to the east of Ipswich.

3.2.27 The site is also home to Innovation Martlesham: an established cluster of over 70 high-tech Information Communications Technology (ICT) companies and thriving hub for like-minded individuals sharing knowledge and expertise. There is a ‘collaborative ecosystem’ for technology companies, which:

hosts networking opportunities and events

has a business incubator to nurture technology companies in their early stages and

hosts a Business Club to support the demand from businesses

3.2.28 The site is home to smaller, local Information Communications Technology companies, as well as many of the world’s best known, such as:

3M, Acer, Cisco, Intel, Nokia, O2, Huawei

12


4 STRATEGIC CASE

4.1 BUSINESS STRATEGY

4.1.1 Suffolk County Council, the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership and the Department for Transport have worked together to create this Outline Business Case.

NEW ANGLIA LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP

4.1.2 The New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership was established by Government in 2010 and represents one of the fastest growing regions in the country, with 1.6 million people and around 55,000 businesses.

4.1.3 It is a business-led collaboration between the private, public and education sectors across Norfolk and Suffolk with an ambition to drive economic growth and transform the local economy into a global centre for talent and innovation.

4.1.4 It is responsible for shaping the economic landscape for businesses in Suffolk and Norfolk.

SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL

4.1.5 Suffolk County Council is the Local Highway Authority for Suffolk of which Ipswich is the county town. It is responsible for the roads and highway infrastructure in Ipswich. Through strong financial management, innovation, local leadership and market development, it provides or enables the provision of good-quality services for Suffolk people.

4.1.6 Suffolk County Council and the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership have come together with shared vision and aims to promote this Business Case.

4.1.7 DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT

4.1.8 Central Government understands that there is a need for Public Sector investment in Ipswich to help achieve regional growth and productivity targets. The Department for Transport has provided the funding to investigate a Wet Dock Crossing in recognition that the concept and aims of the scheme aligns with national policies.

KIER AND WSP | PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

4.1.9 Kier and WSP | Parsons Brinkerhoff, as consultants to Suffolk County Council, have undertaken the transport and economic modelling, design and professional services to support the business case.

13


4.2 STRATEGIC AIMS

NEW ANGLIA LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP

4.2.1 New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership aims to drive growth and enterprise across Norfolk and Suffolk with ambitious growth plans to transform the local economy into a global centre for talent and innovation.

4.2.2 The aims for 2026 in its The Strategic Economic Plan are for more:

jobs

businesses and

homes.

4.2.3 The aims in its Growth Deal are:

to boost skills

drive innovation, and

improve transport and infrastructure.

4.2.4 The aims in its City Deal for Ipswich is to:

unlock higher skilled jobs and

support growth in Innovative businesses.

SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL

4.2.5 Suffolk County Council have five County Wide priorities:

Raise educational attainment and skill levels

increase economic growth in existing areas and grow biotechnology; energy; food, drink and agriculture; ICT and tourism

Maintain roads and develop Suffolk’s infrastructure

Support those most vulnerable in our communities

Empower local communities

14


4.2.6 These can be summarised in four key aims for this project, as shown in the figure below.

Figure 4-1: Four Key Aims

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT

4.2.7 These are the Department for Transports priorities which relate to road investment projects:

tackling congestion

continuing to improve road safety

encouraging sustainable local travel

promoting lower carbon transport, such as walking and cycling as well as introducing more environmentally-friendly buses and trains.

15


4.3 PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED

4.3.1 This section identifies several problems facing Ipswich; some are transport related while others are concerned with regeneration.

4.3.2 The transport problems are:

congestion in the Ipswich area

congestion on the A14 Orwell Bridge and junctions on the Ipswich Bypass

4.3.3 The regeneration problems are:

stalled development around the Star Lane gyratory

limited and poor quality access to the Island Site

4.3.4 Table 4-1 summarises the problems identified grouped into three broad themes. They align with the three categories of strategic and economic impacts identified in the DfT’s Understanding and Valuing the Impacts of Transport Investment report (December 2014).

User Benefits Significant and severe congestion in the area

Poor walking and cycling routes between the Waterfront and the town.

Limited east/west routes through Ipswich.

Investment and Employment Effects

Pockets of deprivation in some of the disadvantaged and physically more run down areas of the town

Lack of infrastructure provision in Ipswich over recent years, while growth continues.

Poor connectivity reduces the choice in accessing education and learning (school, college, or work-based learning such as an apprenticeship)

Stalled developments, which could provide high quality housing and employment sites.

Currently unviable development on the Island Site

Poor urban realm and townscape in Star Lane Gyratory

Productivity and Agglomeration

Traffic congestion and delay affecting growth of the town

Segregation of the Town Centre with the Waterfront reducing the quality of development in the area

Current island site unable to capitalise on the region’s and wider Ipswich area strengths in areas such as agri-tech, life sciences, energy, Information Communications & Technology and creative digital

Table 4-1: Issues

4.3.5 The issues in the table above are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

16


TRANSPORT - CONGESTION IN IPSWICH

4.3.6 Ipswich is a town built around the river and much if its heritage comes from the River Orwell. However, only the Orwell Bridge (A14) crosses the river between Stoke Bridge (which is to the south of Ipswich Town Centre, immediately northwest of the Island Site) and the mouth of the river at Felixstowe.

4.3.7 People wishing to travel east-west across the town have only three routes:

Valley Road / Colchester Road (north of the town)

Crown Street (north of Central Ipswich)

Star Lane / College Street (south of Central Ipswich)

Figure 4-2: East-West Routes in Ipswich

4.3.8 The following map shows the average speed of traffic around Ipswich during the off peak period (taken from 2015 traffic-master data). It clearly shows that the three routes also suffer from congestion during the off peak periods, with serious delays and queuing affecting movements within the town.

17


Figure 4-3: Average Speed of Traffic in Ipswich during Off-peak Period

4.3.9 As highlighted in Suffolk County Council’s Local Transport Plan 2011-2031, the former East of England Development Agency estimated that by 2021 congestion would cost the Ipswich economy about £17million per year.

4.3.10 The congestion is also a causing a health problem. Ipswich AQMA No. 3 covers an area encompassing the junction of Grimwade Street with St. Helen’s Street, the Star Lane gyratory system including Fore Street, Salthouse Street, Key Street, College Street, Bridge Street, Foundation Street and Slade Street. This area has been designated as an AQMA because of higher than desired levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), as a direct result of road transport emissions in the area.

18


TRANSPORT - CONGESTION ON THE A14

MAINLINE CONGESTION

4.3.11 The A14 runs around the west and south of Ipswich. It is critical to the economic fortunes of the East of England, providing connectivity, via the largest container port in the UK at Felixstowe, between the markets in the Midlands and Southeast and Europe and the rest of world. For this reason the A14 is identified as part of the European TEN-T Network.

4.3.12 The Port of Felixstowe handles more than 3.7million TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units) and welcomes over 3,000 ships each year, including the largest container vessels afloat today. Crucially, the Port provides some of the deepest water close to the open sea of any European port. Around 30 shipping lines operate from Felixstowe, offering approximately 90 services to and from 400 ports around the world.

4.3.13 The Port therefore plays a pivotal role in keeping the UK’s trade moving, and delivers real benefits to customers, the community and the industry. It’s connectivity to distribution hubs in the Midlands and elsewhere in the UK relies heavily on the A14 - disruptions therefore have a significant effect on national productivity. Thus resilience in the supporting highway network is crucial for UK PLC.

4.3.14 The Orwell Bridge is one of the most congested parts of the Strategic Road Network and this problem is predicted to get worse. The Department for Transport report titled “Action for Roads” shows the Orwell Bridge suffers from “Severe Congestion”, which is the most severe category.

Figure 4-4: Orwell Bridge

19


4.3.15 The following chart, taken from the Highways England Hatris Website, shows that the average speed on the mainline drops significantly during the peak periods.

Figure 4-5: Average speed of traffic over the Orwell Bridge

4.3.16 This is due to the high levels of demand which, because this section of the A14 is so close to the Port of Felixstowe, is high throughout the day. (note that this data is averaged for weekdays over the month of April 2015).

Figure 4-6: Eastbound traffic over the Orwell Bridge

4.3.17 The Highways Agency’s Felixstowe to Midlands Route Strategy Evidence Report (2014) noted that “a number of links are also routinely congested, including … the A14 Orwell Bridge near Ipswich. These sections are expected to experience increased traffic demand in the future.” (see section 4.7.6). Given the importance of Felixstowe to the regional and UK economy, congestion on the A14 is a significant problem.

4.3.18 The A14 is also one of the least resilient, without an alternative strategic route. When high winds, road works or road collisions occasionally shut the Orwell Bridge, traffic on the A14 is re-routed through Ipswich. This includes a large number of heavy vehicles which has a major impact on the town. Traffic crawls along the available routes through the town resulting in temporary detrimental noise and air quality problems.

4.3.19 This problem is highlighted in the business consultation conducted by Suffolk Chamber of Commerce and University Campus Suffolk (Appendix I), with many respondents suggesting that the lack of a proper alternative to the Orwell Bridge causes unacceptable delays during the periods of its closure.

54565860626466

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

0

1000

2000

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

20


JUNCTION CONGESTION

4.3.20 The Copdock Interchange is a key junction to the A14 route and to the A12 between Ipswich and London.

4.3.21 The Highways Agency’s Felixstowe to Midlands Route Strategy Evidence Report (2014) noted that the Copdock interchange “remains a key junction along the route”. It is shown in the ‘schedule of challenges and opportunities’ table as having evidence available to suggest that capacity improvements are required.

4.3.22 The Copdock Interchange remains a top priority for the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce and Suffolk County Council and is one of the key improvements that the county council will be working with the Highways Agency to achieve

4.3.23 The following map shows the average speed of traffic around the Orwell Bridge during the PM peak period (taken from 2015 traffic-master data). It confirms that the crossing and nearby junctions suffer from congestion during the peak periods.

Figure 4-7: Average Speed of Traffic on Orwell Bridge (PM Peak Period) –miles per hour

21


REGENERATION - STALLED DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE STAR LANE GYRATORY

4.3.24 The entire Waterfront area is currently severed from the Town Centre by the Star Lane Gyratory – a principal east-west traffic artery through the town.

4.3.25 The dual-carriageway two-lane road system, with a large expanse of unattractive and undeveloped land in-between the two carriageways, is regularly congested with stationary local and heavy goods traffic.

4.3.26 This congestion causes severance between the Waterfront and the Town Centre, despite some high quality routes into the town on the other side of the gyratory (such as St Peter’s Street and St. Nicholas Street).

Figure 4-8: Star Lane as a barrier Figure 4-9: St Peter’s Street - the gateway to Ipswich Town Centre

22


4.3.27 A pedestrian and cycling assessment was carried out for southern Ipswich (Appendix A) using Walking Route Audit Tool, Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 Design Guidance and the Handbook for cycle-friendly design, SUSTRANS (2014). It shows that the Star Lane Gyratory scores very poorly for pedestrian and cyclist comfort safety, attractiveness, directness and coherence. As such, the network results in reduced pedestrian and cycle usage.

Figure 4-10: Pedestrian assessment

4.3.1 There is a significant amount of land along the Star Lane gyratory that in recent times, even though it has significant potential, has not been developed, despite the obvious benefits which come from its proximity to the town centre, the Waterfront and University Campus Suffolk.

4.3.2 In October 2015, Suffolk Chamber of Commerce and University Campus Suffolk conducted a business consultation to better understand the business community’s view on Ipswich. More than half the respondents (67%) rated traffic problems as being very significant or significant to their operations. Only 9% of the businesses surveyed said they were rarely or never affected by problems.

4.3.3 The report details the concerns of the participating businesses with the most significant issue raised regarding the amount of time spent in traffic going into and around the town.

4.3.4 The congestion and severance on the Star Lane Gyratory has contributed to stalled and abandoned developments. .

23


4.3.6 Figure 3-11 shows the developable land in the regeneration area and highlights those sites which could be supported by this project.

4.3.7 Unless the issues discussed previously in this chapter are addressed, these stalled development sites will be unable to form a linked self-sustaining regeneration of the wider area from the Town Centre down both sides of the wet dock and the River Orwell.

Figure 4-11 Development land in the regeneration area

24


REGENERATION - LIMITED AND POOR QUALITY ACCESS TO THE ISLAND SITE

4.3.8 The Island Site is strategically important for the wider regeneration proposals. The landowner, Associated British Ports (ABP) supports the Ipswich Vision to redevelop the site as an “Enterprise Island", responding to the high demand for further high quality, business, office and housing developments and cultural space in the centre of the town.

Figure 4-12: Photo of Island Site from Above

4.3.9 ‘Enterprise Island’ would provide space for high-quality development in the Waterfront area. The development would help the area become a centre for excellence in high-tech, research-led goods and services, attracting new businesses, jobs and investment that will help this area to flourish and reach its full potential.

4.3.10 University Campus Suffolk’s development of their syllabus to focus on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and ICT (Information, Communications, Technology) will provide local people with the skills to feed employers in the digital economy. Part of the Island Site will house incubation units for fledgling start-ups and provide a link between academia and the major digital employers already located in Ipswich (such as British Telecom, Intel, Cisco Systems, Nokia and Huawei Technologies).

4.3.11 It will also provide facilities for larger and more mature companies and will seek to attract companies who would find greater connections to British Telecom, University Campus Suffolk and Cambridge University beneficial.

25


4.3.12 Ipswich has a significant number of businesses in the insurance sector which require significant downstream services (IT and professional services). ‘Enterprise Island’ would provide the kind of exciting, thriving and prosperous location for this kind of business to flourish.

4.3.13 Currently, there is a vehicle and pedestrian access to the north of the site. This is constrained; it does not permit all movements and is suitable for only a lightly trafficked industrial area. It is off-putting to pedestrians and unsuitable for other higher value developments. Further development is also constrained by the road capacity in the area.

4.3.14 There is also a private pedestrian and vehicle access to the south of the site; however this is over the Prince Philip Lock. Authorised pedestrians can either walk over the lock gates, or use the small footpath on the turning bridge. Vehicles can only use the swing bridge which allows traffic to run in a single direction. The swing bridge is often closed to vehicles to facilitate the regular boat traffic.

4.3.15 These private means of access are not adequate to support the needed redevelopment and transformative regeneration in the area.

Figure 4-13: Prince Philip Lock

4.3.16 Overall the existing connectivity is simply inadequate to provide safe and suitable access to the kind of high value development expected of ‘Enterprise Island’.

4.3.17 There are also significant infrastructure costs associated with any re-development of the island site, which means that higher value development will be necessary to recoup those costs.

The site was created in the 19th Century by reclaiming land from the meandering river.

Ground conditions are therefore challenging, increasing the likely cost of development earthworks.

The Island Site is also within a flood zone despite the Environment Agency’s new Tidal Barrier. The planning authority and EA are likely to require flood mitigation should this facility fail. This will require the raising of development platforms or building entrances and potentially floodable ground floor uses, along with provision for means of escape should flooding occur. These requirements will add further to development cost.

The current use of the site within a single ownership has led to the significant usage of private utility networks. This would not be suitable for a multiple occupiers, so it is likely that significant utilities upgrade costs will be required.

This historic site has been home to various industrial uses over the years and there is a high likelihood of contamination. Contamination has been found within the river sediments and also in the west bank. Any new development will have to remedy this prior to development.

26


The vision for ‘Enterprise Island’ is to attract tenants who will want to occupy architecturally stunning buildings. There will be additional cost to design and construct this type of development.

4.3.18 Piecemeal development of the site would not be viable, because upfront infrastructure costs would not be covered by the lower value development types which could currently be delivered. By developing the site as a whole using a high quality, plan-driven approach that integrates it into the town allows greater development value to be realised. This will ensure that the overall scheme is economically viable.

27


PROBLEMS SUMMARY

4.3.19 Ipswich is key to providing regional growth, however there are several major transport infrastructure issues constraining Ipswich from realising its economic potential:

congestion and delays in Ipswich and on the A14(T)

poor connectivity between the town and the Waterfront and between east and west Ipswich

limited and poor quality access to the Island Site.

4.3.20 The reduction in manufacturing industry in Ipswich over many years has resulted in many sites in the Town Centre and fronting the River Orwell becoming vacant or having a relatively low economic output per hectare.

4.3.21 New employment and retail sites have been developed outside the town centre as a result of the investment in highway infrastructure and increased car ownership since the 1960’s. Similar to many post-industrial economic geographies in the UK, Ipswich has moved away from concentrations of economic activity in high density town centres sites with manufacturing and merchant trading located along the nearby water frontage, to more widely dispersed industrial and commercial sites linked by the road network.

4.3.22 The residential population in the town centre has reduced and land around the Star Lane area has become vacant and is under used.

4.3.23 The high value, post-industrial sector of the economy in the UK is based on the concentration and agglomeration of high tech industries and their use and interaction with knowledge, research and data provided by companies and academia. Such industries require a number of elements to be in place to be firstly attracted into area, and then grow into mature self-sustaining concentrations of economic activity.

4.3.24 Ipswich already has a number of these elements present in the regeneration area from the existing development around the Wet Dock; however the adjacent land is neither attractive nor easily accessible for the type of development that would provide the built environment.

4.3.25 Our vision for a wet dock crossing is that it will be the catalyst for a transformational change in Ipswich, addressing the key problems that are currently preventing Ipswich realising its economic potential.

4.3.26 Sites between the Town Centre and the Waterfront could come forward in isolation for redevelopment. However they all share the same main obstacle: their access and connectivity. The road network is congested and off putting to development. It doesn’t allow for sites to be well connected to the wider transport network in and around Ipswich.

4.3.27 Capacity in the existing transport network has been exhausted and the traffic dominated streets in the area are an obstacle to movement. They actively discourage people from walking and cycling to and from the redevelopment sites.

4.3.28 A new wet dock crossing could address all of these issues to allow the whole area to be redeveloped and maximise the productive use of the available brownfield land.

28


4.4 IMPACT OF NOT CHANGING

4.4.1 If the problems identified in the previous section are left unaddressed it is likely that any future growth and development would be constrained; as it has been in recent years.

4.4.2 There would be some development realised in the future. The Waterfront area is growing and is likely to continue to be a magnet for leisure & culture. Other parts of the town would also see some new businesses and developments.

4.4.3 However, without a wet dock crossing, development would be unlikely to include highly skilled employment opportunities and there would be fewer residents being trained to obtain the higher skilled jobs.

4.4.4 Without a wet dock crossing Ipswich will continue to struggle to:

take advantage of its position relative to London, Cambridge and, on its doorstep, BT’s national research centre at Adastral Park, Martlesham.

offer enough commercial space for the high tech sector

co-ordinate development opportunities.

4.4.5 The traffic congestion in the town centre and surrounding roads will get worse.

Journey times will increase deterring people from driving into Ipswich for work and shopping

Buses will also take longer to drive into Ipswich, making them less attractive and more costly

Noise and air quality around the queuing traffic will deteriorate. The health of residents in Ipswich will suffer and this will add further cost to the public purse

4.4.6 Ipswich has seen a trend for a decline in town centre retailing and growth of out of town shopping areas (with John Lewis opening an out of town store in 2010, Next pulling out of the town centre but leaving its two out of town stores and Marks and Spenser’s providing an out of town food store). High levels of congestion will encourage this trend to continue as shoppers are dissuaded from driving near to the Town Centre.

4.4.7 Congestion would continue to discourage investors and new business from coming to the town and business will move away. Productivity in the town will fall and its economy will take a downturn. Ipswich will require more public money to keep going.

29


4.5 SUPPORT FOR CHANGE - (INTERNAL DRIVERS)

BUSINESS CONSULTATION

4.5.1 In October 2015, Suffolk Chamber of Commerce and University Campus Suffolk, in partnership with the project team, conducted a business consultation to gauge the impact current constraints on traffic movement across the town have on their business operations.

4.5.2 More than half the respondents (67%) rated traffic problems as being very significant or significant to their operations. Only 9% of the businesses surveyed said they were rarely or never affected by problems.

4.5.3 Nearly 60% of the respondents suggested that a new river crossing would bring a very significant or significant benefit to their business.

4.5.4 Respondents were also asked to estimate the impact of a new river crossing to their turnover and employment. On average across all the business we asked, the bridge would expect to increase turnover by 19%.

4.5.5 The results show how much of an affect the congestion is having on local businesses. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate that congestion is a reason why businesses may not be investing in Ipswich.

4.5.6 Many businesses expressed a clear desire to be involved in ‘Enterprise Island’.

30


4.6 POLICY FIT – (EXTERNAL DRIVERS)

A wet dock crossing aligns with local, sub-national and central government policies. These policies fit within the framework in HM Treasury’s document Fixing the Foundations: Creating a more prosperous nation

1 published in July 2015 and the drive to increase growth in the UK.

1https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443898/Productivity_Plan_we

b.pdf

Figure 4-14: Policy Fit Graphic

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443898/Productivity_Plan_web.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443898/Productivity_Plan_web.pdf

31


CENTRAL GOVERNMENT POLICY CONTEXT

DOOR TO DOOR

4.6.1 Door to Door2, the Department for Transport’s strategy for a more integrated and

sustainable transport system (published in 2013), sets out a vision for a society where it is as seamless and convenient to make door-to-door journeys using sustainable means as it is to do so by car – including public transport, including rail, cycling and walking. This is essential to reduce carbon emissions, reduce congestion and encourage healthy travel choices.

4.6.2 The strategy recognises that sustainable transport links need to be attractive on all these measures for the entire journey.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

4.6.3 The National Planning Policy Framework3 (NPPF), released by the Department for

Communities and Local Government in 2012, sets out the Government’s overarching planning policies for England. It states that the planning system should “deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs”.

4.6.4 It states that encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce road traffic and congestion and that development should seek to achieve safe and suitable access to the developments.

NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENT FOR NATIONAL NETWORKS

4.6.5 The National Policy Statement for National Networks4, published in 2014, is part of a

suite of Government National Policy Statements (NPS) which are intended to be used to expedite the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects.

4.6.6 The NPS expects opportunities to deliver environmental and social benefits alongside transport schemes. It also seeks to “reconnect habitats and ecosystems, enhance the settings of historic and cultural heritage features, respect and enhance landscape character….and address areas of poor air quality”.

4.6.7 Early advice from the Special Advisers Office, Department for Transport suggests that a wet dock crossing can be classed as a nationally significant infrastructure project. This is because it:

provides major national and regional transport benefits

enables the redevelopment of more than 40,000m2 of commercial and residential

development

is a catalyst to transformative regeneration in Ipswich

2 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/142539/door-to-door-

strategy.pdf 3 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

4 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387222/npsnn-print.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/142539/door-to-door-strategy.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/142539/door-to-door-strategy.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387222/npsnn-print.pdf

32


4.6.8 Suffolk County Council intend to apply for a direction from the Secretary of State for Transport alongside the submission of this business case.

SUB-NATIONAL POLICY CONTEXT

NEW ANGLIA STRATEGIC ECONOMIC PLAN

4.6.9 New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership’s Strategic Economic Plan5 (SEP) sets

challenging economic development targets for Suffolk and Norfolk:

95,000 more jobs – which is 50% higher than forecast based on current trends

10,000 new businesses – which is more than double previous trends

117,000 new homes – which is 30% higher than previous delivery

Increased productivity– increasing Gross Value Added (GVA) from £36,000 to £40,000

4.6.10 New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership plans to achieve this growth by capitalising on the region’s global strengths in areas such as agri-tech, life sciences, energy, ICT and creative digital, by providing the education and support needed to create higher skilled jobs and higher wages.

4.6.11 The Strategic Economic Plan states that “a new bridge, provided as part of the re-development of the wet dock site will open up a significant area of the development” and highlights the importance of the Island site (p56).

GREATER IPSWICH CITY DEAL

Published in October 2014 the Greater Ipswich City Deal[1]

is an economic deal between local authorities and business groups in Ipswich. The City Deal helps local partners deliver the growth set out in the Strategic Economic Plan. This will be done by:

Supporting 3,500 young people into work in the Greater Ipswich area

Increasing local private and public investment in skills by at least £10 million

Creating 5,000 new apprenticeships by 2019

Creating 3,000 additional high value jobs and 400 new businesses across Suffolk and Norfolk

5 http://www.newanglia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/New-Anglia-Strategic-Economic-Plan-V2.pdf

[1]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253854/Greater_Ipswich_De

al_Document_WEB_VERSION_301029.pdf

http://www.newanglia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/New-Anglia-Strategic-Economic-Plan-V2.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253854/Greater_Ipswich_Deal_Document_WEB_VERSION_301029.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253854/Greater_Ipswich_Deal_Document_WEB_VERSION_301029.pdf

33


NEW ANGLIA GROWTH DEAL

4.6.12 In January 2015 the New Anglia LEP secured £48.5m to boost the region’s skills, improve transport and infrastructure, drive innovation and target support to help small businesses grow.

[2]

4.6.13 The funds will deliver up to 2,000 new jobs and 750 homes by 2021, with the potential to unlock a further £120m in public and private sector investment. The deal includes a:

£6m skills programme: to invest in new facilities, colleges, further and higher education, training and apprenticeships from 2018 and

£1.75m investment in the Ipswich Waterfront Innovation Centre: to create new laboratories, first-class exhibition space and an enterprise incubation centre at University Campus Suffolk. With a focus on innovation, Communications and Technology sector (ICT) and Science Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) facilities

NEW ANGLIA SKILLS MANIFESTO

4.6.14 New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership’s Skills Manifesto6 sets out a route map for

skills and training to 2020. It aims to establish New Anglia as the home for world businesses in the competitive global marketplace by:

Creating 65,000 new apprenticeships

Creating 65,000 additional private sector jobs

Providing the support to create higher skilled workers

LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICY CONTEXT

SUFFOLK GROWTH STRATEGY

4.6.15 Suffolk County Council’s Suffolk Growth Strategy7 defines the county’s ambitions for

business growth and added economic value. Ipswich is highlighted as a key principal economic growth location, and tasked to:

Strengthen as a thriving urban centre with improved retail and office offers

Focus on the ICT (Information, Communications, Technology) sector, making use of the businesses in Adastral Park (such as British Telecom, Intel, Cisco)

8

Build a stronger partnership with University Campus Suffolk to support enterprise and innovation in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and ICT sectors; and to provide the local high skilled labour force

[2]

http://www.newanglia.co.uk/2015/01/29/norfolk-and-suffolk-awarded-50m-in-government-growth-deal-for-aviation-engineering-innovation/

6 http://newanglia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/New-Anglia-Skills-Manifesto-Pt1-Print-copy-PDF.pdf

7 http://www.suffolkcoastal.gov.uk/assets/Documents/Council/Policies/SuffolkGrowthStrategy.pdf

8 Innovation Martlesham is a cluster of high-tech ICT companies based at the Adastral Park site just to the

east of Ipswich, which is also home to BT’s Global Research and Development Headquarters.



http://newanglia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/New-Anglia-Skills-Manifesto-Pt1-Print-copy-PDF.pdf

http://www.suffolkcoastal.gov.uk/assets/Documents/Council/Policies/SuffolkGrowthStrategy.pdf

34


SUFFOLK LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN

4.6.16 Suffolk County Council’s third Suffolk Local Transport Plan9 (LTP) aims to support

community ambitions and to aid sustainable economic recovery and growth by:

Maintaining (and in the future improving) the transport networks

Tackling congestion

Improving access to jobs and markets

Encouraging a shift to more sustainable travel patterns

4.6.17 By 2031, Suffolk’s population is expected to grow by 27% which will need equivalent growth in the economy, jobs and housing. This will have a major transport impacts which will require infrastructure investment.

4.6.18 The plan states that “the waterfront and town centre areas remain priorities for development and regeneration” and supports the aspiration to “improve access to the island site”.

4.6.19 The plan also recognises the importance of getting access to education and learning with the wet dock crossing providing a catalyst for regeneration.

IPSWICH DEVELOPMENT PLAN

4.6.20 The Ipswich Borough Council Core Strategy and Policies: Development Plan10

– sets out the Council’s policies for future development of the town in the period up to 2027. It discusses the current problems in Ipswich and identifies how these might be addressed:

Use regeneration opportunities to address deprivation

Manage the additional travel demands that growth will generate and guide people to sustainable modes

Retaining and improving skills levels amongst the workforce

Ensuring that infrastructure provision keeps pace with growth

4.6.21 Policy number CS20 explicitly refers to the aspiration to tackle the congestion and environmental issues around the Star Lane Gyratory. It highlights the need for a major investment in new infrastructure to provide additional east-west capacity, potentially by building a wet dock crossing.

4.6.22 The plan is very clear in recognising the current limitations of developing the Island Site if access is not significantly improved.

9 http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/suffolk.gov.uk/Environment%20and%20Transport/Planning/2011-07-

06%20Suffolk%20Local%20Plan%20Part%201%20lr.pdf 10

https://www.ipswich.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Core_Strategy_Dec_11.pdf

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/suffolk.gov.uk/Environment%20and%20Transport/Planning/2011-07-06%20Suffolk%20Local%20Plan%20Part%201%20lr.pdf

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/suffolk.gov.uk/Environment%20and%20Transport/Planning/2011-07-06%20Suffolk%20Local%20Plan%20Part%201%20lr.pdf

https://www.ipswich.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Core_Strategy_Dec_11.pdf

35


IPSWICH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

4.6.23 The Ipswich Economic Development Strategy 2013-202611

was published by Ipswich Borough Council in 2013. It sets targets to create 18,000 additional jobs within Ipswich and to enable the construction of 10,500 new homes. Ipswich Borough Council will:

help to provide the necessary infrastructure

seek to bring new investment and jobs to Ipswich

support the continued development of University Campus Suffolk (UCS)

establish strong partnerships to secure public and private funding

4.6.24 The strategy document explicitly refers to the need for a wet dock crossing

IPSWICH VISION: TURNING OUR TOWN AROUND

4.6.25 Turning our town around: The Vision for Ipswich, East Anglia’s Waterfront Town12

is a shared and collaborative vision and delivery plan document published in July 2015 by New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership, Suffolk County Council, Ipswich Borough Council, Ipswich Central, Suffolk Chamber of Commerce, Ben Gummer MP and other key stakeholders including University Campus Suffolk.

4.6.26 A new wet dock crossing is at heart of the vision, acknowledging that although there has been an aspiration for a crossing for many years, the time is now right for public investment to deliver transformative regeneration in the town.

4.6.27 The plan describes how a wet dock crossing achieves three separate but complementary objectives:

It enables the Island Site development, providing space for innovative and dynamic businesses that are now clustering around the Waterfront and are already struggling to find room to locate and expand

It provides an alternative route across the town for local traffic, relieving congestion in Ipswich and on the A14

It creates the capacity to improve the appearance of the Star Lane Gyratory and provide pedestrians and cyclists with a much more attractive link between the Town Centre and the Waterfront

SUMMARY

4.6.28 Government policy at all levels is pushing for change in three keys areas:

Transport, Economy and People & Society

4.6.29 All show support for schemes which provide economic development and increased productivity, improve transportation, reduce congestion, grow jobs and create better places to live.

11

https://www.ipswich.gov.uk/sites/default/files/economic_development_strategy.pdf 12

http://ipswichcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Turning-Our-Town-Around-09.07.15.pdf

https://www.ipswich.gov.uk/sites/default/files/economic_development_strategy.pdf

http://ipswichcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Turning-Our-Town-Around-09.07.15.pdf

36


4.7 OBJECTIVES

4.7.1 The following primary objectives would tackle the problems identified and meet the aims of the project.

Figure 4-15: Summary of primary objectives

4.7.2 This table shows the secondary objectives which would tackle the problems identified and meet the aims of the project.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES SECONDARY OBJECTIVES

Enable the redevelopment of the Island Site

To unlock the full development potential of the centrally-located Island Site To secure more private investment into Ipswich and to respond to the town’s forecast

population growth by providing sufficient high quality housing and infrastructure To enable the creation of a centre of excellence for high-tech industries and services that plays

to the Waterfront’s strengths (Enterprise Island) To create a high-quality environment in which world-class employers will want to offer

productive, high-value jobs

Increase connectivity and promote sustainable transport modes between south-east and south-west of Ipswich

To enable better, safer and healthier connections between the town and the Waterfront by removing traffic and improving air quality

To connect the Island Site to the east, south and west of the town To contribute to improving pedestrian and cycle links and public transport access across the

town, building on the success of the Travel Ipswich scheme

Relieve congestion in Ipswich and over the Orwell Bridge (A14) & nearby junctions

To tackle road congestion on the Star Lane gyratory by offering an additional east-west traffic corridor away from the town centre, reducing journey times and boosting journey reliability

To increase resilience and reduce demand on the Strategic Road Network To provide an alternative route for diverting traffic when the A14 Orwell Bridge is closed,

reducing the impact on the town centre

Ensure the continued success of the Waterfront, Marina and Port

To improve the quality of the public realm around the Waterfront, building on the success of the marina

To provide a new architectural feature for the town and a landmark for the region, restoring civic pride in Ipswich

To restore the Island Site to public use, providing pleasant open space for the enjoyment of residents and visitors alike

To conserve and enhance Ipswich’s character and rich maritime heritage, green spaces, biodiversity and river environment

Provide a catalyst for the regeneration of the southern section of the town

To further develop Ipswich’s reputation for bio-technology, life sciences, energy, professional and financial services, ICT and creative digital arts

To retain and build upon the skills and expertise emanating from University Campus Suffolk and other further education and skills training centres in Ipswich

Table 4-2: Investment priorities for achieving primary objectives

37


HOW THE OBJECTIVES ACCORD WITH THE FOUR KEY AIMS

4.7.3 The following table shows how the primary objectives align with the four key aims.

Aims

Objectives

Increased Housing Increased Jobs Upskilling the workforce Regenerating the town

Enterprise Island will include High Quality Residential Properties

The site will provide opportunity for significant numbers of houses

University Campus Suffolk and Cambridge University in partnership with BT will provide the education and facilities for high skilled job creation

The island site will form an extension of the already very successful waterfront development and be part of the catalyst for wider regeneration

Enable redevelopment of the island site

Improving connectivity between the Town Centre and the Waterfront will help unlock stalled developments and increase housing numbers in Ipswich.

Improving connectivity between the Town Centre and the Waterfront will help unlock stalled commercial developments and increase job creation in Ipswich

Improved connectivity to the Education quarter for residents of Southeast and Southwest Ipswich will improve educational choice and encourage further education

Improving the connection between the Waterfront and Town Centre will lead to more people entering the town, spending money and enabling town centre regeneration.

Increase connectivity and promote sustainable transport modes between southeast and southwest of Ipswich

Congestion in the Town Centre is limiting the developments in the area. Relieving this issue will stimulate growth in housing.

Business are being restricted by the long journey times across Ipswich. Relieving congestion will allow job creation.

As businesses grow, they demand more workers with higher skills. The congestion relief will be beneficial to University Campus Suffolk who will be able to provide the graduates to fulfil this need.

Reliving congestion in the town enables improvements to Star Lane. This will create better links between the town and the Waterfront.

Relieve congestion in Ipswich and on the A14 (over the Orwell Bridge and nearby junctions)

The Ipswich Marinas provide an almost unrivalled offer to London yachtsmen. Some of these will want houses near to the yachts.

The Port of Ipswich and the two Marinas directly employ hundreds of people. The Port and the Port Businesses are supply goods to a great deal of businesses; they also require professional services.

A successful marina is crucial to the success of the Waterfront area. Having different types of vessels moored in the Marina creates an aesthetic environment and leads to the life and energy of the area. The Waterfront is part of University Campus Suffolk’s offer to students and they help to upskill the local workforce.

The ongoing success of the Waterfront will be used as a catalyst to regenerating the town. Using exemplar Urban Realm design to bring the character of the Waterfront, across Star Lane and into the town.

Ensure the continue success of the Marina and Port

Part of the regeneration of the southern section of the Central Ipswich will be about providing more houses in the area.

Part of the regeneration of the southern section of the Central Ipswich will be about creating more jobs in the area.

University Campus Suffolk are expanding their facilities as they continue to grow and develop. The campus will expand into the regenerated areas. The University are a key part of upskilling the workforce.

This transformative regeneration of Ipswich can be achieved by a Wet Dock Crossing.

Provide a catalyst to the regeneration of the southern section of the town

Table 4-3: How objectives align with aims

38


4.8 MEASURES FOR SUCCESS

4.8.1 Successful delivery of the objectives would:

Provide an additional 1,000 new homes in the town centre until 2031 along with 50 construction jobs per year

Provide an additional 800 higher value jobs in Ipswich until 2031 and a reduction in worklessness

Stimulate an additional 50 new start-up companies being registered until 2031

Enable Enterprise Island (upskilling and higher productivity)

Enable Star Lane Public Realm improvements

Generate an additional £3 million in council tax

Increase GVA by £100,000,000 a year

Increase Income tax by £10,000,000 a year

Increase Business Rates by £500,000 a year

Stimulate a 10% uplift in tourism day visits and generate an extra £20 million per year for the local economy

4.8.2 See Appendix B for more details.

39


4.9 WHAT WE WILL DELIVER - (SCOPE)

4.9.1 This project will deliver:

a new way to cross the River Orwell for all vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, which provides relief to Ipswich and the A14

improvements to the existing road network where it joins new infrastructure

improved connectivity to the island site

4.9.2 The project will be a catalyst for wider transformative benefits in Ipswich. These are shown in this flow diagram.

Figure 4-16: Regeneration Process

The Star Lane improvements are part of the Suffolk County Council’s long term plan and will be funded through a mixture of private development –as a result of the uplift in development value in the area– and local public spending.

4.9.3 Under normal circumstances, a new river crossing is unlikely to attract strategic traffic purely wishing to avoid the Orwell Bridge. Instead, it will attract local traffic previously going through the centre of town or around the A14. This local traffic is a significant part of the A14 flow.

40


4.10 CONSTRAINTS

4.10.1 This section reviews the constraints identified during the assessment process.

PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

4.10.2 At this stage of planning the constraints are:

uncertainty of funding;

uncertainty of construction time;

construction across the new Environmental Agency flood defences; and

unknown or unidentified Statutory Utilities Plant in and along the island site and road alignment.

DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

4.10.3 There are several design constraints that may affect the scheme as it moves forward.

WET DOCK ACCESS

4.10.4 Boats access the wet dock via The Prince Philip Lock; two lock gates on the southern tip of the island site. This forms the gateway to the successful marinas and associated businesses and to the loading and unloading area for a timber importer.

4.10.5 A wide variety of vessels use the lock to enter the wet dock. Access to the wet dock is available and used 24 hours a day.

4.10.6 The locks operate in two ways:

During normal operation, the lock operates by closing at least one of the lock gates at all times. The lock is filled up and emptied, to allow boats to traverse the level difference between the wet dock and the river

During “free flow” operation, the river is at the same level as the wet dock. Both lock gates are left open and boats can proceed through the lock uninterrupted

4.10.7 During normal operation, up to six or seven boats (depending on size) are given permission to enter the lock at the same time. It takes between 15 and 20 minutes for the boats to enter the lock, for the water height to be adjusted and for the boats to be able to leave.

4.10.8 During “free flow” operation, boats do not need wait in the lock. In fact, the speed of the water through the lock would make this impossible. Boats do have to proceed through the lock in only one direction at a time.

4.10.9 Each time the locks are used, water is lost from the wet dock. “Free flow” is used to fill up the water in the wet dock. The fast flowing new water also cleans out the wet dock. Free flow occurs twice a day and for up to 3 hours. The duration of free flow is dependent upon the tides

4.10.10 One of the objectives of the scheme is to ensure the continued success of the marina and associated businesses. Any new bridge will have to allow boats to access the wet dock in a way similar to the present.

41


RAILWAY LINE

4.10.11 The mainline railway between London and Norwich is situated on the western side of the River Orwell. A branch off the line splits about 500m south of the Island Site. It runs into the West Quay of Ipswich Port, providing rail to boat freight integration.

Figure 4-17: Railway lines

4.10.12 The branch line runs all the way up along the western side of the River Orwell, before finishing approximately 150m beyond Bath Street.

4.10.13 It is unlikely that a new level crossing would be allowed by Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road.

4.10.14 A bridge rising over the branch line will need to leave sufficient clearance for the trains and waggons underneath.

4.10.15 To avoid a level crossing, the route of the branch line may need to be altered.

4.10.1 One of the objectives of the scheme is to ensure the continued success of Ipswich Port. The provision of the railway line is crucial to the success of Ipswich Port. .

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (TIDAL BARRIER)

4.10.2 Due to Ipswich’s proximity to the River Orwell, and tidal nature of the river, the town has previously experienced significant flooding. The current flood defences were built in the 1970s.

4.10.3 The Environmental Agency is investing £58 million over a three year period (starting in 2015) to provide a tidal barrier across the main waterway. This is being accompanied by new and refurbished flood defence walls.

42


Figure 4-18 Environment Agency Flood Barrier Works

4.10.4 These flood defences are due to be completed before a new river crossing would begin construction. Any new river crossing must be designed so that it does not interfere with the tidal barrier.

LAND OWNERS

4.10.5 There are multiple land owners who may be affected by a new river crossing.

4.10.6 The major land owner is Associated British Ports (ABP). They have been part of the Taskforce and have been fully involved in this process.

43


Figure 4-19: Location of new crossing

4.11 INTERDEPENDENCIES

4.11.1 This project does not require the completion of any other scheme or deliverable outside of the projects control. It could begin as soon as funding is provided.

4.11.2 As the previous sections have illustrated there are many reasons why Ipswich is not reaching its potential.

4.11.3 This project will be a transformative catalyst for regeneration and significant wider benefits.

4.11.4 A wet dock crossing results in

improved connectivity between east and west Ipswich,

increased resilience in the road network

Less demand on Star Lane

4.11.5 This is required to enable public realm and connectivity improvements around the Star Lane gyratory.

4.11.6 The Star Lane improvements are required to help bring the Town Centre and the Waterfront area closer together. This will become possible when the new crossing is in place.

4.11.7 By bringing the Town Centre and the Waterfront area closer together, and with the Star Lane improvements in place, the developments in this area become much more valuable. This unlocks stalled development and provides opportunities for wider development potential.

4.11.8 Once development has been unlocked and wider development potential realised, there will be an increase in value around the area. This is required to enable the development of the Island Site – allowing the creation of ‘Enterprise Island’.

4.11.9 A connected Town and Waterfront, the creation of ‘Enterprise Island’ and the wider development creation, all lead to wide spectrum of socio-economic gains for Ipswich:

New high skilled jobs

Improved University experience

High quality housing for higher skilled workers

Disconnected part of Ipswich being more connected and more prosperous

Healthier population, with more choosing to walk or cycle

44


4.12 STAKEHOLDERS

4.12.1 A new wet dock crossing would be hugely influential to the people of Ipswich. There are many people, businesses, groups and government agencies with a vested interest.

The Taskforce was launched by Ben Gummer (MP for Ipswich) in 2014 to guide the project to this point. It comprises a wide group of stakeholders with responsibility for the area. It includes:

New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership

Suffolk County Council

Ben Gummer MP

Ipswich Borough Council

Associated British Ports

University Campus Suffolk

Department for Transport

4.12.2 If the project receives funding, the land owners and tenants in the area along with members of the public in general will become actively engaged.

45


4.13 OPTIONS

4.13.1 This section explores the options considerers to solve the problems and then assesses the results of each option against the objectives and aims.

4.13.2 A crossing over the River Orwell in the vicinity of the Wet Dock has been considered many times in the past. Ipswich Borough Council, Suffolk County Council and Associated British Ports have both previously undertaken early design and feasibility studies.

IPSWICH BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORT

(3D VISUALISATION FROM BEN GUMMER MP)

OPTION A

4.13.3 Option A is a single static bridge over New Cut and two opening bridges either side of the lock gates and was developed following a fresh look at the following constraints, buildability and usability issues:

Roads must be either side of the lock (to enable the lock to operate properly) and not within the lock as some previous schemes suggested. The full length of the lock is utilised and constructing roads in side or on top of the lock gates would hinder its operation and complicate maintenance operations.

Roads must avoid the

large shafts installed either side of newly constructed High Voltage Tunnel

the Anglia Water Defence Walls and

the Anglia Water Tidal Barrier

A junction is required either side of the ‘double’ section of the route (where there is a primary route and a secondary route around the lock). These junctions have to be designed in a way that allows road users to make the switch from one route to the other safely

The bridge across New Cut provides direct vehicle access to Island Site and this must be a high quality access to cater for Enterprise Island

46


4.13.4 Following the Optioneering process, Option A was considered to achieve the aims and objectives of the project. However, there are a number of issues which reduce its desirability:

A. The geometric design of the road as it crosses the island site has to be constrained so that

the available development land is not significantly reduced

the desirability of the Island Site is not negatively affected by significant volumes of traffic

This reduces the attractiveness of the route and hence the effectiveness of this option in attracting traffic out of the Town Centre and from the A14(T).

The bridges have to lift to allow vessels to enter the Wet Dock. When this happens, there is a delay to vehicular traffic while vehicles are switched between routes. This reduces the attractiveness of the route and therefore the transport benefits realised.

When the water level in the Wet Dock is similar to that in the River Orwell (during free flow), vessels must be able to continue through the lock with both bridges closed to vehicle traffic. This is because the speed of the water through the lock is too much to enable boats to wait within the open lock. Although it may be possible, with Associated British Port’s agreement, to reduce the frequency and duration, this will result in the crossing being closed for at least 10 minutes. During this time, no transport benefits are realised and in fact there will be some disbenefit during this time, as the additional traffic which has been attracted to this route is forced to travel through the congested town centre area. This will lead to inconsistent journey times. Drivers will know that there is a chance that they will be delayed and the attractiveness of the route falls – as does the benefits. It is impossible to model the driver psychology which results from this situation, but it is possible it will deter some through traffic from using the route at all. Some drivers may continue to use the route through the Town Centre or around the A14.

As the overall reduction in attractiveness in the route reduces the wider economic benefits are also reduced. With fewer people changing their route choice to use the bridge there will be reduced benefits for the Star Lane gyratory. Therefore less regeneration gain will be achievable in the Star Lane area and the southern part of the town centre.

The railway line which serves the Port’s West Quay will need to be altered to make room for the new road bridge. A number of options have been considered to address the issue, but they are costly and may affect the Port operations.

This option includes two routes to cross the river: a main route (north of the lock) and a secondary route (south of the lock). The secondary route would take longer to cross the river than the primary route.

47


4.13.5 The Options Assessment Report (Appendix C) explores how the options have been considered, analysed and compared against the objectives and criteria during the Optioneering process, with the following options being considered in detail.

Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E

Option F Option G Option H Option I Option J

Option K Option L Option M Option N Option O

Option P Option Q Option R

Figure 4-20 Options assessed in detail

48


4.13.6 Figure 3-21 summarises the early sifting of these options (note that Option A is labelled Three Bridge Option A here and Option B is labelled South Bridge Option E:

Figure 4-21: Sifting process

49


4.13.7 One set of these options considered constructing a bridge to the south of the Island Site, along with smaller bridges to add connectivity to the Island Site. Option B was the best of this group and was found to be the best alternative to Option A.

4.13.8 Option B has a bridge to the south of the island to connect the two banks, a smaller all-modes bridge between the west bank and the island, and a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the lock. It has many advantages over Option A:

The southern bridge can rise above the river level so that it is high enough, when going over the navigation channel into the Wet Dock, so that most vessels can pass underneath the unopened bridge. The opening section of the bridge would only need to open for the taller vessels, and these could be grouped together and sent through in a platoon. The bridge opening could be constrained to outside of peak periods and to be relatively infrequent.

The southern bridge is completely independent and unaffected by the free flow situation in the lock. Vessels proceeding through the lock at speed under free flow would have plenty of time to reduce their speed and wait safely for the southern bridge to open.

Because the southern bridge provides an east west crossing away from the island site, the additional bridge, required to serve the Island site, can be designed to complement Enterprise Island. This bridge can be smaller and reduce the amount of developable land used for access, maximising the potential development of the Island site.

The southern bridge can rise above the railway line on the west bank so that the railway line to the Port can continue to operate unaffected.

OPTION A OPTION B

50


4.13.9 Option B does have some inherent issues:

A. Although many vessels will be able to pass under the unopened bridge, there will be occasional delays for traffic while taller ships access the Wet Dock.

As the southern bridge rises above the river, it will be viewable from further away. Architectural and sympathetic design can turn this into a desirable consequence, resulting in a focal point for the Regeneration.

The gradient of the road on the bridge is a balance between creating enough height to allow the majority of vessels under the bridge unimpeded, whist being sympathetic to the road users.

51


RESULTS

4.13.10 The construction of a new wet dock crossing has a major impact across Ipswich and the A14.

Figure 4-22 Key routes in Ipswich

4.13.11 The results in Table 4-4 show existing journey times along key routes in Ipswich, which are shown on Figure 4-22. Journey time savings for both options are shown for the AM, PM and inter-peak periods (in minutes and seconds). Both options show significant savings, with Option B providing the most benefit.

Table 4-4 Journey times and journey time savings for routes across Ipswich (mm:ss)

4.13.12 Taken as a group, Option A reduces journey times by 16% in the AM peak, 26% in the PM peak and 5% in the interpeak. Option B reduces journey times by 18% in the AM peak, 27% in the PM peak and 6% in the interpeak.

4.13.13 Table 4-5 shows the time taken to travel on the A14 between the junctions either side of the Orwell Bridge (Nacton and Wherstead).

AM PM

Name Colour 2008 2008 Option A Option B Option A Option B Option A Option B

Nacton Road - Railway Station 1 14:39 14:30 05:07 05:39 00:47 01:05 09:10 09:11

Railway Station - Nacton Road 1 15:50 16:14 02:11 02:30 01:30 01:38 02:51 03:07

Nacton Road - Railway Station 2 15:37 14:54 05:10 05:18 00:36 00:54 09:34 08:39

Railway Station - Nacton Road 2 16:48 17:04 02:19 02:34 01:29 01:35 03:06 03:08

Nacton Road - Colchester 11:40 12:20 04:20 04:09 00:09 00:12 04:42 06:01

Colchester - Nacton Road 13:05 12:57 00:46 00:04 00:40 -00:36 01:04 00:00

Hospital - Railway Station 1 16:17 15:40 00:48 00:55 00:14 00:14 02:37 02:19

Railway Station - Hospital 1 16:50 18:06 00:57 00:35 00:12 00:10 01:04 00:55

Hospital - Railway Station 2 12:50 12:29 02:16 02:48 00:42 00:53 03:28 03:20

Railway Station - Hospital 2 15:09 15:28 02:27 02:52 01:28 01:34 02:23 02:46

Belsted Road - Port 11:49 12:28 01:08 02:06 01:05 01:54 01:42 03:42

Port - Belsted Road 09:36 09:02 04:30 05:23 00:22 00:57 07:26 07:28

London Road - Woodbridge Road 15:01 16:09 00:18 00:45 00:24 00:26 02:06 02:13

Woodbridge Road - London Road 14:48 14:52 00:44 00:56 00:06 00:06 01:28 01:29

Total 32:59 36:36 09:43 11:02 52:39 54:18

Existing time (mm:ss) 2036 Journey time saving (mm:ss)

AM Interpeak PM

52


4.13.14 The journey time savings are shown in minutes and seconds for both options during the AM, PM and interpeak period.

4.13.15 Both options provide relief of between 1 and 14 seconds.

4.13.16 Option B provides slightly more benefit than Option A.

4.13.17 These relatively small journey time savings are experienced by everyone on the A14.

4.13.18 In the eastbound direction, Option A reduces journey times by 3% in the AM peak and 6% in the PM peak compared to expected journey times in 2036. Option B reduces journey times by 2% in the AM peak and 5% in the PM peak compared to expected journey times in 2036.

Table 4-5 Journey time and journey time savings on the A14 over the Orwell Crossing

AM PM

ID Name 2008 2008 Option A Option B Option A Option B Option A Option B

13 A14 EB 03:21 03:26 00:07 00:14 00:08 00:14 00:05 00:12

14 A14 WB 03:08 03:22 00:07 00:12 00:05 00:07 00:01 00:02

Existing time 2036 Journey time saving (mm:ss)

AM Interpeak PM

53


4.14.1 Local journeys are removed from the A14 over the Orwell Bridge and are attracted to the new crossing.

Figure 4-23 Changes in traffic levels with Option B in 2036 PM peak (PCUs per hour)

4.14.2 Traffic on Valley Road, Crown Street and Star Lane is also reduced. This enables the public realm and connectivity on Star Lane to be improved.

Figure 4-24 Changes in traffic levels for three routes across Ipswich (Option B, 2036 PM)

Valley Road

Crown Street

Star Lane

54


4.14.1 Both options relieve traffic congestion and improve journey times in the regeneration area improve connectivity between east and west Ipswich, allowing

the development of the Island Site

stalled developments to come forward

4.14.2 A master planning excise was undertaken to understand the type of development that could come forward on the Island Site and the likely change in land use in the regeneration area. This can be seen in Appendix P and has been used in the Economic Appraisal.

4.14.3 This visualisation shows how the Island Site could be created to fit into the existing area.

Figure 4-25: Master Plan Visualisation

55


SECONDARY BENEFITS

4.14.4 The following is a secondary benefit of both options.

4.14.5 The River Orwell creates a natural barrier between southeast and southwest Ipswich. Both these parts of Ipswich are made up of significant areas of residential development. The walking, cycling and road network has had to turn away from the river to make connections. This naturally creates estates that are inward looking, poorly connected and do not encourage any journeys except by residents. This reduces connectivity also reduces the overall prosperity of the two area. As noted by Manual for Streets (4.2.5), this layout also encourages journeys to be made by car.

4.14.6 This map shows multiple indices of deprivation in Ipswich (data taken from the 2011 Census). It shows clearly that the southeast and southwest of Ipswich, and the proposed regeneration area, show signs of deprivation.

4.14.7 People from each side of the river would suddenly be significantly better connected to each other. Education, retail, leisure and other facilities and services could be shared more easily, particularly for those without access to a car.

4.14.8 Choice in education leads to better qualified students. Improved access to the university may encourage more people from Ipswich to attend and encourage the local workforce to maximise their opportunities to find higher skilled jobs

Figure 4-26: Deprivation map

Regeneration area

56


COMPARISON OF OPTIONS AGAINST THE OBJECTIVES

4.14.9 The following shows how the two options compare when assessed against the objectives:

Option A Option B

Provides connection onto the island site and would successfully enable its redevelopment.

Allows more land to be developed.

Enable redevelopment of the island site

Provides a good connection for all modes.

Splits connectivity for general traffic from cyclists and pedestrians providing better connectivity for all modes.


Successfully attracts traffic from other Ipswich Routes and the A14 but has more journey time variability.

Provides higher capacity to attract more people to use the crossing and provide additional relief to Ipswich and the A14.

Relieve congestion in Ipswich and on the A14 (over the Orwell Bridge and nearby junctions)

Some acceptable delay to vehicle traffic on the bridge and vessels wishing to enter the Waterfront, Marina and Port.

Because of its height and location it offers less delay to traffic on the bridge and vessels wishing to enter the Waterfront, Marina and Port.

Ensure the continue success of the Marina and Port

Successfully attracts some traffic from Ipswich and the A14, enables the development of the Island Site and provide a catalyst to regeneration.

Even more successful at all achieving the objectives and enable a greater boost to the regeneration.


57


COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS AGAINST THE STRATEGIC AIMS

4.14.10 This table maps the strategic aims of New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership, Suffolk County Council and Department for Transport against both options; these have been discussed previously.

Option A Option B

New

Ang

lia L

oca

l E

nte

rprise

Part

ners

hip

Increased jobs + Increased businesses + Increased homes + Boost skills Drive innovation Improved transport and infrastructure + Unlock higher skilled jobs Support Innovation

Suff

olk

Co

unty

Council

Raise educational attainment Improve economy Maintain roads and develop Suffolk’s infrastructure Support those most vulnerable in our communities Empower local communities

Depart

ment

for

Tra

nsp

ort

Tackling congestion + Improve road safety * Encouraging sustainable local travel Promote walking and cycling

* Note that COBALT shows an increase in accidents for Option B due to the journeys induced by constructing a new bridge. This supports the needed growth and regeneration in Ipswich. The new bridge would be constructed to better standards than the much of the existing network, and overall journey distances will be shorter. Therefore the road safety will be improved.

58


CONCLUSIONS

4.14.11 Two options have been identified that best meet the objectives and are deliverable.

4.14.12 They would both lead to significant traffic benefits to Ipswich and the A14 and provide a catalyst to economic regeneration of the town.

4.14.13 Option A has a number of logistical constraints to deliverability (railway sidings and reduced developability of the island site). Operational issues, particularly the time taken to operate the lock gates and the bridge operation during free flow period, reduce the benefits of this option.

4.14.14 Option B results in better journey time savings and wider benefit to Ipswich and is the preferred option.

59


5 ECONOMIC CASE

5.1 INTRODUCTION

5.1.1 This chapter presents the output from the value for money (VfM) appraisal of the proposed wet dock crossing scheme. It also summarises the process followed to develop and refine options and describes the approach to the transport and economic appraisal modelling that underpins the development of the economic case.

5.1.2 The methodology adopted to identify a long list of options and to refine this to short listed options is described in a separate Option Assessment Report (OAR) at Appendix C of this document.

5.1.3 The economic appraisal of the schemes has been carried in accordance with Treasury Green Book and DfT WeBTAG guidance, in particular the appraisal follows WebTAG guidance from the following units:

TAG Unit A1 cost-benefit analysis

TAG Unit A2 economic impacts

TAG Unit A3 environmental impact appraisal

TAG Unit A4 social and distributional impacts

TAG Unit A5-1 active mode appraisal

5.1.4 The output from the appraisal is presented in the form of an Appraisal Summary Table (AST) and supporting documents.

APPROACH TO ASSESSING VALUE FOR MONEY

5.1.5 The approach to assessing VfM is largely determined by the nature of the problems and opportunities being addressed and the benefits that accrue to the scheme as a result.

5.1.6 The proposed crossing is expected to produce economic benefits across a range of areas, including:

reduced journey times, operating costs and accidents

reliability benefits for road users

accessibility benefits for pedestrians and cyclists.

environmental impact benefits

wider economic benefits

5.1.7 A modelling suite and supporting processes has been designed to report benefits across these areas:

SATURN network model

Transport User Benefit Appraisal (TUBA) model

Cost and Benefit to Accidents – Light Touch (COBALT) model

Local Authority District (LAD) zone conversion model

60


Labour Supply model

Agglomeration model

Appraisal model

The Appraisal model consolidates inputs from the other models in the suite, applies Treasury and WebTAG parameters where appropriate and outputs the results in the required format for a transport business case:

Appraisal Summary Table (AST) – Appendix D

Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Table – Appendix E-1

Public Accounts Table – Appendix E-2

Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) Table – Appendix E-3

These tables are provided in the Appendices indicated above and a model map is illustrated in Figure 1 below:

Figure 5-1: Economic appraisal process

5.1.8 In order to develop a well-defined scope and an accurate estimate of costs and benefits the business case development team consisted of a number of functional work-streams all providing information and data to the appraisal model and business case. These work-streams include:

Design team

Bridge Engineering team

Master Planning team

Highway team

61


5.2 OPTIONS APPRAISED

5.2.1 Do Minimum/Reference Case: this assumes that none of the initiatives described are delivered.

5.2.2 An alternative route through the town means that the Star Lane gyratory remains congested and public realm improvements cannot take place.

5.2.3 The current access to the island site would continue and so the site would remain an unattractive development proposition. As the island site is not developed it does not create at draw to investment in the surrounding locations such as the waterfront.

5.2.4 With congestion and severance continuing there will be no incentive for regeneration on Star Lane and the surrounding area.

5.2.5 Two options represent the most realistic and deliverable schemes to address the aims and objectives identified in the Strategic Case and have been developed and appraised against the do-minimum/reference case.

Table 5-1: Option A and B

Option A Option B

A static bridge over New Cut with two opening bridges around the lock to the wet dock.

A bridge located south of the island together with a bridge connecting the west bank to the

island and a pedestrian/cycle bridge– Preferred Option

62


5.3 ASSUMPTIONS

5.3.1 The two options have been appraised using the methodologies recommended by the Department for Transport’s WebTAG appraisal guidance for Transport Schemes and Treasury’s Green Book, using the most up to date parameters from November 2014.

5.3.2 The key appraisal assumptions have been listed in Table 5-2.

CRITERIA ASSUMPTION SOURCE

Discount Rate 3.5% 0-30 years 3.0% 31-75 years

WebTAG

Opening Year 2021 General assumption

Base Year 2010 DfT Base Year

Appraisal Years 60 Years Based on asset life

Forecast Year 2081 60 years from the opening

Value of time Work Car Driver: 27.06 £/hr Work PSV passenger: 16.63 £/hr Non-work commuting: 6.81 £/hr

WebTAG Nov 2014 update

Capital expenditure 100% in 2020 General assumption

Table 5-2: Key appraisal assumptions

JOURNEY TIME SAVINGS

5.3.3 The following assumptions have been used to calculate journey time savings of £278 million for Option A and £373.5 million for Option B.

5.3.4 Scheme benefits have been assessed using the DfT’s TUBA (Transport Users Benefit Appraisal) software. This is an industry-standard tool for undertaking economic appraisal in accordance with guidelines published in WebTAG Unit A1

5.3.5 The latest version of TUBA (v1.9.5) was used with parameters published in WebTAG Unit A1.

5.3.6 Scheme appraisal has been undertaken for a 60-year period, from the assumed scheme opening in 2021.

5.3.7 Three growth scenarios have been modelled, the core scenario, the low and high growth scenarios.

WIDER IMPACTS

5.3.8 Some of the factors that are important economic measures of success to people, Ipswich and HM Treasure are beyond the scope of WebTAG; or are not directly attributable to Transport Infrastructure Investment

5.3.9 WebTAG looks at wider economic benefits that would definitely not accrue without the scheme in place; however crucially it will be the certainty of change delivered by the new Transport Infrastructure that is most likely to lock in the economic benefit of the regeneration. These further benefits are explored in section 5.6 and derive a benefit to the economy of £6.45 billion.

63


5.3.10 The assumptions below have been used to calculate the wider impacts using WebTAG methodology and result in a £115.5 million benefit for Option A and £151 million for Option B.

5.3.11 The wider economic benefits have been assessed using WebTAG recommended methodology (Tag Unit A2.1). Three key economic impacts have been included in the assessment:

A. Agglomeration: The concentration of economic activity over an area. The benefits will be productivity improvement as a result of reduction in travel cost and of businesses being close to each other and close to workers. Spread sheet models have been developed to calculate these benefits. The models adhere to the guidance provided in WebTAG Unit A2.1.

Output change in imperfectly competitive markets: A reduction in transport costs to businesses so that firms can profitably increase output of goods or services that require use of transport in their production. This leads to a welfare gain as consumers’ willingness to pay for the increased output will exceed the cost of producing it. For the purposes of this appraisal this is estimated as a 10% uplift of the business user benefits from the TEE table.

Tax revenues arising from labour market impacts: Changes in transport provision, in other words, changes in travel cost could affect labour market decisions. Two main types of labour market impact are assessed: labour market supply impact and the move to more or less productive jobs. The benefits are estimated as 40% of the GDP benefit for the labour supply impact, and 30% of the GDP benefit for the move to more or less productive jobs. In the Ipswich case, only the labour supply impact is assessed as there is currently insufficient information to assess the impact of a move to more or less productive jobs.

5.3.12 The major wider economic benefit is generated by the agglomeration impact; the benefits accruing from the other two areas are relatively small. The key element for the agglomeration impact is Effective Density, which is a measure of accessibility of each origin zone to jobs in all the destination zones. It depends on the employment level in the destination zones and the transport cost to access those jobs. Productivity will be increased as a result of bringing businesses and labour sources closer together.

5.3.13 Two spreadsheet models have been built in accordance with WebTAG Unit A2.1, taking Generalised Cost (GC) of journeys input from the SATURN model and economic parameters from WebTAG, calculating the productive change associated GDP benefits as a result of improving transport connectivity and building the new wet dock crossing.

5.3.14 The output of traffic demand and GC for each origin and destination pair from SATURN has been taken, with the SATURN zones converted to economic zones to match the employment and GDP per worker information provided in WebTAG. Each option has been compared against the base case without bridge crossing, with GDP benefits calculated. This has then been input to the appraisal model to take account of discounting factors and contribute to the Appraisal Summary Table (AST). The process is demonstrated in Figure 5-2.

64


Figure 5-2: Wider economic benefits appraisal process

REGENERATION

5.3.15 The provision of improved access to the island via a new crossing will make the island site a more popular location for commercial and residential development – this in turn will improve the potential of the riverside for development. In addition the river crossing facilitates the implementation of a series of traffic initiatives that will unlock development sites and Star Lane and the surrounding area (these are currently effectively, severed by roads suffering intense congestion).

5.3.16 The following regeneration benefits, consistent with WebTAG unit A2.2, have been included:

Benefits of new construction jobs created when building the new river crossing – note that only jobs created for bridge construction have been included.

GVA benefit from increased tourism generated by improved access to the waterfront, island and surrounding area.

5.3.17 The number of construction jobs created when building the crossing is a temporary benefit as it will only occur during the crossing construction period. Following an assessment of previously constructed bridge scheme, it has been assumed that 95 workers will be employed for the construction work from 2017 to 2020. The WebTAG recommended GDP per worker for construction sector has been used to calculate the total benefits.

65


5.3.18 With the expansion of the Waterfront into the Regeneration area and the improved connectivity the scheme will produce, it is expected that more tourists will be attracted to Ipswich. This will generate additional GVA from tourism via increased spending in shops, hotels and restaurants. Ipswich is one of the top 50 most popular destinations for visitors to the UK according to Visit Britain 2012. Supported by the fact that there has been significant growth in tourists visiting Ipswich over the recent years, with over 76,000 visitors per annum in 2012, a growth of over 40% year on year. Our assessment builds on AECOM’s early May 2015 Ipswich Vision study which suggests that a 10% uplift can be achieved, although this is believed to be rather conservative. Based on expenditure of £205 per visitor the benefit from tourism is estimated to be £1.5m per annum in 2010 prices.

5.3.19 The new bridge crossing is expected to unlock the commercial and residential development potential of the island site and along the river side as it provides better and more direct access to homes and business. At this stage only the development benefits on the island have been included within the monetised results. The commercial development benefit is estimated as the number of jobs generated based on the provision of business floor space and residential development benefit is estimated as council tax revenue.

5.3.20 A draft development framework for the site has been produced showing that a total business space of 8,475sqm could be provided on the island which would be unlocked by the bridge. The Employment Densities Guide (2010)

13 was used to

calculate jobs by the net changes in land use. This showed the Island Site would create up to 850 jobs when fully occupied. The WebTAG recommended GDP per worker for Ipswich and for consumer services sector has been used to calculate the total GDP benefit for the scheme at a 75% occupancy rate. This is estimated to be worth around £24m in the first opening year of 2021.

5.3.21 The benefits arising from developments along the river side and on the north of the river are not included in the assessment, although the river crossing is likely to unlock these benefits as well. These regeneration benefits are therefore not able to be included in the BCR, but are reported in the AST. Both options unlock £750 million in regeneration benefit.

13

Homes & Community Agency: Employment Densities Guide, 2nd

Edition (2010)

66


JOURNEY QUALITY

5.3.22 The new bridge crossing will improve journey experience for car drivers and passengers, pedestrians and cyclists in terms of congestion relief and comfort and this will manifest itself as improved ambiance/journey quality benefit. This has been assessed using the guidance provided in WebTAG Unit A5.1. Journey quality improvement values from the TAG data book are applied to both new and existing road users.

5.3.23 The Rule of Half has been applied to all the new users in accordance with the WebTAG guidance in this area. The total benefits have been annualised using an annualisation factor of 255.

ACCIDENT SAVING

5.3.24 Accident savings benefits have been assessed using the Cost Benefit Analysis Light Touch (COBALT) tool, the Department for Transport’s (DfT) standard tool for accident saving benefits in line with WebTAG Unit A4.1. COBALT assessment is based on modelled SATURN flows comparing the option scenarios against the base scenario (without the bridge crossing).

5.3.25 The COBALT tool requires two-way link flows in the form of annual average daily traffic (AADT), details about the links and junctions in the network, and an accident rate (should observed accidents be used). These are used with a standard parameters file in line with WebTAG guidance (COBALT 2014.3 WebTAG parameters). The output is the accident benefits in terms of absolute accidents and a monetary value of those accidents. The output (i.e. the benefit due to accident savings) can be either positive or negative.

5.3.26 Certain assumptions were made when running the COBALT analysis.

A. Only ‘combined link and junctions’ have been coded in, as opposed to every individual link and junction separately. This allows coverage of a larger network with minimal complexity, and is considered appropriate here where the vast majority of the network is unchanged.

The default accident rates have been used as opposed to observed accident rates. In an urban area the work involved to attribute accidents or accident rates to specific links or junctions would have been disproportionate.

RELIABILITY

5.3.27 A reliability benefit is realised when the road congestion is relieved and journey times become more predictable. This has been assessed in line with WebTAG Unit A1.3 reliability for urban roads. It takes the output from SATURN model, calculating the standard deviation of journey time and distance for each origin and destination flow.

67


SOCIAL AND DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACTS

5.3.28 Social and distributional impacts have been assessed in line with the guidance set out in WebTAG Unit A4.1, Social Impact Appraisal and Unit A4.2, Distributional Impact Appraisal. The following impacts have been assessed and reported:

A. Accident impacts

Physical activity

Severance

Security

Journey quality

Accessibility

5.3.29 The first four items above are assessed on a qualitative basis and reported in the Appraisal Summary Table (AST).

5.3.30 Journey quality and accessibility are assessed on a qualitative basis. The number of cyclists and pedestrians has been taken from 2011 census travel to work data. Journey times from key origin areas to key destinations have been identified and the scenarios with or without bridge crossing have been compared. The accessibility improvement for cyclists and pedestrians are measured as the improved journey time, which has been monetised using the Value of Time (VoT) from TAG data book. These benefits have been included in the adjusted BCR.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

5.3.31 The new wet dock river crossing will reduce traffic volumes in the north of the town delivering an environmental benefit in terms of noise reduction, air pollution reduction and greenhouse gas reduction etc.

5.3.32 These benefits have been assessed using WebTAG recommended method for environment appraisals; the benefits have been monetised where it is possible.

5.3.33 The scheme is to construct several bridges over the River Orwell and sensitivity to the environment will be a major part of the detailed design. An initial assessment has been carried out and mitigation costs included within the scheme costs.

68


5.4 RESULTS

5.4.1 Full results for all scenarios and sensitivities are provided in the Economic Assessment Report. The results shown below are for option A and option B (the preferred option) assuming all day benefits, in the central growth scenario.

5.4.2 A comparison of the SATURN output files with the observed data for the inter-peak and peak periods shows that the SATURN model produces good results for the inter-peak period.

5.4.3 The network for all time periods is the same and the AM peak and PM peak have been validated. An assessment of the level of congestion through the day has been undertaken using 2105 Traffic Master data. It shows that congestion continues throughout the interpeak period.

5.4.4 The only unknown is the signal timing, which might be different during the interpeak period. However, given the high level of congestion and traffic levels in Ipswich it is unlikely that they vary much from those in the PM peak. The PM peak signal timings have therefore been used in the inter-peak period.

5.4.5 A scheme of this nature will result in significant benefits throughout the day, due to the reduced journey time and distance travelled by users during the off peak periods This process has shown the suitability of using an all-day model.

OPTION A

5.4.6 The Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) benefits for Option A is shown in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3 TEE Option A

69


5.4.7 The Public Accounts table (PA) for Option A is shown in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4: Public Accounts table (PA) Option A

70


5.4.8 The Assessment of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) for Option A is shown in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5 Assessment of Monetised Costs and Benefits Option A

5.4.9 The Adjusted Socio-economic assessment of monetised costs and benefits for Option A is shown in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6 Adjusted Socio-economic assessment of monetised costs and benefits -Option A

71


OPTION B

5.4.10 The Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) benefits for Option B is shown in Table 5-7

Table 5-7 TEE Option B

5.4.11 The Public Accounts table (PA) for Option B is shown in Table 5-8 .

Table 5-8: Public Accounts table (PA) Option B

72


5.4.12 The Assessment of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) for Option B is shown in Table 5-9.

Table 5-9 Assessment of Monetised Costs and Benefits Option B

5.4.13 The Adjusted Socio-economic assessment of monetised costs and benefits for Option B is shown in Table 5-10.

Table 5-10 Adjusted Socio-economic assessment of monetised costs and benefits -Option A

73


5.4.14 The BCR and adjusted BCR for both options in the Core, All Day scenario are shown here:

OPTION A OPTION B

BCR 3.39 4.01

Adjusted BCR 5.10 5.73

5.4.15 In addition, webTAG regeneration benefit of £750 million is expected for both options.

5.4.16 The further benefits (explored in section 5.6), but which are currently not part of the WebTAG methodology, show a benefit to the economy of £6.45 billion for the preferred option.

5.4.17 Other non-monetised benefits have been assessed using a qualitative approach and reported in the AST.

APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLE

5.4.18 The appraisal summary table for the preferred option (central growth, peak periods only) is shown at Appendix D. The Appraisal Summary Table for option A can be found in the Economic Appraisal Report (Appendix E).

74


5.5 SENSITIVITY AND RISK PROFILE

COSTS

5.5.1 A Bill of Quantitates has been produced by experienced Quantity Surveyors to provide costs for the Bridges, approach roads and junctions. A risk allowance and optimism bias have been applied to capital costs in accordance with Government guidelines.

5.5.2 A 15% risk allowance has been used for all items, except for land purchase cost where 20% has been used; this has been applied to the appraisal of the scheme and the actual expected cost of the scheme.

5.5.3 This is an Outline Businesses case and as such a 23% optimism bias has been applied to the Structures and 15% to the roads for the appraisal of the scheme.

5.5.4 Following a review of other large opening bridges, the operating costs have been assumed to be 1% of the capital cost per annum.

BENEFITS

5.5.5 Benefits for active modes have not been fully assessed as pedestrian and cycling counts were not available for the entire Ipswich network. The accessibility benefits for cyclists and pedestrians are estimated as journey time/access time savings for a few major origins and destinations in town. This under-estimates the total benefits to these modes.

5.5.6 Assessment of regeneration benefits has been limited to a consideration of the impact of the schemes on employment and commercial and residential developments. This assessment is based on previous studies and historical data available. Ipswich is not defined as a regeneration area, and therefore the formal methodology in TAG Unit A2.2 is not used here. However given the development that will be facilitated by the scheme, and the strong growth in tourism market in Ipswich over the last a few years (over 40% in 2012), the regeneration benefits are expected to be significant. The monetised economic benefits for regeneration are conservatively estimated to be £40m in 2010 prices.

SENSITIVITY

5.5.7 Three scenarios have been tested, showing high, core and low growth for both the AM and PM peak. The range of BCRs is shown in the Table 5-11 below:

Table 5-11 BCR range

BCR Adjusted BCR BCR Adjusted BCR

Low 2.28 4.13 2.78 4.39

Core 3.39 5.1 4.01 5.73

High 8.15 9.51 9.02 9.45

Option A Option B

75


5.6 FURTHER BENEFITS

5.6.1 Both options provide significant benefits that can not currently be quantified using WebTAG methodology. However, they are important economic measures of success to people, Ipswich and HM Treasure. It is considered that the nature of this scheme is such that these benefits should be included in the overall assessment of value for money. This chapter uses transport economic techniques to show these benefits for the preferred option (Option B).

5.6.2 Five quantifiable benefits have been considered for jobs created in the regeneration area (including the Island Site):

A. Gross Value Added (GVA) uplift

B. Income Tax Revenue increase

C. Job Seekers Allowance reduction

D. Corporation Tax

E. Business Rates

5.6.3 An additional quantifiable benefit has also been considered for the existing jobs in the regeneration area:

F. Gross Value Added (GVA) uplift

5.6.4 Income tax, job seekers allowance, corporation tax and business rates form part of the GVA calculations and are shown explicitly to highlight the benefits.

A GROSS VALUE ADDED (GVA) UPLIFT -CREATED JOBS

5.6.5 A new bridge directly enables the creation of high tech jobs on the Island Site and the regeneration area. These higher skilled workers contribute more into the UK economy and there is an uplift in GVA.

5.6.6 A master planning exercise reviewed the existing sites in the regeneration area and their potential to change should a bridge be constructed and the potential of the Island Site. This conservatively estimated that 850 high tech jobs could be created. The size and planning use class of the sites within the regeneration area was converted into job numbers using the Employment Density Guidance 2

nd edition

(2010).

5.6.7 Standard Indirect and Induced Employment Multipliers were used to calculate that 255 indirect and 170 induced jobs would result from this development.

5.6.8 To ensure a robust assessment it was assumed that only 75% of the available floor space is occupied.

5.6.9 GVA data from the Office of National Statistics for Suffolk (released 09 12 2015) was used to calculate the GVA for employees in different sectors.

5.6.10 Suffolk based employees in the information and communication sector generate a GVA of £86,170 and this has been applied to all the direct jobs. The Suffolk average GVA of £43,374 has been applied to the indirect and induced jobs.

76


B INCOME TAX REVENUE INCREASE

5.6.11 Each of the people working as a result of this scheme will pay income tax and this has also been estimated.

5.6.12 Income Distribution Data for East of England from the National Statistics website has been used to calculate the average income tax generated by an individual in the East of England.

5.6.13 This has been applied to the number of jobs created. This underestimates this value because the high tech employees are paid more than the average and therefore pay more income tax.

C JOB SEEKERS ALLOWANCE REDUCTION

5.6.14 Each of the jobs created might result in less people from being out of work and claiming Job Seekers Allowance.

5.6.15 Information from the Job Seekers Allowance website has been used to estimate the cost per year for someone on Job Seekers Allowance.

5.6.16 This cost has been multiplied by the number of jobs created by the scheme (direct, indirect and induced).

D CORPORATION TAX

5.6.17 By reviewing historic information it was found that 24% of GVA relates to company profit.

5.6.18 Each of the newly created jobs contribute towards the profitability of a business and 20% of any profit is taken as corporation tax.

5.6.19 Therefore corporation tax for each created job (direct, indirect and induced) can be calculated.

E BUSINESS RATES

5.6.20 The master planning process estimated that the Island Site could accommodate 2 large companies, 10 medium companies and 50 small companies.

5.6.21 The average rateable value for England and Wales was taken from governments “central-and-local-rating-lists-summary-england-and-wales” note.

5.6.22 The government multipliers for small and other businesses were taken from Ipswich Borough Council’s website.

5.6.23 By combing the figures, the business rates generated by the companies on the Island Site were calculated.

77


F GROSS VALUE ADDED (GVA) UPLIFT -EXISTING JOBS

5.6.24 As a result of Innovation Island, the regeneration area will see businesses transferring into the information and communication sector. This project will lead to an increase in GVA of the existing workers.

5.6.25 The number of jobs in the regeneration area has been estimated during the master planning exercise.

5.6.26 GVA data from the Office of National Statistics for Suffolk (released 09 12 2015) was used to calculate the GVA for employees in different sectors.

5.6.27 The uplift in GVA for these jobs was calculated by multiplying the number of existing jobs in the regeneration area by the difference in GVA between the average job and an information and communication sector job in Suffolk.

78


FURTHER BENEFIT RESULTS

Table 5-12 shows the yearly benefit to the scheme of each of the

Table 5-12 Yearly benefits

Overall Summary - Year

GVA Uplift on jobs directly and indirectly generated £66,547,197

Income Tax Revenue £10,665,255

JSA Payment Savings £3,532,795

Corporation Tax Revenue £3,194,265

Business Rates £565,828

GVA uplift to existing jobs in the Regeneration area £121,632,122

TOTAL YEARLY BENEFITS £188,179,319

Overall Summary - Year

GVA Uplift on jobs directly and indirectly generated £66,547,197




Business Rates £565,828

GVA uplift to existing jobs in the Regeneration area £121,632,122

TOTAL YEARLY BENEFITS £188,179,319

79


5.6.28 Using WebTAG discount factors, this has been converted into a 60 year benefit shown in Table 5-13.

Table 5-13 60 year benefits

5.7 VALUE FOR MONEY STATEMENT

5.7.1 The Value for Money (VfM) of the schemes has been assessed in accordance with ‘Value for Money Assessment Advice Note for Local Transport Decision Makers’ (December 2013).

5.7.2 Option A - has a total Net Present Value (NPV) of £195m, an initial BCR of 3.39, and an adjusted BCR of 5.1.

5.7.3 This option represents high value for money.

5.7.4 Option B - has a total Net Present Value (NPV) of £273m, an initial BCR of 4.01, and an adjusted BCR of 5.73.

5.7.5 This option represents very high value for money and is the preferred option.

5.7.6 Both options also produce a regeneration affect that is not captured by the current WebTAG methodology. The preferred option is estimated to produce a benefit of over £185 million a year or nearly £6.5 billion over the 60 year appraisal period.

Overall Summary - discounted to 2015 values (60 year appraisal from 2021)

GVA Uplift on jobs directly and indirectly generated £3,295,603,625




Business Rates £14,680,255

GVA uplift to existing jobs in the Regeneration area £3,155,713,070

TOTAL DISCOUNTED BENEFITS £6,451,316,695

80


6 COMMERCIAL CASE

6.1.1 This chapter outlines the commercial viability of the scheme, and the procurement strategy which will be used to engage the market. It provides the intended approach to risk allocation and transfer, contract and implementation timescales, as well as how the capability and technical expertise of the team delivering the project will be secured.

6.2 INTRODUCTION

6.2.1 The main objective is to ensure the scheme is delivered within budget and to maximise the development and economic objectives connected with the Scheme. More specifically to:

Deliver a scheme that supports the economic prosperity of Ipswich and Suffolk by making a transformational change that adds new connectivity and additional capacity to relieve network stress improving journey time reliability and safety for all road users.

Identify and deliver a solution that is affordable and provides good value for money

Identify and deliver a solution that meets the needs of all stakeholders

Minimise environmental impacts of the solution.

6.2.2 The following are the likely key objectives against which the method of procurement can be defined:

A. Affordability within the available budget including all risks

Secure optimised whole-life cost

Meeting funding timescales for delivery

To optimise the apportionment of risk

Meeting stakeholders’ requirements.

Incentivising innovation and added value through the procurement and during construction.

6.2.3 The success criteria for the project will be measured overtime through the future economic prosperity of Ipswich and Suffolk. Outturn costs and delivery within the required timeframes will also be measurable outputs. Further details on the scheme objectives can be found in the Strategic Case.

6.2.4 An evaluation plan will set out the proposed evaluation of the Scheme. This will follow the POPE methodology and will comprise of pre-opening baseline data, one year and five years after study. This will also follow the guidance set out by the DfT on evaluation.

6.2.5 A post opening report study will assess these factors against the predictions made in the business case.

6.2.6 Wider outcomes in relation to the release of redevelopment projects, and business performance and improvement following completion of the scheme are expected to take place over a longer period but will be assessed as part of the post opening report.

81


6.3 OUTPUT BASED SPECIFICATION

6.3.1 The successful delivery of the project objectives at an outturn cost within the allocated budget will be determined by a wide range of factors which go beyond the chosen approach to the procurement strategy for the delivery of the project. For example, the form of contract on its own will not determine whether the project is successful. Factors which will contribute to a successful outcome of delivery within budget include:

A. Clarity of objectives and common understanding by all parties

Robustness of Client’s cost estimate

Adequacy of the Client’s risk pot including allowance for inflation

Effectiveness of project control processes including Gateways

Quality of the design, specification and contract documents

Engagement of the supply chain and timing of the procurement processes

Compliance with Procurement Regulations and avoidance of challenges

Appropriateness of the selection process and selection criteria

Robustness of the tender assessment process

Adequacy of the tender sum to deliver requirements

Clear understanding and allocation of contractual risks allied to a fair and transparent risk management process

Effectiveness of partnership and team working during construction

Quality of the project and contract management

Alignment of contractual performance incentives between the Employer and Contractor

Early Contractor Involvement

Effectiveness of dispute avoidance and resolution procedures

Availability of the necessary resources

6.3.2 These can be grouped into the following broad categories:

A. Project objectives

Cost estimating

Risk management

Project governance

Form of contract

Supplier selection

Performance management

Resource capacity and capability

82


6.4 PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

6.4.1 Following on from output based specification the procurement strategy suggested in this section needs to be managed, developed and recorded in the dynamic context of the development of the project itself.

6.4.2 This is based on the experience that assumptions made at a point in time may well change during future scheme development. Therefore continually reviewing the baseline and developed assumptions, and crucially being prepared to challenge and change when counterfactual evidence to the assumptions is identified, should result in the procurement being as closely aligned to the scheme objectives as possible.

6.4.3 It is recognised that the form of procurement itself plays a considerable role in the behaviour and project culture that is likely to be manifest during the physical delivery of the scheme. This is based on experience that people and organisations will both take less risk and react negatively or cautiously to issues requiring change and negotiation; if procurement and particularly the contractual terms and conditions are alien to them.

6.4.4 From this understanding we have taken the view that for a publically procured Civil Engineering scheme the New Engineering Contract (NEC) family of contracts and it is general procedures should be used in the procurement of this scheme for sourcing options 1 to 4 in 6.4. If sourcing options 5 and 6 form 6.4. are to be pursued then consideration of the variance between the terms and conditions in these existing framework contracts and the NEC should be undertaken and the impact evaluated in making a decision on sourcing options.

6.4.5 There are a number of key elements in the development of a successful procurement strategy:

A. Approval by Suffolk County Council, the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership and the Department for Transport, including the preferred strategy and financial analysis

Distillation of client and stakeholder objectives into tangible, measurable and achievable Employer’s Requirements

Timing and type of engagement with Contractors/Providers

Assessment of NEC contract options

Market engagement and market testing

Consideration, Management and mitigation of the prevailing market conditions at the time of procurement and projected through the contract period

6.5 CLIENT AND STAKEHOLDER PROCUREMENT OBJECTIVES

6.5.1 The overarching objective of Suffolk County Council and the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership is to ensure the scheme is delivered to a programme to maximise development and economic objectives connected with the Scheme and generate private sector investor confidence in Ipswich. This requires any programme for delivery publicised to be broadly followed.

6.5.2 The following are the key objectives against which the method of procurement can be defined:

Affordability

Optimise whole-life cost

83


To award a contract at an appropriate time to maintain the momentum necessary for scheme delivery within the planned timescale

To optimise the apportionment of risk

6.5.3 The interests of the following stakeholders will be considered:

Suffolk County Council (SCC);


Ipswich Borough Council (IBC)

Department for Transport (DfT).

Highways England

Associated British Ports

Environment Agency and Marine Management Organisation

84


6.6 SECURING ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL OUTCOMES THROUGH PROCUREMENT

6.6.1 At a strategic level the objectives and desired outcomes set in Strategic Case should be stated in the ITT (Instructions for Tenderers) and the OBC supplied as a reference document to Tenderers. The main objectives should be carried forward by the physical manifestation of the scheme i.e. in ‘The Design’, and in the employer’s requirements if elements of the scheme are to be designed by the Contractor.

6.6.2 However the method, management and culture of the construction can also contribute to, or detract from, the overall outcomes ultimately achieved by the scheme. Therefore the economic and social outcomes should be transposed into relevant contextual objectives for Tenderers to respond to in the Quality Submission and reflected in their proposals for the construction of the scheme.

6.6.3 This could range from creating local employment, skills and training opportunities to suggesting design changes that maximise the schemes economic impact, usability and durability.

6.6.4 Specific to Environmental outcomes; it is recommended that discrete quality criteria are set that reward environmental enhancement and betterment. This is in addition to the minimum requirements set to discharge planning conditions. Consultation during the design development with Environment Agency, MMO and Natural England should be leveraged to help set the evaluation of Tenderers proposals for enhancement and betterment.

6.6.5 A number of options were identified in respect of the general approach, level and timing for contractor involvement:

Design Only and Separate Build (Traditional) - The traditional procurement method involves the employer employing his own design team or consultants to prepare a design and to issue this to a number of contractors to tender for the works. The employer remains responsible for the delivery of the design to the contractor through his consultants.

Design and Build (D&B) - The design and build contract involves the employer setting out their requirements, but leaving the contractor responsible for design. This is, nationally, currently the most common method of procurement and there are perceived advantages to this type of contract. These advantages include having the design risk with the contractor and having one point of contact for the employer.

Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) - This type of contract involves bringing the contractor on board earlier in a project. It can cater for either a hands on (design and build) or hands off (build only) approach depending on where the employer wishes to place the risk. With the “hands off” approach the design risk is passed to the contractor as they select the design team. With the “hands on” approach the contractor would not select the designer and the design risk would not be transferred, with SCC appointing the designer.

6.6.6 This would allow SCC the opportunity to control quality and retain an influence in the design as it develops. ECI would allow SCC the opportunity to award the contract early before the detailed design stage.

85


6.7 PROCUREMENT METHOD

6.7.1 The Council, with the services of WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff, has developed the scheme through to preferred option stage during the production of this Outline Business Case. Appropriate consultancy support will be retained to produce the Full Business Case and associated tasks, which will include undertaking the detailed design and preparing the documents required for the NSIP / DCO process. This ensures continuity of approach and retains invested scheme knowledge to build a robust defence against any potential objections.

6.8 SOURCING OPTIONS

6.8.1 The sourcing options available to SCC to procure the scheme are as follows.

Open Tender under the EU regulations (OJEU)

Restricted Tender under the EU regulations (OJEU)

Competitive procedure with negotiation

Competitive dialogue

SCC or other National/Regional Construction Framework Contract

SCC Kier: Through the Suffolk Highways Partnership

6.8.2 The 2015 Public Contract Regulations also allow the use of Innovation Partnerships but the requirements of the likely procurement for construction and design and the number of potential economic operators able to supply services are unlikely to give material grounds to use this sourcing option.

86


The Table below considers the options in the context of the scheme development to date.

OPTION DESCRIPTION ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES TAKE

FORWARD?

Open Tender under the EU regulations (OJEU)

No PQQ open invitation to any economic operator

For this type of work and value it is probable that considerably more than 5 tenders would be received creating considerable work for the client and the wider industry. This route is rarely used for similar schemes, and its use would cause concern that there was an underlying problem/risk driving it.

No

Restricted Tender under the EU regulations (OJEU)

PQQ selection process followed by Tender to a minimum of 5 Economic Operators.

Fairly Standard and widely used route for procuring similar schemes, allows potential tenderers to be filtered based on general suitability and relevant experience to the most suitable (based on the PQQ scoring criteria) for delivering the scheme. Its main drawback is that is doesn’t allow any scope for scheme specific refinement of the procurement from the suppliers perspective based on the technical detail and client requirements of the ITT.

Yes

Competitive procedure with negotiation

PQQ selection followed by negotiation with a minimum of 3 Economic Operators

The simplification and opening up of this route in 2015 Public Contract Regulations has made it more attractive to this type of scheme as a key advantage is the ability to refine of the procurement from the suppliers perspective based on the technical detail and client requirements of the ITT. The disadvantage is the need for a more detailed PQQ and additional time needed during tender period for iterations of negotiation and re-submission of Tenders

Yes

Competitive dialogue

PQQ selection followed by negotiation with a minimum of 3 Economic Operators

Competitive dialogue is a further evolution of Competitive Negotiation which allows most aspects of an initial ITT to be revised through dialogue with Economic Operators (including the award criteria) its disadvantage for this scheme is that that the additional complexity an time would gain little benefit over negotiation, as the scheme, budget and programme will all have been broadly fixed.

No

SCC or other National/Regional Construction Framework Contract

SCAPE Framework could be used but does require almost as much negotiation as competitive procedure with negotiation.

Maybe

Table 6-1: Options in the context of scheme development

6.9 PREFERRED PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE

6.9.1 The preferred sourcing option is therefore either a restricted Tender under the EU regulations (OJEU) or the Competitive procedure with negotiation (OJEU).

6.9.2 The Restricted Procedure is preferential due to the fact that it will be possible to publish a well-defined tender package for bidders to price against although variant tenders would be accepted in order to allow bidders to propose alternative solutions. The Restricted Procedure also has defined timescales for each stage which will allow the Council to ensure that the tenders can be received by the dates required by the overall project programme.

6.9.3 The Council currently uses the Restricted Procedure for procuring highway engineering schemes and is well-practised in its use. However, the Council will also consider the use of the Competitive Procedure with Negotiation as it may offer benefits, such as being able to discuss initial tenders with the bidders if they identify elements of the scheme that could be improved if carried out differently from the tender proposals. The selected procedure will be confirmed in the Full Business Case.

87


6.9.4 The information required from the bidders during the PQQ and ITT stages will ensure that the objectives set out within the Economic Case are achieved, particularly the timely completion of the works in order to realise the economic benefits to the public arising from the provision of the new crossing.

6.10 DETAILS OF PREFERRED PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE

6.10.1 Summarising the key processes within this procedures, a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) will be issued, which will allow potential bidders to be scored on a range of commercial, financial and technical criteria as well as on their processes for dealing with quality, health and safety, environmental management and compliance with statutory legislation. The responses received from potential bidders will be scored according to pre-determined criteria in order to identify those who will be eligible to participate in the tender. Of the eligible bidders, a minimum of 5 would be selected to continue to the ITT stage, unless there are fewer than 5 eligible bidders in which case they would all continue.

6.10.2 The bidders who are successful at PQQ stage will issued with the Invitation to Tender (ITT) documentation which will include the following documents:

Instructions for Tendering and Guidance Notes

Contract Data part one

Form of Tender, Form of Agreement, Contract Data part two

Works Information

Contract Drawings

Bill of Quantities

Site Information

Pre-Construction Information

6.10.3 The bidders will be expected to return the following information within their tender:

6.10.4 The following information will be required in the Quality Statement:

Key staff and contract management – details of key individuals, including CVs with their skills and experience. The site management and supervisory arrangements, contract management arrangements and arrangements for the management of sub-contractors.

Programme, including risk – detailed programme including the pre-construction, construction and commissioning/handover phases of the project with critical path analysis.

Construction – details of how the scheme would be constructed, taking the site constraints into account. Evidence of experience undertaking similar projects. Descriptions of how the safe operation of the construction site(s) will be managed (including reference to traffic management).

Financial management – including details of any mitigation and avoidance strategies to reduce risks to time, cost and quality, and any value engineering efficiencies which have enabled the costs to be kept down.

Stakeholder management and communication – description of the bidder’s approach to stakeholder engagement and management, including the use of electronic and social media.

The completion of a Health and Safety questionnaire, provided by the Council.

Insurance – details of insurance policies, including a statement undertaking responsibility for dealing with claims, or parts of such claims, within the excess amount.

88


6.10.5 Bidders will be given the opportunity to submit alternative designs (where improvements to quality, cost, or delivery can be identified) as variant bids. If they intend to do this, they will be requested to supply the following information:

The revised plans, drawings and documentation

Schedule of changes from the original design

Report on the Environmental Impact of the alternative design, including mitigation measures

A statement on how the outline Health & Safety Plan would change resulting from the alternative design

The following completed documents

Approval in Principle forms for each alternative structure

Addendum Approval in Principle Forms

Stage 1 Safety Audit Certificate

6.10.6 The following information will be required in the Financial Statement:

Completed Form of Tender

Fully priced bill of quantities

Completed Contract Data part two

6.10.7 If a variant bid is submitted in Part A then the following additional information will be required:

A fully priced extension to the bill of quantities

A statement setting out the cost savings

All other information required to be submitted at the tender stage.

6.10.8 Each tender will be assessed by pre-determined weightings to the sections of information provided in the Quality and Financial Statements. A final assessment will require the three top-scoring bidders to make a presentation to a tender assessment panel and answer questions, usually based on the quality aspect of their submission.

89


6.11 PAYMENT MECHANISMS

6.11.1 The NEC family of contracts provides five payment options all of which can be varied by contact specific Z Clauses to refine each method to the specific context. At this stage it is suggested that some scope for negotiation and or consultation through market engagement it left to define the chosen payment mechanism. This it to ensure that the market sentiment towards one or other option is understood and the likely impact on cost risk and programme is assessed.

6.11.2 The commentary below on the NEC options available should be used as baseline for the development of procurement strategy and also used to assess (by comparison) the payment mechanisms in sourcing options 5&6 if they are non NEC are highly modified hybrids.

NEC OPTION PAYMENT DESCRIPTION ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES

A – Lump Sum Activity Schedule

Payment against milestones in the activity schedule. Payment for change based on a pre-defined schedule of Cost Components submitted by the Contractor.

Risk of quantity variations sits with the Contractor. Payment is simple against defined milestone completions, minimises bureaucracy in submitting and assessing payment. In a buoyant market the more onerous risk transfer to the Contractor will likely inflate prices. Change can be expensive particularly when involving prolongation as submit tender preliminaries are often inflated as contingency against risk

B – Bill of Quantities

Payment by value and re-measure against the contractors tendered rates

Risk of quantity variation (either increase or decrease) retained by the Employer, programme risk sits with Contractor. Certifying Payment requires more risk from the Contractor

C – Target Cost (Lump Sum Activity Schedule)

The Contractor tenders (or negotiates) a target price using an activity schedule. Each activity is priced as a lump sum and a Fee is also tendered as a percentage for subcontract work and for the Contractor’s own direct work. The initial target price is the sum of the activity prices and the fee. During the course of the contract, the target price is adjusted to cater for compensation events that are set out in the contract. Payment is made on the basis of actual costs with an incentive mechanism for the Contractor to minimise costs. Savings and over-runs are shared between the parties. The sharing of risk in the target cost approach is likely to reduce the occurrence of disputes

Requires experiences contract administration staff on the Employers side to manage the technical, financial and administrative functions. The method does lend itself to larger and more complex contracts and does remove some of the Contractors ability to load costs on to an area they feel that is most likely to change, as it is not in their interest to do so.

D – Target Cost (Bill of Quantities)

The Contractor tenders (or negotiates) a target price using a bill of quantities to build up the target. Payment is made against the actual quantities realised in addition to same system to compensation events as Option C. This option is rarely used in the UK as its similarity to option B and added complexity to administrate means that it is not attractive to clients

The mechanism can prove very good value if the design is very detailed and there is considerable surety over the desired programme length as the Contractor does have to price as much risk as in options A to C. As the scheme is likely to be complex and within a restricted urban site with multiple interfaces and require the diversion of major statutory undertakers plant the risk retained by the employer will be substantial.

E – Cost Reimbursable

The Contractor simply prices profit and overhead and takes no risk on either the programme or quantities.

In a recessionary period this can be good value, but in general it isn’t used for complex standalone schemes because there is little commercial incentive for the Contractor to innovate.

90


Table 6-2: Building blocks

6.12 PRICING FRAMEWORKS AND CHARGING MECHANISMS

6.12.1 At this stage of the development of the scheme the potential use of payment incentives is considered to be unnecessary. This may change if the form of contract used and payment option does not sufficiently reward or penalise contractors to achieve the client’s objectives.

6.13 RISK ALLOCATION AND TRANSFER

6.13.1 The project team and stakeholders have systematically reviewed the risks identified in during the scheme development by identifying - both scheme specific risks and generic risks associated with the design, procurement and construction inherit in similar schemes. Therefore the current risk register contains risks that in the future will be split between the Employer and the Contractor during procurement.

6.13.2 The scheme costs currently include optimism bias and contingency associated with risk, following the Quantified Risk Assessment (in alignment with the DfT guidance on the production of Outline Business Cases). The detailed description of this process is outlined in the Management Case. The risk of costs being higher than currently predicted remains until the tendering process is complete, which is the point that this risk can be transferred to the contractor.

6.13.3 The approach that will be followed during procurement will be to assess which party can best mitigate the project risks identified, and therefore would be best placed to hold them upon contract award. The use of a negotiated contract would help this process and give clarity to risk held and the likely cost to the Employer of each party carrying them. There is a subtle difference between the way each NEC option deals with risk and as the scheme developers further this will require further assessment to select the best option.

6.13.4 The main risks suggested to be retained by the Employer in following this approach are:

Failure by the Employer to deliver obligations such as land entry and timescales for contractual processes

The need for Employer’s changes

Unforeseen physical conditions

Inaccuracies or incompleteness of any of the data or information related to services

Employer’s pre-contract advance works progress which might result in delivery and programme delays to the Contractor

Employer’s pre-contract arrangements with Others/third parties

Employer’s delay in procuring in advance the Statutory Undertakers’ diversions detailed in the Employer’s Requirements in accordance with the New Road and Street Works Act 1991 Change in the law.

6.13.5 The Employer’s requirements should contain risk mitigation measures, including delivery and programme risks, which will substantially rest with the Contractor. Other risks retained by the Contractor are:

91


‘Force majeure’ clause which covers events that either stop the Contractor completing the works or make it impossible for him to complete on time, whatever measures he might take

Exceptional weather

Delay damages

Meeting the special requirements in relation to Statutory/Privatised bodies and other companies

Environmental constraints.

6.14 CONTRACT LENGTH

6.14.1 The contract length is currently estimated to be 30 months. This will be developed into a more fulsome programme as the design and planning constraints are understood. See programme in Appendix H.

6.14.2 Key Contract clauses will flow from the NEC (ECC) Core Clauses and consideration will be given to the use of sectional completion and key dates within the Contract, as the design and planning progresses. Ideally as much flexibility will be given and the minimum amount of constraints imposed upon Tenderers to elicit the most innovative and cost effective construction solutions.

6.15 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES

6.15.1 It is not anticipated that there will be any Personnel or TUPE issues associated with this procurement.

6.15.2 Technical resources, required to deliver the design, planning and contract management, will be drawn from Suffolk County Council and its supply chain partners.

6.15.3 The management of the design and main design resources will also be drawn from Suffolk County Council and its supply chain partners.

6.16 CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

6.16.1 High Level View of Implementation Timescales – Flowing from the current indicative Programme:

Submission of Outline Business Case – Dec 2015

DfT Confirm Scheme Entry – March 2016

Scheme Development - April 2016 to March 2017

Planning (DCO + HRO) - April 2017 to October 2018

Contract Procurement – May to October 2018

Submission of Full Business Case - November 2018

Award of Contract –December 2018

Mobilisation Jan to March 2019

Start on site April 2019

Construction Period - April 2019 to September 2022

Close out and Handover October 2022

92


6.17 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

6.17.1 The timescale for delivery is necessarily compressed to be on site in 2019 therefore the resourcing of the procurement and subsequent construction contract management will benefit from continuity of resources (personnel) who can carry forward many of the objectives and nuances of the scheme through all stages of delivery. This core team would be supplemented as necessary from SCC’s professional services supply chain, including, specialist procurement, legal and quantity surveying services.

6.17.2 The use of BIM will also be central to our contract management strategy and provide a single source of data from project inception to close out and handover. A BIM strategy will be developed in full upon successful progress through the Outline Business Case stage.

93


7 FINANCIAL CASE

7.1 INTRODUCTION

7.1.1 This chapter sets out the Financial Case for the wet dock crossing. The funding and budget sources are broken down to show where the capital for the project has originated from. The risks associated with this investment are discussed and a quantified risk breakdown is provided.

7.1.2 The scheme cost estimates were developed by WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff as consultants to Suffolk County Council. The estimating procedures and presentation are compliant with WebTAG unit 3.5.9.

7.1.3 Cost estimates were developed by the project team and specialists Quantity Surveyors, with input from Suffolk County Council, specialist teams and external experts. They were subjected to a critical review, which was informed by unit cost guidelines from several recent local construction projects.

7.1.4 A costed risk value was developed and inflation rates established against market forecasts. Finally an optimism bias was assessed and applied to the estimates in accordance with WebTAG.

94


7.2 COST ASSUMPTIONS

7.2.1 Table 7-1 shows the estimated cost of Option A and Option B in 2015 prices.

Estimated Cost (2015)

Option A Option B

UPFRONT COSTS

Bridge(s) - structure £37,586,843 £42,589,495

Bridge(s) - aesthetic extra over £1,879,342 £2,129,475

Design Fee £5,000,000 £5,000,000

Immediate junctions £2,567,577 £2,982,700

Land Purchase Cost £16,477,134 £21,022,263

Land Compensation Cost £1,335,000 £1,300,000

ABP railway line alterations £2,500,000

Environmental mitigation £355,100 £663,200

Total Upfront Costs £67,700,996 £75,687,132

Table 7-1 Estimated 2015 costs

7.2.2 Table 7-2 shows the quantified risk for each option. These are defined in more detail in the quantified risk register (Appendix G).

. 2015 Risk

Option A Option B

Bridge(s) - structure £5,638,026.41 £6,388,424.20 Bridge(s) - aesthetic extra over £281,901 £319,421

Design Fee £750,000 £750,000

Immediate junctions £385,137 £447,405

Land Purchase Cost £3,295,426.80 £4,204,453

Land Compensation Cost £200,250 £195,000

ABP railway line alterations £375,000 £0

Environmental mitigation £53,265 £99,480

£10,979,006 £12,404,183

Table 7-2 Risk in 2015

95


7.3 BUDGETS/FUNDING COVER

7.3.1 The total estimated project cost of the preferred option is £88,091,315.37 in 2015 prices and £99,190,821.11 in 2021 prices.

7.3.2 The local contribution for this project will be up to 20% of the total project cost.

7.3.3 The local contribution will be made up from one or more of the following funding sources:

Pooled business rates

Enterprise zone rates retention

Future arrangements for business rates retention

Potential infrastructure fund following devolution

Potential long term New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership growth deal

CIL / S106

7.3.4 Given the uncertainties about future sources of funding for this project, the local contribution will be underwritten by Suffolk County Council to ensure certainty of funding.

7.3.5 A signed funding statement supports this Business Case.

7.3.6 There is confidence that the project can be delivered within the budget and the costings have been analysed by third parties.

96


7.4 RISK

7.4.1 The projects quantified risk assessment equates to £12.4m.

7.4.2 DfT expenditure will be capped at 80% of the total cost of the scheme as proposed.

7.4.3 The key financial or funding risks have been identified and are summarised below:

Failure to identify funding strategy

Failure to obtain funding

Delay in obtaining funding

Inaccurate inflation allowance

Change to VAT

Inaccurate fee estimations

Failure to identify appropriate market costs of works estimation

Poor financial control

7.4.4 A project risk register, which details all identified risks to the scheme, is included in Appendix G.

7.4.5 The version of the risk register appended is concurrent with the quoted scheme costs and spend profile. However it should be noted that the risk register is a live document, which is regularly reviewed and updated.

7.4.6 Managing the risks identified within the Risk Register provides confidence that the scheme can be delivered within the budget. Using a quantified risk approach allows the high value risks to be identified and mitigated against.

97


8 MANAGEMENT CASE

8.1 INTRODUCTION

8.1.1 This chapter forms the management case for the Ipswich Wet Dock Crossing scheme. It describes how the scheme will be delivered through project management best practice, confirming that the timescales are realistic and demonstrating that an appropriate governance structure is in place to oversee the project.

8.1.2 We have used an industry standard approach but also considered local variations.

8.1.3 The Management Case comprises of the following components:

Evidence of similar projects;

Programme and project dependencies;

The governance structure (management framework);

The scheme / project scheduling;

The stakeholder management process;

The risk management process;

How the benefits set out in the economic case will be monitored and realised.

8.2 PREVIOUS SCHEME DELIVERY

8.2.1 Suffolk County Council has a proven track record of delivering large infrastructure schemes. A selection of key schemes have been listed in the table below, summarising the scope of works, capital costs, timescales for implementation and the procurement strategy employed. Opportunities will be taken, wherever possible, to improve delivery processes, through acting upon lessons learnt.

98


No. Contract Description Works Date Form of Contract Approximate

Value

Project

Delivered

Successfully

1 Suffolk Highways

Services Contract

Fabrication, construction and installation of a new

pedestrian and cycle bridge over the A14 at Bury

St Edmunds (Thingoe Hill to Northgate Avenue).

April 2014 –

September

2014

Through the

Support Services

Contract (NEC)

£1,500,000 Yes

2 Suffolk Highways

Services Contract

Construction of a flood alleviation scheme on the

A12 at Blythburgh which included the installation

of 800m of steel sheet piling and earth

embankments.

May 2014 –

September

2014

Through the

Support Services

Contract (NEC)

£800,000 Yes

3 Competitive Tender The B1115 Stowmarket Relief Road was a major

transport scheme consisting of a new road and

alterations to the existing Stowmarket inner relief

road (Gipping Way) to help to relieve congestion

around the town centre, and to integrate new

developments on the outskirts of the town with the

town centre. It also included the provision of a

bridge over the Norwich to London railway line

and removal of a level crossing.

May 2008 –

August 2010

NEC Option C £12,000,000 Yes

4 Suffolk Highways

Services Contract /

OGC Framework /

Competitive Tender

‘Ipswich Transport Fit For the 21st Century’ (Travel

Ipswich scheme) was an integrated scheme

involving:

competitive tender for reconstruction of two

bus stations (Old Cattle Market and Tower

Ramparts), one junction and associated

works;

OGC Framework Contract for provision of

Variable Message Signing and Real Time

Passenger Information system;

July 2012 –

September

2015

NEC Option B and

Through the

Support Services

Contract

£21,000,000 Yes

99



Value

Project

Delivered

Successfully

Suffolk Highways Services Contract for the

modernisation of traffic signal junctions and

connection into and implementation of an

Urban Traffic Management and Control

system.

The scheme also included a detailed programme

of improvements to walking and cycling routes

and crossings in and around the town centre.

5 Lowestoft Southern

Relief Road

Competitive Tender

Construction of a new 3km single carriageway

relief road, as well as 750m of ‘on-line’ widening

and other improvements to the existing

carriageway in order to maximise key brownfield

sites to the south of Lake Lothing. It also provides

an Urban Traffic Management and Control

(UTMC) system, including:

SCOOT traffic signals;

Bus priority measures;

Real time passenger information;

Variable Message Signing;

Air Quality monitoring.

The associated traffic management measures

were completed in early 2007, following the

construction of the main relief road (Tom Crisp

Way) in June 2006.

January 2005

– February

2007

NEC Contract £31,000,000 Yes

6 Mutford Lock

Refurbishment

Construction of Mutford Lock lift bridges

comprising a 12m span steel bascule bridge with

1992 ICE Conditions of

Contract

£6,000,000 Yes

100



Value

Project

Delivered

Successfully

(Competitive Tender) fixed approach spans on both approaches and an

8.6m span timber overhead bascule pedestrian

bridge, together with associated approach road /

junction improvements and reconstruction of

adjacent railway level crossing.

7 Eastern Highways

Alliance Framework 1

The Lowestoft Northern Spine Road Phase 5

construction of a 1.5km section of single

carriageway road with one associated roundabout

connecting in to the Trunk Road network.

July 2014 –

March 2015

NEC Option B £5,000,000 Yes

Table 7-1: Summary of previous scheme delivery

101


8.2.2 WSP | PB bring significant experience in delivering large bridge schemes, as well as regeneration projects:

Redhayes Bridge, Devon

A visually striking twin-arch bowstring bridge with a 269-foot (82-metre) span, Redhayes was the first bridge in the UK to be designed and constructed to the new Eurocodes standards. In its opening year, the project secured a prestigious British Construction Industry Award.

The bridge itself fulfilled a specific need to connect a major development area to the east of Exeter into the city's sustainable transport networks. Upon opening, the bridge re-established a local travel corridor that was severed when the M5 motorway was built 40 years ago.

One Glass Wharf, Bristol

One Glass Wharf forms the centrepiece of a major urban regeneration scheme at Temple Quay in Bristol, which has brought new homes and jobs to a previously derelict area of the city.

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff provided consultancy on building services design, vertical transportation, acoustics and fire engineering for the 20,000m² building, which meant the collaboration of several disciplines.

8.3 PROGRAMME /PROJECT DEPENDENCIES

8.3.1 The scheme is not reliant on any other schemes happening before or after for it to realise its benefits. No other future projects or schemes are dependent on it. It can be delivered, designed and costed independently and can progress in isolation.

8.4 PROJECT GOVERNANCE, ORGANISATION STRUCTURE AND ROLES

8.4.1 The management of the development and delivery of this project is being undertaken by Suffolk County Council as the lead authority.

8.4.2 Suffolk County Council have created a version of PRINCE2 specifically modified for use by Suffolk County Council, called PRINCESS (Prince 2 Suffolk Style)

8.4.3 PRINCESS helps to apply best practice and supports good decision making to projects in Suffolk.

8.4.4 A well-functioning governance structure will be crucial to the successful delivery of the scheme. Suffolk County Council (SCC) will therefore establish a Project Board, a Project Delivery Team and a Stakeholder Group to work together to deliver the scheme. This organisational and governance structure is illustrated in

8.4.5 The Project Board’s primary function is decision-making and review, and will provide strategic governance, as opposed the technical input of the Delivery Team. The Board will be responsible for:

• Managing the scheme and ensuring its successful delivery;

• Keeping track of the contractor’s adherence to the project programme and completion of milestones, to ensure that the scheme is delivered within the constraints of time and budget;

• Providing guidance and support to the Project Manager;

• Authorising necessary funds and spending (to the Contractor);

• Stakeholder management; and

• Managing risks (a shared responsibility with the contractor).

102


8.4.6 The Programme Board will meet on a monthly basis and will be responsible for:

Providing direction to ensure the success of the project in terms of the right activities, within budget, on time and to the correct quality standards;

Ensuring sufficient resources are allocated to the programme;

Providing direction and guidance on issues brought forward by the Programme Manager;

Taking account of risks and their impact on achieving the scheme objectives;

Approving (and where necessary requesting) changes to the programme management procedures, project plans and project deliverables;

All publicity and dissemination of information about the project to an external audience; and formal closure of the project.

Figure 8-1: Governance Structure

103


8.4.7 The design of the Scheme is to be undertaken by consultants through Suffolk County Council’s supply chain partners for the provision of professional services. This will ensure that there is ongoing specialist expertise available which will be vital for the successful implementation of the project.

8.4.8 The proposed governance structure for this project is shown below:

MEMBER KEY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES RESOURCED

Project Director

Senior Responsible Owner

Responsible for delivering the new capabilities through the management (planning and monitoring) of the project.

Geoff Dobson, Director of Resource Management, Suffolk County Council

Corporate financial manager

Responsible for managing the project budget, monitoring expenditures and costs throughout the project.

Tracey Woods, Chief Accountant (Financial Control), Suffolk County Council

Senior Supplier Responsible for the accountability of the quality of deliverables produced by the design consultants.

Jerry Pert, Kier Group (Suffolk Highways)


New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership representative Chris Starkey, Managing Director, New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership

Communications Lead

Responsible for communication and stakeholder engagement

Adam Barnes, Senior Strategic Communications Officer, Suffolk County Council

Economic Development and Regeneration

Responsible for ensuring the project meets its Economic Development potential

Paul Wood, Head of Economic Development & Regeneration, Suffolk County Council

Project Director Responsible for the delivery of a product that is relevant, to the required standard of quality within the specified constraints of time and cost Responsible for project delivering benefits defined in business case

Dave Watson, Suffolk County Council

Principal Designer

Design Team Director

Responsible for ensuring the production of the product defined by the project director. Delivering a quality product on time and to budget

To be appointed

Design Team Manager

Responsible for managing the multi-disciplinary team to deliver a quality product on time and to budget.

To be appointed

Other Roles

Environmental Officer

Responsible for ensuring the project adequately considers and mitigates its environmental impact.

Nick Collinson, Natural Environment Manager, Suffolk County Council

Transport Policy Responsible for ensuring the project fits with Suffolk Transport Policy

Graeme Mateer, Transport Policy Specialist, Suffolk County Council

Economic Policy Responsible for ensuring the project fits with Suffolk Economic Policy

Mike Dowdall, Economic Development Manager, Suffolk County Council

Project Assurance Provides an independent review of project progress TBC

Table 8-1: Key roles and responsibilities

104


8.5 RISK MANAGEMENT

8.5.1 The early development of this project has been carried out with a single steering group/project board called the Taskforce.

8.5.2 The taskforce have met at least monthly throughout the project to:

Guide the design team

Bring together the skills, experiences, abilities and influences of its members

Assign key tasks to members best placed to carry them out (liaison with Government, liaison with business leaders, analysing survey results)

Make key decisions about the direction of the project.

8.5.3 The taskforce was made up of:

Ben Gummer (MP for Ipswich)

Chris Starkey (New Anglia LEP)

Councillor Guy McGregor (Suffolk County Council)

Councillor David Elsmere (Ipswich Borough Council)

Andrew Harston (Associated British Ports)

Richard Lister (University Campus Suffolk)

Will Thomas (University Campus Suffolk)

Dave Watson (Transport Strategy Manager – Suffolk County Council)

Sue Roper (Assistant Director – Suffolk County Council)

105


8.6 PROJECT PROGRAMME / PLAN

8.6.1 A project programme has been developed for this Outline Business Case setting out all the key project tasks and their duration, the interdependencies between each of the tasks, and key milestones and gateways. Certain elements of the programme have built in tolerance / contingency to account for risks identified within the risk register (which could have an impact upon the programme).

8.6.2 The programme will be a live document, with progress on planned task completion being monitored against actual progress on a weekly basis by the project manager. The Project Manager will report progress against plan to the Project Board.

8.6.3 A greater level of detail will be introduced into the programme during the Full Business Case production, as detailed design of the scheme progresses and as risk quantification and impacts change.

8.6.4 A Project Programme is provided in included as Appendix H. This Project Plan summarises this plan and aims to ensure construction has begun in early 2011.

8.6.5 Key items from the Project Plan are listed in Table 8-2

8.6.6 Task Duration of task (days) Start Date

Outline Business Case (OBC) 186 days October 2015

Full Business Case (FBC) 375 days May 2017

Public and Stakeholder Consultations 260 days October 2015

Design 395 days October 2015

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project NSIP Process

130 days June 2016

Development Consent Order (DCO) 355 days September 2016

Orders 80 days September 2016

Contractor Appointment 255 days January 2018 Prequalification period 155 days January 2018 Tender period 100 days August 2018

Construction Period 1000 days January 2019

Project completion

October 2022

Table 8-2: Key tasks and dates from the Project Plan

106


8.6.7 This Scheme enables significant amounts of land development and area wide regeneration. It also provides transport benefits to both the local road network and the trunk road network. It is therefore expected that this will be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, as defined by the Planning Act 2008. The project plan therefore shows the delivery of the scheme by way of a Development Consent Order. This will contain all the required powers and consents to progress the Scheme, such as planning application, compulsory purchase, highway stopping up and diversion, traffic regulation and trunk road designation. Suffolk County Council has procured specialist legal advice and is confident that a case can be made to the Secretary of State for Transport for this project to be designated as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.

8.6.8 Completing the Development Consent Order relies heavily on appropriate consultation with stakeholders. To enable meaningful consultation, traffic and environmental assessment is being carried out in line with the programme. Each item includes an appropriate allowance for sign-off with the relevant body (e.g. Environment Agency, Highways Agency, etc.) and the Taskforce has already been working in partnership with key stakeholders to progress the project to this stage.

8.6.9 Project Management is to be undertaken by Suffolk County Council. The Project Management team consists of a Project Director and Project Manager, responsible for the coordination of the project.

8.6.10 Both the Contractor Team and Design Team will have individual a Team Director and Manager. The Project Management team, Contractor Team and Design Team will meet every other week to ensure the successful co-ordination of tasks.

107


8.7 IMPLEMENTATION OF WORK STREAMS

8.7.1 Highway and structural design of the Scheme will be completed through appropriate consultancy services. The management of the design and main design resources will be drawn from Suffolk County Council and its supply chain partners such as WSP | PB, to ensure that there is on-going specialist expertise available which will be vital for the successful implementation of the project. In indicative team structure is shown below. The team is split into four major of streams with each having a stream leader. They are responsibility for the delivery of their streams tasks. The streams are further split into tasks and disciplines; each task has its own task manager. Co-ordination of the streams is the responsibility of the Design Team Director and Manager.

8.7.2 Environmental Assessment, Traffic and Modelling Assessment, Detailed Design and the Full Business Case will be completed by consultants in Suffolk County Council’s supply chain, such as Kier and WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff, who prepared this outline business case.

8.7.3 Being a large multinational consultancy, with strong presence in the UK, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff are able to draw upon a deep pool of resources to complete the design of the Scheme. Relevant specialists have been already assigned to the assessment each environmental sub-objective. A team of traffic modellers are in place and have carried out significant Traffic Assessment and Modelling and have been liaising with the Department for Transport. A task manager has been identified for completion of the Full Business Case, who will be able to draw on the relevant specialist within each discipline when required. This will finalise the Business Case process.

Figure 8-2: Team

108


8.8 PREVIOUS STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

8.8.1 Many of the major stakeholders have been part of the Taskforce. As the taskforce has met monthly, these stakeholders have been well informed and engaged with the progress of the project to this point.

8.8.2 Many additional engagement sessions with these stakeholders has also taken place away from the Taskforce meetings. These have been set up to address key issues or concerns. This has resulted in the development of the project processing with support from all the stakeholders.

8.8.3 Suffolk County Council has consulted Highways England and the DfT in regard to the development of the proposals, and this is ongoing.

8.8.4 Full consultation with local business has taken place. The Ipswich Chamber of Commerce contacted all the businesses in the greater Ipswich area. The businesses were asked to fill in a questionnaire and attend and workshop. The workshop was particularly useful in understanding the concerns and issues felt by the local businesses.

8.8.5 A full report about this process can be seen in Appendix I. A wet dock crossing has been very well received, with businesses seeing the benefits to their business. This consultation has highlighted a significant support to a new crossing with 81% believing that the Scheme would increase their business prospects

8.8.6 A wet dock crossing has been discussed by members of Ipswich Borough Council and Suffolk County Council. The wet dock crossing has been consulted on during the development of Suffolk County Council’s Local Transport Plan and Ipswich Borough Council’s Local Plan. Both these two organisations are supportive of the crossing.

STATUTORY CONSULTATION

8.8.7 As part of the environmental assessment of the scheme, Natural England and the Environment Agency have been consulted on the early development of the scheme.

8.8.8 Historic England noted the presence of a number of heritage assets in the vicinity of the Wet Dock All of which are described within the baseline conditions section in the historic environment chapter of the Environmental Assessment Report.

109


8.9 FUTURE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

8.9.1 Full public consultation has therefore programmed for May 2016, subject to clarity over future funding of a wet dock crossing. These events will provide the opportunity for the local community, local interested parties, businesses and other stakeholders to comment on and shape the proposal.

8.9.2 The full external communication strategy for this project has been included in Appendix J; the internal communication strategy is included as Appendix J.

8.9.3 Table 8-3 shows the plan for liaison with local and key stakeholders.

COMMUNICATI

ON ITEM LOCAL STAKEHOLDER KEY STAKEHOLDER

List

Natural England; English Heritage; Environmental Health; Other environmental bodies; Emergency Services; Parish Councils; Local Council Members; Traffic Vehicle Associations; Roadside Frontages; New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership Chamber of Commerce; Community Networks; Cycle Group; Representative; Bus Operators; Residents of Ipswich

Department for Transport; Highways Agency; The Environment Agency; DCLG Convergence Board.

Mechanisms

Exhibitions; websites; newsletters; leaflets; responses to emails and letters; questionnaires; media; public information centre

Progress and approval reports; seminars; workshops; Emails.

Key Information

Consultation documents Outline Scheme details Consultations responses Public Exhibition – providing progress details feedback

Briefing reports Environmental Statement Traffic Reports Tender documents Departure Reports Safety Audits Programme Construction Method Statement

Responsibility

Corporate Manager: Has overall control over the communication planning process. Adheres to Suffolk

County Council’s communication strategy Project Director and Project Manager: Manages the strategy from the early stages through to the

Statutory Procedures. Suffolk County Council’s press office and communications unit: Creates all press notices and

handles all media liaison. Press notices should support the objectives, outcomes and key messages of the plan

Table 8-3: Plan for liaison with local and key stakeholders

110


8.9.4 As part of the project, the following statutory authorities will also be consulted:

Environment Agency,

Marine Management Organisation and

Associated British Ports as Harbour Authority.

8.10 BENEFITS REALISATION

8.10.1 A Benefits Realisation Plan will be prepared for the scheme. The plan is designed to enable benefits and disbenefits – that are expected to be derived from the project – to be planner for, managed, tracked and realised. The plan will help demonstrate whether the scheme objectives are able to generate the desired ‘measures for success’. This can be assessed by tracking and realising the desired outputs and outcomes of the project.

8.10.2 Desired outputs are those tangible effects that are funded and produced directly as a result of the scheme. Desired outcomes are the final impacts brought about by the scheme in the short, medium and long term.

8.10.3 The high level objectives and benefits are discussed more fully in the Strategic Case section of this document. In summary, they include:

111


STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES RESULTS OUTCOMES

Enable the development of the Island site

To unlock the full development potential of the centrally-located Island Site

- Growth of local educational institutions - More educational opportunities for local residents

To secure more private investment into Ipswich to aid economic recovery and growth for the whole region

- Maintain long term sustainable employment in manufacturing and service.

To respond to Ipswich’s forecast growth by providing sufficient high quality housing and infrastructure

- Provide housing links with jobs to reduce travel. - Encourage land value uplift in the area.

To enable the creation of a centre of excellence for high-tech industries and services that plays to the Waterfront’s strengths (Enterprise Island)

- Preserve historic port activities and industry for future generations.

To create a high-quality environment in which world-class employers will want to offer productive, high-value jobs

- Creation of higher salary jobs


To enable better, safer and healthier connections between the town and the Waterfront by removing traffic and improving air quality - Link the island site, the railway station, Ipswich village, the town

centre and the Maltings area.

To connect the Island Site to the east, south and west of the town

To contribute to improving pedestrian and cycle links and public transport access across the town, building on the success of the Travel Ipswich scheme

- Improved pedestrian and cycle routes between key services and areas.

Relieve congestion in Ipswich and over the Orwell Bridge (A14)

To tackle road congestion on the Star Lane gyratory by offering an additional east-west traffic corridor away from the town centre, reducing journey times and boosting journey reliability

- Reduce severance between communities and facilities and services. - Improve journey quality. - Improve noise and air quality. - Promote social inclusion.

To provide an alternative route for diverting traffic when the Orwell Bridge is closed, reducing the impact on the town centre

-Relieve peak time congestion over on the A14.

Ensure continued success of the Waterfront, Marina and Port

To improve the quality of the public realm around the Waterfront, building on the success of the marina

- Reduce severance between the Marina area and the Town Centre - Marina activities encourage higher land values in the area.

To provide a new architectural feature for the town and a landmark for the region, restoring civic pride in Ipswich

- Bringing together high quality commercial/innovation, residential & cultural. - Marina encourages higher quality developments.

To restore the Island Site to public use, providing pleasant open space for the enjoyment of residents and visitors alike

- Encourage additional cultural experiences within the regenerated area (Links to Wolsey Theatre, Wolsey Studios, Dance East)

To conserve and enhance Ipswich’s character and rich maritime heritage, green spaces, biodiversity and river environment

- Marina activities essential to the success of the scheme and must continue to provide exceptional quality to users. - Port activities must continue in the same manner.


To further develop Ipswich’s reputation for bio-technology, life sciences, energy, professional and financial services, ICT and creative digital art

- Marina must continue to bring higher income people to the area. - Encourage pedestrian and cycle journeys. - Encourage land value uplift in the area. - Unlock stalled developments.

To retain and build upon the skills and expertise emanating from University Campus Suffolk and other further education and skills training centres in Ipswich

- Improve the experience of visiting Ipswich.

Table 7-4: Summary of Strategic Objectives

112


8.10.4 The Project Manager will develop a Benefits Realisation Plan, intrinsically linked to the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. The DfT sets out a five-stage cycle for the evolution of benefits, their maintenance and monitoring during the lifecycle of a programme.

8.10.5 The owner and partners will undertake a full assessment of potential benefits, in accordance with DfT guidance. Therefore, the process that should be upheld can be based on the following:

Identify – the stakeholders impacted by the scheme, and the beneficiaries of each benefit; any additional enablers required over-and-above the proposed scheme; the responsible body or individual for delivering the benefits; target dates for the achievement of the anticipated benefits;

Analyse – once the potential benefits have been identified, they need to be systematically analysed to calculate their financial value and the level of risk associated with the calculations;

Plan – implement a clear timetable for delivering the crossing. The timetable will be a live document throughout the delivery process and will be informed of any necessary steps that are planned to maximise the benefits;

Deliver – the programme will ensure that the identified benefits are delivered by working closely with stakeholders and delivery partners; and

Review – the benefits will be reviewed at pre-determined stages that fit into the wider programme delivery. This part of the process is where the monitoring and evaluation most clearly overlaps with the benefits realisation.

8.10.6 The owners will be responsible for tracking the identified benefits and for reporting any exceptions to the Senior Responsible Officer / Project Manager. This will allow early identification of any expected benefits that may become unrealised to be remedied.

113


8.11 ASSURANCE

8.11.1 In line with PRINCE2 principles, project assurance provides an independent review of how the project is progressing. Assurance is about checking that the project remains viable in terms of costs and benefits (business assurance), checking the user requirements are being met (user assurance) and that the project is delivering a suitable solution (supplier assurance). An assurance officer will be in place once funding has been clarified.

8.11.2 The Project Governance document, project plan and Communications Strategy highlight the project assurance processes established for this Scheme. Gateway reviews have been programmed at key stage change points throughout the Schemes life.

8.11.3 An internal Gateway 2 Review will be undertaken by the Project Steering Group and Local Partnerships at end of Stage 2a (Preliminary Design & Planning). The recommendations resulting from the review will be actioned prior to the invitation of tenders.

8.11.4 An internal Gateway 3 Review is planned at the end of Stage 2b (Detailed Design and Procurement) and Procurement Stage 3 before construction starts.

8.11.5 Our SMART objectives (as detailed in Section x) will be subject to post-Scheme monitoring in accordance with POPE and DfT Guidance

8.11.6 A peer review has been undertaken for the major parts of the project so far. The Business Case has been reviewed by experienced members of WSP | PB who have not been part of the project design team. The Economic Assessment has had a full independent review. The structures designs and assumptions have also been reviewed by an independent Structures specialist in WSP | PB.

8.11.7 This peer review process will continue into the next phase of the project.

114


8.12 ASSURANCE AND APPROVALS PLAN

8.12.1 Responsibility for the assurance and approval of the Outline and Full Business Cases rests initially with the DfT, who will assess the technical content of the business cases against appropriate business case and transport appraisal guidance in order to confirm that the scheme represents value for money to the taxpayer. The DfT will then advise Transport Ministers to approve (or decline) the Business Case and scheme.

8.12.2 The DfT typically follow a three-staged gateway process of funding approval:

Programme Entry. The Government’s commitment to the investigation of the feasibility of the Ipswich Wet Dock Crossing scheme and the request to produce an Outline Business Case, following earlier assessment, acted as the programme entry agreement.

Conditional Approval will occur following the DfT’s acceptance / approval of the Outline Business Case (including its value for money). It is the gateway to proceed to the development of the Full Business Case but does not guarantee full funding or commitment to the scheme. It does provide the mandate for Suffolk County Council to begin the process of obtaining the requisite statutory powers to construct the scheme (including the NSIP / DCO / planning consents / compulsory purchase, etc).

Full Approval occurs after the selection of a preferred contractor following the procurement process, which will achieve a fixed scheme cost and increased scheme cost certainty. The Full Business Case will be submitted at this point and if approved, Suffolk County Council will be able to start drawing down funding and begin construction.

8.12.3 The promoter will liaise with the DfT and the New Anglia LEP to develop and agree the Assurance and Approvals plan during the development of the Full Business Case. This will comprise of a series of project gateways at which point the development of the scheme is measured against set criteria Gateways are likely to be;

at end of Preliminary Design,

Post Public Consultation,

Pre Planning,

at Submission of DCO,

Pre Tender, Post Tender,

Planning Consent,

Award of Contract

115


8.13 PROGRAMME AND PROJECT REPORTING

8.13.1 Suffolk County Council already has effective programme and project reporting arrangements in place. The scheme will be delivered in line with the Council’s project management procedures which are based upon a PRINCE2 methodology.

8.13.2 The Project Manager will be responsible for co-ordinating the delivery of the scheme elements, identifying key interdependencies and ensuring that the overall project is delivered to programme, quality and budget. The Project Manager will report directly to the Corporate Board and Corporate Manager (Senior Responsible Owner).

8.13.3 The Project Board will oversee the development and delivery of the wet dock crossing.

8.14 RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

8.14.1 Risk management is the methodical approach to identifying, quantifying and managing risks that occur during the lifecycle of a project. The key to effectively mitigating risks is to develop a series of well-defined steps to support better decision-making through an understanding of the potential risks inherent to a scheme and their likely impact. Annex 4 of Treasury Green Book emphasises that “effective risk management helps the achievement of wider aims, such as: effective change management; the efficient use of resources; better project management; minimising waste and fraud; and supporting innovation”.

8.14.2 The Book recommends a four-stage process which is broadly cyclical (plan-do-review) requiring on-going review and revision of risks to ensure that effective controls are implemented during the scheme development and delivery. The risk management strategy is illustrated in the figure below.

Identify Risks

Assess & Evaluate

Establish Response Plan & Responsibilities

Implement & Review

116


ON-GOING RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS

8.14.3 Risk management is seen as a key process underpinning good scheme governance and achievement of scheme objectives in a cost effective manner. TAG Unit A.1.2 requires all project related risks, which may impact on the scheme costs, to be identified and quantified in a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) to produce a risk-adjusted cost estimate.

8.14.4 The outcome of the QRA process is the prediction of an ‘expected’ risk value which is the average of all risk outcomes, factoring in the various probabilities of these risks materialising. This ‘expected’ value effectively becomes the ‘risk adjusted cost estimate’. The risk assessment has been undertaken using the following four-stage process:

Risk identification;

Risk quantification (assessing the impact[s] and likelihood of risk); and

Managing risk.

8.14.5 The Programme Manager will be responsible for monitoring and managing risks. The top ten risks for the programme will be reviewed by the Programme Board at monthly meetings, any risks that materialise as issues will be referred to the Senior Responsible Owner for action.

RISK IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT

8.14.6 An initial risk assessment workshop has been undertaken by WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff on behalf of Suffolk County Council. Multidisciplinary discussions were conducted, with technical experts from highway and structural engineering, geotechnical, planning, transport planning, quantity surveying and environmental disciplines providing inputs. These risks have been catalogued within an initial risk register, contained in Appendix G. The scheme risks can largely be grouped into the following categories:

Risks to the project programme;

Political risks;

Risks to scheme cost;

Risks to scheme funding;

Risks to the operation of the transport network;

Design and information risks;

Health and safety risks;

Reputational risks; and

The risk to impact on existing highway network.

117


MANAGING RISKS

8.14.7 Following the initial assessment of scheme risks, a systematic approach will be adopted to respond to risks and allocate responsibility to the most appropriate party in line with the aforementioned governance arrangements. One of the following four strategies will be adopted for each risk when developing a suitable response plan.

Accept or tolerate consequences in the event that the risk occurs – In the event that a) the cost of taking any action exceeds the potential benefit gained; or b) there are no alternative courses of action available;

Treating the risk – Continuing with the activity that caused the risk by employing four different types of control including preventative, corrective, directive and detective controls;

Transferring the risk – Risks could be transferred to a third party e.g. insurer or

contractor; and

Terminating the activity that gives rise to the risk.

8.14.8 Development of the response plans to manage risks will be undertaken only where the likelihood and of occurrence and impact can be risks can be cost effectively managed.

IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW

Effectiveness of the response plan is dependent on the proper implementation and review of the residual risk (including any secondary risk associated with implementation). Reviews of the status of scheme risk assessments and their related response plans (as part of project reporting) will be an integral part progress meetings (and at the Project Board) during progression of detailed design and the construction period. All key risks will be formally reviewed at key decision points in the scheme lifecycle.

118


8.15 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

8.15.1 The HM Treasury Magenta Book provides the following definition of Monitoring and Evaluation:

Monitoring – seeks to check progress against planned targets and can be defined as the formal reporting and evidencing that spend and outputs are successfully delivered and milestones met; and

Evaluation – is the assessment of the initiatives effectiveness and efficiency during and after implementation. It seeks to measure the causal effect of the scheme on planned outcomes and impacts and assessing whether the anticipated benefits have been realised, how this was achieved, or if not, why not.

8.15.2 The DfT has also published a document entitled, ‘Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Local Authority Major Schemes’ (2012), designed to make the process as consistent and proportionate as possible. It also aimed to be complementary with the devolution of decision making. The document sets out three levels of monitoring and evaluation:

Standard monitoring;

Enhanced monitoring; and

Fuller evaluation.

8.15.3 All schemes are required to conduct the ‘standard monitoring’ approach, whereas schemes costing more than £50 million are expected to follow the ‘enhanced’ guidance. Only selected schemes, identified by the DfT are expected to conduct ‘fuller’ evaluation. As the scheme will have an expected outturn cost of above £50 million, it will follow the DfT’s enhanced monitoring guidance. It is expected that the scheme will undertake enhanced monitoring in addition to the standard measures. The measures that fall into the ‘enhanced monitoring’ category are summarised in Table 7-5 below.

Item Stage Collection Timing Rationale Information Required

Noise Impact Pre or during delivery / post opening (up to 5 years)

Accountability / Knowledge

Effect of the scheme on noise levels at important receptor locations and analysis of the difference between outturn results and scheme forecasts

Local Air Quality

Impact Pre or during delivery / post opening (up to 5 years)


Effect of the scheme on local air quality in the area of interest and analysis of the difference between outturn results and scheme forecasts

Accidents Impact Pre or during delivery / post opening (up to 5 years)


Effect of the scheme on traffic accidents in the area of interest and analysis of the difference between outturn results and scheme forecasts

119


Table 7-5: Measures of ‘Enhanced Monitoring’

8.16 MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

8.16.1 The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the wet dock crossing project is set out below.

LOGIC MODEL

8.16.2 A logic model is shown in the figure below. It provides an illustrative overview of the inputs and activities of the scheme, and refers to its outcome measures of performance.

TYPE OF EVALUATION

8.16.3 The type of evaluation method proposed to evaluate the scheme will be an ‘outcome evaluation’. Outcome evaluations compare the existing situation, i.e. before the intervention has been introduced, against the situation with the intervention in place. Any observed changes are assumed to be the result of the intervention.

DATA REQUIREMENTS

8.16.4 The proposed metrics, associated data collection requirements and frequency of data collection are as follows:

Input:

Capital and revenue

investment, staffing &

skills, procurement & delivery of

services

Activities:

Construction of a bridge

Output:

A bridge crossing

Direct Outcomes:

Improvement to journey times and

journey time reliability;

accessibility benefits for pedestrians and cyclists; environment

al impact benefits;

wider economic benefits

Indirect Outcomes:

Increased economic activity;

improved access to

employment & local

services

120


Table 7-6: Summary of Data Requirements

Metric Frequency Data

INPUTS

Expenditure Post Opening Financial monitoring of project

Funding Breakdown Post Opening Financial monitoring of project

In kind resources

provided

During delivery Monitoring of resources delivering the project (use of

project diary)

OUTPUTS

Delivered scheme Post Opening Full description of implemented scheme outputs

including design changes post funding approval with

reasons for such changes, post scheme as built

drawings of works completed

OUTCOMES

Air quality Pre and post

construction, Annual up

to 5 years post opening

Data from continuous monitoring stations

Average daily traffic and

by peak / non-peak

periods

Pre and post

construction, Years 1

and 5 post opening

Annual ATCs and turning counts, collected at junctions

where interventions are and wider ATCs across the

network

Average AM and PM peak

journey time on key

routes (journey time

measurement)

Pre and post


and 5 post opening

Journey time surveys and DfT Congestions Statistics on

A Roads

Cycling and walking

usage

Pre and post


and 5 post opening

Mode share surveys (including walking, cycling and

public transport – bus, rail & Park and Ride)

Accident rate Pre and post


and 5 post opening

Annual monitoring of collisions (STATS 19)

Casualty rate Pre and post


and 5 post opening

Annual monitoring of collisions (STATS 19)

Average annual CO2

emissions

Pre and post


and 5 post opening

DfT’s Local Authority Carbon Toolkit

121


SOURCES OF DATA

8.16.5 The following surveys will be undertaken:

Journey times;

Automatic Traffic Counts (ATCs);

Automatic Number Plate Recognition survey;

Turning counts; and

Mode Share.

8.16.6 Other data will be collected on an annual basis including accidents (STATS19), financial and planning data.

IMPLEMENTATION

8.16.7 The monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken by the scheme promoter, Suffolk County Council. The survey costs will be calculated at Full Business Case Stage..

8.16.8 Regular monitoring reports will describe progress against programme, costs and risks. In addition, an annual monitoring survey will be undertaken. Principles of monitoring and evaluation will align with Highways England Post Opening Project Evaluation (POPE) requirements.

8.16.9 POPE for the scheme will use baseline data to be collected, which will include journey times, traffic flows, traffic speeds and accidents alongside planning data. Data will then be collected one year and five years post opening, which will be compared against the baseline data to quantify the extent of benefits realised. ‘1 year after’ and ‘5 year after’ evaluation reports will be produced, which contains the results of a meta-analysis of all scheme evaluations carried out so far, highlighting any interesting and emerging trends. It is, however, anticipated that wider economic benefits may take longer time frames to manifest. This would invariably have a bearing on the timing of surveys and subsequent reporting.

RESPONSIBILITY

8.16.10 The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be updated in the Full Business Case to include specific indicators and targets. It may be possible to involve stakeholders to take ownership of some parts of the monitoring and evaluation; this will become clearer after the consultation phase.

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS

8.16.11 The monitoring and evaluation will be used to answer the following key questions:

1. Have the anticipated outcomes and impacts been achieved?

To what extent are the observed changes additional to what would have happened in the absence of the intervention?

Were there any unanticipated impacts/ displacement effects?

Which elements of the scheme were particularly influential in achieving the overall goals?

What lessons can be learnt for future scheme / policy development?

122


2. To what extent did the anticipated costs and benefits match the actual outcome?

3. Has the scheme been successful? If not, why not?

8.16.12 The evaluation of the scheme will:

Measure the level of traffic congestion on the existing network;

Measure the level of traffic congestion on the improved network; and

Measure the levels of accidents on the existing and improved network.

8.16.13 The initial one year impact assessment will be used to understand the impact mainly on journey times and travel patterns. There may be some evidence at this stage of the scheme impact in terms of developments and jobs. The 5 year assessment will look at longer term benefits including accidents, travel patterns and jobs / additional investment.

LINKING INDICATORS TO OUTCOMES

8.16.14 It is important to demonstrate how the proposed indicators relate to the desired outcomes. The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will therefore be updated in the Full Business Case. This will show how interventions link to the achievement of objectives and how these can be monitored either directly or indirectly.

USES OF EVALUATION

8.16.15 With such emphasis on economic impact, the Monitoring and Evaluation will have to consider attribution of outcomes to the intervention and whether a clear link between the delivery of the scheme and the wider economic benefits can be achieved. As such, the Council’s partners will work closely with LEP and DfT to consider any additional longer term evaluation work to undertake case studies or meta-analysis in order to further understand the economic benefits arising from the project, subject to availability of resources.

Appendix A

WALKING AND CYCLING ASSESSMENT

Appendix B

MEASURES FOR SUCCESS TECHNICAL NOTE

Appendix C OPTION ASSESSMENT REPORT (OAR)

Appendix D APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLE (AST)

Appendix E

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

TEE TABLES PUBLIC ACCOUNTS TABLES AMCB TABLE