Agenda item

To provide an update to West of England Combined Authority Committee on key transport schemes and to secure approval from Committee on key decisions and associated funding (where applicable) related to projects within the West of England Combined Authority’s Transport Infrastructure programme.

Resolved:

(1)            That the CRSTS programme scope amendment re-baseline proposal, as set out in sections 4.8 – 4.10 and Table 1 of the report be approved;

(2)            That the allocation of funding to projects in the CRSTS programme be endorsed as set out in Table 2 column ‘Proposed CRSTS Budget Allocation’ of this report, forming the CRSTS revised baseline required by the Department for Transport (DfT);

(3)            That authority be delegated to the Mayoral Combined Authority’s Strategic Director of Infrastructure and S73 Officer, in consultation with their counterpart Unitary Authority Infrastructure Directors and Section 151 Officers, to decide how the Programme Contingency be used, in conjunction with the CRSTS over-programme project list, and to determine change requests for further draw-down of funds within existing budget allocations up to £1m, so that all projects be delivered and funds spent before 31st March 2027. In the event of a consensus not being reached at Director level, decision making to be escalated to the Mayoral Combined Authority’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in consultation with the Unitary Authority CEOs;

(4)            That delegated authority be granted to the Mayoral Combined Authority’s Strategic Director of Infrastructure in consultation with the Unitary Authority Infrastructure Directors to spend the £686,089 of Active Travel Capability and Ambition Funding secured in January 2023 and any future funding which is secured under the scheme as outlined in sections 33 and 39 of this report. In the event of a consensus not being reached at Director level decision making to be escalated to the Mayoral Combined Authority’s CEO in consultation with the Unitary Authority CEOs.

(5)            That authority be delegated to the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority’s Strategic Director of Infrastructure in consultation with the Unitary Authority Infrastructure Directors to approve the MetroWest 2 stage 2 Full Business Case. In the event of a consensus not being reached at Director level, decision making will be escalated to the Mayoral Combined Authority’s CEO in consultation with the Unitary Authority CEOs.

The Committee received a report which provided an update to West of England Combined Authority Committee on key transport schemes and to secure approval from Committee on key decisions and associated funding (where applicable) related to projects within the West of England Combined Authority’s Transport Infrastructure programme.

Metro Mayor Dan Norris confirmed that he was in favour of a mass transit overground option (such as buses or trams) and that the Strategic Outline Business Case tested the viability of the various options and did not feel any further analysis was necessary.  He stated that he believed honesty was the best option as there would be no solution that was agreed unanimously by all parties and wanted to deliver a viable option which would improve residents’ lives.  He stated that the benefit cost ratio for an underground option was around 0.1, e.g. 10pence of benefit for every pound spent and thus failed value for money analysis. 

The recommendations were moved by Metro Mayor Dan Norris and seconded by Cllr Kevin Guy.

Cllr Mike Bell, Leader of North Somerset Council, was asked to address the meeting and made the following points in respect to recommendation 4 (Future4West):

·       In respect to the priority route which affected North Somerset directly between Bristol Airport and Bristol City Centre he welcomed the proposal for improvement in this area and hoped to be part of the continuing conversation in this area when it moved to business case development;

·       He also welcomed the other initiatives running parallel with Future4West such as funding to improve the A38 route and would continue to hold the airport to account to deliver their proposed infrastructure improvements also as part of their growth plan;

·       He urged the Committee to continue with Future4West and not avoid the difficult decisions as some proposals would take a long time to come to fruition.  He asked members to move forward in that spirit and avoid any further unnecessary delays;

In respect to recommendation 3 Mayor Rees stated that there was an issue with the escalation process but it was important that the decision was not delayed.

In respect to recommendation 4 the Committee were asked to approve the Future4WEST Strategic Outline Case (SOC) and to instruct officers to progress an option (releasing the requisite funding) in accordance with section 22 of the report.  Three options had been set out, Options A, B or C.

Mayor Rees stated that he felt Option A was the best option based on the available evidence, the officers’ recommendation and the other speakers that had spoken in support.  He stated that all the reports that had been cited should be released so all the evidence was in the public domain and the issue be brought back to the Committee in November 2023.  He stated that the modal shift needed to be 100% segregated, otherwise the transit option would be mixing with normal traffic in the most densely congested part of the city.  Any option would also have to touch on the areas of highest density (for both living and working).  Any transit system would have to be affordable and inclusive.  If a 100% segregated transit system was chosen and it was 100% overground then major routes would need to be closed permanently.  This would impact businesses and the necessary diversions would impact on the local economy and disrupt the utilities, leading to a negative cost benefit analysis.  He believed this made the overground option unviable and leaves an underground option available.  Option A would mean further work could be carried out to identify the potential risks of each of the options.  Mayor Rees also believed that the cost of the underground could be up to 40-50% cheaper than reported due to economies of scale.  He clarified that an underground option would not involve a 100% underground solution (for instance London Underground was actually less than 50% underground) but would be underground in the most densely populated parts of the region.  He asked that the various associated and accompanying reports be released so all evidence could be considered.  He urged that Option A be agreed but asked that none of the options be discarded so that detailed analysis could be done.   He asked that the ambition of other Combined Authorities be matched by providing the best option available.  Option A had been recommended by the Authority’s officers, by the Local Enterprise Partnership Board and Business West.  He heeded the warning that ruling out any options may go against the Wednesbury principles before all options had been fully evidenced.

Cllr Young agreed with the need for a transport system to move people around the region sustainably and supported Option A with the important links to the science park, Filton etc.  Those living in more deprived areas needed the ability to travel to where jobs were based in the economic hotspots.  It was important for both the climate change ambitions and tackling inequalities across the region. Option A was recommended by officers as well as supported by the business community who supported leaving all the options on the table.  It would also future proof against potential legal challenges in the future.

Cllr Guy fully supported Option A and urged support for this option to rule out legal delays.  He welcomed the support for this option from the Local Enterprise Partnership Board.

An amendment to Option A was proposed by Mayor Rees and seconded by Cllr Guy as follows:

“Option A: To authorise the drawdown of not more than £650,000 of the allocated project budget and delegate all necessary powers to the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority’s Strategic Director of Infrastructure, in consultation and agreement with the relevant Unitary Authority Directors to enable the progression of all of the proposed route options examined in the Strategic Outline Case and listed in Table 4a of this report, to an OBC assessment process, further described in section 20 of this document, with officers reporting back to no later than March 2024 committee to recommend which of those routes should then progress to full OBC stage. In the event of a consensus not being reached at Director level, decision making will be escalated to the Mayoral Combined Authority’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in consultation and agreement with the Unitary Authority CEOs.

In advance of the Committee no later than March 2024, officers to publish all relevant reports referenced in Item 14, including the Strategic Outline Case Addendum: Early-Stage Value Engineering report; Alternative Costings; and the review and investigations into the Alternative Costings, for consideration at that Committee.”

Mayor Rees in support of the amendment stated that he was keen for an adequate amount of resource be put into this option as soon as possible and return to the Committee with more detail by February 2024.

The amendment was voted upon by three votes in favour and one against. As Metro Mayor Dan Norris voted against, the proposal was not agreed.  Metro Mayor Dan Norris stated that he did not agree that the public wanted more money spent looking at the various options.  He believed that the underground option would lead to escalating costs.  He reminded the Committee that Manchester found that the only viable option was an overground option.  The Metro Mayor stated that he was content for all the accompanying documentation to be released. 

Mayor Rees in reply stated that if an overground mass transit options included going across or along major routes the consequences for those roads needed to be fully explored.

Richard Bonner, Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership Board was asked to address the meeting.  He stated that the cost difference for Option A and B was minimal and for the opportunity for the Authority to protect itself against future challenges it was an investment worth making.

Cllr Young asked that for the sake of a small amount of money as responsible decision-makers agreeing Option A would rule out future delays later.  This was about protecting the Authority from future legal claims.

Cllr Plowden, Chair of the Authority’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee, stated that the marginality between the extra cost and time with agreeing to Option A was small and given the legal advice he urged this option be supported.

Recommendation (4), Option A was moved by Cllr Young and seconded by Cllr Guy. The recommendation was voted upon by three votes in favour and one against. As Metro Mayor Dan Norris voted against, the recommendation was not agreed.

Recommendation 4 Option B was proposed by Metro Mayor Dan Norris.  There was no seconder so this recommendation was not agreed.

Recommendation 4 Option C was proposed by Metro Mayor Dan Norris.  There was no seconder so this recommendation was not agreed.

[voting arrangements: To be carried, these decisions required a majority of the members present and voting, such majority to include the Metro Mayor. Each member present could cast one vote. If a vote was tied the decision would not be carried. There was no casting vote].

Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were unanimously agreed.

Resolved:

(1)            That the CRSTS programme scope amendment re-baseline proposal, as set out in sections 4.8 – 4.10 and Table 1 of the report be approved;

(2)            That the allocation of funding to projects in the CRSTS programme be endorsed as set out in Table 2 column ‘Proposed CRSTS Budget Allocation’ of this report, forming the CRSTS revised baseline required by the Department for Transport (DfT);

(3)            That authority be delegated to the Mayoral Combined Authority’s Strategic Director of Infrastructure and S73 Officer, in consultation with their counterpart Unitary Authority Infrastructure Directors and Section 151 Officers, to decide how the Programme Contingency be used, in conjunction with the CRSTS over-programme project list, and to determine change requests for further draw-down of funds within existing budget allocations up to £1m, so that all projects be delivered and funds spent before 31st March 2027. In the event of a consensus not being reached at Director level, decision making to be escalated to the Mayoral Combined Authority’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in consultation with the Unitary Authority CEOs;

(4)            That delegated authority be granted to the Mayoral Combined Authority’s Strategic Director of Infrastructure in consultation with the Unitary Authority Infrastructure Directors to spend the £686,089 of Active Travel Capability and Ambition Funding secured in January 2023 and any future funding which is secured under the scheme as outlined in sections 33 and 39 of this report. In the event of a consensus not being reached at Director level decision making to be escalated to the Mayoral Combined Authority’s CEO in consultation with the Unitary Authority CEOs.

(5)            That authority be delegated to the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority’s Strategic Director of Infrastructure in consultation with the Unitary Authority Infrastructure Directors to approve the MetroWest 2 stage 2 Full Business Case. In the event of a consensus not being reached at Director level, decision making will be escalated to the Mayoral Combined Authority’s CEO in consultation with the Unitary Authority CEOs.