Agenda and minutes

Charles Eales declared that he worked for Microsoft based at Thames Valley Park, which would be served by the East Reading MRT scheme.

Nominations were invited for the Chair of BLTB for the forthcoming municipal year.

Councillor Bicknell proposed himself and the nomination was seconded by Councillor Brunel-Walker.

Councillor Page was proposed by Councillor Clifford and seconded by Councillor Carter.

The two nominations were put to the vote and Councillor Page was elected as Chair of BLTB by seven votes to three.

Resolved –  That Councillor Page be elected as Chair of BLTB for the 2018/19 municipal year.

(Councillor Page in the Chair for the remainder of the meeting)

(Councillor Pollock joined the meeting)

Nominations were invited for the Deputy Chair of BLTB for the forthcoming municipal year.  It was confirmed that the Founding Document of the BLTB required that the Deputy Chair be from the Local Enterprise Partnership members.

Charles Eales was proposed by Peter Howe and seconded by Councillor Brunel-Walker.

There being no other nominations, Charles Eales was elected as Deputy Chair for the next year.

Resolved –  That Charles Eales be elected as Deputy Chair of BLTB for the 2018/19 municipal year.

Resolved –  That the minutes of the Berkshire Local Transport Body (BLTB) held on the 15^th March 2018 be approved as a correct record.

Members noted a briefing note that summarised the process by which Thames Valley Berkshire LEP and the Berkshire Local Transport Body operated in investing in local transport schemes.

Resolved –  That the BLTB ‘How we work’ briefing note be noted.

A report was received on the progress of the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deal which set out the status of approved schemes, updated financial profile and identified risks.

Updates were provided by scheme promoters on each of the approved schemes:

2.01 Newbury: Kings Road Link Road – the update on funding issues was noted.  It was hoped that works would re-commence in August.

2.02 Bracknell: Warfield Link Road – update noted. 

2.03 Newbury: London Road Industrial Estate – one year impact assessment would be considered later on the agenda.

2.04.4: Wokingham: Arborfield Relief Road – update noted. 

2.05 Newbury: Sandleford Park – update noted.  An agreement had now been reached with Newbury College and the RAG rating at Table 5 had changed from ‘Red’ to ‘Green’.

2.06 Reading: Green Park Railway Station – update noted.  Enabling works were underway and detailed design work was ongoing.

2.07 Bracknell: Coral Reef Roundabout – project completed. 

2.08 Slough: Rapid Transit Phase 1 – update noted.  Construction was complete and a closed service was currently running.

(Ingrid Fernandes joined the meeting)

2.09.1 Sustainable Transport NCN 422 – update noted.

2.09.2 Sustainable Transport A4 Cycle Route with Bucks – update noted. 

2.10 Slough: A332 Improvements – update noted.  It was anticipated the scheme would be completed by the end of August following a delay caused by utility issues.

2.11 and 2.12 Reading:  South Reading MRT phases 1 and 2 – update noted.  Due for completion in September.

2.13 Wokingham: Thames Valley Park & Ride (previously called 2.13 Reading: Eastern Park & Ride) – update noted. Scheme on track with detailed design work ongoing.

(Matthew Taylor joined the meeting)

2.14 Reading: East Reading MRT Phase 1 and 2.25 Reading:  East Reading MRT Phase 2 – it was noted that Reading’s Planning Committee had approved the application on 30^th May, however, Wokingham’s Planning Committee refused permission on 25^th June.  A new application was being prepared to address the issues raised and the LTB discussed the impact on the costs and programme delivery.  A revised funding profile was set out in section 3 of the project update and the Growth Deal funding was fixed so any risks of increased costs were matters for the scheme promoter.  Members were advised that delivery of the scheme remained realistic if the revised planning application was approved and the scheme promoters remained committed to the project.  The LTB would review the position in November 2018 if planning consent had not been achieved.

2.15 Bracknell: Martins Heron Roundabout – update noted. 

2.16 Maidenhead Station Access – update noted. 

2.17 Slough: A355 Route – the scheme had been completed and the one year impact assessment was included later on the agenda.

2.18 No scheme.

2.19 Bracknell: Town Centre Regeneration and Infrastructure Improvements – the scheme had been completed.  One year on impact report was due for consideration in March 2019.

2.20 No scheme.

2.21 Slough: Langley Station Access Improvements – update noted. 

2.22 Slough: Burnham Station Access Improvements – update noted. 

2.23 Reading: South Reading MRT Phases 3 and 4 – update noted. 

2.24 Newbury: Railway Station improvements – a report seeking financial approval was included later in the agenda.

2.25 – see 2.14

2.26 Wokingham: Winnersh Relief Road (Phase 2) – update noted.  Phase 1 was open and a planning application for Phase 2 was being prepared with a  view to work commencing on site in March 2019.

2.27 Maidenhead Town Centre:  Missing Links – update noted. 

2.28 Bracknell: A3095 Corridor Improvements – a report seeking financial approval was included later in the agenda.

2.29 Wokingham: Winnersh Parkway – update noted.  Business case expected to be considered by the LTB in March 2019.

The fact that a number of schemes had or were running behind the original schedule was raised and Members discussed the lessons learned and any ways in which project management could be improved.  It was noted that there would inevitably be slippage on schemes of this complexity and that it was considered that the programme overall was being well managed.  Local authorities, as the primary scheme promoters, commented that accelerating preparatory work prior to funding approval could mitigate some of the risks, however, this required upfront development costs which were at risk if schemes did not secure funding.  Members were assured that scheme development was WebTAG compliant which included optimisation bias and this was built into the programme.  The LTB concluded that robust project management and monitoring was in place and that the programme was being well managed, however, Officers should continue to review risks and learn any lessons from the delivery of the programme to date.

Resolved –  That the progress made on schemes previously given programme entry status be noted.

A report was considered about the Business Rates Retention Pilot (BRRP) in 2018 – 2019 and the agreement of a process for allocating resources in March 2018.  The report set out the relationship with the Local Growth Fund (LGF) process; bids received and recommended a priority order for allocating the available money.  Funding some of the schemes through the BRRP would release LGF for other priority schemes and the differences in the way each funding stream operated were noted.

BLTB considered Options A and B for the allocation of funds as set out in Table 3 to the report. 

·  Option A – £13.3m for Slough MRT; £7.898m for South Reading MRT Phases 3 and 4; and £5.728m for Maidenhead Housing Sites Enabling Works Phase 1. Total - £26.926m

·  Option B – £13.3m for Slough MRT; £7.898m for South Reading MRT Phases 3 and 4; and £6.260m for Winnersh Relief Road Phase 2. Total - £27.458m

Option B was the Officer’s recommendation.  The Berkshire Treasurers’ Group had calculated a planning figure of £25m for allocation in 2018-2019.  However, since publication of the report it had been confirmed that the £25m was a cash limit rather than a planning figure and it was therefore necessary to amend whichever option was to be agreed.

After discussion, it was proposed that Option B be amended to reduce the funding for Slough MRT by £5m to £8.3m by 2019/20, with the further £5m to invest in park and ride to be prioritised in 2020/21 subject to the extension of the BRRP scheme.  The profile of spending on the Winnersh Relief Road would be adjusted to provide the full £6.260 by 2019/20.  This option would mean £14.158m of LGF could be realised to allow further schemes to come forward on longer timescales.  The revised recommendation for Option B was approved.

Resolved –  To amend Option B by reducing the approval for Slough Mass Rapid Transit (SMaRT) Phase 2 from £13.3m to £8.3m in 2018/19 and 2019/20.  The approval of the remaining £5m in 2020/21 to be subject to the successful renewal of the BRRP scheme beyond its first year; and to change the profile of payments for Winnersh Relief Road Phase 2 to £3m in 2018/19 and £3.26m in 2019/20.

A report was considered on the bids received and recommended priority order for allocating the Local Growth Funds released by the funding of some schemes through the Berkshire-wide Business Rates Retention Pilot (BRRP).

The decision taken during the previous item released £14.158m of previously allocated LGF and a prioritisation process had taken place using the agreed methodology on the 16 schemes submitted as set out in the table on paragraph 14 of the report.  It was proposed that programme entry status be given to the three top ranked schemes – Slough: Stoke Road Area Regeneration (£7.65m), Maidenhead: Housing Sites Enabling Works (£4.66m) and GWR: Maidenhead to Marlow Branch Line Upgrade (£1.525m). 

Members asked a number of questions about the proposed schemes including the contribution of GWR to the Maidenhead to Marlow branch line scheme.  All of the schemes would be subject to business case approval.  After due consideration, Option B was agreed.

Resolved –  That the priority order for allocating the money set out in paragraph 13 of the report be approved; and, subject to confirmation of the yield from the BRRP scheme, programme entry status be awarded to schemes in Option B – Slough: Stoke Road Area Regeneration; Maidenhead Housing Enabling Works Phase 1; and GWR Marlow to Maidenhead Branch Line Upgrade.

A report was considered that proposed “top-slicing” some of the £25m Business Rates Retention Pilot (BRRP) allocation in order to establish a scheme for providing revenue support to local authorities for the development of a strong pipeline of future infrastructure schemes.

The proposal was set out in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the report which was that £600,000 of the £25m be “top-sliced” and allocated to the six Berkshire authorities with each receiving £100,000 in 2018/19.  The purpose was to develop major infrastructure projects identified in the emerging Local Plans and was subject to the money being spent on outline business cases for transport infrastructure projects and BLTB approving the timetable and list of projects before the money was released.

The LTB recognised the importance of investment in the development of a strong pipeline of schemes and the proposal was agreed.

Resolved –  That the process set out in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the report be approved.

A report was considered to give financial approval to scheme 2.24 Newbury: Railway Station Improvements, which would enhance and improve multi-modal transport exchange at Newbury railway station.  The scheme was being jointly promoted by West Berkshire Council and Great Western Railway. 

The LTB was advised that in principle it was a good scheme, however, there remained some issues to be resolved with the Independent Assessor and it was recommended that conditional approval be given.  West Berkshire Council stated that it accepted the conditions and was confident that they would be met.  After due consideration, the scheme was given conditional financial approval.

Resolved –  That scheme 2.24 Newbury: Railway Station Improvements be given financial approval in the sum of £6,051,000 over three years (2018/19-2020/21) on the terms of the funding agreement set out at paragraph 11 step 5 of the report, subject to the Independent Assessor being satisfied that the following conditions be met:

1.  Clear demonstration, across all elements of the business case, of the co-dependencies of each component part of the scheme submission, specifically the MSCP, the northern pedestrian/cycle link, the southern interchange works, and the internal station works.  This should include how all project elements were procured and managed in a co-ordinated manner.

2.  Clear scheme optioneering process identifying why each element of the project should be included within the final scheme, including demonstration that each element offered value for money, either as a standalone element or by facilitating wider benefits within the overall scheme.  This may be achieved through additional assessment of current operational performance of the station and the estimation of additional scheme benefits from investment.

3.  Either i) a clear statement justifying the inclusion of 90% of the farebox revenue stream accruing the Public Accounts, or ii) a revision to the value included.  Any justification must go beyond a simple statement referring to previous review by DfT.

4.  Either i) evidence that the project would meet the fourth scheme objective, to contribute to solutions to resolve flooding issues at the station, or ii) re-definition of the fourth scheme objective.

5.  Clear demonstration that the scheme costs take into account any necessary construction cost inflation.

6.  Additional written evidence to justify the projected environmental and distributional impacts presented within the Appraisal Summary Table.

7.  Additional evidence within the Commercial and Management Cases to demonstrate that the optimum procurement processes have been selected.

8.  That the scheme retains high or better value for money once these conditions have been met.

(Councillor Clifford left the meeting at this point and Councillor Ardagh-Walter deputised)

A report was considered that recommended giving financial approval to scheme 2.28 Bracknell: A3095 Corridor.  The highway was a key link between the M4 and M3 and the scheme was focused on the section between the Hanworth Roundabout through to the Golden Retriever Junction and aimed to improve traffic flow and assist in unlocking housing development.

The Independent Assessment of the Business Case at Appendix A to the report was noted and the LTB agreed to give the scheme full financial approval.

Resolved –  That scheme 2.28 Bracknell: A3095 Corridor full financial approval in the sum of £2,000,000 in 2019/20 and £3,518,800 in 2020/21 on the terms of the funding agreement set out at paragraph 11 step 5 of the report.

A LTB received the one year impact report for scheme 2.17 Slough: A355 Route.  The project received £4.4m towards a total cost of £5.8m to make improvements to the A355 Tuns Lane and Copthorne Roundabout which was a key link between the M4 and Slough Trading Estate and the town centre.

The scheme promoter had stated that new infrastructure had brought considerable improvements to traffic flow, reduced congestion and made journey times more reliable.  It was noted that the independent assessor had raised some issues about the traffic flow and journey time data, however, this was due to the location the data was collected and journey times between M4 Junction 6 and the town centre had reduced from 20-25 minutes to 10-11 minutes.  Members commented that the new roundabout had made significant improvements to traffic flow on the route.

A query was raised about the current speed limit of 30mph.  This was an experimental limit and would be reviewed as part of the Air Quality Management Area with a decision likely in the next two months.

At the conclusion of the discussion, the one year impact report was noted.

Resolved –  That the One Year Impact Reports of the scheme promoter and the independent assessor for scheme 2.17 Slough: A355 Route be noted.

The LTB received the one year impact report for scheme 2.03 Newbury: London Road Industrial Estate.  The scheme received £1.9m towards the total cost of £4.5m to improve road, pedestrian and cycle links to the site to support economic development.

The scheme had been delivered although it had been delayed and had cost more than anticipated in the business case due to additional work undertaken.  However, the scheme promoter concluded that the scheme had delivered the full range of expected transport related benefits and access to the industrial estate had been vastly improved, enabling the development and regeneration of the site.  The independent assessor had commented that the scheme had been successful in terms of the operation of the highway network although the future impact on the industrial estate could not be accurately quantified.  The report was noted.

Resolved –  That the one year impact reports from the scheme promoter and the independent assessor for scheme 2.03 Newbury: London Road Industrial Estate be noted.

A report was considered that set out a response to the Government’s call for market-led proposals for a new Southern Rail Access to Heathrow airport.  It was proposed that a response be submitted to the Department for Transport requesting that any proposals it received be considered in view of the principles set out in paragraph 20 of the report.

These included that proposals be designed to meet the needs of the South of England not just South London; be co-ordinated with major housing and employment off-airport sites; and that they be fully integrated with national and regional tickets.

Members commented on the importance of securing direct benefits to the sub-region, particular services between Reading and Waterloo and it was agreed to strengthen the wording in paragraph 20(b) – “The proposals should serve the sub-region and well as the airport” to reflect this ambition.  With this amendment noted, it was agreed to respond in line with the principles set out in paragraph 20 of the report.

Resolved –  That the response to the Government’s call for market-led proposals for a new Southern Rail Access to Heathrow as set out in paragraph 20 of the report be agreed.

A report was considered that sought authority to delegate the signing of the Transport for the South East (TfSE) Collaboration Agreement on behalf of Berkshire Local Transport Body.  It was proposed that Joe Carter, Director of Regeneration at Slough Borough Council, BLTB’s accountable body, be authorised the sign the agreement.

The Collaboration Agreement would establish the relationships between the parties involved in TfSE and acknowledged East Sussex County Council’s role as lead authority for the TfSE Shadow Partnership Board.  It would define the governance arrangements, roles and responsibilities, contractual relationships and a range of other practical issues.  Whilst the six Berkshire authorities were recognised as individual constituent authorities they had chosen to manage their memberships through BLTB.

After due consideration, BLTB agreed the delegation to the sign the Collaboration Agreement.

Resolved –  That Joe Carter, Director of Regeneration at Slough Borough Council be authorised to sign the TfSE Collaboration Agreement on behalf of Berkshire Local Transport Body.

The forward plan was considered which set out the pipeline of schemes anticipated to come to the LTB for funding approval at future meetings.  It was noted that the one-year-on impact report for 2.19 Bracknell: Town Centre Regeneration would be considered at the meeting in March 2019, not November 2018 as stated in the plan.

Resolved –  That the BLTB Forward Plan, with the above amendment, be noted.

It was noted that the terms of office of four of the six business members appointed via Thames Valley Berkshire LEP would be expiring.  It was expected to be the final meeting for Matt Taylor, Graeme Steer, Ingrid Fernandes and Peter Howe, although it was reported that Mr Taylor’s term was likely to be extended by a further year to provide continuity.  BLTB recognised the significant contribution made by each of the retiring members and thanked them for their service.

Resolved –  That the retiring business members be thanked for their contribution to the LTB.

The date of the next meeting was confirmed as 15^th November 2018 at 4.00pm in Slough.