Agenda item

Stronger Towns Funding Project: Walking and Cycling

Report of Interim Corporate Director of Regeneration, Economy and Growth

Minutes:

Geoff Paul presented a report which considered the options available to the Board in relation to Stronger Towns Funding supporting walking and cycling projects in Bishop Auckland.

 

He advised that the project had been specifically included in the Town Investment Plan and the ambition was to enhance the cycling and walking network in and around the town. The project had been proposed by the Thematic group at the March meeting of the Board and officers had been working on developing the detailed business case for submission to Government by the end of the month.

 

On 21 June 2022 the Board raised a proposal to prioritise an alternative route from Binchester to Witton Park. This was referred to in the report as the Heritage Walk. The route was approximately 6.6km.

 

The Heritage Walk had significant challenges. A fundamental issue for this proposal was affordability. The scheme would need to meet Department for Transport (DfT) standards and using up to date benchmarking data, each kilometre would cost around £750k. In addition to this base cost the report identified other costs associated with structural and engineering works and land acquisition. The overall estimate for the delivery of the Heritage Walk was between £6m and £7m. The STF budget was £2.5m with a DCC contribution of £0.5m for the original proposals.

 

An assessment had been made using the DfT appraisal tool AMAT. The estimated usage of the route was low and would be largely for leisure purposes as opposed to commuting or educational trips. Using the tool the route would offer poor value for money, with a benefit cost ratio (BCR) estimate of 0.49, which was less than the STF threshold of 1.2.

 

In conclusion although the project was a good one which would enhance leisure provision, it was not deliverable within available budgets and did not offer value for money.

 

The original proposals which were detailed in the report would improve significantly substandard routes, would secure high user numbers and represented good value for money. The proposals directly supported the  aims of the Town Investment Plan (TIP). The BCR of the original proposal was over 2.

 

The report detailed the specific works that were being proposed in 9 separate locations and provided details of works needed for each. The report identified the criteria that had been used to assess the level of impact delivered by STF investment and described how the 9 routes had been prioritised.

 

The Board discussed the report.

 

Rob Yorke stated that in his view the works should have been carried out by DCC in any event. The number of cars parked in Escomb at weekends demonstrated that this was a well-used footpath. The scheme would link into assets such as Binchester Roman Fort, Kynren and Escomb Saxon Church, becoming a Heritage Walk in its own right. There were sections of the walk that local residents would use, and following discussions he had with landowners it would unlock land for overnight stay provision. He suggested that the Binchester to Escomb route could- be looked at as an alternative to the full length.

 

David Maddan noted the reference in the report to the route being a recreational footpath but there was potential for people to use it as a direct walk, which would fit the criteria used to prioritise works on walking and cycling routes.

 

Jonathan Ruffer noted that the BCR did not address that the Heritage Walk passed 11 Arches at Flatts Farm which was currently under active plans for construction. This would be an easy route to walk to the site for local people. The works at 11 Arches were not in furtherance of charitable activity but the activity at the site was charitable.

 

Councillor Scott stated that she was very supportive of the Heritage Walk but that it was not deliverable within available funding.

 

Following a query regarding the increase in path width from 1m to 3m and the impact this had on costs, Craig MacLennan advised that the increase in width was to DfT standards which were introduced the previous year. This standard must be used if Government funds supported the project.

 

Jonathan Gilroy explained that unless there was a means of addressing the BCR issues any changes would require a different process for considering any request for an extension for Business Case submission.

 

David Land asked about the viability of addressing the BCR and was assured by Officers that this had been explored in depth and although it was a good proposal, technically the route did not deliver a strong business case.

 

David Maddan considered that the route would attract a lot of visitors which would benefit businesses, and asked if a case could be made even if the BCR was low. Craig MacLennan replied that the STF gateway benchmark was 1.2 and a prescribed approach to business case development must be used.

 

Jonathan Ruffer stressed the need to make a decision today. He did not think that Officers had considered what was proposed at 11 Arches which was not part of TAP. It had been 6 weeks since the first tranche of money had arrived.

 

Craig MacLennan advised that he was aware of tourist development, however the value for money assessment was undertaken using the criteria set out in the DfT model.

 

Geoff Paul asked Board members not to interpret professional advice from council officers that was negative relating to any scheme as the Council being obstructive and not supporting the Board. He assured  the Board that Council officers were providing advice and support to assist the Board to make informed decisions based on the Business Case submission guidance issued by Government. He reiterated that officers believed this was a good project which the Council would continue to work upon, however it was not deliverable in view of the cost and weak business case.

 

Councillor Scott confirmed that she was championing the work on The Heritage Walk project with DCC.

 

Jonathan Ruffer accepted that DCC was not being obstructive but felt that consideration of the route should be approached with a likeness of spirit. He appreciated that there were Regulations but also that common sense should be applied. He would like to see the Board agree the heritage route which did not fall within the narrow rigour of the rules but would make a terrific difference to the town. That it was a good project had been accepted by all Departments. It was self-evidently a more ambitious way of helping the town. Any reasonable capital value uplift would be met.

 

Geoff Paul advised that the Stronger Towns Funding was about levelling up. The Heritage Walk would produce a weak business case for Government and was not deliverable for a number of reasons. He advised that it would be difficult for the Heritage Walk Business Case to be supported by the Council’s S151 Officer.

 

At the conclusion of the discussion the Chair asked the Board to consider the recommendations in the report.

 

Upon a vote by show of hands the recommendations in the report were rejected and it was AGREED that the Heritage Walk be supported.

 

Geoff Paul informed the Board that he would discuss the position with Government on how to take the issue forward as a formal request for an extension of the Business Case submission and a variation request would both be required.