A34 Chilton Interchange Improvement Enhancing accessibility of the Science Vale Enterprise Zone

2

Contents

Page

Application Form 3

Section A - Project description and funding profile 4

Section B - The Business Case 6

Section C - Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation 29

Section D - Declarations 30

Appendices Appendix

LPPF Check List 1

Location Plan 2

Scheme Drawing 3

Equality Analysis 4

Letters of Support 5

Oxfordshire LEP Supporting Statement 6

Oxfordshire LTB Supporting Statement 7

Assessment of current routes to access Harwell Oxford Enterprise Zone 8

Traffic Modelling Technical Note 9

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening Opinion 10

Ecological Impact Assessment 11

External Funding Sources 12

Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) 13

TUBA inputs 14

TUBA outputs 15

Highway Local Model Validation Report 16

Scheme Impacts Pro-Forma 17

Assessment of Social and Distributional Impacts 18

Appraisal Summary Table (AST) 19

Project Programme 20

Joint Letter from S151 Officer and Head of Procurement 21

Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan 22

Risk Management Strategy 23

Communication Plan 24

3

Local Pinch Point Fund Application Form

Guidance on the Application Process is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport/series/local-pinch-point-fund

Please include the Checklist with your completed application form. The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the scheme proposed. As a guide, for a small scheme we would suggest around 25-35 pages including annexes would be appropriate. One application form should be completed per project.

Applicant Information Local authority name(s)*: Oxfordshire County Council *If the bid is a joint proposal, please enter the names of all participating local authorities and specify the lead authority Bid Manager Name and position: Paul Fermer, Locality Manager – Science Vale Name and position of officer with day to day responsibility for delivering the proposed scheme. Contact telephone number: 01865 815764 Email address: paul.fermer@oxfordshire.gov.uk Postal address: Environment & Economy, Oxfordshire County Council, Speedwell House, Speedwell Street, OXFORD OX1 1NE

When authorities submit a bid for funding to the Department, as part of the Government’s commitment to greater openness in the public sector under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they must also publish a version excluding any commercially sensitive information on their own website within two working days of submitting the final bid to the Department. The Department reserves the right to deem the business case as non-compliant if this is not adhered to.

Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published: www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/chiltonslips

4

SECTION A - Project description and funding profile

A1. Project name: A34 Chilton Interchange Improvement – Enhancing accessibility of the Science Vale Enterprise Zone

A2. Headline description: Please enter a brief description of the proposed scheme The scheme will provide greatly improved connectivity of the Science Vale Enterprise Zone to the national road network by providing full access to the A34(T) for Harwell Oxford Campus. The addition of north facing slips at Chilton Interchange will provide confidence and reliability in the transport network, incentivising further business investment in the Enterprise Zone. Direct access between the two Enterprise Zones of Milton Park and Harwell Oxford, via the A34 will be achieved, reducing pressure on the local highway network. The north facing slips complement the capacity improvements at Milton Interchange which are currently in progress.

A3. Geographical area: Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid The A34 Chilton Interchange junction is within the Science Vale area, a nationally and internationally recognised centre for Science and Innovation comprising Milton Park, Major growth is proposed across the area to deliver 14,000 homes and 16,000 jobs by 2029. Harwell Oxford and Milton Park have Enterprise Zone status, aiming to deliver 8,500 jobs by 2015; Didcot and Wantage/Grove are the key settlements for housing growth, as well as up to 400 dwellings on the campus itself. The A34 provides strategic road network links to the south coast ports and the motorway network (M4/M40), a critical consideration in businesses choosing to locate here. The scheme sits within the Vale of the White Horse District. OS Grid Reference: SU 487 860 Postcode: OX11 0RN Please append a map showing the location (and route) of the proposed scheme, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites, areas of existing employment, constraints etc. Please see Appendix 2 for Location Plan. Please see Appendix 3 for Scheme Drawing.

A4. Type of bid (please tick relevant box): Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £1m and £5m) Scheme Bid Structure Maintenance Bid

5

Large project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £5m and £20m) Scheme Bid Structure Maintenance Bid Note: Scheme and Structure Maintenance bids will be assessed using the same criteria.

A5. Equality Analysis Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty? Yes No Please see Appendix 4: Service and Community Impact Assessment

A6. Partnership bodies Please provide details of the partnership bodies (if any) you plan to work within the design and delivery of the proposed scheme. This should include a short description of the role and responsibilities of the partnership bodies (which may include Development Corporations, National Parks Authorities, private sector bodies and transport operators) with confirmatory evidence of their willingness to participate in delivering the bid proposals. The county council will work in partnership with the following bodies to deliver the scheme: Highways Agency (HA) – Operator of the Strategic Road Network (A34); which this scheme affects. The HA will take ownership of the slip roads and will therefore play a vital role in delivery of this project. Full allowance has been made within the programme for securing the relevant approvals from the HA and they agree in principle to the scheme. Vale of White Horse District Council (local planning authority) – North facing slips at Chilton Interchange are included in their draft Local Plan, and is seen as critical part of future growth in the Science Vale UK area to 2029. Harwell Oxford Campus – The Enterprise Zone which this scheme directly benefits. United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) and the Science & Technologies Facilities Council (STFC) who are the public sector partners, based on the Harwell Campus site. Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) – Have been working with the local authorities in supporting master-planning work for the Science Vale area. The importance of the transport network in this area to deliver growth is recognised by them. North Wessex Downs AONB – The scheme sits within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). We are currently in dialogue with the AONB Board regarding the Science Vale Transport Package. Landowner – Also covered in Section B8. Please see the landowner’s letter of support and commitment to delivery of the scheme, avoiding the requirement for a CPO. Letters of support and commitment to work in partnership with the county council to deliver the scheme are within Appendix 5.

6

A7. Local Enterprise Partnership / Local Transport Body Involvement It would be beneficial (though not essential) if the relevant LEP or LTB (or shadow(s)) have considered the bid and, if necessary, prioritised it against other bids from the same area. If possible, please include a letter from the LEP / LTB confirming their support and, if more than one bid is being submitted from the area, the priority ranking in order of growth significance. Have you appended a letter from the LEP / LTB to support this case? Yes No Please see Appendix 6 for letter from the LEP Please see Appendix 7 for letter from the LTB

SECTION B – The Business Case You may find the following DfT tools useful in preparing your business case:

Transport Business Cases

Behavioural Insights Toolkit

Logic Mapping Hints and Tips

B1. The Scheme – Summary Please select what the scheme is trying to achieve (this will need to be supported by evidence in the Business Case). Please select all categories that apply.

Improve access to a development site that has the potential to create housing Improve access to a development site that has the potential to create jobs Improve access to urban employment centres Improve access to Enterprise Zones Maintain accessibility by addressing the condition of structures Ease congestion / bottlenecks

Other(s), Please specify -

B2. The Strategic Case This section should set out the rationale for making the investment and evidence on the strategic fit of the proposal. It should also contain an analysis of the existing transport problems, identify the barriers that are preventing growth, explain how the preferred scheme was selected and explain what the predicted impacts will be. The impact of the scheme on releasing growth potential in Enterprise Zones, key development sites and urban employment centres will be an important factor in the assessment process. The road network used to access Harwell Oxford Campus is heavily congested with the current and future demand exceeding its capacity. A34 access to and from the north is through Milton Interchange as Chilton Interchange only currently has south facing slips. This arrangement for accessing the strategic network is not appropriate for an international centre for Science and Innovation and is a barrier to growth.

7

Without investment, now, Harwell Oxford Campus will not attract the required business investment to deliver the Enterprise Zone. If the congestion and transport network reliability gets worse, through not improving the network, businesses are likely to relocate to areas of the UK which are investing in, or already have reliable transport networks; Or worse, start relocating out of Harwell Oxford altogether. There has been no significant transport investment in the Science Vale area for many years. Businesses and potential employers are fully aware of this and it is impacting on the ability to provide market confidence. This is a scheme which can be delivered quickly and will make a huge difference to the transport network. It will demonstrate we are serious about improving and investing in the transport system. Due to the scale of funding required it is not a scheme the county council can progress quickly without third party funding, such as through the Local Pinch Point funding. This scheme is directly linked to the improvements at Milton Interchange which form part of a package of measures to improve the transport network in the area. The proposed scheme at Milton Interchange assumed the implementation of north facing slips at Chilton Interchange. In particular please provide evidence on the following questions (where applicable): a) What is the problem that is being addressed, making specific reference to barriers to growth

and why this has not been addressed previously? The A34 Chilton Interchange improvement is one of a number of major schemes within the Science Vale Transport Package which has been identified as a priority by the Local Transport Board (LTB) and Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). The Transport Package has been developed by Oxfordshire County Council working in partnership with the Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire District Councils. It is aimed at unlocking the growth potential in Science Vale, tackling congestion, improving accessibility to the area and helping to deliver the Enterprise Zone. The Chilton Interchange scheme is an early deliverable piece of infrastructure required to kick start the growth and attract business investment to the area. An accessible and reliable transport network is essential for businesses to expand. The transport network is one of the reasons companies have cited for not locating at Harwell Oxford. Oxfordshire County Council are proposing north facing slips at the A34 Chilton Interchange to improve accessibility to the Harwell Oxford Campus and enhance the attractiveness of the site as well as reducing pressure at Milton Interchange by reducing the number of vehicles utilising this junction. It will also provide a direct and reliable route between the two Enterprise Zone sites. The Chilton slips scheme is therefore essential in helping to ensure that reliability issues and congestion does not become a barrier to growth. Improvements to the Chilton Interchange will:

Provide greatly improved accessibility to the strategic road network making Harwell Oxford campus much more attractive to potential business investment;

Enable the marketing strategy for Harwell Oxford Campus to be much stronger and competitive; and

Reduce congestion on the local road network by keeping vehicles to/from the north on the A34 to the door of the Campus – rather than via Milton Interchange.

8

This has not been addressed previously due to the scale of funding required. The increased importance of delivering a capacity improvement scheme has arisen from the fact that the growth rate is less than expected. Therefore this scheme will play a vital role in delivering a step change in enabling the planned growth and economic vitality of the area. In addition, the transport package has evolved through a series of studies. Some schemes, including Chilton Interchange improvements were not able to be pursued. New opportunities have arisen which has enabled a fresh assessment and re-focus of the Transport Package, in light of how important the area is not only for southern Oxfordshire, but also the UK’s economy. Please see Appendix 8, which sets out the existing traffic situation (Strat-e-gis data and photos of current access routes to Harwell Oxford EZ) and Appendix 9, Traffic Modelling Technical Note. b) What options have been considered and why have alternatives have been rejected? Strategic Approach Creation of new road: This involved the creation on a new strategic road running parallel to the A34 from A4130 in Didcot to Harwell Campus on the A4185. This was discounted on deliverability grounds. High costs, Environmental Impacts, land assembly difficulties that would require a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) process to be pursued and lengthy delivery timescales. The efficient use of existing assets is much more sustainable and deliverable. The A34 south of Milton Interchange has a significant amount of spare capacity. Modelling work has shown that with improvements at Milton Interchange and the provision of north facing slips at Chilton Interchange the need for the parallel strategic road to the west of the A34 is reduced. The work has also demonstrated that the A34 has the capability to cater for that additional traffic as well as long distance trips on A34. Utilisation of West IIsley junction: Investigations were carried out as to whether it was possible to utilise the West Ilsley junction just south of Chilton Interchange and promote U-turning to enable access to Harwell Campus to/from the north via the Chilton Interchange south facing slips. Initial assessments identified that the current west Ilsley slips are very short and the bridge over the A34 would have to be widened to allow safe movements of two way traffic. It is also likely that the A34 would need to be widened between these two junctions to meet the appropriate merge and diverge requirements. These alterations would not only be more costly than the north facing slips scheme but also very problematic, especially on the A34 southbound carriageway, due to a petrol/service station being located between the two junctions. This option would also increase journey times. For those reasons this option has been ruled out. Scheme Layout Options that have been considered and rejected in favour of the preferred design are:

Option to tie in slip-road to existing roundabout to east of A34 – This alignment was discounted as it would require part demolishment of the office building and the likely requirement for extensive retaining walls. More extensive widening of a structure under the A34 than in the current design would also have been necessary and it would have passed closely to an adjacent office building.

9

Alternative roundabout configuration – Different junction arrangements have been assessed to tie into the existing road network. This process determined that roundabouts would be preferable as opposed to give-way junctions or traffic light junctions on the A4185. c) What are the expected benefits / outcomes? For example, job creation, housing numbers

and GVA and the basis on which these have been estimated. In August 2011 the Government granted Enterprise Zone status to a number of employment development sites at Harwell Oxford and Milton Park. George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said 'the Science Vale Enterprise Zone will harness the region’s unparalleled research and development base to create a wealth of innovative and high growth businesses. The region is home to some of the newest and fastest growing businesses in high performance engineering, biotechnology and medical instruments, and the Science Vale Enterprise Zone provides the opportunity to unlock the region’s full potential.' Improvements to Chilton Interchange will attract inward investment into the Enterprise Zone as access to markets and labour will be opened up and Science Vale will have advantages that competing locations in the rest of Europe cannot offer. The employment potential for the Enterprise Zone is as follows:

(Source: Optimal Economics report, based on Business Register and Employment survey, ONS, Crown copyright). As the employment analysis shows a large proportion of the potential new jobs are professional, scientific and technical. The focus on high value jobs will benefit the local economy. The current average annual salary for a scientific job in Oxfordshire is £32,500 in contrast the average annual salary for a transportation job is £27,000 (Source: www.totaljobs.com). The following housing is either planned or already under construction within five miles of the Chilton Interchange and residents will use the junction as an access to the A34:

Sector New jobs

Professional scientific and technical 2,520

Manufacturing 420

Human health and social work 588

Electricity, gas and air conditioning 168

Transportation and storage 168

Accommodation and food service 168

Information and communications 1,344

Financial and Insurance 420

Real Estate activities 84

Administrative and support services 1,260

Education 168

Arts, entertainment, recreation 42

Other services 588

TOTAL 8,442

10

GVA is only available at an Oxfordshire level. In 2011 the average GVA per head in Oxfordshire was £33,600 compared to the English average of £21,439 and a London average of £35,638 (Source ONS, Regional GAV statistical bulletin-December 2012). These figures demonstrate that the Science Vale economy has the potential to make an even greater contribution to the national economy, if we can improve access to markets and labour through significant infrastructure schemes such as the Milton Interchange improvements. d) What is the project’s scope and is there potential to reduce costs and still achieve the

desired outcomes? For example, using value engineering. The overall scope of the project is to create new slips roads onto the A34 which will include the associated drainage and screening as required. This is the best performing option of all others considered. This scheme is relatively uncomplicated using standard materials so the ability to Value Engineer the proposed scheme is limited. The bulk of the costs are spread across structures, drainage, earthworks and pavement. Taking earthworks as an example, we will look for opportunities to re-use of materials on adjacent land for landscaping. Value Engineering will be continually applied as detailed design is progressed to ensure the scheme provides value for money. e) Are there any related activities, that if not successfully concluded would mean the full

economic benefits of the scheme may not be realised. For example, this could relate to land acquisition, other transport interventions being required or a need for additional consents?

Although the scheme is part of a wider transport strategy / programme of works, the economic benefits that Chilton Interchange works will deliver is not reliant on any other scheme. The improvements at Milton Interchange are linked as it will ensure a reliable and resilient network. Without appropriate approvals and land acquisition no part of the scheme can be delivered so it would not happen. To reduce the identified risks, advance discussions are underway with stakeholders. For example, we have an agreement in place with the landowner for the transfer of land for the scheme and significant engagement with stakeholders is in progress to reduce the likelihood of receiving objections or causing the scheme to be undeliverable. f) What will happen if funding for this scheme is not secured - would an alternative (lower cost)

solution be implemented (if yes, please describe this alternative and how it differs from the proposed scheme)?

There is no lower cost alternative to the scheme. Through an option selection process, a range of alternatives have been considered, with more costly alternatives having been discounted. This option provides the most efficient and effective use of existing infrastructure.

Harwell Oxford Campus 400

Chilton Fields 275

Valley Park 2,150

Great Western Park 3,342

Didcot town centre 600

Total 6,767

11

If funding is not secured from the Local Pinch Point Fund then the scheme will not go ahead in a timely manner. The scheme will be delayed until such time funding is secured. If this was wholly reliant on securing developer contributions it could be a significant period of time. This will jeopardise economic growth in the area and the ability to deliver the Enterprise Zone project. Business investment in the area will not increase unless significant interventions in the transport network are made. The market (national and international) requires a confidence that we are serious about delivering the infrastructure required to support growth. This requires early commitment of funds and significant improvements happening on the ground. North facing slips at Chilton Interchange is a critical, early deliverable, scheme in this process. This is why the Oxfordshire LEP has agreed to allocate future income from its EZ business rates return to this scheme, and why the county council is willing to borrow against this. g) What is the impact of the scheme – and any associated mitigation works – on any statutory

environmental constraints? For example, Local Air Quality Management Zones. An indicative Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion in May 2013 concluded that an EIA is not necessary to support this scheme should Oxfordshire County Council be the planning authority. Notwithstanding this, detailed assessment work will still be required to identify the impact and required mitigation. Please see Appendix 10 for a copy of the screening opinion. An Ecological Impact Assessment (See Appendix 11) was undertaken in August 2013 and was based upon an extended Phase 1 habitat survey, as well as supporting information obtained from a desk study undertaken in mid August 2013. There are no anticipated operational impacts from the proposed development on legally protected and notable species within and adjacent to the Application Site. It has been identified that a number of habitats of some ecological value may be lost as part of the proposals but this impact can be satisfactorily mitigated. Liaison with the biodiversity officer for Oxfordshire County Council will be undertaken to agree mitigation measures to be undertaken. Mitigation measures to be implemented within the site are likely to include:

To mitigate against the loss of the existing habitats, remaining available land acquired for the scheme will be planted to replace and extend these habitats using native species mixes for lowland mixed deciduous woodland and calcareous (chalk or limestone) and neutral grassland. This will be developed with the Oxfordshire biodiversity officer to help reach BAP target on creation of new habitat for the local area 17;

An ecological management plan for 5 years would then be produced to safeguard and monitor the newly created habitats.

Undertaking vegetation clearance outside the bird nesting season (or if this is not possible getting an ecologist to search all areas to be removed at least 24 hours prior to works beginning on site);

The installation of bird boxes;

The removal of rabbits on site will take into account The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and be carried out following appropriate guidelines (Natural England Technical Note TIN003 – Rabbits: management options for preventing damage); and

The translocation of the existing population of broadleaf helleborine to a suitable receptor site.

12

This scheme will be within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). OCC has worked, and will continue to work, with the AONB Board. We will undertake our duty to ensure that the scheme is Section 85 compliant with the CRoW Act 2000 to ensure that there is minimal impact on the setting of the North Wessex Downs AONB. The schemes will provide an opportunity to protect and enhance the setting of the AONB. Overall, with the implementation of the above mitigation, and further surveys from which this mitigation will be refined the proposals are not considered to have a significant negative impact on any protected species or habitats. It has also been confirmed that the habitats which are to be lost are not important for nature conservation within the local context. There is no identified Local Air Quality Management Zone.

B3. The Financial Case – Project Costs Before preparing a scheme proposal for submission, bid promoters should ensure they understand the financial implications of developing the scheme (including any implications for future resource spend and on-going costs relating to maintaining and operating the asset), and the need to secure and underwrite any necessary funding outside the Department’s maximum contribution. Please complete the following tables. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10). Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms)

£000s 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total

DfT funding sought £342 £4,658 £5,000

Local Authority contribution £834 £5,049 £5,883

Third Party contribution

TOTAL £342 £5,492 £5,049 £10,883

Table B: Cost estimates (Nominal terms)

Cost heading Cost (£000s)

Date of cost estimation

Status (e.g. target price)

Site Surveys and Investigation

£91 October 2013 Estimate of staff cost using hourly rates of identified individuals plus previous

quotations from GI Contractors

Statutory Undertakers’ Consultation

£12 October 2013

Estimate of staff cost using hourly rates of identified individuals

Review and Adjust Preliminary Design

£36 October 2013

Traffic Modelling £20 October 2013

Highways Agency Consultation

£17 October 2013

Detailed Design £375 October 2013

13

Procurement process £28 October 2013

Statutory Undertakers’ Diversion Works

£435 October 2013 Works cost estimate based on rate/m2 (from previous outturn costs) for the length

over which the utility plant is affected

Construction £6,347 October 2013 Works cost estimate based on derived bill of quantities using current market rates and

Spon’s Price Book to establish rates

Client costs £203

October 2013 Estimate of staff cost of a Project Manager for the duration of the scheme plus

allowance for some other internal specialist staff time

Part 1 Claims £507 October 2013 Value based on previous experience

Commuted Sum £402 October 2013 Life Cycle Plan

Quantified Risk Assessment

£990 October 2013 P(50) value calculated using @RISK

Optimism Bias £1,419 October 2013 OB is 15% based on HA’s PAR guidance when combined with a QRA

TOTAL £10,883

Notes: 1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2014-15 financial year. 2) A minimum local contribution of 30% (local authority and/or third party) of the project costs is required. 3) Costs in Table B should be presented in outturn prices and must match the total amount of funding indicated in Table A.

B4. The Financial Case - Local Contribution / Third Party Funding Please provide information on the following points (where applicable): a) The non-DfT contribution may include funding from organisations other than the scheme

promoter. If the scheme improves transport links to a new development, we would expect to see a significant contribution from the developer. Please provide details of all non-DfT funding contributions to the scheme costs. This should include evidence to show how any third party contributions are being secured, the level of commitment and when they will become available.

The non-DfT contribution towards the scheme is £5.883 million. This contribution is future EZ business rate retention income that the LEP has committed towards the scheme. It is intended that in this will be financed through EZ LIF from the HCA. If this does not come to fruition then the county council will borrow against this expected income. b) Where the contribution is from external sources, please provide a letter confirming the

body’s commitment to contribute to the cost of the scheme. The Department is unlikely to fund any scheme where significant financial contributions from other sources have not been secured or appear to be at risk.

14

Have you appended a letter(s) to support this case? Yes No N/A Please see Appendix 12 for letter from the HCA & LEP minutes (section 7) showing external funding sources. c) The Department may accept the provision of land in the local contribution towards scheme

costs. Please provide evidence in the form of a letter from an independent valuer to verify the true market value of the land. Have you appended a letter to support this case? Yes No N/A

d) Please list any other funding applications you have made for this scheme or variants thereof and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection.

An application was made for LTB funding earlier this year. The Chilton project scored highly, however, due to the level of LTB funding allocated to Oxfordshire it could not be funded under the current round of LTB funds, but was recommended to continue to develop the project business case in light of potential future funding for major projects that support economic growth. Please see Appendix 7 for letter from LTB.

B5. The Financial Case – Affordability and Financial Risk This section should provide a narrative setting out how you will mitigate any financial risks associated with the scheme (you should refer to the Risk Register / QRA – see Section B11). Please ensure that in the risk / QRA cost that you have not included any risks associated with on-going operational costs and have used the P50 value. Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable): a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost? Based upon the QRA (appended to this bid at Appendix 13) a risk uplift of £976,269 (£990,011 outturn), equivalent to 13% of the total implementation cost, has been applied to the cost of construction. This is in addition to an optimism bias uplift of 15%.

b) How will cost overruns be dealt with? Construction cost overruns will be managed through the construction contract, where it is intended to use an NEC3 Option C (Priced Contract with Activity Schedule) or Option D (Priced Contract with Bill of Quantities) form of contract. These forms of contract offer a higher level of outturn cost certainty due to the pain/gain mechanism shared between the principal Contractor and Oxfordshire County Council, thereby providing financial incentive to remain within the target cost, whilst not generating a higher initial cost as Options A and B would (as there is more risk placed on the Contractor). The Optimism Bias and Risk has been quantified such that there is a good level of confidence that budget will not be exceeded. Preparation costs form under 6% of the total cost – contingency funding will be identified to cover an unforeseen increase in these. See also Section B11 for details of the Risk Management Strategy. In the unlikely event of cost overrun, despite the allowances made, Oxfordshire County Council will assume the additional cost.

15

c) What are the main risks to project delivery timescales and what impact this will have on

cost? The key risks identified in the QRA are:

Risk Mean Value Mitigation

Unforeseen costs associated with additional utilities works

£406,236 More detailed works cost should be produced and estimated. Adequate advanced liaison with Statutory Undertakers.

Bad weather condition leading to delay & cost

£219,025

Earthworks out of season leading to delays & costs

£149,654 Programme works to avoid out of season works as much as possible

Commodity price rises - steel etc increasing construction costs

£58,097

Insufficient Contractors resources - plant/material/labour adding premium to construction costs

£53,933 Ensure competent contractor employed who is capable of resourcing large schemes.

This indicates that the key controllable risks can be largely mitigated against through continued investigation into existing utilities which may affect construction. The construction programme has been planned to avoid the requirement for earthworks out of season. Managing any delays to programme will be key to ensuring this element of risk is controlled.

d) How will cost overruns be shared between non-DfT funding partners (DfT funding will be

capped and will not be able to fund any overruns)? Any cost overrun, exceeding the risk and optimism bias allowances, will be borne by Oxfordshire County Council and the principal Contractor through the NEC3 Option C or D contract. Oxfordshire County Council would look to recover the additional cost from future business rate retention income.

B6. The Economic Case – Value for Money This section should set out the full range of impacts – both beneficial and adverse – of the scheme. The scope of information requested (and in the supporting annexes) will vary according to whether the application is for a small or large project. Small project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of less than £5m) a) Please provide a description of your assessment of the impact of the scheme to include: - Significant positive and negative impacts (quantified where possible);

A description of the key risks and uncertainties;

A short description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the scheme and the checks that have been undertaken to determine that it is fit-for-purpose.

Economic Impacts

16

This economic assessment has been carried out in line with the guidance in the DfT’s WebTAG, using TUBA v 1.9.1 and outputs from the Central Oxford Transport Model (COTM). Scheme costs are consistent with Section B3 of this Business Case but are presented in 2010 prices and discounted to 2010 values. Scheme benefits are derived from TUBA and include travel time savings, vehicle operating costs and changes in indirect taxation that are forecast to accrue over a 60 year appraisal period and are also in 2010 prices and discounted to 2010 values.

The package contains the following element (described further in section B2):

Chilton north facing slips with roundabout access To calculate the cost of the scheme appraised, the following has been assumed:

The package has a total implementation cost of £10.418 million in outturn prices which equates to £10.789 million in 2010 market prices, with the following profile assumed:

£0.351 million in 2013/14

£5.667 million in 2014/15

£4.053 million in 2015/16

£0.718 million in 2016/17 An additional commuted sum of £0.402 million will be included in the costs to provide for maintenance of the new slip roads and the underbridge which requires widening. As with implementation costs, this commuted sum is subject to an optimism bias uplift of 15%, giving a total cost contribution of £0.462 million. The implementation cost of £10.418 million combined with the commuted sum of £0.462 million gives a total outturn cost for the scheme of £10.883 million. The costs of the package have been discounted assuming a 3.5% p.a. discount rate. The discounted costs are £9.645 million in 2010 market prices and values. This represents the Present Value of Cost (PVC) as defined in the DfT’s WebTAG guidance and sets the units of cost in line with the units of benefit as calculated in the TUBA assessment.

The impacts of these schemes against a Without Intervention Case are forecast to yield the following monetised benefits over a 60 year appraisal period:

- Business users & transport providers - Highway travel time savings £35.4 million

- Highway vehicle operating costs -£0.2 million - Commuting and Other users

- Highway travel time savings £32.8 million - Highway vehicle operating costs £4.2 million

- Indirect taxation -£1.1 million - Reduced Carbon Emissions £0.7 million

The PV of the benefits totals £71.8 million in 2010 prices and values.

The forecast BCR of the package is 7.44:1. This indicates that the Chilton Interchange improvement represents very high value for money (greater than 4:1) according to the DfT’s rankings.

17

TUBA input files have been provided to accompany this application at Appendix 14. The current default economics file (based on latest WebTAG 3.5.6 and 3.3.5 parameters) has been applied. As discussed below the standard output from the TUBA file does not generate the final BCR. The detailed tuba output has been used to filter out model noise using sector disaggregation and the spreadsheet calculation used to generate the BCR from these details is also provided at Appendix 15. User Benefits In the AM peak the most significant benefit generated by the scheme is for trips travelling northbound on the A34 to reach Harwell Oxford. With the new employment and housing in place, the level of demand at this junction indicates delays on the existing northbound slip under the current network configuration will exceed 5 minutes, with queues extending back onto the main carriageway (this is due to a number of trips currently travelling from the north remaining on the A34 (instead of exiting at Milton Interchange) to the West Ilsley junction). The north facing slips allow for vehicles to access the A34 directly from the Chilton Interchange without the need to unitise the West Ilsley junction as well. This large time saving for trips from the A34 will be at the expense of a slight delay of less than 1 minute for westbound trips on the A4185. This extra delay on the A4185 will be largely due to the re-routing of traffic generated by the north facing slips. This results in a reduced flow exiting the A34 at Milton Interchange and accessing Harwell Oxford from the north, easing congestion on the A4130 and the northern section of the A4185 (route between the campus and Milton Interchange). Instead, more trips continue southbound along the A34 to the Chilton Interchange Slips and access the A4185 directly to the Harwell Oxford Campus. During the PM peak a similar shift in flow away from the A4130 and A4185 onto the A34 via the north facing slip occurs resulting in slightly increased congestion on the A4185 from Harwell Oxford Campus to the Chilton Interchange junction, again as a result of the direct access to the A34 along the A4185. There is significant relief to congestion on the B4017 to/from Abingdon and A4130 from Didcot due to the shift in demand onto the A34. On the A34 itself, while the level of flow reaches network capacity north of the Milton Interchange, between Chilton Interchange and Milton Interchange flow is only at around 60% of capacity, demonstrating that there is sufficient capacity available to accommodate the additional flow generated. Scheme Risks and Uncertainties The following key risks and uncertainties should be considered alongside the BCR. Project specific risks and uncertainties include:

Cost over runs would increase the total cost. This would reduce the BCR.

Delays in implementing the scheme would increase costs as construction inflation is forecast to increase costs over time.

If further cost savings are achieved however, or if works are completed early then the BCR will increase.

Modelling specific risks and uncertainties include:

18

The estimate of benefits is conservative as it is based on weekday morning peak hour and evening peak hour models and excludes benefits that may be derived during the inter-peak period, off-peak period and at weekends. These additional impacts would be expected to increase the BCR.

The calculation of benefits excludes impacts on public transport users and operators. The impact on the BCR would be negligible in comparison to the highway impacts that are considered, though improvements to journey time reliability would significantly benefit public transport users and make increased levels of service more commercially viable.

A fixed trip matrix approach has been adopted (described below). The impact of this approach is to forecast greater travel demand in the Without-Intervention case than may have been forecast using a variable demand approach. This would potentially slightly increase the BCR.

As the effects of the scheme are likely to be limited to specific movements within a large model, a filter has been applied using a sectoring system, to ensure the effects of noise are minimised and only impacts relating to the scheme itself are included as benefits. Sectors for Chilton, Milton, Abingdon, Didcot and the South (as the Chilton interchange is near the southern edge of the COTM model), have been prepared and any movements not accessing one of these sectors as either an origin or a destination have been removed from the benefit calculation. Longer range trips may pass through the Chilton junction on the A34 without using the slips in either direction, but may still be affected by changes to delay on the A34 itself, as a result of other traffic redistributing between entry exit points.

Assumptions

The following key appraisal assumptions have been made:

Appraisal period is 2016 to 2076 (60 years).

A discount rate of 3.5% has been applied for 30 year from 2013 followed by 3% from 2043 onwards.

A single forecast year of 2030 has been assumed. As only a single model year has been used and TUBA usually requires a minimum of two modelled years, benefits for the opening year (2016) have been set to zero and a steady build up to the 2030 level of benefits has been assumed (using linear interpolation). This represents a conservative approach, as benefits of the scheme would begin to accrue upon opening.

Costs include a quantified risk value, based upon a Monte Carlo simulation. This identified a P(50) cost of risk of £0.98 million (13% of total scheme costs) with an 80% probability that the identified risks will not add more than £1.48 million to the cost.

The uplift applied to account for optimism bias is 15%, in line with WebTAG advice for highway schemes.

Annual benefits have been factored up from the two modelled hours. The AM and PM peak have been expanded to represent the peak periods using a factor of 2.25, derived from local traffic flow data. Benefits over these peak periods have been assumed to apply over 253 working days per year.

With and Without Scheme Scenarios

To assess the scheme against a do-nothing scenario would result in highly distorted levels of user benefit, as the existing network layout doesn’t provide sufficient capacity to support the level of growth which the transport strategy enables. This is evidenced by the failure of the model to converge when tested under these conditions (i.e. do-nothing network with future demand forecasts).

19

The ‘without scheme’ scenario has therefore been specified as including other elements of the wider package of transport improvements set out in the Science Vale Transport Strategy. The do-minimum scenario therefore includes the upgrade to the Milton junction on the A34, which is required to enable the planned growth in jobs and housing to proceed. The capacity improvements at Milton Interchange formed an earlier successful LPPF bid. The ‘with scheme’ scenario varies from the ‘without scheme’ scenario only in the addition of the Chilton Interchange north facing slips and connected roundabouts. Modelling approach The modelling has used the existing suite of Oxfordshire Strategic Transport Models (OSTM) which consists of:

A Variable Demand Model (EMME3) used to interpret the pattern of development across the region.

Highway (SATURN) Model for central Oxfordshire (Central Oxfordshire Transport Model – a strategic model focused on the greater Oxford area.

A Public Transport Model (EMME3) to forecast the pattern, economic performance and levels of public transport including local bus, Park and Ride, and rail.

The specific modelled area has been refined for this assessment with ARCADY simulation applied to accurately reflect the performance of the three roundabouts at the junction. The model has a 2007 base year and a 2030 forecast year. The variable demand model considers mode split, trip frequency and trip distribution and assigns highway and public transport demand in the morning and evening peak hours. The forecasting approach assumes 35,000 planned dwellings between 2007 and 2030 across Oxfordshire, in addition to the 6,800 completions since 2007. With regard to the geographic spread of these dwellings:

4,000 dwellings are planned for Oxfordshire West and will access Oxford via the Northern Gateway

19,000 dwellings are planned for South Oxfordshire and the Vale of the White Horse and will provide support the growth of the Enterprise Zones

The forecasting approach also assumes a number of planned improvements to the highway network along with infrastructure required to enable the developments listed above.

This appraisal of the package is based upon a full OSTM run for the With-Intervention case, incorporating the land use and associated infrastructure to accommodate the development described above, along with the following schemes that have funding secured via LIF, S106 or other sources:

Milton Interchange.

The With-Intervention case also specifically includes the following components of the package:

Chilton Interchange North Facing Slips.

The With-Intervention case demand from the OSTM reflects the impacts of this scheme as represented in the model.

20

The Without-Intervention case assumes the same travel demand as the With-Intervention case, but the highway network excludes the With-Intervention case network adjustment indicated above.

The Model Validation report is provided at Appendix 16. This report set out all specific data sources used to support the evidence above. The draft forecasting report is available on request. This is confidential due to the status of the emerging Vale of White Horse Local Plan.

* Small projects bids are not required to produce a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) but may want to include this here if they have estimated this. b) Small project bidders should provide the following as annexes as supporting material: - A completed Scheme Impacts Pro Forma which summarises the impact of proposals against

a number of metrics relevant to the scheme objectives. It is important that bidders complete as much of this table as possible as this will be used by DfT – along with other centrally sourced data – to form an estimate of the BCR of the scheme. Not all sections of the pro forma are relevant for all types of scheme (this is indicated in the pro forma).

- A description of the sources of data and forecasts used to complete the Scheme Impacts

Pro Forma. This should include descriptions of the checks that have been undertaken to verify the accuracy of data or forecasts relied upon. Further details on the minimum supporting information required are presented against each entry within the pro forma.

Has a Scheme Impacts Pro Forma been appended? Yes No N/A

Please see Appendix 17. An Assessment of Social and Distributional Impacts of Transport Interventions (Step 0) is at Appendix 18.

Has a description of data sources / forecasts been appended? Yes No N/A This is covered within the attached Scheme Impacts Pro Forma (Appendix 17) and within the Model Validation Reports for the Central Oxfordshire Transport Model (COTM) (Appendix 16). - A completed Appraisal Summary Table. Bidders are required to provide their assessment of

all the impacts included within the table and highlight any significant Social or Distributional Impacts (SDIs). Quantitative and monetary estimates should be provided where available but are not mandatory. The level of detail provided in the table should be proportionate to the scale of expected impact with particular emphasis placed on the assessment of carbon, air quality, bus usage, sustainable modes, accessibility and road safety. The source of evidence used to assess impacts should be clearly stated within the table and (where appropriate) further details on the methods or data used to inform the assessment should be attached as notes to the table.

Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A

Please see Appendix 19. - Other material supporting the assessment of the scheme described in this section should be

appended to your bid.

21

* This list is not necessarily exhaustive and it is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information to demonstrate the analysis supporting the economic case is fit-for-purpose. Large project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of more than £5m) c) Please provide a short description of your assessment of the value for money of the scheme

including your estimate of the BCR. This should include:

Significant monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits;

A description of the key risks and uncertainties and the impact these have on the BCR;

Key assumptions including (but not limited to): appraisal period, forecast years, level of optimism bias applied; and

A description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the scheme and the checks that have been undertaken to determine that it is fit-for-purpose.

d) Detailed evidence supporting your assessment – including a completed Appraisal Summary Table – should be attached as annexes to this bid. A checklist of material to be submitted in support of large project bids has been provided.

Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A

- Please append any additional supporting information (as set out in the Checklist). *It is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information for DfT to undertake a full review of the analysis.

B7. The Commercial Case This section should set out the procurement strategy that will be used to select a contractor and, importantly for this fund, set out the timescales involved in the procurement process to show that delivery can proceed quickly. a) Please provide evidence to show the risk allocation and transfer between the promoter and

contractor, contract timescales and implementation timescales (this can be cross-referenced to your Risk Management Strategy).

Please see Section B11 for the Risk Management Strategy. The detailed project programme is included at Appendix 20. b) What is the preferred procurement route for the scheme and how and why was this identified

as the preferred procurement route? For example, if it is proposed to use existing framework agreements or contracts, the contract must be appropriate in terms of scale and scope.

We intend to procure the works through a competitive tender process, using the NEC3 form of Contract, which is s the standard form of procurement for highway infrastructure works and has been successfully implemented on many other projects. Of the six payment mechanisms available within the NEC3 framework, we intend to use Option C (Target Price Contract with Activity Schedule) or option D (Priced Contract with Bill of Quantities). These forms of Contract are appropriate for a project like Chilton Interchange as the scope will be well defined but offers incentive to the Contractor for controlling costs due to the pain/gain sharing mechanism on any variation from the agreed target cost. The suggested share range is as in the table below:

22

c) A procurement strategy will not need to form part of the bid documentation submitted to DfT.

Instead, the Department will require the bid to include a joint letter from the local authority’s Section 151 Officer and Head of Procurement confirming that a strategy is in place that is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the best value for money outcome.

Has a joint letter been appended to your bid? Yes No Please see Appendix 21. *It is the promoting authority’s responsibility to decide whether or not their scheme proposal is lawful; and the extent of any new legal powers that need to be sought. Scheme promoters should ensure that any project complies with the Public Contracts Regulations as well as European Union State Aid rules, and should be prepared to provide the Department with confirmation of this, if required.

B8. Management Case - Delivery Deliverability is one of the essential criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set out any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed. a) A detailed project plan (typically in Gantt chart form) with milestones should be included,

covering the period from submission of the bid to scheme completion. The definition of the key milestones should be clear and explained. The critical path should be identifiable and any key dependencies (internal or external) should be explained. Resource requirements, task durations, contingency and float should be detailed and easily identifiable. Dependencies and interfaces should be clearly outlined and plans for management detailed.

Has a project plan been appended to your bid? Yes No

Please see Appendix 20 for the Project Plan Gantt chart. This shows the proposed delivery programme for the Chilton Interchange north facing slips scheme, including the critical path activities. A design team has been identified with resources made available as programmed. The main critical path relates to the structure design and the associated Highways Agency approval process. The outline delivery structure is proposed as follows:

Share Range of Outturn Cost

Contractor’s Share

Percentage

Less than 80% 25%

80% to 90% 35%

90% to 110% 50%

110% to 120% 65%

Greater than 120% 75%

23

The key milestones have been identified and are also summarised below:

b) If delivery of the project is dependent on land acquisition, please include a letter from the

respective land owner(s) to demonstrate that arrangements are in place in order to secure the land to enable the authority to meet its construction milestones.

Has a letter relating to land acquisition been appended? Yes No N/A

Land acquisition is required. Please see Appendix 5 setting out the landowners support for this scheme. c) Please provide summary details of your construction milestones (at least one but no more

than 5 or 6) between start and completion of works:

The project milestones have been identified in Section B8 (a). The following is an extract from the project milestones to show the construction stage milestones only. Table C: Construction milestones

Stage Milestone

Des

ign

16/07/2013: Initiation Meeting and Challenging the Brief

11/11/2013: Decision to Proceed with Design

12/11/2013: Value Engineering Workshop 1

11/02/2014: Value Engineering Workshop 2

23/05/2014: Completion of Detail Design Stage

Pro

cu

rem

en

t &

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

15/07/2014: Start Utility Diversion Works

18/07/2014: Issue Tender Documents to Contractors

29/08/2014: Appoint Principal Contractor

23/09/2014: Completion of Utility Diversion Works

29/09/2014: Start Main Works

28/08/2015: Completion of Main Works

24

Date Milestone

15/07/2014 Start Utility Diversion Works

23/09/2014 Completion of Utility Diversion Works

29/09/2014 Start Main Works

28/08/2015 Completion of Main Works

d) Please list any major transport schemes costing over £5m in the last 5 years which the

authority has delivered, including details of whether these were completed to time and budget (and if not, whether there were any mitigating circumstances)

The last major scheme that Oxfordshire County Council delivered was on the Oxford Ring Road at A40 Headington (Green Road) Roundabout which was delivered in Dec 2006. This scheme, which was delivered in tandem with a reconstruction of the A40 Oxford Northern Bypass, was completed to time and budget and was a real success. Further details can be provided if needed.

B9. Management Case – Statutory Powers and Consents a) Please list separately each power / consents etc obtained, details of date acquired,

challenge period (if applicable) and date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them. Any key dates should be referenced in your project plan.

Land Owner approval obtained along with agreement in principle from the Highways Agency. b) Please list separately any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc, including the

timetable for obtaining them. Consents for the creation of new local (side) and trunk roads have yet to be obtained. The programme has allowed a suitable timeframe for securing this.

B10. Management Case – Governance Please name who is responsible for delivering the scheme, the roles (Project Manager, SRO etc.) and responsibilities of those involved, and how key decisions are/will be made. An organogram may be useful here. Details around the organisation of the project including Board accountabilities, contract management arrangements, tolerances, and decision making authorities should be clearly documented and fully agreed. This project will be run in accordance with the principles of PRINCE2 tailored to meet the corporate governance and decision making processes of Oxfordshire County Council. The governance of the scheme will be managed by Oxfordshire County Council’s Capital and Asset Management Board (CAPB). The Capital and Asset Programme Board is an officer group with a clear remit and function to be the single point of contact in all capital and asset matters. The board's role is to ensure the development and delivery of long term infrastructure and asset strategies, the achievement of better long term planning of capital investment, better use and management of assets- ensuring greater local-decision making and accountability within the capital arena and the enhancement

25

of cross-service strategic working among directorates and in partnership with other organisations. It enables the development of a programme of strategic capital investment for Oxfordshire and ensures that strategic capital investment is planned and delivered in the most effective way possible. It aims to establish a strong corporate centre, facilitating effective decision-making and providing officer leadership and challenge in the capital and asset arena. The management and quality control of the scheme comes through a system of six Gateway checks on the continued design of the scheme (project initiation, feasibility, preliminary design, final design, procurement and construction) and a 4-stage approval process for the developing business case for the scheme (Concept Development/Commit to Investigate, Project Development/Commit to Invest, Project Delivery/Commit to Spend, and Project Closure/Client Acceptance). Please see more details on the County Council’s Integrated Assurance & Approval Plan that will be applied to the Chilton scheme at Appendix 22, including the council’s Approval Thresholds and Capital Governance arrangements in Figure 1 in this Appendix.

The project team will comprise of Senior Responsible Owner (SRO): Mark Kemp, Deputy Director – Commercial Project Sponsor: Paul Fermer – Locality Manager -Science Vale Project Leader: Nigel Day, Senior Project Manager Project Assurance: Will be managed by the County Council’s Commercial Team led by Peter Brown - Highways Contract Service Manager Design and delivery team leader: The technical support will be provided through Oxfordshire County Council’s contract with Skanska. This will be led by Peter Metcalf – Chief Engineer supported by David Grubb – Senior Engineer Senior Supplier (Construction): The Senior Supplier for construction will be appointed in a formal tendering process.

B11. Management Case - Risk Management All schemes will be expected to undertake a thorough Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) and a detailed risk register should be included in the bid. The QRA should be proportionate to the nature and complexity of the scheme. A Risk Management Strategy should be developed and should outline on how risks will be managed. Please ensure that in the risk / QRA cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value. Has a QRA been appended to your bid? Yes No Has a Risk Management Strategy been appended to your bid? Yes No The project risks identified for this proposed scheme are included in the Quantitative Risk Assessment (attached in Appendix 13). The Risk Management Strategy (Appendix 23)

26

comprises of a Risk Specific Mitigation and Management. An overarching approach for General Risk Management Methodology can be seen below. General Risk Management Methodology To reduce the chance of risks maturing and therefore potential cost over-run, a robust framework will be implemented:

On-going Value Engineering to eliminate scope creep and ensure that costs contribution to the achievement of tangible benefits

Robust risk management, identifying risks and risk owners to ensure that mitigation measures are fully and robustly developed and implemented from the start.

Early engagement of our term consultants in the development of the scheme design with thorough and robust investigations to eliminate unknowns.

Implementing a robust procurement strategy with a sensible balance of risk to ensure confidence in the out-turn price without incurring excessive contractors risk allowances.

B12. Management Case - Stakeholder Management The bid should demonstrate that the key stakeholders and their interests have been identified and considered as appropriate. These could include other local authorities, the Highways Agency, statutory consultees, landowners, transport operators, local residents, utilities companies etc. This is particularly important in respect of any bids related to structures that may require support of Network Rail and, possibly, train operating company(ies). a) Please provide a summary of your strategy for managing stakeholders, with details of the

key stakeholders together with a brief analysis of their influences and interests. A Communications Plan has been prepared (see B12 e) which summarises how we are engaging with stakeholders. Evidence of stakeholder engagement in the scheme to date can be seen from the letters of support accompanying this bid, which will continue throughout the lifetime of the project. We’ve had on going discussions and exchange of information with the HA, including traffic forecasts for this section of the A34 and for the new slips, much of which is contained in the Traffic Modelling Technical Note at Appendix 9. The HA are happy with the principle of the scheme. The scheme has a variety of stakeholders. The table below provides a brief analysis.

27

Part of stakeholder management will be achieved through ensuring an effective communication system which will:

Establish a co-ordinated approach and formal communication channel and procedure for contacting external partnership bodies to ensure a record of all correspondence and effective communication throughout the project period.

Keep local and Cabinet Members informed on project progress.

Inform those Oxfordshire County Council officers who are directly involved in the project, as well as provide an opportunity for others across the council to be kept up-to-date on the progress of the project throughout the programme period.

Stakeholder Area and Level of Interest

(High/med/low)

Influence (High/med/low)

Involvement Management Strategy

Highways Agency

Managing agent of the A34

High

High Key to successful delivery of project

Partnering body with early involvement. Adherence to HA process and requirements

Vale of White Horse District Council

Planning Authority and Project lead for Enterprise Zone project

Med

Med Requires project to deliver to outcomes

Close working and involvement through existing governance arrangements

Harwell Oxford

Business Park in close proximity to junction

High

Low

Requires project to deliver to outcomes and sensitive to disruption during construction

Early discussions regarding the traffic management of scheme construction

Local Councillors

Elected Member

High

High

Has constituent interests in mind and forms communication channel

Regular updates and involvement as appropriate as project progresses

North Wessex Downs AONB Board

The scheme is in AONB

High Med

Requires project to cause no/minimal impact on the AONB and enhance and protect the setting of the AONB

Close engagement on Science Vale Transport Strategy as a whole

Chilton Parish Council

Local Parish

High

Med

Has local parishioner interests in mind and forms communication channel

Regular communication regarding progress & consultation

Members of the Public

Users of Highway Network

Med

Low

Requires project to deliver to outcomes and sensitive to disruption during construction

Regular communication in lead up to and during construction.

Local Enterprise Partnership

Economic Growth and financial interest

Med

Med Requires project to deliver to outcomes

Regular updating through existing governance arrangements. Including Scheme evaluation.

Landowner

Owner of the land on which the scheme will be delivered High

High

Required to allow the scheme to progress without need for a CPO

Regular meetings with the landowner

28

Keep key stakeholders and external partnership bodies informed on project progress.

Inform the general public on the progress of the project and the achievement of key milestones.

Establish a reporting mechanism/template, using DfT guidance (when available) to communicate the progress, expenditure and monitoring of the project to the DfT on an annual basis.

Enhance public awareness of the scheme being delivered, especially for residents of Didcot and employees of Harwell Oxford Campus and Milton Park by working with our partners.

Create a project brand to be used consistently on all communication material to enhance awareness and recognition of the project.

b) Can the scheme be considered as controversial in any way? Yes No

If yes, please provide a brief summary.

Although the scheme is within the AONB, the impact will be minimal and the scheme will provide an opportunity to enhance the environment setting and biodiversity of the area. The scheme is also close to the village of Chilton. Through stakeholder engagement regular communication regarding progress & consultation will be undertaken to minimise concerns.

c) Have there been any external campaigns either supporting or opposing the scheme?

Yes No

If yes, please provide a brief summary (in no more than 100 words)

There have been no specific external campaigns but the County Council has been open about the need for improvements within the Science Vale Area. It is a known top priority for the LEP, district and county council. With this knowledge and the fact the Local Councillors are supportive, campaigns for opposition is considered unlikely. d) For large schemes please also provide a Stakeholder Analysis and append this to your

application. Has a Stakeholder Analysis been appended? Yes No N/A e) For large schemes please provide a Communications Plan with details of the level of

engagement required (depending on their interests and influence), and a description of how and by what means they will be engaged with.

Has a Communications Plan been appended? Yes No N/A Although the bid only requires this for large schemes, a Communications Plan has been prepared. Please see Appendix 24.

B13. Management Case - Assurance We will require Section 151 Officer confirmation (Section D) that adequate assurance systems are in place. See section B10 (Project Governance) and Appendix 21.

29

For large schemes please provide evidence of an integrated assurance and approval plan. This should include details around planned health checks or gateway reviews. Although not required as this is a small scheme bid, this is attached – please see above.

SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation

C1. Benefits Realisation Please provide details on the profile and baseline benefits and their ownership. This should be proportionate to the size of the proposed scheme.

Traffic benefits – Owner: Oxfordshire County Council. The main traffic ambition of the scheme is to achieve direct access to Harwell Oxford Campus Enterprise Zone to/from the north via the A34. Currently only south-facing slips exist. This will manifest itself in improved journey times, making better utilisation of the existing trunk road network, in place of the only current alternative rural single carriageway access to Harwell Oxford when approaching from the north. This represents an immediate benefit as soon as the scheme opens. Jobs – Owner: Oxfordshire LEP. The completion of the scheme will add to the attractiveness of the Harwell Oxford Campus and Milton Park areas of the Enterprise Zone. Chilton Interchange is the obvious major connection into the national road network between these development areas and its improvement will assist in widening the catchment of the area for staff, materials and partners. Coupled with the Milton Interchange ‘hamburger’ scheme, a resilient network between the two can be formed. This represents a benefit where the impact can be realised shortly after the scheme opens, expected within a year of opening. Housing – Owner: Vale of White Horse District Council. The scheme will increase the ability to deliver housing in the Science Vale area, as identified in the draft Vale of White Horse Local Plan. This represents a medium – long term benefit, following the demand brought about by the creation of jobs explained above.

C2. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation is an essential part of scheme development and should be considered and built into the planning of a scheme from the earliest stages. Evaluating the outcomes and impacts of schemes is important to show if a scheme has been successful. Please set out how you plan to measure and report on the benefits identified in Section C1, alongside any other outcomes and impacts of the scheme A full monitoring and evaluation plan will be prepared for the scheme using the DfT Monitoring and Evaluation Framework guidance, if the bid is successful. Traffic Benefits – The overall level of traffic will be assessed using the County Council’s existing traffic counts database. This will be supplemented by additional traffic counts as needed. Traffic congestion and delay will be assessed using data from the STRAT-E-GIS network. Jobs – the LEP has instituted a comprehensive programme of monitoring of new enterprises, floorspace, employment and capital investment in the Enterprise Zone which will produce quarterly estimates over the period that north facing slips at Chilton Interchange is to be improved.

30

Houses – completions of housing in the local area are monitored by the District Council and these will form part of the overall assessment of the scheme. A fuller evaluation for large schemes may also be required depending on their size and type.

SECTION D: Declarations D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration

As Senior Responsible Owner for Chilton Interchange I hereby submit this request for approval to DfT on behalf of Oxfordshire County Council and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so. I confirm that Oxfordshire County Council will have all the necessary statutory powers in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised.

Name: Mark Kemp

Signed:

Position: Deputy Director - Commercial

D2. Section 151 Officer Declaration

As Section 151 Officer for Oxfordshire County Council I declare that the scheme cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that Oxfordshire County Council

- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding contribution

- accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties

- accepts responsibility for meeting any on-going revenue requirements in relation to the scheme

- accepts that no further increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum contribution requested and that no DfT funding will be provided after 2014/15

- confirms that the authority has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place and, for smaller scheme bids, the authority can provide, if required, evidence of a stakeholder analysis and communications plan in place

Name: Lorna Baxter

Signed: