Summary of responses to consultations on local authority major transport schemes
This document summarises responses to two different consultation documents concerning Local Authority major schemes.
- Guidance to Local Authorities seeking DfT funding for transport Major Schemes, published in April 2005
- Consultation on changes to the policy on funding major projects, published in April 2006
And sets out how the Department has reflected respondents' comments in the consolidated guidance document, published in August 2007.
There were 13 joint responses covering both consultations. These are counted separately in each of the two sections below.
Draft guidance to local authorities seeking DfT funding for transport major schemes
Total responses: 33 including 27 from Local Authorities, PTE's or organisations representing them
(Only those issues attracting 4 or more responses are included below)
|
Issue |
Views of respondents |
How comments are reflected in final guidance |
|---|---|---|
|
The Major Scheme Business Case concept and structure |
Most respondents did not mention this but those that did were generally in favour. |
Proposal unchanged. |
|
Introduction of Conditional Approval stage with Full Approval not granted until contractor prices known |
16 of the 27 respondents expressed a concern about this almost all due to the increased financial exposure of the authority before certainty of funding. |
To compensate for the potential increased financial exposure, DfT in the second consultation proposed payment of 50% preparatory costs upon receipt of a compliant conditional approval and full approval bids, whether or not the scheme progresses further. |
|
Increased focus on Local Authorities plans for delivery and project management |
15 respondents supported this, some with caveats. |
Proposals largely unchanged. Final guidance is clearer on requirements at each approval stage. |
|
Formula based hreshold for schemes under £5m |
4 respondents argue that only the IT block, but not the maintenance block, should be taken into account for qualification to submit a scheme below £5m. |
DfT considers it is reasonable to take the overall block (IT and maintenance) into account. The allocations are not ring fenced and Las have the flexibility to prioritise across these funding streams. |
|
The need for DfT to provide indicative timescales for decision making. |
13 respondents said that it was important for DfT to give commitment on the timing of decisions - most importantly FA bids. |
DfT accepts the need for this. Clear indicative response timescales are given in the final guidance document. |
|
Payment by milestone instead of quarterly |
8 respondents were concerned or opposed to this. |
DfT accepts the potential difficulties of payment by milestone. A system of quarterly payments was proposed in the second consultation and remains in place in the final guidance. |
|
The expectation that bids for road schemes should have a public transport alternative. |
4 Local Authorities were concerned or opposed to this, whereas environmental groups said there should be a stronger requirement. |
DfT places great importance on consideration of non-road building options, but recognises there are not always practical alternatives. The text in the final guidance places emphasis on the need to consider non-road alternatives and asks for evidence if none are considered suitable. |
Consultation on changes to the policy on funding major projects
Total responses: 56 including 38 from Local Authorities, PTE's or organisations representing them
|
Issue |
Views of respondents |
How comments reflected in final guidance |
|---|---|---|
|
The proposal for a minimum local contribution of 10% of scheme costs |
35 respondents were opposed to the idea of a flat 10% minimum, though not necessarily to the principle of a local contribution. It was felt that 10% may be too high a sum for smaller authorities. Various alternative approaches were suggested. |
DfT favours the simplicity and transparency of a 10% rate, but recognises the potential problems for smaller authorities. The new guidance therefore allows a local contribution equivalent to a single years IT block allocation where this is less than 10% of the total scheme cost. |
|
The proposal for shared funding of cost increases within a defined 'risk layer' with LA being responsible for funding any increases above that. |
Mixed response but more against the proposal (27) than in favour (18). Several suggestions for alternative methods for dealing with cost increases. |
The Department remains of the view that the 'rule based' system proposed is the simplest, most transparent and fairest way of dealing with cost increases. The basic proposition therefore remains unchanged. The Department accepts that there may be exceptional circumstances in which an authority would be unable to meet all costs above the risk layer. This is reflected in the wording in the guidance. |
|
Payment of scheme costs by 100% grant, provided quarterly in arrears |
The move to 100% grant was widely supported albeit with some concerns about payment in arrears. |
Proposal unchanged. |
|
Revised preparatory cost proposals including
|
There was broad support for all elements of the preparatory costs package. |
Proposal unchanged. |
For related documents, pages and internet links, see the column on the right.
