Community Infrastructure Fund - Questions & Answers
To what standard should bids be prepared?
We would expect bids to broadly meet the standard required for Annex E bids in the Local Transport Plan process and to follow the NATA approach - see WebTAG Unit 1.4. We will be applying a Value for Money analysis of bids as explained in our Guidance on value for money.
What is WebTAG?
WebTAG is Dft web-based guidance on the modelling and appraisal of transport interventions. Advice is tailored to three levels of expertise: overview; project manager; and expert. WebTAG can be found at http://www.webtag.org.uk.
The published CIF guidance places a £5m threshold on the type of appraisal to be carried out for schemes. Projects below the threshold should be appraised using the Project Appraisal Report (PAR) approach. Does the threshold apply to the total cost of the scheme; or to the amount of the CIF bid?
The threshold will normally apply to the total cost of the scheme. However, we can see that there may be cases where exceptions to this rule would make sense. For example, where a full NATA approach has already been taken with a scheme that falls below the threshold, we would not insist on additional work being done to produce a PAR. Where a scheme promoter has a number of schemes that are individually below the £5m threshold, each scheme can be appraised using a PAR.
Where the PAR approach is relevant, is it necessary to submit a formal report covering the worksheet inputs in greater depth?
We will need to see as much information as is necessary to convince us that the appraisal has been correctly carried out and to enable us to calculate the VfM for each scheme. Where promoters feel it would strengthen the appraisal and support the VfM calculation work for their scheme, they are welcome to submit further supporting information in a separate report.
Is a validation report required for modelling?
Yes.
Who are you expecting to take the lead in appraising and managing rail projects?
This will be a matter for local partners to decide, in consultation with the SRA and/or NR. While the SRA and NR have wide-ranging expertise, it does not automatically follow that they should take responsibility for contracts for projects to be delivered or for the associated cost and programme risks.
Are local authorities expected to value the transport benefits of rail projects?
We would expect the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) or Network Rail (NR) to take the lead on this.
Should the increased value of the land being developed be included in the economic appraisal?
No. Most land use values will be captured by fixed land use TEE analysis. In addition, we will be taking the benefits from housing developments (based on the information given in the CIF Integration worksheet) into account in our assessment of Value for Money. However, there may be some cases where fixed land use TEE analysis is clearly not appropriate. Where that is the case, please refer to the Department for further advice.
What guidance will you make available for projects that are not considered capable of a standard transport appraisal?
Our appraisal experts will be happy to discuss any schemes that promoters believe do not readily fit the standard appraisal frameworks. Requests for such discussions should be e-mailed to itea@dft.gsi.gov.uk and copied to cif@dft.gsi.gov.uk and to cif@odpm.gsi.gov.uk
We are aware that DfT is working on new appraisal guidance for walking and cycling schemes. Will this be published in time to inform CIF bids?
The final guidance is unlikely to be published within this time-frame. Although we had hoped to able to share with CIF promoters a copy of the pre-consultation draft guidance, it is now clear that this will not be ready in time. If you would like to discuss specific issues relating to walking and cycling bids, please contact David Reams at david.reams@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Should the Value for Money (VfM) assessment form part of the NATA/PAR appraisals or should it be presented as a separate document?
Promoters need to be aware of DfT's Guidance on value for money and should be thinking about VfM when designing their schemes - but the VfM assessment itself will be carried out by DfT using the data provided by the scheme promoters in the NATA Appraisal Summary Table and worksheets. So it is important that bids provide sufficient information to allow DfT to carry out the assessment.
Given that a Value for Money assessment does not only look at the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), what approach should be taken to quantify other benefits?
VfM assessment is based on the information provided in the scheme Appraisal Summary Table (AST) and the Integration - Land Use Policy Worksheet. To facilitate the VfM assessment, this information should be presented in the standard format specified in WebTAG. Supplementary evidence may be provided if promoters wish.
What form should the Housing / Integration element of the appraisal take?
We would expect bids to include a completed Integration - Land Use Policy worksheet together with a descriptive report. The report should explain the mechanisms or linkages through which the transport scheme enables housing development and identify any key assumptions behind calculations of the number and type of dwellings shown on the worksheet.
Is there any guidance available on what level of housing development would trigger the need for a transport intervention? In some cases development up to a certain level might be possible without impacting on existing infrastructure.
Each case will vary. However, as a general principal, it would be reasonable to assume that land use development will have an impact on transport infrastructure. In terms of the CIF appraisal, however, housing should only be included in the Integration - Land Use Policy Worksheet if that housing would not be developed in the absence of the CIF transport scheme. Therefore, any development that is possible without the transport intervention, should not be included in the Integration Worksheet.
In some cases, more than one scheme is supporting a housing development. How should this be handled in the individual scheme appraisals?
Where it is possible to attribute development to individual schemes then this should be done. In other cases, it may be more appropriate to explain the combined effect of a number of schemes. Care should be taken to avoid crediting the same housing development to more than one scheme.
In some cases it will be difficult to provide all of the detail requested on the Integration - Land Use Policy worksheet.
It will strengthen your bid if you provide as much as possible of the information requested on the Worksheet. Of particular importance are the number of new homes, the number of 'affordable homes' and the hectares of previously developed versus non-previously developed land. Where there is uncertainty as to the exact number of homes or amount of land, ranges should be provided. Please explain the assumptions behind the ranges, the factors which will determine the actual housing impact within the range, and indicate the relative likelihood (probabilities) of outcomes within the range. Where it is not possible to provide any quantitative information for a section of the Worksheet, provide supporting text to explain any difficulties.
Is there any flexibility in the end July deadline for detailed CIF bids?
The deadline for bids is important and reflects the key importance of deliverability of schemes within the planned CIF timetable. We cannot guarantee that information received after the deadline will be incorporated into advice put to Ministers for final decisions on funding, so it is important that promoters submit the best information possible by then and any further information as soon as possible after that. However, we will try to be flexible where we can, provided deliverability is not compromised.
When do you expect to announce which projects will receive funding?
We expect to make an announcement around the time of the 2006/07 LTP settlement in November/December 2005. If earlier decisions are important to the timely delivery of a project, the promoter should highlight this when submitting the bid.
What level of detail is needed in terms of drawings to support a bid?
At a minimum we would require: scheme diagrams or maps to scale; traffic flow diagrams for the do-minimum and do-something scenarios; and an environmental constraints map.
If a CIF scheme is also seeking funding from ODPM's growth areas budget, will it need to satisfy any additional criteria?
A scheme that satisfies CIF requirements will also satisfy ODPM requirements except that if the total cost of the project exceeds £10m, the bid will also need to be looked at by ODPM's Central Projects Review Group. If your project falls into this category, please contact Claire Skipsey (020 7944 2627 - for Thames Gateway projects) or Mark Davis (020 7944 6818 - for projects in other areas) for further advice.
Is CIF capable of funding all of the schemes that have been selected for more detailed appraisal? Will there be any flexibility in the amounts that can be allocated to schemes?
We will consider all bids on their merits and we would hope to be able to support all the schemes that are demonstrated to represent value for money in the appraisal process. This will depend on the quality of the bids and the extent to which they remain within the costings identified in the outline submissions made earlier this year.
Will you monitor CIF spending and put arrangements in place to re-allocate any underspends on individual schemes?
We will monitor spending on each approved project quarterly but cannot guarantee that any underspends on some projects will be re-allocated to cover any overspends on others. Promoters therefore need to ensure that the risk of overspending is properly covered in their proposals and, likewise, the risk of programme delay that would lead to expenditure after 2007/08 (i.e. outside the CIF period).
What guidance is available on the development control process in relation to Highways Agency roads?
Guidance is set out the Highways Agency's Circular 4/2001 (Control of Development Affecting Trunk Roads and Agreements with Developers under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980).
Promoters should contact the Highways Agency without delay if they consider that development control may be an issue for their project.
Should bids seek to quantify other sustainable benefits to an area, such as increased employment, in addition to housing benefits?
The primary objective of CIF is to support housing development and we would expect schemes to demonstrate a clear link to housing. Where a scheme has additional benefits these should also be included in the appraisal. Increased employment should only be included if it leads to reduced unemployment in a regeneration area - further guidance is given in WebTAG Unit 2.8, 'Wider Economic Impacts'.
