Business Case Review Table
Scheme name
Norwich Northern Distributor Road
Date
2/09/15
Clearances & Advice
VfM Clearance
Yes
Legal advice sought*
N/A
Analytic Assurance Clearance
Yes
Equality Duty considered
N/A
Finance Clearance
Yes
Strategic
Policy Unit (not on decision pathway)
Reviewer:
Priority
N/A
Strategy Unit (Tier 1 only)
Reviewer:
xxxx xxxx
Priority
Lower
The scheme has a strong strategic case, clearly aimed at reducing congestion and providing access to
areas of potential economic development.
Economic TASM
Reviewer:
xxxx xxxx
Priority Low
Analysis of this scheme indicates it will result in very high VfM, with little uncertainty surrounding this
result. Sensitivity tests were undertaken, with low and high growth scenarios measured, both returning
BCR in the ‘very high’ value for money category. Estimated benefits in the form of reliability, and wider
impacts are large although there are also substantial landscape dis-benefits. Nevertheless, when all
these impacts are taken into account the BCR is in the very high category (i.e. in excess of 4) and so
the final vfm categorisation is considered to be very high. Therefore, there is a low level of concern
attached to this scheme and consequently a low priority rating.
Financial Strategic Finance and Planning Reviewer:
xxxx xxxx
Priority Lower
Finance is content.
Commercial
Group Procurement
Reviewer:
xxxx xxxx
Priority Lower
The papers provide only limited information about the procurement process followed which
commenced in February 2008 with the publication of a notice in the Official Journal of the European
Union seeking expressions of interest under the Restricted Procedure. This resulted in the award of a
contract for Design work (Stage 1) to Birse Civils Ltd (now trading as Balfour Beatty Civils Ltd) under
NEC3 Option C terms in January 2009 with Construction (Stage 2) to be awarded to Balfour Beatty
Civils Ltd subject to confirmation of the funding approval.
Sign off is provided on the basis that the contract could legally be amended to include the addition of
the further 6km of carriageway to the A1067 to be funded solely by Norwich County Council. This is
implied but not explicitly stated.
Corporate Finance
Reviewer:
xxxx xxxx
Priority Lower
The project is funded by Section 31 grant from the department and by the local authority mostly from
Community Infrastructure Levy Funds provided by local district councils. The grant from the
department is capped so any cost increases will be borne by the authority which has also underwritten
third party contributions. There is therefore no financial risk to the department. Although the authority
might need to resort to prudential borrowing there is no commercial borrowing involved and tolling was
considered but rejected so there is no revenue risk. Departmental funding required in 15/16 is included
in the current SR10 committed programme. Funding beyond this has been provisionally earmarked
from the SR15 Local Growth Fund line but is subject to final agreement in SR15.
The project is well established and has been Gateway reviewed with all recommendations
subsequently implemented as confirmed by a later healthcheck. Extensive consultations have been
carried out and the project is well resourced and managed. The chosen contractor has been on board
for some time though Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) and is already working on the Postwick Hub
phase under a New Engineering Contract (NEC 3). They will be contracted to construct the rest of the
NNDR once the Secretary of State confirms that funding is in place.
Management PPM
Reviewer:
xxxx xxxx
Priority Medium
The PPM CoE has considered a range of management documents that describe the project
management aspects for this project namely the Project Plan, Stakeholder Plan, Benefits Realization
table, Communication Plan, Risk Register and Assurance reports.
The Assurance Review health check report in Jan 2015 provides compliments towards the project
team’s implementation against recommendations and mentions best practice application of controls
through the Governance mechanisms. The project team should continue to apply assurance and
prospective responses to any actions through delivery to maintain and improve on the levels of delivery
confidence.
The stakeholder plan describes that DfT will be kept informed of the project as the principal funder
however its not clear what these mechanisms look like in terms of communications, reporting and/or
payment milestones.
The project team has shown their approach to risk management and communications which will
ensure the reputational risks are monitored and mitigated appropriately ensuring the project is able to
achieve its stated delivery aims.
Priority levels for scrutiny Lower
Lower priority for investment committee to consider
Medium
Medium priority for investment committee to consider
Higher
Higher priority for investment committee or Minister to consider