Level ing Up Fund Application Form
This form is for bidding entities, applying for funding from the Levelling Up Fund
(LUF) across the UK. Prior to completing the application form, applicants should read
the LUF Technical Note.
The Levelling Up Fund Prospectus is available here.
The level of detail you provide in the Application Form should be in proportion to the
amount of funding that you are requesting. For example, bids for more than £10m
should provide considerably more information than bids for less than £10m.
Specifically, for larger transport projects requesting between £20m and £50m,
bidding entities may submit the Application Form or if available an Outline Business
Case (OBC) or Ful Business Case (FBC). Further detail on requirements for larger
transport projects is provided in the Technical Note.
One application form should be completed per bid.
Applicant & Bid Information
Local authority name / Applicant name(s)*: City of York Council
*If the bid is a joint bid, please enter the names of al participating local authorities /
organisations and specify the lead authority
Bid Manager Name and position: INFORMATION REDACTED
Name and position of officer with day-today responsibility for delivering the proposed
scheme.
Contact telephone number: INFORMATION REDACTED
Email address: INFORMATION REDACTED
Postal address:
West Offices, Toft Green, York, YO1 6GA
Nominated Local Authority Single Point of Contact:
Project 1 INFORMATION REDACTED
Project 2/3 INFORMATION REDACTED
1
Version 1 – March 2021
Senior Responsible Officer contact details: INFORMATION REDACTED
Chief Finance Officer contact details: INFORMATION REDACTED
Country:
England
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
Please provide the name of any consultancy companies involved in the preparation
of the bid:
Amion Consulting Ltd
For bids from Northern Ireland applicants please confirm type of organisation
Northern Ireland Executive
Third Sector
Public Sector Body
Private Sector
District Council
Other (please state)
2
Version 1 – March 2021
PART 1 GATEWAY CRITERIA
Failure to meet the criteria below will result in an application not being taken
forward in this funding round
1a Gateway Criteria for all bids
Please tick the box to confirm that your
Yes
bid includes plans for some LUF
expenditure in 2021-22
No
Please ensure that you evidenced this
in the financial case / profile.
1b Gateway Criteria for private and third
sector organisations in Northern
Ireland bids only
Yes
(i)
Please confirm that you have
attached last two years of audited
No
accounts.
(i ) Northern Ireland bids only Please provide evidence of the delivery team
having experience of delivering two capital projects of similar size and scale
in the last five years. (Limit 250 words)
3
Version 1 – March 2021
PART 2 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY ANALYSIS
2a Please describe how equalities impacts of your proposal have been
considered, the relevant affected groups based on protected characteristics,
and any measures you propose to implement in response to these impacts.
(500 words)
Throughout the early decision making process for the Castle Gateway masterplan,
each of the Executive reports were required to be accompanied by the Councils’
'Better Decision Making’ tool, designed to help consider the impact of proposals on
the health and wel being of communities, equalities, the environment, and local
economy. It drew on the priorities set out in the Council Plan and helped to provide
inclusive and discrimination-free services by considering the equalities and human
rights implications of the decisions we made. The purpose of the tool was to avoid
decisions being made in isolation, and to encourage evidence-based decision
making that careful y balances social, economic and environmental factors, helping
us to become a more responsive and resilient organisation. A copy of the most
recent ‘Better Decision making’ analysis is appended to this bid.
This tool has since been replaced by a full equalities impact assessment which
accompanies all decision making reports across al of corporate projects. A
bespoke Equalities Impact Assessment has been undertaken for these bid
proposals and is provided as an annex to this submission. The analysis identifies
positive impacts overal , these largely flow from the coordinated activity across the
three projects to safeguard the low wage retail tourism and hospitality sectors,
whilst diversifying the highstreet economy and intensifying city centre use. These
actions wil support vulnerable and most deprived communities who rely on
employment in these low wage sectors, and are able to benefit from the higher
rates of part time working in these sectors to accommodate wider needs such as
caring and training.
Positive impacts also flow from the works improving accessibility (particularly for
mobility impaired communities) within a series of key city spaces. These spaces are
not currently fit for purpose in terms of surfaces and treatment, or able to manage
events, as identified elsewhere in this submission in engagement findings. The
funded works are specifical y designed in part to redress these issues and improve
the accessibility of key spaces.
The opportunity to deliver infrastructure which wil be designed to better manage
evening economy activity and spaces, to benefit more vulnerable communities of
interest is also identified. The potential for some adverse impacts resulting from the
4
Version 1 – March 2021
relocation of public car parking facilities is identified within the analysis, though
mitigating actions are identified and a significant programme of engagement is
underway with these communities to inform the proposals and put in place decision
making architecture for an ongoing coordinated voice in City Development matters.
When authorities submit a bid for funding to the UKG, 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 commercial y sensitive information on
their own website within five working days of the announcement of successful bids
by UKG. UKG reserves the right to deem the bid as non-compliant if this is not
adhered to.
Please specify the weblink where this bid wil be published:
https://www.york.gov.uk/MajorDevelopments
5
Version 1 – March 2021
PART 3 BID SUMMARY
3a Please specify the type of bid you
Single Bid (one project)
are submitting
Package Bid (up to 3 multiple
complimentary projects)
3b Please provide an overview of the bid proposal. Where bids have multiple
components (package bids) you should clearly explain how the component
elements are aligned with each other and represent a coherent set of
interventions (Limit 500 words).
York’s bid has three inter-connected City Centre projects delivering high-profile,
transformative change in the heart of the City. These cultural regeneration
infrastructure projects drive vibrancy and benefit residents, whilst underpinning the
resilience of the critical tourism, retail and hospitality sectors.
Project 1: Castle & Eye of York replaces a car park with new world class public
realm and events space in one of the region’s most culturally and historically
significant areas around Clifford’s Tower. The new events and curated spaces
facilitate and compliment major redevelopment plans for the Castle Museum and
key cultural and visitor anchors, and a new riverside park provides green space
and cycle-routes for residents and visitors.
6
Version 1 – March 2021
Project 2: Coney Street & Riverside Walkway invests in the city’s main shopping
street, improving the pedestrian environment to underpin the viability of
commercial investment, whilst creating an exciting new riverside walkway and
dynamic new amenity spaces. This wil provide a vibrant leisure environment and
river frontage, al owing redundant large floorplate buildings to become dual-
facing and be redeveloped, and opening up vacant upper floors for
INFORMATION REDACTED use.
INFORMATION REDACTED
Project 3: Parliament Street & St Sampson Square radical y upgrades a space
which currently hosts events and accommodates secondary retail uses. Delivery
partner Make it York identified a long-term downward trend in visitor numbers
even before the pandemic, and the space is tired, underused and needs
comprehensive re-imagining. Investing wil improve accessibility and meet the
needs of communities and visitors, providing fit-for-purpose infrastructure for
events, a cornerstone of the city’s visitor economy.
Al three spaces are major detractors to the city’s heritage environment, needing
significant investment to respond to Covid and systemic changes in retail. Lower
paid retail, tourism and hospitality employ 29% of York’s workforce (rising to 37% in
the City Centre, and 58% of part time employees). Supporting these sectors in the
immediate term, coupled with longer term investment in skil s and higher value
employment growth, is critical.
7
Version 1 – March 2021
The three related spaces wil create a coherent and resurgent city centre
environment: The Castle project wil provide a new cultural anchor space at the
southern edge of the City Centre, complimenting commercial y oriented events in an
improved Parliament Street, with investment at Coney Street supporting the retail
core and creating a complementary riverside leisure environment. Investment at
Coney Street and Parliament Street wil be designed to facilitate new mixed uses
into the highstreet, diversifying and adding vibrancy to the City Centre in the wake of
significant retail losses.
The projects wil realise a combined peak additional 946,000 visitors across a suite
of key attractions and drive 31,000 additional city visits pa; improve and create 3ha
of free-to-access public spaces, representing a return of £3.30 for every £1 of public
investment. Crucial y, investment is targeted at those employment sectors which
most support the city’s most deprived communities.
The schemes have been developed through innovative public engagement,
benefiting from wide-spread community and stakeholder support. The work to date
on design and feasibility means they are al wel placed for early delivery.
3c Please set out the value of capital grant being requested
from UK Government (UKG) (£). This should align with the
£19,116,234
financial case:
Regeneration and
41.73%
3d Please specify the proportion of
town centre
funding requested for each of the
Cultural
58.27%
Fund’s three investment themes
Transport
0%*
*NB the derivation of funding split by theme is calculated on the basis of LUF cost and project
benefits. Whilst the schemes wil deliver important connectivity and active travel benefits, since
these do not form part of the monetised analysis, they are not reflected in the split here.
8
Version 1 – March 2021
PART 4 STRATEGIC FIT
4.1 Member of Parliament Endorsement (GB Only)
See technical note section 5 for Role of MP in bidding and Table 1 for further
guidance.
4.1a Have any MPs formally endorsed this bid? If so
Yes
confirm name and constituency. Please ensure you
have attached the MP’s endorsement letter.
No
The City of York covers two MP constituency areas. Letters of support have been
provided by both York’s MPs.
Julian Sturdy – York Outer MP has given priority support for this bid.
Rachael Maskel – York Central MP has provided a letter of support.
4.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Support
See technical note Table 1 for further guidance.
4.2a Describe what engagement you have undertaken with local stakeholders
and the community (communities, civic society, private sector and local
businesses) to inform your bid and what support you have from them. (Limit
500 words)
The Castle and Eye of York public realm is the centre-piece of the Castle Gateway
regeneration, developed through extensive public engagement and through the
Castle Gateway Advisory Group. The result is an exciting masterplan that has
extensive support.
‘My Castle Gateway’ was a bold and innovative new approach to public consultation,
ensuring the public were engaged from the very beginning of the process by
developing an ‘open brief’ for the masterplanners, and exploring chal enges and
barriers col aboratively through open conversations.
The project used a wide range of approaches to engage with the public including
social media with Facebook, twitter, Instagram, and YouTube to generate creative
content, stimulate online debate, and reach across a broad demographic. There
have been a range of events, walks, and talks hosted by a diverse mix from formal
9
Version 1 – March 2021
partners such as Historic England through to midnight walks with homeless people.
Every single interaction - whether online, in person or by post-it note - has been
captured, recorded, tagged and made publically available on the My Castle Gateway
Flickr account to ensure that every opinion counts.
The Advisory Group is formed of key stakeholders to help guide the masterplan,
detailed designs, and provide a robust critical challenge with a particular focus on
heritage, conservation and urban design. Advisory Group members spoke in support
of both the Phase 1 planning applications, and have contributed to the formation of
this bid, particularly in highlighting the significant positive impact the scheme wil
have on the heritage setting.
Their support for both the masterplan and this funding application is reflected in the
statements of support that accompany this submission. The appended Delivery plan
provides more information about the Advisory Group and its membership.
‘My City Centre’ project is engaging the public and stakeholders to create a long
term environmental, economic and social vision for the City Centre. Engagement
follows the same ‘open brief’ approach to optimise the breadth and depth of
engagement on complex city development issues. Engagement commenced in
March 2020, pausing due to the pandemic, but recommenced in May 2021.
Significant responses have been received which support the approaches set out in
this bid. In terms of rating outdoor spaces for events in the City, Eye of York and
Parliament were the two worst performing spaces, with 37% and 30% respectively
rating them” very poor” or “poor”, and only 2% and 5% “excellent”. In open
responses the question ‘what one thing would you change about the centre?’ 56% of
responses related to issues this bid seeks to address, with 15% related to
diversifying uses, 13% empty retail, 22% impact of leisure economy and 7% quality
of street surfaces. Those with mobility issues in particular identify City Centre streets
as an issue, with 53% of respondents stating that the quality of pavement and
surfaces was “poor” or “very poor”, and only 13% “good” or “excellent”.
In addition to this broad ranging public engagement, stakeholder support is
evidenced in the number and strength of letters of support for this bid.
10
Version 1 – March 2021
4.2b Are any aspects of your proposal controversial or not supported by the
whole community? Please provide a brief summary, including any campaigns
or particular groups in support or opposition? (Limit 250 words)
The innovative public engagement has ensured there is unprecedented support for
the proposals outlined in this bid. Being up front about the challenges to
regeneration has allowed better public and stakeholder understanding and
col aboration on developing solutions. The Castle Gateway regeneration has
unlocked an area that has suffered decades of failed proposals, and the masterplan
was approved with unprecedented cross-party political support in 2018.
The closure of Castle Car Park to create new public realm is seen by the majority as
a major step forward, as the location at the base of Clifford’s Tower motte is
inappropriate for this national y significant heritage building. However, the provision
of car parking remains a sensitive local issue, and city centre businesses only
support the closure of the car park due to a replacement multi-storey car park, which
has planning permission in place, being provided. This wil move parking out of the
inner-ring road, reduce the overal volume of spaces, provide an increased number
of EV charging points, and is accompanied by a whole range of active transport
benefits to support the city’s sustainable transport priorities.
Coney Street, Riverside Walkway and Parliament Street initiatives are direct
responses to long-held public ambitions to open up access to the city’s rivers and
improve the dated high street environment. The investment in event spaces across
the city wil also create the infrastructure to make community events viable and
easier to host, alongside commercial and paid-for offerings, responding to long-term
resident requests for more free to access opportunities.
4.2c Where the bidding local authority does not have
Yes
the statutory responsibility for the delivery of
projects, have you appended a letter from the
No
responsible authority or body confirming their
support?
N/A
For Northern Ireland transport bids, have you appended
Yes
a letter of support from the relevant district council
No
N/A
11
Version 1 – March 2021
4.3 The Case for Investment
See technical note Table 1 for further guidance.
4.3a Please provide evidence of the local challenges/barriers to growth and
context that the bid is seeking to respond to. (Limit 500 words)
With a total GVA of £6.5bn, York is a strong driver of regional economic growth. The
city’s international y-renowned heritage provides a unique backdrop for economic
activity, encouraging businesses and residents to locate in the city and attracting
8.4m visitors a year, the later contributing £765m to the York economy.
York city centre plays a key role in York’s economy, with 31% of al jobs in York
based in the city centre, supporting both local and regional employment. Pre-
pandemic, York’s city centre had fared relatively wel in the storm engulfing Britain’s
high streets and city centres, with the city enjoying one of the lowest retail and
leisure vacancy rates in England. However, accelerated market trends in retail, and
failures of national chains during Covid-19 has seen a significant increase in
vacancy rates within the city centre. Data from the Local Data Company shows that
retail and leisure vacancies increased from 8.3% in April 2020 to 12.6% in April
2021. Traditional shopping streets such as Coney Street and Parliament Street have
been particular challenged, with 29% and 25% of premises currently vacant
respectively. Many of these premises have large retail floorplates which are not
attractive to market demand and need to be broken down into smal er units to
accommodate York’s thriving independent sector and diverse uses. Equal y, many
upper floor spaces in these locations are either vacant or underutilised, representing
missed opportunities for residential, affordable housing and new commercial uses. A
2016 study from the North of England Civic Trust identified capacity for up to 800
flats in under-used or vacant upper floors in the City Centre.
In addition to the impact on retail, the pandemic has altered the way in which we
work, travel and live our lives, and it is clear that there is a need to reshape city
centres to ensure that they remain a focal point for people to meet, socialise, do
business and enjoy high-quality experiences. This is the context in which our bid for
York is responding – our city centre needs to remain attractive to residents,
businesses and visitors alike, attracting private-sector investment.
Our bid wil transform key areas of the city centre by creating new and improved
public realm, improve accessibility to green spaces, provide world-class spaces for
cultural activation and events, provide new pedestrian and cycle routes, and improve
the setting of key historical assets. These interventions in key locations, wil act as a
catalyst for the re-use of vacant spaces for residential and business purposes,
leverage private sector investment, and inspire community activity. Through targeted
12
Version 1 – March 2021
intervention, our bid will ensure that York city centre remains a high-quality
destination for business, leisure and cultural experiences, supporting direct spend in
city centre businesses and bring widespread public enjoyment.
4.3b Explain why Government investment is needed (what is the market
failure)? (Limit 250 words)
City of York Council is already investing INFORMATION REDACTED in
transformative capital works to drive regeneration across York and accelerate the
city’s economic recovery from Covid with a focus on building back better. This
includes investment in housing, transport and energy efficiency and the council have
been very successful at leveraging private sector investment through the use of its
land assets and covenants.
However, it is important to acknowledge that Covid has had a significant impact on
the council’s financial position meaning that Council investment alone is not
sufficient to support the ful delivery of our regeneration priorities, nor at the pace
required to build back better fol owing the pandemic. Whilst some of these funding
gaps are being fil ed by the commercial redevelopment of council sites our income
generating land is limited, and at their heart these are public realm projects and have
funding gaps that cannot be fully met locally. This is why government investment is
needed; to support York’s ability to recover quickly following the pandemic, to ensure
the ongoing vibrancy of York city centre, to act as a catalyst for private sector
investment - especial y with regards to vacant and underutilised premises in key
locations, and to support York as the key regional driver of economic growth.
Government investment in York’s bid would maximise the return on investment and
support multiple local authorities by increasing tourism spend which is proven to flow
out across the city regions and surrounding rural areas.
4.3c Please set out a clear explanation on what you are proposing to invest in
and why the proposed interventions in the bid will address those challenges
and barriers with evidence to support that explanation. As part of this, we
would expect to understand the rationale for the location. (Limit 500 words)
We propose investment in the creation of new, and the improvement of existing city
spaces in three crucial, high profile and linked areas of the City Centre, which
together wil have a transformative impact on how communities, visitors and
businesses interact with York, creating sustainable vibrancy and driving associated
investment at a key inflection point for the City.
13
Version 1 – March 2021
By creating and upgrading public spaces at Castle & Eye and Parliament Street, we
wil expand the range and appeal of events in the City, redressing downward trends
in attendees, and hosting more ambitious events to redress footfall losses through
retail contraction. These wil support the visitor economy and city centre vibrancy, as
wel as providing cultural attractions by and for local communities. The new civic
spaces created by these works wil provide more general amenities for residents,
with a range of new spaces created, from formal civic plazas and avenues through
cultural and curated spaces at Castle Museum, to informal green spaces at the
Riverside Park.
INFORMATION REDACTED of funding wil pay for the conversion of a surface car
park in to a world-class public realm and events space, with INFORMATION
REDACTED for the upgrading and opening up of access to the linked riverside park,
and £4.87m for a radical overhaul of the existing Parliament and St Sampson’s
Square spaces, putting in place the infrastructure for events, and redressing existing
accessibility issues.
INFORMATION REDACTED for Coney Street wil transform the existing
pedestrianised area to revitalise the urban environment. This investment, in common
with that at Parliament, will leverage private sector landlord investment to in existing
buildings to encourage new and additional uses to replace lost retail footprints, and
better use vacant upper floors. The Coney Street public realm is complemented by a
INFORMATION REDACTED contribution to a new linked riverside walkway, which
(match funded by private developers), wil create new riverside amenity space
through the redevelopment of existing buildings which currently turn their back on
the river. This wil provide a new leisure environment distinct from the family
shopping environment on Coney Street, and facilitate a mixed use regeneration
scheme of up to INFORMATION REDACTED incorporating retail and leisure uses,
INFORMATION REDACTED. The walkway wil provide new active travel linkages in
the City Centre, which, alongside links provided at the Riverside Park above, wil
drive modal shift, environmental and health benefits.
This package of support wil drive city centre vibrancy and occupancy at a critical
moment in its evolution, maintaining and improving the important function of the
retail, leisure and tourism which underpins local jobs and the city’s economy. By
creating a linked series of exciting dynamic and fit for purpose spaces, events can
be better managed in the historic core, and important amenity spaces wil be created
for this and future generations. Without investment the existing spiral of decline wil
continue and worsen, and the impacts wil be felt disproportionately by the city and
regions most vulnerable communities.
4.3d For Transport Bids: Have you provided an Option
Yes
Assessment Report (OAR)
No
14
Version 1 – March 2021
4.3e Please explain how you will deliver the outputs and confirm how results
are likely to flow from the interventions. This should be demonstrated through
a well-evidenced Theory of Change. Further guidance on producing a Theory
of Change can be found within HM Treasury’s Magenta Book (page 24, section
2.2.1) and MHCLG’s appraisal guidance. (Limit 500 words)
Theory of change models are appended for each of the three projects.
The theory of change models set out at a high level how the Inputs and Resources
translate in to the Outputs and the short, medium and long term Outcomes. These
are reflected in more detail in the monitoring and evaluation section, which identifies
the robust methodology the council has in place to ensure the expect outputs and
outcomes are achieved.
4.4 Alignment with the local and national context
See technical note Table 1 for further guidance.
4.4a Explain how your bid aligns to and supports relevant local strategies
(such as Local Plans, local economic strategies or Local Transport Plans) and
local objectives for investment, improving infrastructure and levelling up.
(Limit 500 words)
Our bid strongly aligns with local strategies and investment priorities.
Our Covid-19 Recovery and Renewal Strategy outlines our ambition to support the
economic recovery of York. Our bid wil create new and improved public realm
across York city centre, transforming their appearance and encouraging new uses to
add vibrancy, attract footfal , and support direct spend in hardest hit businesses. The
creation of new pedestrian and cycle routes wil increase active travel and a new
riverside park wil provide amenity for residents and visitors.
The bid supports delivery of the Local Plan, which al ocates the Castle Gateway as a
mixed-use area of opportunity with ‘significant potential to revitalise the area,
reinterpreting and reasserting the varied history of the site, and creating a better
connection with the city centre through improved pedestrian and cycle access’. The
plans also support the Local Plan approach to the city centre as ‘the economic,
social and cultural heart of York. It is vital to the character and future economic
success of the wider city... The streets, places and spaces of the city centre wil be
revitalised and key commercial developments will be delivered.’
Our bid also supports outcomes in our Council Plan 2019-2023, which sets out the
ambition to provide the best quality of life for residents, supporting 5 of the Council
Plan’s core outcomes:
15
Version 1 – March 2021
Wel -paid Jobs and an Inclusive Economy – supporting hard hit retail, leisure
and tourism sectors to recover from Covid, whilst diversifying the highstreet to
benefit York’s economy, and support lowest paid sectors, alongside longer
term plans to facilitate growth in higher value sectors.
A Greener and Cleaner City – creation of new pedestrian/cycle routes to
encourage greater use of active travel to reduce vehicle emissions, and new
and improved open spaces in the river corridors
Getting around Sustainably – creation of new cycling/walking infrastructure to
encourage active travel into York city centre
Creating Homes and World-class Infrastructure – transforming public realm in
key city centre locations and providing a world class events space that
improves the setting of York’s historic monuments and buildings
Safe Communities and Culture for Al – the provision of new spaces for
cultural activation and community activity.
By creating new and improved spaces for cultural and community activity, our bid
also supports the York Economic Strategy (2016-2020) to “make a fresh loud
statement of cultural and visual identity”, and York’s Cultural Strategy (2020-2025) to
ensure culture is inclusive, relevant and accessible to everybody, regardless of age,
background and postcode, and that culture is ful y-embedded into investments and
city developments. Our bid wil provide high quality, city centre spaces for
outstanding cultural experiences for visitors and residents alike.
Ensuring the city centre works for everyone – businesses, residents and visitors - is
key to levelling up. For York, this means improving everyday life; boosting local
growth; creating/safeguarding jobs for the hardest hit; creating the right conditions
for growth. Our bid wil encourage private sector investment to transform vacant and
underutilised city centre spaces into new homes, commercial premises and generate
additional city centre footfal .
4.4b Explain how the bid aligns to and supports the UK Government policy
objectives, legal and statutory commitments, such as delivering Net Zero
carbon emissions and improving air quality. Bids for transport projects in
particular should clearly explain their carbon benefits. (Limit 250 words)
Our bid aligns with, and supports, the government’s ambition to reach net zero by
2050 and the principles laid out in its 10 point plan for a green industrial revolution.
Local y we are working towards transitioning York to net zero carbon by 2030 with al
Council capital projects seeking to contribute to this ambition.
It is important to note that our bid wil take place within an already heavily
pedestrianised city centre, and therefore our bid is not promoting any activity that is
in opposition to both local and national low carbon ambitions. Regarding the
16
Version 1 – March 2021
Government’s ten point plan, our bid wil positively contribute to the ambition of
green public transport, walking and cycling by creating new pedestrian and cycle
routes to encourage greater use of active travel modes, and the closure of a city
centre car park, thus reducing vehicle trips into the city centre. Our bid wil also
improve bus routes into the city centre from the south of the city, with 20% of York’s
bus fleet already ful y electric.
Our bid wil also support the government’s ambition for green buildings by
encouraging the reuse and investment in vacant and underutilised upper floor
spaces, repurposing them for residential, commercial and community uses. This
reuse of existing city centre spaces would avoid the detrimental carbon impacts
associated with new-build development.
4.4c Where applicable explain how the bid complements / or aligns to and
supports other investments from different funding streams. (Limit 250 words)
The development of the Castle Gateway masterplan was funded through the One
Public Estate programme.
The Castle and Eye of York public realm wil improve the setting of English
Heritage’s £4.6m investment to conserve and improve visitor facilities to Clifford’s
Tower, increasing visitor numbers by an anticipated 25k per annum. The new public
realm is also crucial in unlocking the Castle Museum’s ambitions for a £70m
redevelopment of the museum.
It wil also support the delivery of the Castle Gateway masterplan, including 104
apartments in the Council’s Castle Mil s residential led scheme, and lever investment
and improvements at the adjacent Coppergate Centre.
The council has strategic outline case approval for £7.5m of West Yorkshire
Transport Funding to deliver the active transport benefits and infrastructure in the
Castle Gateway, £4.5m of this providing match funding contributions to project 1
included in this bid.
The Riverside Walkway component of project 2 has been worked up with the
support of YNYER LEP feasibility funding, which explores provision of further
connectivity improvements alongside forming part of the York Place devolution ask.
The walkway is a component part of the associated INFORMATION REDACTED
mixed use regeneration proposals from Helmsley Group, which this funding wil help
leverage. The connectivity improvements in the riverside area are strongly supported
by, and aligned with, the nearby proposed Roman Quarter redevelopment being
promoted by Northstar.
17
Version 1 – March 2021
As wel as these close links to wider funding, the bid complements major
investments at York Central. Accommodating around 80,000 sqm of new grade A
office accommodation, York Central, (located on the edge of the city centre),
represents a step change for the City economy - delivering modern office
accommodation to attract high value employment and industries to the City as part
of a mixed use scheme. Whilst this ambition is key, the development scheme, (which
is supported by £155m of public funding), wil take some 15 years to develop, and
the shift to higher value employment wil be a slow one alongside this, and
supported through skil s and training investment and actions. The LUF proposals,
focussed around supporting the lower value retail hospitality and tourism sectors in
the more immediate term, therefore complement this longer term strategic
investment wel .
There are a range of other City investments, backed by public funding streams
which complement the proposed LUF investment also. These include the £22m
Guildhal investment (supported by local growth funding amongst others) to create a
new flexible working and leisure complex within former council offices at the north
western end of Coney Street, numerous sustainable transport initiatives including e-
scooter trials and station frontage visitor arrival scheme, and the My City Centre
project wil lead to further city centre improvement schemes.
4.4d Please explain how the bid aligns to and supports the Government’s
expectation that all local road projects will deliver or improve cycling and
walking infrastructure and include bus priority measures (unless it can be
shown that there is little or no need to do so). Cycling elements of proposals
should follow the Government’s cycling design guidance which sets out the
standards required. (Limit 250 words)
The Castle Gateway masterplan wil transform a surface car park to public space,
reduce vehicle journeys inside the inner ring road, creating space for improved bus
infrastructure and improving bus route efficiency, create new, safe LTN120
compliant cycle and pedestrian routes away from the inner ring road, and drive
active and public transport modal shift through a transformative transport and public
realm masterplan. These benefits are delivered through the riverside park and
Castle and Eye of York elements within this bid.
The investment in Parliament Street and Coney Street wil be guided by the My City
Centre vision which will be adopted this summer. A key focus of this vision is
improvements to the accessibility of the city centre with a key focus on city centre
cycle routes and cycle parking.
18
Version 1 – March 2021
Al infrastructure wil be delivered to best practice standards and guidance, and
shaped through extensive stakeholder engagement, including with specialist
accessibility groups and communities of interest.
19
Version 1 – March 2021
PART 5 VALUE FOR MONEY
5.1 Appropriateness of data sources and evidence
See technical note Annex B and Table 1 for further guidance.
Al costs and benefits must be compliant or in line with HMT’s Green Book, DfT
Transport Analysis Guidance and MHCLG Appraisal Guidance.
5.1a Please use up to date evidence to demonstrate the scale and
significance of local problems and issues. (Limit 250 words)
Tourism
York has numerous accredited heritage sites. This is shown by the proportion of
employment in tourism sectors in York (13.0%) versus the UK (8.4%). This LUF bid
looks to maximise these local assets.
Crime
There is a heightened risk of crime in York in comparison to the surrounding areas
which may deter tourists. Of all the crimes committed in North Yorkshire, 41.5% are
committed in York. In particular, York makes up the largest proportion of crimes in
North Yorkshire for public order offences (30.3%), theft from the person (50%),
bicycle theft (62.1%) and violence without injury (28.2%).
Vacancy rates
Retail and Leisure vacancy data from the Local Data Company shows that the total
amount of vacancies in York City Centre has increased from 7.1% in April 2018 to
8.3% in April 2020 and now 12.6% in April 2021. More locally to the projects, the
same data reveals vacancy rates of 29% and 25% on the particularly hard-hit Coney
Street and Parliament Street. This shows that Covid-19 has had a detrimental effect
on the health of York’s city centre as a result of accelerated changes within the retail
sector and the failure of national chains.
Supporting local jobs
York has a higher proportion of jobs in retail than the Great Britain average – 12.6%
compared to 9.2% national y, which is highlighted in Table 5.1. By investing in
York’s world-renowned heritage, we can help support these large number of people
who depend on the tourist trade to for their likelihoods.
20
Version 1 – March 2021
Table 5.1: Percentage of total employment
Yorkshire &
Great Britain
Industry
York (%)
Humber (%)
(%)
Health
14.4
13.8
12.8
Retail
12.6
9.8
9.2
Education
10.8
9.1
8.4
Accommodation & food services
9.9
6.5
7.6
Professional, scientific & technical
8.1
6.8
8.8
Business administration & support services
8.1
8.1
8.7
Public administration & defence
5.4
4.2
4.2
Manufacturing
4.5
11.0
7.8
Arts, entertainment, recreation & other services
4.5
4.4
4.5
Construction
4.1
5.4
5.0
Transport & storage
4.1
5.1
4.8
Financial & insurance
3.6
2.7
3.4
Information & communication
3.2
2.8
4.2
Property
2.7
2.1
1.9
Wholesale
1.8
3.7
3.8
Motor trades
1.4
1.8
1.9
Agriculture, forestry & fishing
0.6
1.4
1.6
Mining, quarrying & utilities
0.2
1.0
1.3
TOTAL
100.0
100.0
100.0
5.1b Bids should demonstrate the quality assurance of data analysis and
evidence for explaining the scale and significance of local problems and
issues. Please demonstrate how any data, surveys and evidence is robust,
up to date and unbiased. (Limit 500 words)
Retail databases
Retail and Leisure vacancy data cited in our bid is from the Local Data Company,
the UK’s leading company in retail location data and insight. This research is
compiled independently, with each town/city centre they track physically walked by
their team of field researchers and each premises recorded as vacant, occupied or
demolished as recorded on the day of survey. Data on York is updated every 6
months, with the last survey of York city centre vacancy levels taking place in April
2021.
Up to date sources
A robust evidence base is required to provide a comprehensive understanding of
local context and to articulate local strengths, chal enges, and opportunities in order
that interventions are targeted appropriately to meet need and gaps in existing
21
Version 1 – March 2021
provision. The evidence base has been gathered through secondary source data
and published research/studies.
A range of publicly available sources, documents, and web-based applications have
been used including the fol owing latest sources as shown by their date of
publication:
Annual Population Survey (2020),
Business Register and Employment Survey (2020),
Index of Multiple Deprivation (2019),
Level ing Up Fund: Prioritisation of places methodology note (2021)
ONS Sub-regional Productivity (2020)
ONS Claimant Count (2021)
Robustness and unbiasedness of data
To ensure robustness, multiple sources have been examined to verify the same
conclusions. Additional y, the combination of data sources al ows local problems as
wel as sub-local patterns to be examined. The broadly public data sources can be
col ated to demonstrate a clear and robust picture of the main issues facing York,
whilst the bespoke sources il ustrate how the city centre’s heritage and built
environment plays a role in the wider issues for the city. In addition, certain public
sources, such as the IMD and Annual Population Survey, allow sub-local areas to
be examined to cross-check findings from reports and engagement. This approach
can be seen above, with multiple government resources supported by specific
studies into the local area and development in question.
The robustness and unbiased nature of evidence presented from official public
sources has been continually verified before submission, considering the primary
resource for data in the United Kingdom for its thoroughness. This data has also
been cross-referenced during our research to ensure similar findings arise from, for
example, the APS compared to employment.
In terms of the professional reports utilised, multiple methods were used to ensure
their robustness and unbiasedness:
Each of the reports present their methodology, which has been cross-
examined by economic and business case specialists from AMION
Consulting as wel as York City Council.
The professional reports, surveys and publications utilised can be assured
against each other.
22
Version 1 – March 2021
5.1c Please demonstrate that data and evidence chosen is appropriate to the
area of influence of the interventions. (Limit 250 words)
Destination York
The three York LUF projects are located within the City Centre’s regeneration and
transport zone with the Castle and Eye of York forming a key focal point in the
centre.
Our bid responds to the need to reshape York city centre following accelerated
changes in retail and societal changes in how people work, travel and live their lives
as a result of the pandemic. Our bid wil transform key areas of York city centre by
creating new and improved public realm and encourage the re-use of vacant and
underutilised spaces in key locations for new uses such as housing, business and
community activity. Given this context, is apt that we use city centre retail and leisure
vacancy data to support our bid.
Of key importance in assessing the employment and economic impact of the
proposals on the local economy is the extent to which new activity is truly additional,
in other words it does not simply displace existing activity. It is important to
understand who is likely to benefit from the impacts generated and the degree to
which further demand and investment is stimulated.
Riverside Park, Castle and Eye of York, Riverside Walkway and Parliament/St
Sampson’s Square wil be visitor and resident attractions and public realm amenities
within central York, meaning where possible data has been col ected at this local
level. For other data, where ward-level information is not available, data for York
local authority has been used in line with the methodology for the LUF prioritisation
process.
5.2 Effectiveness of proposal in addressing problems
5.2a Please provide analysis and evidence to demonstrate how the proposal
will address existing or anticipated future problems. Quantifiable impacts
should usually be forecasted using a suitable model. (Limit 500 words)
Interrelated City Centre Projects
York’s bid is centred around three interconnected schemes, which are designed to
deliver high-profile and transformative change in the heart of York. This wil be
achieved through linked place-based infrastructure works which drive vibrancy and
benefit residents and communities, whilst underpinning the resilience of the critical
23
Version 1 – March 2021
and hard-hit City Centre tourism retail and hospitality sectors which support many
of the most vulnerable and deprived communities in the City.
Project 1 – Castle & Eye of York
The Castle & Eye of York scheme wil create vibrant new world class public realm
in one of the City’s most culturally and historical y significant spaces around the
C11th Clifford’s Tower, which is currently blighted by a surface car park. The major
new events space includes improvements to Castle Museum public realm, helping
drive attractiveness of this key cultural and visitor anchor, as well as improving and
opening access to a riverside park, to providing a green lung and connectivity route
for residents and visitors.
Project 2 – Coney Street & Riverside Walkway
The nearby Coney Street & Riverside Walkway Scheme wil invest in the city’s main
shopping street, improving the pedestrian environment to underpin the viability of
commercial investment in change, whilst also contributing to creation of an exciting
new riverside walkway with dynamic new amenity spaces and connectivity. The
walkway wil provide a vibrant leisure environment with a new frontage to the river,
al owing redundant large floorplate buildings to become dual-facing and be
redeveloped for a range of uses, with the prospect of an exciting new cultural anchor
as part of this.
Project 3 – Parliament Street
The Parliament Street & St Sampson Square scheme wil radical y upgrade a third
major City Centre space which currently hosts events and accommodates a range
of secondary retail uses. Our delivery partner Make it York identified a long-term
downward trend in visitor numbers in this space even before the impacts of the
pandemic, and the large-scale space is tired, underused and in need of
comprehensive re-imagining. Improvements wil better meet the needs of
communities and visitors, whilst providing fit-for-purpose layout and infrastructure to
support the events which are a cornerstone of the city’s economic performance and
visitor attractiveness.
Modelling
Bespoke economic models have been created for each of the three interrelated
projects. The assessment of economic benefits has been undertaken in ful
compliance with the HM Treasury Green Book and relevant Departmental guidance
published by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government
(MHCLG). It has also had regard to specific advice published by MHCLG in relation
to LUF bids. Appended to this Application Form is an Economics Technical
Appraisal Note.
24
Version 1 – March 2021
5.2b Please describe the robustness of the forecast assumptions,
methodology and model outputs. Key factors to be covered include the
quality of the analysis or model (in terms of its accuracy and functionality)
(Limit 500 words)
Additionality Framework
In determining the net additional impact generated through an intervention, the key
issue to be addressed is the “additionality” of the proposals – that is, the extent to
which activity takes place at al , on a larger scale, earlier or within a specific
designated area or target group as a result of the intervention.
In order to assess the additionality of the York LUF proposals, the fol owing factors
wil therefore need to be considered:
•
leakage – the proportion of outputs that benefit those outside of the
project’s target area or group.
•
displacement – the proportion of project outputs accounted for by
reduced outputs elsewhere in the target area. Displacement may occur
in both the factor and product markets.
•
multiplier effects – further economic activity associated with additional
local income and local supplier purchases.
•
deadweight – outputs which would have occurred without the project.
The approach to assessing the net additional impact, taking into account the above
adjustments, is shown diagrammatically below.
25
Version 1 – March 2021
Intervention options
Reference case
Net additional impact
Gross direct effects
Gross direct effects
Less leakage from target
Less leakage from target
area / group
area / group
Gross local direct effects
Gross local direct effects
Less displacement (factor
Less displacement (factor
Total net local additional
and product market) /
LESS
and product market) /
=
effects
substitution
substitution
Net local direct effects
Net local direct effects
Plus multiplier effects
Plus multiplier effects
Total gross local effects
Total gross local effects
For the purposes of modelling, we have applied a composite additionality factor of
70%, which has been applied to the project benefits.
Costings
The analysis of value for money has been based on cost estimates provided by City
of York Council. These cost estimates are based on detailed financial analysis and
planning, including an itemised breakdown of spending and expenditure split by
capital/non-capital costs.
Core Assumptions
The analysis of value for money for York’s LUF is based upon the following
assumptions:
the ful appraisal period is 30 years, running from 2021/22 to 2051/52
costs and benefits are discounted at the HM Treasury’s discount rate of 3.5%
net present values are presented in 2021/22 prices
A detailed explanation of the benefits assessed is contained within Section 5.4a.
26
Version 1 – March 2021
5.3 Economic costs of proposal
5.3a Please explain the economic costs of the bid. Costs should be
consistent with the costs in the financial case, but adjusted for the economic
case. This should include but not be limited to providing evidence of costs
having been adjusted to an appropriate base year and that inflation has been
included or taken into account. In addition, please provide detail that cost
risks and uncertainty have been considered and adequately quantified.
Optimism bias must also be included in the cost estimates in the economic
case. (Limit 500 words)
Converting Financial to Economic Costs
The nominal financial costs in the Financial Case (Deliverability section) have been
converted to economic costs in line with the Green Book approach by using the HM
Treasury’s GDP deflator index1 to convert estimates of future costs to constant
(2021/22) prices. The constant price costs have been adjusted to present value
costs by applying the Treasury’s Social Time Preference discount rate of 3.5% per
annum. LUF funding within the programme is expected to run until March 2024, in
line with the published guidance.
Optimism Bias
The economic costs for each project include an allowance for Optimism Bias. This
has been estimated using an Optimism Bias Mitigation Model based on the
Supplementary Green Book Guidance produced by Mott MacDonald. The
mitigations made to each element of Optimism Bias for each project are summarised
below.
Optimism Bias Mitigation, by Intervention
Intervention
Type
Upper Bound OB Mitigated OB Comments
Proposal
Project 1
Standard
24%
16%
underpinned with
sound business
case
Project 2
Standard
24%
20%
Designed and
costed proposition
Project 3
Standard
24%
21%
Longstanding CYC
initiative
Capital costs
1 GDP deflators at market prices, and money GDP, HM Treasury, 30th September 2019.
27
Version 1 – March 2021
The estimated discounted total public sector costs of the full York LUF package in
constant 2020/21 prices are set out in below. These costings are based on cost
appraisals and financial modelling undertaken for the LUF programme.
Public sector costs including Optimism Bias (£m)
York LUF package
Public sector cost
26.8
Optimism Bias
4.8
Public sector cost including OB
31.6
De-coupling these BCRs figures by the component projects is provided below.
Public sector costs including Optimism Bias (£m)
York LUF individual projects
Project 1
16.2
Project 2
9.1
Project 3
6.3
Public sector cost including OB
31.6
5.4 Analysis of monetised costs and benefits
5.4a Please describe how the economic benefits have been estimated. These
must be categorised according to different impact. Depending on the nature
of intervention, there could be land value uplift, air quality benefits, reduce
journey times, support economic growth, support employment, or reduce
carbon emissions. (Limit 750 words)
Analytical Framework
The framework for assessing the economic benefits of the York LUF package bid
has been developed having regard to the HM Treasury Green Book, guidance
published by MHCLG and other government departments. Reflecting the diverse
nature of the projects and their expected impacts, as wel as the existing conditions
within York, a wider range of benefits have been assessed.
Economic Benefits
28
Version 1 – March 2021
Fol owing published guidance, this has included the consideration of the following
benefits within the BCR:
Land value uplift – analysis of changes in land values, which reflect the
economic efficiency benefits of converting land into a more productive use.
The existing land value is subtracted from the more value of the more
productive use.
Wider land value uplift – wider placemaking effects for the proposed
development which the funding programme wil facilitate have been
estimated using Valuation Office Agency (VOA) data for commercial analysis
and Council Tax band data for the residential value assessment. Primary and
secondary catchment areas have been defined for the LUF projects. The
primary catchment area is immediately adjacent to LUF interventions, whilst
the secondary area covers a wider area which is considered to be influenced
by transformation investment within the town centre. An uplift of 5% has been
assumed in the primary catchment and 1.5% in the secondary catchment.
Amenity benefits – consistent with the MHCLG Appraisal Guide, it has been
assumed that new green spaces in an urban environment have an economic
benefit of £109,138 per hectare per annum (2016 prices).
Crime cost savings – these benefits relate to a reduction in the number of
recorded offences within the immediate area due to the high-quality
development. The estimated costs to society of each crime type are applied
to the reduction in crime, comprising of costs incurred in anticipation of crime,
as a consequence of crime, and in response to crime. These costs are taken
from the Home Office Research Report and have been updated to 2020/21
prices.
Crime benefits –these benefits relate to residents benefitting from reduced
fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. There is a £7,085 wel being value
associated with each benefitting resident, which is expected to last for one
year.
Heritage – benefits associated with the value from visitors being able to
access the Grade 1 listed Fleece have been estimated. Al owance has been
made for the wel -being benefits enjoyed by attendees at this heritage asset,
having regard to benchmark values derived from [2014] research published
by DCMS.
Events – research undertaken for the Department of Culture, Media and
Sport has identified the wel -being associated with attending arts and cultural
events. The estimate (2014 prices) is in the range of £47-£62 per attendance.
29
Version 1 – March 2021
The values are based on measures of compensating surplus, which is the
technical definition of monetary value used in cost benefit analyses (CBA)
and the Green Book and have been adjusted to 2020/21 prices using
standard ONS GDP deflators, giving a value per attendee of £57.
Wellbeing value of volunteering – regular volunteering has been shown to
have a positive impact on individuals’ wel being and quality of life. Research
undertaken on behalf of HACT2 has quantified the monetary value of this
wel being effect as £3,199 per new volunteer who volunteers at least once
per month for at least two months.
The monetised economic benefits of the project have then been adjusted for 70%
additionality (as explained in section 5.2b) and are set out in the table below
Project 1 Benefits
Table 5.3: Monetised BCR Benefits (£M)
Project 1
Additional cultural events
35.3
Public realm improvement
1.0
Crime/ASB reduction
3.3
Heritage benefit
2.9
Volunteering wel being benefit
0.2
Total BCR Benefits
42.9
Project 2 Benefits
Table 5.4: Monetised BCR Benefits (£M)
Project 2
Additional cultural events
29.0
Public realm improvement
0.4
Land Value Uplift
0.5
Placemaking
6.3
Total BCR Benefits
36.0
Project 3 Benefits
Table 5.5: Monetised BCR Benefits (£)
Project 3
2 Social Impact of Community Investment: A Guide to using the Wellbeing Valuation Approach’, Trotter, Vine, Leach & Fujiwara, HACT, 2014
30
Version 1 – March 2021
Additional cultural events
22.1
Placemaking
3.8
Total BCR Benefits
25.9
All Project Benefits
Table 5.6: Monetised BCR Benefits (£)
Projects 1, 2 & 3
Project 1
42.9
Project 2
36.0
Project 2
25.9
Total (Projects 1+2+3)
104.9
Further detail in relation to the calculation of benefit is included within the technical
cost benefit paper which is appended.
5.4b Please complete Tab A and B on the appended excel spreadsheet (NB
APPENDIX REDACTED) to demonstrate your:
Tab A - Discounted total costs by funding source (£m)
Tab B – Discounted benefits by category (£m)
Please see completed Tab A & B
5.5 Value for money of proposal
5.5a Please provide a summary of the overall Value for Money of the
proposal. This should include reporting of Benefit Cost Ratios. If a Benefit
Cost Ratio (BCR) has been estimated there should be a clear explanation of
how this is estimated ie a methodology note. Benefit Cost Ratios should be
calculated in a way that is consistent with HMT’s Green Book. For non-
transport bids it should be consistent with MHCLG’s appraisal
guidance. For bids requesting funding for transport projects this should be
consistent with DfT Transport Analysis Guidance. (Limit 500 words)
Benefit Cost Ratios
31
Version 1 – March 2021
Benefit Cost Ratios, or BCRs are widely used in government to assess the overall
value for money of intervention. They are expressed as ratio of benefits over costs.
For example, a BCR = 2.34:1 means that a project wil generate £2.34 of benefit for
every £1.00 of cost. It is important to note that these inputs are not financial and are
only used in the Economic Case to assess VFM.
York LUF Programme BCRs
The appraisal summary table below sets out the estimated costs and benefits of the
York city centre LUF package. It is estimated that the scheme wil generate direct
monetised benefits of more than £104 mil ion, compared economic costs (including
Optimism Bias) of £31.6 mil ion. The overal package BCR is 3.32:1.
Table 5.7: BCR Benefits (£, million)
York LUF package
Benefits
Project 1
42.9
Project 2
36.0
Project 2
25.9
Total BCR Benefits
104.9
Costs
Public sector cost
26.8
Optimism Bias
4.8
Public sector cost including OB
31.6
VFM
BCR
3.3
York LUF Individual BCRs
The individual BCRs that make up the composite LUF Programme BCR are detailed
below:
Table 5.8: Monetised BCR Benefits (£)
BCRs
Project 1
2.7
32
Version 1 – March 2021
Project 2
3.9
Project 2
4.1
Composite BCR
3.3
Whether at an individual or programme level, the BCRs represent very good value
for money, in accordance with published government guidance.
5.5b Please describe what other non-monetised impacts the bid will have,
and provide a summary of how these have been assessed. (Limit 250 words)
Non-Monetised Impacts
In addition to the monetised economic benefits set out above, the proposed LUF
investments at York wil result in a number of wider, positive impacts. Although
these are difficult to quantify in monetary terms, they wil be of a significant benefit
to York residents and businesses, as wel as to the local areas.
These non-monetised benefits include:
Image – the result of LUF monies wil be improved perceptions of York City
Centre as a whole and as a business location and as a place to live, visit and
work in. The investments wil also provide a quality standard benchmark for
future development, helping to foster a new sense of identity
Environmental – the recommended LUF interventions at York wil unlock wil
environmental benefits. High quality green spaces and pedestrian walkways
are a key feature of this bid. They wil provide a wide range of environmental
and quality of life benefits for local communities and help attract new
investment.
Further indirect benefits will flow, including:
Investment at Coney and Parliament Street encouraging footfall and spend,
supporting existing retail, hospitality and tourism, and vulnerable low wage
and part time workers in particular.
Creation of fit-for-purpose events spaces, which improve efficiency and
reduce operating costs, allowing more community led and operated non-
commercial events, strengthening community cohesion and social bonds.
Parliament street improvements wil resolve accessibility issues for those
with mobility issues, increasing social and economic interaction.
Digital infrastructure at Parliament Street wil improve access to services
and make the centre more attractive
33
Version 1 – March 2021
5.5c Please provide a summary assessment of risks and uncertainties that
could affect the overall Value for Money of the bid. (Limit 250 words)
Project Risk Registers
A Risk Register has been prepared by City of York Council for the LUF programme
– this is available on request.
Sensitivities
To test the sensitivity of the value for money results to changes in key variables, an
analysis of ‘switching values’ has been carried out. This calculates how much public
sector costs or benefits would have to change in order for the preferred option’s
BCR to be less than 1.0
Table 5.9: Switching values
% Change
Percent change in net additional benefits
-62%
Percent change in net costs
166%
Scenario-Testing
Alternative scenarios have also been model ed to test the sensitivity of the BCR
results to a change in a key variable. The key variables adjusted were as fol ows:
Scenario 1 – additionality drops to 60%
Scenario 2 – additionality drops to 50%
Scenario 3 – Standard upper bound optimism bias levels i.e. 24%
The results of the scenario testing are set out in Table 5.2. Under each of the
scenario tests, the bid package continues to provide high value for money, with a
BCR of at least [2.6].
Table 5.10: Scenario-testing
Scenario
BCR
Central case
3.3
Scenario 1 – additionality 60%
2.9
34
Version 1 – March 2021
Scenario 2 – additionality 50%
2.6
Scenario 3 – Standard upper bound OB levels apply
3.1
5.5d For transport bids, we would expect the Appraisal Summary Table, to be
completed to enable a full range of transport impacts to be considered. Other
material supporting the assessment of the scheme described in this section should
be appended to your bid.
35
Version 1 – March 2021
PART 6 DELIVERABILITY
6.1 Financial
See technical note Table 1 for further guidance.
6.1a Please summarise below your financial ask of the LUF, and what if
any local and third party contributions have been secured (please note that a
minimum local (public or private sector) contribution of 10% of the bid costs
is encouraged). Please also note that a contribution will be expected from
private sector stakeholders, such as developers, if they stand to benefit from
a specific bid (Limit 250 words)
City of York Council are seeking £19,116,234 Level ing Up Funding to deliver high-
profile and transformative change in the heart of the city. For each of the projects
within this package bid, there is match funding identified, either from the private
sector, the council or another local public sector body.
The business case for project 1, seeks £10,046,126 to deliver world class public
realm and event space on an existing surface level car park, and a new riverside
park. We have secured Strategic Outline Case approval for a total of £8.1m West
Yorkshire Transport Funding to support the delivery of the wider masterplan. £4.5m
of this is specifically related to the delivery of project 1, Castle and Eye of York and
the Riverside Park.
Project 2, Coney Street and the Riverside Walkway seeks £4,193,740 of levelling
up funding to create an exciting new riverside amenity space and connectivity,
facilitate redevelopment and improve the public realm environment in this area of the
city centre. This scheme wil be jointly funded by the private sector who have
committed INFORMATION REDACTED to the riverside walkway component, and
wil leverage significant further private sector investment in regeneration activity. The
Council has also commit to contribute £132,638 specifical y for the Coney Street
public realm improvements.
Project 3, Parliament Street and St, Sampson’s Square, seeks £4,875,556 Level ing
up funding. The Council is committed to providing the contribution required, equalling
£530,617.
36
Version 1 – March 2021
6.1b Please also complete Tabs C and D in the appended excel spreadsheet
(NB: APPENDIX REDACTED), setting out details of the costs and spend profile at
the project and bid level in the format requested within the excel sheet. The
funding detail should be as accurate as possible as it wil form the basis for funding
agreements. Please note that we would expect al funding provided from the Fund
to be spent by 31 March 2024, and, exceptional y, into 2024-25 for larger schemes.
6.1c Please confirm if the bid will be part funded through
Yes
other third-party funding (public or private sector). If so,
please include evidence (i.e. letters, contractual
No
commitments) to show how any third-party contributions are
being secured, the level of commitment and when they will
become available. The UKG may accept the provision of land
from third parties as part of the local contribution towards
scheme costs. Where relevant, bidders should provide evidence
in the form of an attached letter from an independent valuer to
verify the true market value of the land.
6.1d Please explain what if any funding gaps there are, or what further work
needs to be done to secure third party funding contributions. (Limit 250
words)
The £4.5m funding from the West Yorkshire Transport Fund has passed through the
Strategic Case Gateway, receiving approval to proceed to Outline Business Case
(OBC) Stage. The OBC wil be submitted to West Yorkshire Combined Authority on
the 1st of July 2021, and we expect confirmation of approval to proceed to Ful
Business Case (FBC) in September 2021.
FBC approval will be sought in two phases in line with the completion of the detailed
design and confirmation of the final construction costs.
The FBC approval of the first phase includes the £1m contribution to the pedestrian
and cycle route through the Riverside Park in Project 1, this is expected in October
2021, and approval of the second phase which includes the remaining £3.5m wil
following in early 2022.
The Riverside Walkway investment in project 2 is match funded by private developer
contributions from the Helmsley Group, who wil also be bringing forward the
associated INFORMATION REDACTED riverside quarter mixed-use development,
and a letter of commitment is provided alongside this application
37
Version 1 – March 2021
6.1e 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. (Limit 250 words)
An EOI was submitted to the Future Highstreets Fund in 2019 for £170k of revenue
funding to prepare a feasibility study and business case for the riverside walkway.
Although detailed feedback was not received, we understand this was most likely
unsuccessful due to national priority criteria for al ocation of funding to high streets
undergoing total market failure. Subsequent to this decision, alternative funding was
secured through a feasibility fund from York & North Yorkshire LEP (with Council
and third party match funding) to undertake feasibility work on the walkway and river
crossing, and this study is now complete and appended to this bid. [Note: this study
contains commercial y sensitive information.] (NB APPENDIX REDACTED)
A business case was submitted for Castle and Eye of York to the York, North
Yorkshire and East Riding Local Enterprise Partnership as part of the MHCLG cal
for projects in July 2020. Funding was not secured for two reasons, the ask for the
scheme was high relative to the pot that was available across the region, and at the
projects they were looking to fund were more shovel ready, and at that stage the
scheme had not commenced design. In response to this outcome the council
Executive took the decision to commence the design and planning process to ensure
that we were shovel ready for future funding streams that became available such as
this. This design work for a world class public realm and event space has been
undertaken at risk without certainty of securing funding.
6.1f Please provide information on margins and contingencies that have
been allowed for and the rationale behind them. (Limit 250 words)
Risk al owance contingencies have been built into the three project’s cost plans at a
level appropriate to their individual characteristics as summarised in the table below.
Risk allowance Contingency by Project
Project 1 – Design Development Risk
5%
Construction Risk
5%
Project 2 - Public Realm element Design Development Risk
10.5%
Public realm element Construction Risk
10.5%
Riverside Walkway risk
12.5%
Project 3 – Design Development Risk
15%
Construction Risk
15%
38
Version 1 – March 2021
These rates have been informed at an individual project component level by degree
of project development, complexity, known physical constraints and risk items,
partnership delivery arrangements and degree to which they represent a standard
delivery project for the Council. These al owances wil be iterated and evolved as the
projects are developed.
Main contractor overheads and profit al owances are also built into the different
project components as set out in the table below and based on industry standard
approaches based on project type:
OH&P by Project
Project 1
5%
Project 2 Public realm element
5.25%
Riverside Walkway element
7.5%
Project 3
7.5%
6.1g Please set out below, what the main financial risks are and how they
will be mitigated, including how cost overruns will be dealt with and shared
between non-UKG funding partners. (you should cross refer to the Risk
Register). (Limit 500 words)
The main financial costs for project 1 are linked to the historical significance and
unknown constraints of the site, particularly archaeology. This could lead to project
delays and increased costs. This risk is being mitigated through early site
investigations. It is proposed that this project is delivered using LUF matched with
West Yorkshire Transport Funding. Financial risks will be keenly managed ensuring
any cost increases were addressed. Any cost overruns not able to be mitigated
through value engineering, wil be absorbed by the council.
The principle financial risks for project 2 relate to unknown site constraints (including
archaeology and ground conditions) and project delay leading to cost inflation. These
wil be mitigated through front-loading desk-based and site investigation works in the
project programme, and effective resourcing of project management function. Cost
overruns wil be managed whol y within Council operational budgets for highways
maintenance and renewal and Local Transport Plan capital programme. The
riverside walkway component of the project wil be delivered in partnership with
private developers who wil match fund. Additional financial risks here relate to the
further constraints posed by riparian environment, need for planning and consents,
and physical relationship with built assets. These additional risks have already been
mitigated to an extent through key early stakeholder engagement, and wil continue
through effective project governance structures and project management
39
Version 1 – March 2021
arrangements, with any cost overruns being the responsibility of the private sector
development partner.
Within project 3, the principal financial risks relate to unknown site constraints
(including commercial sub-croft arrangement as wel as archaeology and ground
conditions) and project delay leading to cost inflation. These wil be mitigated through
front-loading desk-based and site investigation works in the project programme, and
effective resourcing of project management function. Cost overruns wil be managed
wholly within Council operational budgets for highways maintenance and renewal
and Local Transport Plan capital programme.
6.2 Commercial
See technical note Section 4 and Table 1 for further guidance.
6.2a Please summarise your commercial structure, risk allocation and
procurement strategy which sets out the rationale for the strategy selected
and other options considered and discounted. The procurement route
should also be set out with an explanation as to why it is appropriate for a
bid of the scale and nature submitted.
Please note - all procurements must be made in accordance with all relevant
legal requirements. Applicants must describe their approach to ensuring full
compliance in order to discharge their legal duties. (Limit 500 words)
Al procurements at the Council are undertaken in accordance with the Council’s
Contract Procedure Rules and the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. A
procurement strategy wil be developed for each individual project within this bid.
Project 1 – the procurement strategy is yet to be confirmed. A procurement
workshop will be undertaken, involving the Project Team, procurement, legal and
external advisors, to explore the most appropriate approach to procurement. This
wil include route to procurement, evaluation criteria, contract type and timescales,
ensuring that the approach recommended for approval by the Project Working
Group has been robustly chal enged and delivers value for money.
The final procurement strategy wil be appropriate to the scale and nature of the
bid, taking in to account the market at the time.
Project 2 and Project 3 – the elements of these projects which are works within
the public highway and, as such, risk wil be held and managed by the Council for
these works. Design works will be procured compliantly, most likely through an
appropriate framework, and forming two separate appointments given the
alternative scope, purpose and built context of the projects. The contract for the
capital delivery works (likely to be a single contract across both projects), may be
undertaken by one of the Council’s existing appointed highways term providers,
and/or appointed through a compliant framework.
40
Version 1 – March 2021
Works to provide the riverside walkway element of project 2 are more complex,
being delivered alongside a private sector development partner. The LUF
contribution represents one part of the overal funding for the walkway. Options for
the delivery of these works include:
i)
the separation of infrastructure works into lots, with the Council delivering
one or more directly using LUF, and the development partner similarly
using their own funds to deliver others;
i )
the undertaking of a joint procurement led by the Council, with a single
appointment for al works, joint management of contract and
apportionment of risk owners; or
i i)
the provision of funding to the development partner through a grant
agreement, (which would contain obligations securing compliance with
the procurement regulations) with works managed (and risk owned)
wholly by the development partner as part of the wider works.
Option ii ) is the preferred solution, with risk held and managed by the development
partner, but with the Council contributing land to the walkway delivery. Commercial
arrangements around the associated development scheme would be framed to
ensure best value requirements are met. The grant agreement with the
development partner would contain obligations governing the use of the funding to
ensure all relevant legal requirements and compliance was achieved through the
procurement exercise which they undertake on the Council’s behalf along with claw
back provisions for breach of those obligations. The development partner would
need to agree in writing that they are able to provide the requirements set out in the
bid and confirm they can mirror each element with the funding available. In the
unlikely event the grant agreement was terminated, the Council would procure that
element of works separately.
6.3 Management
See technical note Section 4 and Table 1 for further guidance
Delivery Plan: Places are asked to submit a delivery plan which
demonstrates:
Clear milestones, key dependencies and interfaces, resource
requirements, task durations and contingency.
An understanding of the roles and responsibilities, skills, capability, or
capacity needed.
Arrangements for managing any delivery partners and the plan for
benefits realisation.
Engagement of developers/ occupiers (where needed)
The strategy for managing stakeholders and considering their
interests and influences.
Confirmation of any powers or consents needed, and statutory
approvals eg Planning permission and details of information of
ownership or agreements of land/ assets needed to deliver
the bid with evidence
41
Version 1 – March 2021
Please also list any powers / consents etc needed/ obtained, details of
date acquired, challenge period (if applicable) and date of expiry of
powers and conditions attached to them.
6.3a Please summarise the delivery plan, with reference to the above (Limit
500 words)
The delivery plan attached sets out the key procedures and measures in place to
ensure the successful and efficient delivery of the Council’s Levelling Up projects.
This draws on the Council’s adopted standard approach to the management and
delivery of major projects.
The report consists of the fol owing sections:
Section 2 sets out the milestones and key dependencies for each project,
including the statutory approvals and consents required;
Section 3 outlines the councils project management structure, and the internal
and external team in place to deliver across al of the projects;
Section 4 presents the robust stakeholder management in place to ensure a
col aborative approach to design and delivery of these projects;
Section 5 displays the risks management plan; and
Section 6 refers back to the logic models and outputs identified, setting out the
monitoring and evaluation arrangements for the projects.
6.3b Has a delivery plan been appended to your
Yes
bid?
No
6.3c Can you demonstrate ability to begin
Yes
delivery on the ground in 2021-22?
No
6.3e Risk Management: Places are asked to set out a detailed risk assessment
which sets out (word limit 500 words not including the risk register):
the barriers and level of risk to the delivery of your bid
appropriate and effective arrangements for managing and mitigating
these risk
a clear understanding on roles / responsibilities for risk
42
Version 1 – March 2021
The Council’s corporate risk policy and guidance outlines the methodology for
managing risks, including formatting and scoring and provides guidance on roles and
responsibilities including ownership. Projects are managed using the council’s
project management framework (see section 6.3h below) and risk workshops are
built into the early steps to develop an initial risk register and these are then managed
as a matter of course as the projects are progressed.
Risks are wel understood and actively managed across the proposed LUF projects.
The Council operates a RAIDL approach, with Risk assessment quantification and
mitigation recorded alongside associated Actions, Issues, Decisions and Lessons
learnt. The appended RAIDL log covers al three projects, and provides a
comprehensive assessment of barriers and level of risk to delivery for the projects,
including outcome realisation risks.
The types of risk are considered typical for capital delivery projects of this nature,
and the overal level of risk across the projects is considered wil manageable. The
highest individual risk item (ID CG18) relates to funding and revenue account
position in respect of Castle and Eye of York Public Realm – which confirmation of
this funding bid would directly mitigate. The concentration of highest average risk
items sit within the Riverside Walkway component of the LUF bid (where relationship
with riverside quarter development and relatively early stage of scheme development
exacerbate). Risks within the Castle & Eye of York project, which makes up the
majority of LUF funding, are well informed and mediated by the significant project
work to date in this area of the bid.
Risk owners are allocated within this matrix to individual risk items from across the
project management, regeneration service, finance and highways departments of
the authority as appropriate. Management and Mitigation actions are also identified.
The risk matrix is reported regularly to project board and corporate programme
management as part of the schemes overal management.
6.3f Has a risk register been appended to your
Yes
bid?
No
6.3g Please evidence your track record and past experience of delivering
schemes of a similar scale and type (Limit 250 words)
43
Version 1 – March 2021
The Council has extensive experience delivering major capital programmes around
place-making, culture, regeneration and transport, and has the expertise at its
disposal to deliver the proposed schemes robustly and efficiently.
As a unitary authority the council delivers a significant annual highways capital
programme (£12.25m in 2020/21) and one-off capital projects including Mil ennium
Bridge (£4.2m), Scarborough Bridge at York Rail Station (£4.5m), Park & Ride
programme across 6 hubs (£25m+), and are currently underway with the £72m Outer
Ring Road improvement scheme (initial phase delivered on time and within 10% of
budget).
The council rapidly implemented, infrastructure measures for the re-opening of the
city centre fol owing Covid and has delivered many place-based initiatives including
the Reinvigorate York programme of urban renewal (£3m), and securing planning
and delivering enabling infrastructure works for the major York Central scheme
(establishing a £155m funding programme – INFORMATION REDACTED
infrastructure package 1 currently nearing completion and package 2
INFORMATION REDACTED due to be instructed shortly).
The council has commenced an ambitious Housing Delivery Programme, delivering
600 new homes across a range of sites, and is currently on site with the first £33m
phase of 220 homes across 3 sites.
From a cultural perspective, the Council has successful y delivered a major
programme of renewal across its ‘explore’ library network, recently completed the
£44.2m Community Stadium for the City’s footbal and rugby clubs, and regularly co-
invests with its cultural anchor tenants. The Council operates a commercial portfolio,
including the recent £32m West Offices headquarters, and £22m Guildhal
redevelopment.
6.3h Assurance: We will require Chief Financial Officer confirmation that
adequate assurance systems are in place.
For larger transport projects (between £20m - £50m) please provide evidence of an
integrated assurance and approval plan. This should include details around
planned health checks or gateway reviews. (Limit 250 words)
The council’s project management framework (Al about projects) is consistent with
the Treasury Green book guidance. This is a six step approach (Discovery, Pre-
project, Initiation, Planning, Implementation and Closure) with gateways to ensure
appropriate approvals to give assurance at the gateway points.
Benefits and risk management are key in the framework and are managed and
analysed throughout. A corporate project assurance function oversees all projects,
with specific focus on al major and significant medium sized projects. There is a
44
Version 1 – March 2021
process in place for transparency where monthly project highlight reports are
published on the York Open data platform.
The appropriate Project Management and scrutiny is applied proportionate to the
size of project. The project assurance function assess each major project on a
monthly basis and a wider group, led by the assurance lead and supported by
Directorate representatives, assess every council project on a monthly basis. These
groups provide assurance reports on to the Council Management Team (bi-monthly),
Audit and Governance committee, Scrutiny committees and, when required,
Executive. The corporate risk management policy is applied across projects to
ensure a consistent approach. The project management approach is subject to an
annual audit by the internal auditors.
Project one is already overseen by the Castle Gateway governance and assurance
structures which include an advisory group with external partners, internal project
board with delegated authorities and everyday decision making powers, and
executive member approval processes. Project 2 and 3 are covered by the
equivalent My City Centre structures, which wil be escalated as the project moves
in to future gateways.
6.4 Monitoring and Evaluation
See technical note Section 4 and Table 1 for further guidance.
6.4a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan: Please set out proportionate plans for M&E
which should include (1000 word limit):
Bid level M&E objectives and research questions
Outline of bid level M&E approach
Overview of key metrics for M&E (covering inputs, outputs, outcomes and
impacts), informed by bid objectives and Theory of Change. Please
complete Tabs E and F on the appended excel spreadsheet (NB:
APPENDIX REDACTED)
Resourcing and governance arrangements for bid level M&E
The council’s project management framework (Al About Projects) builds into the pre-
project, initiation and planning steps the process for putting in place appropriate
governance, which is consistent with the constitution of the Council. This identifies a
responsible Director, a responsible portfolio holder from the Executive (this may be
more than one as a project may cross more than one portfolio), a Senior Responsible
Officer (depending on the size this may be the same as the Director) and a Project
Manager. It is mandated that al Project Managers have appropriate Project
Management qualifications. A project board is then formed around these key senior
45
Version 1 – March 2021
project leaders. Decisions are taken to Council ors at the approval stages of the
project.
The framework also builds the resourcing into the project and during pre-project
leads in Legal, Procurement, Finance, Property, IT, Sustainability, HR (if
appropriate) are identified as wel as working project based resource requirements
into the business case (including support and PMO). Assessments are made to
ensure the identified resources have the appropriate capacity to fulfil tasks.
The bid level monitoring and evaluation objectives are to ensure that:
Al project inputs are delivered to programme and budget
The aims and objectives of the bid are clearly understood and communicated
to partners and stakeholders
Al project outputs are measured, assessed and reported on a regular basis
to inform both ongoing project delivery and broader council and partner
activity
Project impacts are appraised on a regular (though less frequent) basis and
disseminated
Lessons learnt through the bid are understood, embedded into subsequent
projects and activity, and shared and disseminated
Key project inputs are comprised at bid level of:
£19.116m LUF funding, matched by a further £5.16m public and
INFORMATION REDACTED private funding
Staff resourcing from Council and partners in form of project management,
technical and events resource
Land in the form of public adopted highway, land at riverside park and Eye of
York owned by the council and leased to York Museums Trust, and privately
owned land at riverside walkway.
Monitoring and evaluation activity relates to a complex suite of project outputs,
outcomes and impacts, reflecting the wide reaching and transformative impacts of
the proposals.
Table F of the application submission sets out the various monitoring and evaluation
metrics which the fund will deliver against and provides detail on data sources and
frequency of monitoring. This draws together diverse datasets from a range of
sources, drawing on the robust approach to City Monitoring which the Council has
established through its Open Data platforms and other corporate activity. Monitoring
wil be reported through the project governance arrangements set out elsewhere in
this submission, and on confirmation of funding approval, a robust and current
baseline wil be established, from which project impacts can be assessed.
Assessment of performance against monitoring metrics wil be undertaken on a
46
Version 1 – March 2021
regular basis not less than annual y, and wil be reported (including lessons learnt)
through the project governance structure previously mentioned, as wel as being
promoted amongst partner organisations and made publically available on the
Council’s website. This evaluation wil include lessons learnt analysis. All monitoring
and evaluation activity will be undertaken in ful accordance with levelling up fund
contracting requirements.
Monitoring and evaluation activity wil be resourced from within the Councils
regeneration team, who wil be responsible for project delivery. They wil draw on
internal council resource across the planning, economic development, revenues and
business intelligence functions of the authority in undertaking this activity and will
draw on partner resources for example at the Business Improvement District, and
Make It York who operate events within key city centre spaces. Where relevant,
requirements around data and monitoring metrics wil be built into contracting
arrangements with delivery partners to ensure robustness, reliability and timeliness
of data.
47
Version 1 – March 2021
PART 7 DECLARATIONS
7.1 Senior Responsible Owner Declaration
As Senior Responsible Owner for York Levelling Up Fund Projects I hereby
submit this request for approval to UKG on behalf of City of York Council and
confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so.
I confirm that [City of York Council] wil have all the necessary statutory powers
and other relevant consents in place to ensure the planned timescales in the
application can be realised.
Name:
Signed:
INFORMATION REDACTED
INFORMATION REDACTED
X04: DECLARATIONS
7.2 Chief Finance Officer Declaration
As Chief Finance Officer for [City of York Council] I declare that the scheme cost
estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that
[City of York Council]
- has al ocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its
proposed funding contribution
- accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the UKG
contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and the
underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties
- accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in
relation to the scheme
- accepts that no further increase in UKG funding wil be considered beyond
the maximum contribution requested and that no UKG funding wil be
provided after 2024-25
- confirm that the authority commits to ensure successful bids wil deliver
value for money or best value.
- confirms that the authority has the necessary governance / assurance
arrangements in place and that al legal and other statutory obligations and
consents wil be adhered to.
Name:
Signed:
INFORMATION REDACTED
INFORMATION REDACTED
ECLARATIONS
0ECLTIONS
48
Version 1 – March 2021
7.3 Data Protection
Please note that the The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
(MHCLG) is a data control er for al Level ing Up Fund related personal data
col ected with the relevant forms submitted to MHCLG, and the control and
processing of Personal Data.
The Department, and its contractors where relevant, may process the Personal
Data that it col ects from you, and use the information provided as part of the
application to the Department for funding from the Level ing Up Fund, as wel as in
accordance with its privacy policies. For the purposes of assessing your bid the
Department may need to share your Personal Data with other Government
departments and departments in the Devolved Administrations and by submitting
this form you are agreeing to your Personal Data being used in this way.
Any information you provide wil be kept securely and destroyed within 7 years of
the application process completing.
You can find more information about how the Department deals with your
data here.
49
Version 1 – March 2021
Annex A - Project One Summary
Project 1
A1. Project Name
Castle and Eye of York and the Riverside Park
A2. Strategic Linkage to bid:
Please enter a brief explanation of how this project links strategically to the
overall bid. (in no more than 100 words)
Project 1 creates world class public realm and events space at the heart of the city
centre, surrounded by regionally significant heritage assets. The space wil present
significant opportunities for increased cultural events and activities to take place,
particularly those that are free to engage with. This opens up the cultural offer in
the city to a more diverse audience. This project compliments the more
commercial events offering in Parliament Street and the overal impact on the city’s
economy.
A3. Geographical area:
Please provide a short description of the area covered by the bid (in no more
than 100 words)
The Castle and Eye of York, and
Riverside Park are part of the
Castle Gateway. The area is at the
confluence of the river Ouse and
Foss, dominated by surface level
car parks and the inner ring road
and includes a number of York’s
heritage assets and cultural
attractions which are of regional
and national historical importance.
As shown on the red line plan
attached the project 1 site runs
adjacent to the river Foss and
wraps around the Castle Museum.
A4. OS Grid Reference
SE605515
A5. Postcode
YO1 9WY
A6. For Counties, Greater London
Authority and Combined
Authorities/Mayoral Combined
50
Version 1 – March 2021
Authorities, please provide details of the
district council or unitary authority where
the bid is located (or predominantly
located)
A7. Please append a map showing
Yes
the location (and where applicable
the route) of the proposed scheme,
No
existing transport infrastructure and
other points of particular interest to
the bid e.g. development sites, areas
of existing employment, constraints
etc.
A8. Project theme
Transport investment
Please select the project theme
Regeneration and town centre
investment
Cultural investment
A9. Value of capital grant being
£10,046,126
requested for this project (£):
A10. Value of match funding and
£4.5m West Yorkshire Transport Fund
sources (£):
A11. Value for Money
This section should set out the full range of impacts – both beneficial and
adverse – of the project. Where possible, impacts should be described,
quantified and also reported in monetary terms. However there may be some
impacts where only a qualitative assessment is possible due to limitations in
the available analysis. There should be a clear and detailed explanation of
how all impacts reported have been identified, considered and analysed.
When deciding what are the most significant impacts to consider, bidders
should consider what impacts and outcomes the project is intended to
achieve, taking into account the strategic case, but should also consider if
there are other possible significant positive or negative impacts, to the
economy, people, or environment (Limit 250 words)
Project 1 – Castle & Eye of York
This initiative is the first of three interrelated projects that make up the York LUF
application. The benefits attributed to Project 1 are consistent with appraisal
guidance from HM Treasury’s Green, MHCLG’s Appraisal and LUF Programme
advice.
Table 5.3: Monetised BCR Benefits (£M)
Project 1
Additional cultural events
35.3
Public realm improvement
1.0
Crime/ASB reduction
3.3
Heritage benefit
2.9
51
Version 1 – March 2021
Volunteering wel being benefit
0.2
Total BCR Benefits
42.9
In terms of the specifics, the principal benefit flows the new world class public realm
in one of the City’s most cultural y and historical y significant spaces. Economic
methodology allows us to capture the consumer surplus or welfare gain from the
additional visitors that go to this exciting proposition. Connected to this, given the
heritage attached to this site, we have looked to capture this enhancement to this
important fabric.
There existing area is also subject to persistent ASB, which wil be designed out by
the new proposals. Final y, we have model ed benefits coming from public realm
improvement itself and an increase in volunteering.
More detail is provided in the Economics Technical Note appended to this bid.
A12. It will be generally expected that an overall Benefit Cost Ratio and Value
for Money Assessment will be reported in applications. If this is not
possible, then the application should include a clear explanation of why not.
The overal BCR for the whole bid is 3.3. Below is the individual BCR for Project 1
A13. Where available, please provide
BCR = 2.7
the BCR for this project
A14. Does your proposal deliver
strong non-monetised benefits?
York has a higher proportion of jobs in
Please set out what these are and
retail than the Great Britain average –
evidence them.
12.6% compared to 9.2% nationally. By
investing in York’s world-renowned
heritage, we can help support these
large number of people who depend on
the tourist trade to for their likelihoods
A15. Deliverability
Deliverability is one of the key criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set
out any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be
constructed.
Planning approval is required for part of the scheme, as is a Scheduled Ancient
Monument Consent. We are working closely with statutory officers, statutory
bodies and key stakeholders throughout the design process to minimising the risk
of this consents not being secured.
52
Version 1 – March 2021
The first phase of the project which £1.046m of the level ing up fund is sought, is to
deliver a scheme that already has the necessary planning consents in place and
subject to approval of final contractor price, wil commence on site Q4 2021.
A16. The Bid – demonstrating investment or ability to begin delivery on the
ground in 2021-22
As stated in the prospectus UKG seeks for the first round of the funding that
priority wil be given to bids that can demonstrate investment and ability to deliver
on the ground in 2021-22
A17. Does this project includes plans
Yes
for some LUF expenditure in 2021-
22?
No
A18. Could this project be delivered
Yes
as a standalone project or do it
require to be part of the overall bid?
No
A19. Please provide evidence
A20. Can you demonstrate ability to
deliver on the ground in 2021-22.
Yes
No
A21. Please provide evidence
A construction contractor has been
appointed on a two stage contract to
carry out the detailed design for the
scheme, and subject to the final cost
being within the budget envelope,
proceed to start on site in January 2022.
The Riverside Park is part of an early
delivery requirement in the contract,
ensuring this element of the scheme is
delivered within the LUF required
timescales.
Statutory Powers and Consents
53
Version 1 – March 2021
A22. Please list separately each
Planning permission secured for the
power / consents etc obtained,
Riverside Park – 16th December 2020 -
details of date acquired, challenge
19/02415/FULM
period (if applicable) and date of
expiry of powers and conditions
attached to them. Any key dates
should be referenced in your project
plan.
A23. Please list separately any
Planning approval required for the
outstanding statutory powers /
Castle and Eye of York scheme –
consents etc, including the timetable Planning application to be submitted
for obtaining them.
September 2021 and determined
December 2021.
Scheduled Ancient Monument consent
required. This wil be secured during the
detailed design process.
A permit is required from the
Environment Agency to carry out works
within 8m of the River Foss. The permit
process currently has a 12 week
consideration period and wil be secured
once the relevant detailed scheme
designs are completed.
54
Version 1 – March 2021
Annex B - Project Two description and funding profile
Project 2
B1. Project Name
B2. Strategic Linkage to bid:
Please enter a brief explanation of how this project links strategically to the
overall bid. (in no more than 100 words)
The project is part of a coordinated approach across three key City Centre spaces
to facilitating change and growth whilst supporting the retail tourism and hospitality
industries, and also providing new amenity and events spaces and connectivity.
Within this coordinated approach, the Coney Street & Riverside Walkway project’s
role is around strengthening and diversifying the commercial offer in the City’s
principal shopping street, by supporting the retail environment, facilitating use of
upper floors, and consolidation of a distinct leisure offer around the provision of a
new riverside walkway within a mixed-use redevelopment scheme.
B3. Geographical area:
Please provide a short description of the area covered by the bid (in no more
than 100 words)
The riverside walkway component of the project wil be delivered on land to the rear
of 19-43 Coney Street and 2 Spurriergate, connecting to Church Lane and Ouse
Bridge to the South, and the City Screen complex on Coney Street to the North. The
new walkway wil be directly linked by new pedestrian routes to the Coney Street
and Spurriergate pedestrianised retail streets. Within these streets, and extending
between the Spurriergate Centre to the South, and 2 Coney Street to the north, the
public realm improvement works component of the project wil be delivered within
the current extents of adopted highway. Please see plan appended for more detail.
B4. OS Grid Reference
460,206: 451,774
B5.Postcode
YO1 9QL
B6. For Counties, Greater London
N/A
Authority and Combined
Authorities/Mayoral Combined
Authorities, please provide details of
the district council or unitary
authority where the bid is located (or
predominantly located)
B7. Please append a map showing the location (and where applicable the
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.
B8. Project theme
Transport investment
Please select the project theme
Regeneration and town centre
investment
Cultural investment
55
Version 1 – March 2021
B9. Value of capital grant being
£4,193,740 (INFORMATION
requested for this project (£):
REDACTED walkway component,
INFORMATION REDACTED public
realm component)
B10. Value of match funding and
INFORMATION REDACTED private
sources (£):
developer match funding walkway
component, £132,638 Council match
funding public realm component
B11. Value for Money
This section should set out the full range of impacts – both beneficial and
adverse – of the project. Where possible, impacts should be described,
quantified and also reported in monetary terms. However there may be some
impacts where only a qualitative assessment is possible due to limitations in
the available analysis. There should be a clear and detailed explanation of
how all impacts reported have been identified, considered and analysed.
When deciding what are the most significant impacts to consider, bidders
should consider what impacts and outcomes the project is intended to
achieve, taking into account the strategic case, but should also consider if
there are other possible significant positive or negative impacts, to the
economy, people, or environment
Project 2 – Coney Street & Riverside Walkway
This initiative is the second of three interrelated projects that make up the York LUF
application. The benefits attributed to Project 2 are consistent with appraisal
guidance from HM Treasury’s Green, MHCLG’s Appraisal and LUF Programme
advice.
Table 5.4: Monetised BCR Benefits (£M)
Project 2
Additional cultural events
29.0
Public realm improvement
0.4
Land Value Uplift
0.5
Placemaking
6.3
Total BCR Benefits
36.0
The Coney Street & Riverside Walkway Scheme wil invest in the City’s main
shopping street, improving the pedestrian environment to underpin the viability of
commercial investment in change, whilst also contributing to creation of an exciting
new riverside walkway with dynamic new amenity spaces and connectivity.
The economic model ing estimated the increase in visitors and the subsequent
increase in “wellbeing” associated with the new infrastructure. As this investment
wil natural y have a “placemaking” effect on surrounding areas, we have looked to
capture this value uplift through interrogating property databases.
56
Version 1 – March 2021
More detail is provided in the Economics Technical Note appended to this bid.
B12. It will be generally expected that an overall Benefit Cost Ratio and Value
for Money Assessment will be reported in applications. If this is not
possible, then the application should include a clear explanation of why not.
The overal BCR for the whole bid is 3.3. Below is the individual BCR for Project 2.
B13. Where available, please provide
the BCR for this project
Project 2: BCR = 3.9
B14. Does your proposal deliver
This LUF investment improve
strong non-monetised benefits?
perceptions of York City Centre as a
Please set out what these are and
place to live, visit and work in. This
evidence them.
project wil provide a quality standard
benchmark for future development.
B15. Deliverability
Deliverability is one of the key criteria for this Fund and as such any bid
should set out any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it
can be constructed.
Coney Street public realm works wil be deliverable using statutory highway
powers within the adopted public highway, statutory processes therefore relate
only to procurement activity and traffic management and temporary streetworks
consents, which are light touch statutory procedures which wil be managed within
the delivery programme. The works are within York’s City Centre Area of
Archaeological Importance, and as such an operations notice must be submitted
prior to commencement, and potential archaeological intervention may need to be
factored into programme and works. We are wel versed with dealing with this
process as part of capital works, programme and cost al owances are made, and
we have a strong working relationship with the archaeological trust.
Coney Street public realm expenditure is programmed from late 2021/22 reflecting
this approach.
Planning permission (including conservation area consent for demolition works),
wil be sought for the riverside walkway as part of a comprehensive scheme for the
associated riverside quarter by developers Helmsley Group in late autumn 2021.
Consents for utility diversion works and works within the navigable river would be
secured as part of this, with commercial tenancies renegotiated as appropriate
also. Discussions with relevant stakeholders and authorities are underway in these
respects, and capital delivery of walkway works is programmed for fy 22/23
reflecting this approach.
B16. The Bid – demonstrating investment or ability to begin delivery on the
ground in 2021-22
As stated in the prospectus UKG seeks for the first round of the funding that
priority wil be given to bids that can demonstrate investment and ability to deliver
on the ground in 2021-22
57
Version 1 – March 2021
The project has the ability to deliver on the ground in 2021-22
B17. Does this project includes plans
for some LUF expenditure in 2021-
Yes
22?
No
B18. Could this project be delivered
as a standalone project or do it
Yes
require to be part of the overall bid?
No
B19. Please provide evidence
Whilst capable of being delivered as a
standalone project, the scheme forms
part of a comprehensive approach
devised across the three projects to
drive coordinated change in the city at
three linked locations, each with a
specific linked activity focus. Delivering
the project as a standalone scheme
would sub-optimise overal benefits, and
compromise the co-ordinated approach
B20. Can you demonstrate ability to
deliver on the ground in 2021-22.
Yes
No
B21. Please provide evidence
Early capital delivery works in 2021/22
relate to public realm works in Coney
Street, which the council is capable of
implementing in its capacity of highway
authority. These would likely comprise
enabling works.
Statutory Powers and Consents
B22. Please list separately each
Coney Street public realm works wil
power / consents etc obtained,
take place within the adopted highway,
details of date acquired, challenge
and would be undertaken in the
period (if applicable) and date of
Council’s capacity as highway authority
expiry of powers and conditions
attached to them. Any key dates
should be referenced in your project
plan.
B23. Please list separately any
Planning permission (including
outstanding statutory powers /
conservation area consent for
consents etc, including the timetable demolition works), will be sought for the
for obtaining them.
riverside walkway as part of a
comprehensive scheme for the
associated riverside quarter by
58
Version 1 – March 2021
developers Helmsley Group in late
autumn 2021 (see programme
appendix). Consents for utility diversion
works and works within the navigable
river would be secured as part of this,
with commercial tenancies renegotiated
as appropriate also. Discussions with
relevant stakeholders and authorities
are underway in these respects, and
capital delivery of walkway works is
programmed for fy 22/23.
59
Version 1 – March 2021
Annex C – Project Three- description and funding profile (only required for
package bid)
Project 3
C1. Project Name
Parliament Street & St Sampsons
Square
C2. Strategic Linkage to bid:
Please enter a brief explanation of how this project links strategically to the
overall bid. (in no more than 100 words)
The project is part of a coordinated approach across three key City Centre spaces
to facilitate change and growth whilst supporting the retail tourism and hospitality
industries, and also improving amenity and events spaces and connectivity. Within
this coordinated approach, this project’s role is around facilitating successful
commercial events (redressing fal ing visitor numbers and impacts on residents
and businesses) whilst also strengthening and diversifying the commercial offer in
a main shopping street (by supporting the retail environment and facilitating use of
upper floors), and improving the poor civic amenity space. Commercial events
focus wil complement the new space for culturally oriented events created in
project 1.
C3. Geographical area:
Please provide a short description of the area covered by the bid (in no more
than 100 words)
The area covered by this project as indicated in the site plan appended takes in
the whole of the adopted highway on Parliament Street and St Samsons Square,
extending from 1-3 Parliament Street in the south east, to 4 St Sampsons Square
in the North West.
C4. OS Grid Reference
460,387: 451,810
C5. Postcode
YO1 8RU
C6. For Counties, Greater London
N/A
Authority and Combined
Authorities/Mayoral Combined
Authorities, please provide details of
the district council or unitary
authority where the bid is located (or
predominantly located)
C7. Please append a map showing the location (and where applicable the
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.
C8. Project theme
Transport investment
Please select the project theme
Regeneration and town centre
investment
Cultural investment
60
Version 1 – March 2021
C9. Value of capital grant being
£4,875,556
requested for this project (£):
C10. Value of match funding and
£530,617 Council match funding
sources (£):
C11. Value for Money
This section should set out the full range of impacts – both beneficial and
adverse – of the project. Where possible, impacts should be described,
quantified and also reported in monetary terms. However there may be some
impacts where only a qualitative assessment is possible due to limitations in
the available analysis. There should be a clear and detailed explanation of
how all impacts reported have been identified, considered and analysed.
When deciding what are the most significant impacts to consider, bidders
should consider what impacts and outcomes the project is intended to
achieve, taking into account the strategic case, but should also consider if
there are other possible significant positive or negative impacts, to the
economy, people, or environment
Project 3 – Parliament Street
This initiative is the third of three interrelated projects that make up the York LUF
application. The benefits attributed to Project 2 are consistent with appraisal
guidance from HM Treasury’s Green, MHCLG’s Appraisal and LUF Programme
advice.
Table 5.5: Monetised BCR Benefits (£)
Project 3
Additional cultural events
22.1
Placemaking
3.8
Total BCR Benefits
25.9
The Parliament Street project wil radical y upgrade a third major City Centre space.
Improvements wil better meet the needs of communities and visitors, whilst
providing fit-for-purpose layout and infrastructure to support the events which are a
cornerstone of the city’s economic performance and visitor attractiveness.
Give the scheme objectives, the focus of the economic model ing was on increased
participation in events, and the corresponding increased to societal wel being. This
is wel recognised econometric technique which was referenced in the LUF
supplementary information.
Final y, these improvements are expected to increase the attractiveness of the local
area. This “placemaking” effect is typical y reflected in value uplift, which the
modelling has sought to capture.
More detail is provided in the Economics Technical Note appended to this bid.
61
Version 1 – March 2021
C12. It will be generally expected that an overall Benefit Cost Ratio and
Value for Money Assessment will be reported in applications. If this is not
possible, then the application should include a clear explanation of why not.
The overal BCR for the whole bid is 3.3. Below is the individual BCR for Project 3.
C13. Where available, please provide
the BCR for this project
Project 3: BCR = 4.1
C14. Does your proposal deliver
Improving the urban landscape at
strong non-monetised benefits?
Parliament Street should make active
Please set out what these are and
travel modes more attractive, as people
evidence them.
switch to walking and cycling.
C15. Deliverability
Deliverability is one of the key criteria for this Fund and as such any bid
should set out any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it
can be constructed.
Since the works will be deliverable using statutory highway powers within the
adopted public highway, statutory processes relate only to procurement activity
and temporary traffic management and streetworks consents, which are light touch
statutory procedures which wil be managed within the delivery programme. The
works are within York’s City Centre Area of Archaeological Importance, and as
such an operations notice must be submitted prior to commencement, and
potential archaeological intervention may need to be factored into programme and
works. We are wel versed with dealing with this process as part of capital works,
programme and cost al owances are made, and we have a strong working
relationship with the archaeological trust. Expenditure is programmed from late
2021/22 reflecting this approach.
C16. The Bid – demonstrating investment or ability to begin delivery on the
ground in 2021-22
As stated in the prospectus UKG seeks for the first round of the funding that
priority will be given to bids that can demonstrate investment and ability to
deliver on the ground in 2021-22
The project has the ability to deliver on the ground in 2021-22
C17. Does this project includes plans
for some LUF expenditure in 2021-
Yes
22?
No
62
Version 1 – March 2021
C18. Could this project be delivered
as a standalone project or do it
Yes
require to be part of the overall bid?
No
C19. Please provide evidence
Whilst capable of being delivered as a
standalone project, the scheme forms
part of a comprehensive approach
devised across the three projects to
drive coordinated change in the city at
three linked locations, each with a
specific linked activity focus. Delivering
the project as a standalone scheme
would sub-optimise overal benefits, and
compromise the co-ordinated approach.
C20. Can you demonstrate ability to
deliver on the ground in 2021-22.
Yes
No
C21. Please provide evidence
Early capital delivery works in 2021/22
relate to public realm works in the
adopted highway, which the council is
capable of implementing in its capacity
of highway authority. These would likely
comprise enabling works.
Statutory Powers and Consents
C22. Please list separately each
Works wil take place within the adopted
power / consents etc obtained,
highway, and would be undertaken in
details of date acquired, challenge
the Council’s capacity as highway
period (if applicable) and date of
authority.
expiry of powers and conditions
attached to them. Any key dates
should be referenced in your project
plan.
C23. Please list separately any
outstanding statutory powers /
consents etc, including the timetable
for obtaining them.
63
Version 1 – March 2021
ANNEX D - Check List Great Britain Local Authorities
Questions
Y/N
Comments
4.1a Member of Parliament support
MPs have the option of providing formal
Y
written support for one bid which they see as
a priority. Have you appended a letter from
the MP to support this case?
Part 4.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Support
Where the bidding local authority does not
Y
Helmsley Group
have responsibility for the delivery of projects,
have you appended a letter from the
responsible authority or body confirming their
support?
Part 4.3 The Case for Investment
For Transport Bids: Have you provided an
N/A
Option Assessment Report (OAR)
Part 6.1 Financial
Have you appended copies of confirmed
match funding?
The UKG may accept the provision of land
N/A
from third parties as part of 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?
Part 6.3 Management
Has a delivery plan been appended to your
Y
bid?
Has a letter relating to land acquisition been
N/A
appended?
Have you attached a copy of your Risk
Y
Register?
Annex A-C - Project description Summary (only required for package bid)
Have you appended a map showing the
Y
location (and where applicable the 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.
64
Version 1 – March 2021
Annex E Checklist for Northern Ireland Bidding Entities
Questions
Y/N
Comments
Part 1 Gateway Criteria
You have attached two years of audited accounts
You have provided evidence of the delivery team
having experience of delivering two capital projects
of similar size and in the last five years
Part 4.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Support
For transport bids, have you appended a letter of
support from the relevant district council
Part 6.1 Financial
Have you appended copies of confirmed match
funding
The UKG may accept the provision of land from third
parties as part of 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.
Part 6.3 Management
Has a delivery plan been appended to your bid?
Has a letter relating to land acquisition been
appended?
Have you attached a copy of your Risk Register?
Annex A-C - Project description Summary (only required for package bid)
Have you appended a map showing the location
(and where applicable the 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.
65
Version 1 – March 2021
