NSC/1/1

THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK CLASSIFIED ROAD)SIDE ROADS ORDER 2013

THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK)COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2013

THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK)COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (No 2) 2014

EXCHANGE LAND CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF SPECIAL CATEGORY LAND

Proof of Evidence of

Karuna Tharmananthar

On behalf ofNorth Somerset Council

in respect of the

Overarching Case

!i, ,

Contents1. INTRODUCTION........ ........ .......... ........... ... ........ .......... .......... ..... ............ ..................... 1

1.1 . Personal details...................................................................................................... 11 .2. Experience............................................................................................................. 11 .3. Scope of Evidence................................................................................................. 2

2. SCHEME AUTHORiSATION.........................................................................................23. SCHEME CONTEXT ... ..... ........... ........... ....... .......... .......... ......... ................. .......... ....... 3

3.2. National.................................................................................................................. 33.3. local. ............. ...... ............... .... ............ ............... .......... ........ .... ....................... ....... 43.5. Planning Policy................. ............ ..... ............ .......... ......... ............. ........... .............. 63.6. local Transport Plans and Strategies ........ ........ ......... ......... ..... .................. .... ....... 63.7. Joint local Transport Plan 3 ..................................................................................73.8. MetroBus Programme... ......... ..................... ....... ......... ............ ........................ ....... 73.9. North Fringe to Hengrove Park.... ................. ......... ......... .............. ......... ............ .... 73.10. Ashton Vale to Temple Meads............................................................................ 8

4. SCHEME OBJECTiVES...............................................................................................95. ORIGINS OF THE SCHEME.. ...... ........................... .......... ....... ................ ........ ..... ..... 11

5.11. Scheme Description.......................................................................................... 135.12. Planning Consent......... ........ ............ ............... ......... ........ ....................... ..... ..... 145.13. Discharge of Conditions.................................................................................... 14

6. CONSULTATION .......................................................................................................156.3. Pre-planning application consultation................................................................... 15

7. DELiVERy.................................................................................................................. 177.1. Budget...... ........ ............ ................................. ......... ....... .............. ..............:.......... 177.2. Procurement and construction ............................................................................. 17

8. JUSTIFICATION FOR COMPULSORY PURCHASE ................................................ 189. OBJECTIONS....... ....... ............. .............................. ....... ....... .............. .......... ....... ...... 2110. CONCLUSiONS...................................................................................................... 24

APPENDIX 1APPENDIX 2APPENDIX 3APPENDIX 4APPENDIX 5APPENDIX 6APPENDIX 7APPENDIX 8AAPPENDIX 8B

Scheme outline and local Authority BoundaryWest of England Transport Investment ProgrammeMetroBus Network ProgrammeA VTM variants from the TWAO approvalA VTM - SBl interfaceSBl route optionsScheme cost estimateFunding Confirmation from NSCFunding Confirmation from BCC

1. INTRODUCTION

1 .1 . Personal details

1.1.1. My name is Karuna Tharmananthar. I have been employed by North Somerset

Council since 2002 and am the Deputy Director for Development and Environment.

My responsibility is to secure economic growth and prosperity for North Somerset.

As part of this I have responsibility for Economic Development, Development

Management, Strategic Planning and Highways and Transport Services. i am the

Senior Responsible Officer for South Bristol Link (the Scheme) acting on behalf of

Bristol City and North Somerset Councils.

1.1.2. i hold a BSc Honours degree in Engineering, MSc in Transportation and a Masters

degree in Business Administration. i am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of

the Institution of Civil Engineers.

1 .2. Experience

1.2.1. I have extensive experience in the development and delivery of major infrastructure

programmes to help support economic growth and regeneration. For example,

while at Birmingham City Council, to enable the expansion of the city centre, i was

responsible for delivering the supporting infrastructure for the Bull Ring

development and the wider Eastside regeneration project, development of the street

running Metro and the remodelling of the highway network.

1.2.2. At North Somerset Council, i have led the delivery of the £30M sea defence scheme

at Weston-super-Mare to help support its regeneration and the development and

delivery of the Weston Package scheme to help support jobs and growth at the J21

Enterprise Area, accompanied by a wider economic strategy to attract investment to

North Somerset.

1.2.3. I work closely with the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership Board to

develop its programme and strategies in support of its aim of creating the right

conditions for economic growth. This includes the development of the revolving

infrastructure fund programme estimated at £55m, the City Deal programme which

encompasses a wide range of economic interventions to deliver growth and jobs in

1

/1

the West of England and more recently the development of the Strategic Economic

Plan for the West of England area.

1.3. Scope of Evidence

1.3.1. This proof of evidence sets out the authorisation for the Scheme, the strategic case

for the Scheme in the context of national and local policies and it outlines why

investment in the Scheme is justified. It looks at the Scheme's origins and

objectives and consultation exercises undertaken at various stages. It also sets out

the Scheme's readiness for delivery and justification as well as dealing with relevant

issues raised by objectors in respect of the Scheme.

1 .3.2. I hereby declare that insofar as the contents of this proof of evidence are matters

within my knowledge and they are true. Insofar as far as matters not within my

direct knowledge, they are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and are

drawn from documentation and information to which i have had access.

2. SCHEME AUTHORISATION

2.1 . The Scheme is part of a wider package of improvements covering Bath and North

East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire and these

areas make up the West of England.

2.2. The Scheme falls within the administrative boundaries of both Bristol City Council

(BCC) and North Somerset Council (NSC) and the Councils discharge their highway

authority powers within their respective boundaries as shown in Appendix 1.

2.3. NSC and BCC entered into a Joint Promotion Agreement (JPA - CD2/28) on 8

January 2013 for the purposes of delivering the Scheme. This Agreement

incorporates section 8 of the Highways Act 1980 under which it was agreed that

NSC would undertake the role of Lead Authority for the Scheme and progress it on

behalf of both NSC and BCC.

2.4. On 5 February 2013, NSC authorised the making of a CPO, SRO and section 19

certificate applications on behalf of both NSC and BCC.

2.5. Although not strictly necessary (given the JPA and NSC 5 February 2013

resolution) it was considered appropriate for the Scheme to be presented to the

2

recently elected Mayor of Bristol in order to obtain his endorsement. Therefore on

29 May 2013 a report was presented to the Mayor who approved the making of the

CPO, SRO and section 19 Certificate applications (CD2I25).

2.6. On 3 September NSC further authorised the making of the CPO in relation to theScheme (CD2/24).

2.7. On 7 November 2013 NSC granted planning consent for the Scheme. On 18

December 2013 BCC granted planning consent for the Scheme.

2.8. As a result of a number of issues which arose following discussions with

landowners, it was considered necessary to make a supplemental CPO. This was

authorised by NSC on 15 April 2014 and was made on 6 May (CD1/8).

3. SCHEME CONTEXT

3.1. The planning policy framework and the details concerning how the Scheme

complies with relevant policy tests are set out in Janette Shaw's proof of evidence.

In my proof i have outlined the overarching national and local context for supporting

the Scheme and its stated objectives.

3.2. National

3.2.1. In 2013 Department for Transport published "Transport - an engine for growth"

(CD2I18), in which the Government's investment approach for transport in the

United Kingdom is explained. The publication is unequivocal in stating the

importance of the strategic role transport plays in supporting economic growth and

supporting the UK's global economic competitiveness. In promoting a

comprehensive investment strategy the Government expects investment in the

transport network to be targeted to ensure it has the most impact in terms of reliving

congestion, unlocking growth and encouraging development to come forward.

3.2.2. The National Infrastructure Plan published in December 2013 (CD2/16 at pages 13

and 16) continues to emphasise the need to focus on infrastructure delivery and

reinforces the critical role infrastructure plays in a modern, successful and

competitive economy and states the importance of an "integrated transport system

that provides reliable, cost effective domestic and international connections for

organisations and individuals". The Plan notes that a 2006 study of the UK

3

/1

transport system by Sir Rod Eddington warned that the cost of congestion could

potentially rise to £36 billion per annum by 2025 (The Eddington Transport Study,

Sir Rod Eddington, December 2006:CD7/3).

3.2.3. Janette Shaw, in her proof of evidence, demonstrates that the delivery of the

Scheme would be consistent with the policies set out in the National Planning Policy

Framework.

3.3. Local

3.3.1. The Scheme is incorporated in policies of both North Somerset Council and Bristol

City Council, North Somerset Core Strategy (CD2/8) Policy CS10: Transportation

and movement identifies it as a major transport scheme. Bristol City Core Strategy

(CD217) Policy BCS 10 sets out clear support for the Scheme alongside other

improvements to transport infrastructure, in order to provide an integrated transport

system which improves accessibility within Bristol and supports growth.

3.3.2. The West of England Local Enterprise Partnership has produced the West of

England Strategic Economic Plan (CD7/2) which identifies infrastructure as part of

its "levers of growth" and recognises the need to improve connectivity and

accessibility for business and communities. The SEP (at paragraph 5.2.5)

reiterates the importance of transport investment and states that "our programme of

transport schemes will unlock 20,000 jobs and generate £1.2b in GVA per annum

by 2030' and identifies £244 million of existing major transport investment.

3.3.3. The overwhelming policy case for investment in the Scheme is underlined by

support from the local businesses in the area. In his proof of evidence on economic

benefits Mr lIias Drivylas sets out the views of local businesses whereby

improvements in transport connectivity is seen as vital in supporting economic

growth and attracting investment to the area and that the employment to be

unlocked by the Scheme would bring additional estimated £199m GVA to the West

of England economy by 2030.

3.4. Investment Programme

4

3.4.1. A number of transport schemes are included within the SEP to help deliver

economic growth in the West of England and the programme of investment is

shown in Appendix 2. These are summarised below.

3.4.2. Bath Transportation Package - £26.9m investment in transport infrastructure

tackling the city's current and future traffic problems and supporting economic

growth, including 9,000 new jobs in the Bath 'City Riverside' Enterprise Area.

Construction completed in 2014.

3.4.3. Weston Package - £14m investment opening up the J21 Enterprise Area and its

ambition to deliver 11,000 jobs, with schemes for cars, motorcycles, bus and rail

passengers, cyclists and pedestrians. Construction completed in March 2014.

3.4.4. MetroBus - £179m investment in three rapid transit routes (Ashton Vale to Bristol

Temple Meads, North Fringe to Hengrove Package and the South Bristol Link)

delivering a network of high quality, modern, reliable, fast, 'smartcard' enabled,

integrated, low carbon and easy to use services. MetroBus will serve the Temple

Quarter Enterprise Zone (17,000 jobs), South Bristol employment area (10,000

jobs), Emersons Green/Science Park (7,000 jobs) and Filton/A38 Enterprise Areas

(12,000 jobs). It will also link new housing areas and address congestion hot spots

with programmed completions taking place in 2017. As part of the integrated

approach to managing transport demand and providing capacity to address

economic growth, the SEP proposes investment in rail including:

i - MetroWest Phase 1 - improvements to achieve an half hourly train services for

the Severn Beach Line, additional local stations between Bristol Temple Meads and

Bath Spa, Weston-super-Mare and on the reopened Portishead Line (programmed

to open in 2019).

ii - MetroWest Phase 2 - improvements to achieve an half hourly train services to

Yate and hourly services on a reopened Henbury line with additional stations

(programmed to open in 2021).

3.4.5. The West of England authorities were awarded £24m of funding in June 2012 for

the Sustainable Travel (WEST) project. This supports minor schemes and working

with partner organisations to improve sustainable travel choices.

5

3.4.6. The comprehensive transport investment programme builds on the track record of

success in delivering the JL TP.

3.4.7. In addition to schemes being promoted by West of England, Network Rail is also

promoting a significant series of enhancements to the Great Western Mainline

between London Paddington and Bristol (via Bath Spa and Bristol Parkway). These

enhancements include electrification of the railway from London to Bristol by 2017,

the introduction of new rolling stock (Inter City Express) starting in 2018 and

improvements to Bristol Temple Meads station.

3.4.8. Bristol Airport and the Port of Bristol constitute key transport interfaces in terms of

the area's connectivity to wider national and international markets. Bristol Airport

continues to grow with passenger numbers up by 3.4% in 2013 compared to

previous years. The Port of Bristol is an international gateway. The Port has key

advantages including a deep-water container ship capacity and located strategically

with a large population catchment.

3.4.9. The context for justifying investment in the Scheme is strong and fits well with

national and local thinking on interventions and infrastructure investment to support

economic growth.

3.5. Planning Policy

3.5.1. The adopted plans of both Bristol City and North Somerset Councils provide clear

policy framework for the Scheme. The North Somerset Council SBL Planning

Committee report in its Overall Conclusion acknowledged that "although the

proposal runs through the Green Belt its alignment has been agreed through the

local plan process and known for some years"- (CD2/31 at page 35).

3.5.2. Janette Shaw's proof of evidence supporting the planning case demonstrates the

Scheme is not regarded as inappropriate development and does not conflict with

the fundamental purposes of the Green Belt as set out in national guidance.

3.5.3. This is consistent with the approach of the Councils when the Scheme was granted

planning permission in 2013.

3.6. Local Transport Plans and Strategies

6

ti3.6.1. Robert Thompson's proof of evidence on transport issues sets out in detail the

transport and economic appraisals underpinning the justification for investing in the

Scheme. I have outlined in the paragraphs below the overall transport policies and

programmes supporting the Scheme.

3.6.2. The first Joint Local Transport Plan was adopted by the four Unitary Authorities

covering the West of England in 2006 for the period 2006-11 (CD3/1). Its focus was

to tackle (through policies and programmes) congestion, improving road safety,

increasing accessibility and enhancing quality of life. The interventions set out in

the first JL TP continue to provide the basis for current programmes. The

programme contained in the JL TP provided a balanced and sustainable set of

interventions and included the Greater Bristol Bus Network major scheme

programme, new expanded park and ride services, rail improvements at Bristol

Parkway and Worle, consistent parking controls and promoting public transport,

travel plans, car sharing, cycling and walking

3.7. Joint Local Transport Plan 3

3.7.1. The current Joint Local Transport Plan published in March 2011 following its

adoption by each of the four West of England Authorities sets out the vision for the

sub region's transport network to 2026. This is for "an affordable, low carbon,

accessible, integrated, efficient and reliable transport network to achieve a more

competitive economy and better connected, more active and healthy

communitieS'(CD3/2 page 5 paragraph 2.1.2).

3.8. MetroBus Programme

3.8.1. As explained the four Unitary Authorities are pursuing their transport strategies

through a Joint Local Transport Plan. The Scheme is part of this strategy for

improving the transport network and is an integral part of the MetroBus Programme.

Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and North Fringe to Hengrove make up the other two

critical elements. Appendix 3 shows the MetroBus network.

3.9. North Fringe to Hengrove Park

7

3.9.1. This project links Cribbs Causeway and Emersons Green to the north of Bristol with

Hengrove Park in South Bristol via Bristol City Centre. The scheme is under

development and at the stage of securing the relevant planning consents.

3.10. Ashton Vale to Temple Meads

3.10.1. This project connects the Park & Ride site at Long Ashton with Bristol Temple

Meads. The project was granted planning permission as part of the confirmation

of the Transport and Works Act Order in November 2013. In March 2014,

following a review of the scheme by the Mayor, Bristol City Council granted

planning consent for a modified section of the scheme thus allowing the amended

scheme to be implemented. The scheme is expected to be completed in 2016.

The A VTM route alignment is shown in Appendix 4.

3.10.2. The TWA consent for A VTM incorporated two options where it interfaced with

South Bristol Link. The AVTM Board, at its meeting in February 2014, confirmed

that the option outlined in the consented South Bristol Link design and as shown in

Appendix 5 (route referenced 1A) will be taken forward for implementation.

3.10.3. AVTM represents a key part of a programme to provide high quality public

transport services in the West of England. The Scheme links with the AVTM via

its bus spur between the Brookgate junction and the Long Ashton Park and Ride

site.

3.10.4. The combined AVTM and South Bristol Link route network enables public

transport services, including the Bristol Airport Flyer, to take advantage of priority

measures contained within both schemes to avoid congestion in the city centre

and thus improve their reliability and efficiency.

3.10.5. It is proposed that every third service from Bristol Temple Meads to Long Ashton

Park & Ride along the AVTM section of the MetroBus network will continue along

to Hengrove Park using the SBL bus spur. A Quality Partnership Scheme (QPS)

under the Transport Act 2000 as amended by the Transport Act 2008 will be used

to set standards for MetroBus.

3.10.6. In assessing the effects of the Scheme on AVTM the Inspector for the TWAO

Inquiry concluded that:

8

i - "return on the investment in the 'first phase' AVTM scheme would be much

enhanced with the completion of the South Bristol Link and the North Fringe to

Hengrove sections. These schemes would undoubtedly benefit from the shared

use of infrastructure provided under the first phase. The completed network would

significantly increase the opportunity for integration with other public transport

services in the City thereby improving accessibility over a much wider area."

(CD2/24 at paragraph 7.3.44)

4. SCHEME OBJECTIVES

4.1. The Scheme objectives are to facilitate regeneration and growth in South Bristol,

reduce congestion in South Bristol and adjacent areas of North Somerset and to

improve accessibility from South Bristol to the City Centre and to strategic

transport links, including the trunk road network and Bristol International Airport.

4.2. The Scheme performs well against all of the above objectives and contributes

towards wider economic growth ambitions of the West of England area.

4.3. Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement accompanying the Scheme planning

applications (CD4/2 - at paragraph 9.7.1) concluded that SBL is strategically

aligned to local, sub-regional and national policies relating economic development

and regeneration. It further states the Scheme will improve accessibility to

employment, education, training, retail and make leisure opportunities more

accessible to those in the South Bristol area.

4.4. The Multiple Deprivation index shows that much of South Bristol is amongst the

10% most deprived in the country and two areas are in the most deprived 1 %. This

Scheme is a key component of an integrated package of measures to facilitate the

creation of employment and to increase opportunities to jobs and services in South

BristoL. The economic studies and engagement with businesses provide strong

evidence that the Scheme will make a significant contribution towards regeneration

and economic growth in South Bristol and this is set out in Ilias Drivylas' proof of

evidence.

4.5. The local business community has made it clear that reduced congestion will help

boost confidence and attract investment to the area. The underlying transport

modelling analyses show that the Scheme improves journey times and network

9

1 1'1I ~

resilience by reducing congestion in the surrounding networks and by providing an

alternative strategic link between the A38 and A370. Robert Thompson in his proof

of evidence provides details of the impact of the Scheme on the operation of the

road network, on public transport users and on accessibility.

4.6. The Scheme will improve connectivity to one of the most deprived areas in the City.

MetroBus and dedicated cycle and pedestrian provision will give greater transport

choices for those who do not have access to a car or choose not to drive, which is

pertinent to address the low levels of car ownership in the area. The improved

transport links will support economic growth and accessibility to jobs and services

for those living in South BristoL. In his evidence on Economic Impact, lIias Drivylas,

confirms the Scheme has the potential to unlock a large number of jobs in South

BristoL.

4.7. There is an existing coach service between Bristol Airport and Bristol City Centre.

The service, however, is subject to unreliability at peak times on congested urban

roads. The Airport Flyer service would join the segregated section of the South

Bristol Link at the A38 junction and travel into the City Centre via the bus-spur and

Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route, gaining considerable improvements in journey

time reliability.

4.8. These issues are encapsulated in the Bristol City Council South Bristol Link

Planning Committee report which, in the key issues Section A - "Is the principle of

SBL supported?" concludes:

". . . . . . the principle and proposed corridor of SBL is firmly supported by the

development plan. The scheme is reflected in up to date policy and follows strategic

reviews of the scheme leading to its inclusion in the West of England Joint Local

Transport Plan in 2007. Underpinning the proposal is the access and economic

benefits it will bring to south Bristol in particular but also to the wider sub region

such as better access to the airport and the proposal being part of a wider network

of transport infrastructure for the greater Bristol area. The challenges to the

economic and transport benefits predictions by some objectors have to be weighed

against the very strong policy basis, particularly acs 1 and acs 10 and the

significant level of support for SBL from business organisations, individual

businesses and some residents. It is considered, therefore that the principle of SaL

10

should be supported and very significant weight should be attached to this aspect of

the assessment" (CD2/32 at page 48).

4.9. In considering the economic impact of the Scheme the report to North Somerset

Council's Planning Committee concludes that:

".. .poor transport links and congestion are a barrier to growth and the construction

of the SBL will improve connectivity, business opportunities and job creation. The

absence of this transport improvement will pose a significant challenge to the

growth of the area, increasing the cost to local businesses and affecting

competitiveness. Overall the development is in accordance with the economic policy

objectives of the Local Plan and Core Strategy" (CD2/31 at page 15).

5. ORIGINS OF THE SCHEME

5.1 . The principles of the Scheme have been embedded in the development plan

process and examined at relevant stages through detailed route options appraisal,

environmental assessment and public consultation. Proposals for a route around

south Bristol date back to the 1950s. Indeed, pre-dating that, when King Georges

Road was built in the 1930s, the houses were set back to allow for a dual-

carriageway to be constructed. The first emergence of a potential link road between

Long Ashton and South Bristol in policy terms was identified in the former Avon

County and Woodspring District development and local plans in the 1960s and '80s.

Janette Shaw in her proof of evidence details the planning policy origins of the

Scheme.

5.2. Since 1992, a number of studies have been carried out on a range of alternative

routes. These include the Avon Ring Road Options Report, MVA 1992, which

looked at alternative routes for the Avon Ring Road between the A4 at Hicks Gate

and the A370 Long Ashton bypass. Seven alternatives were compared in terms of

traffic and economics but no environmental appraisal was included in the report.

5.3. The Transport Plan for the Avon Area 1994-2013, produced by Avon County

Council in 1995, proposed the South Bristol Ring Road for construction between

2004 and 2013. This was followed by the South Bristol Transport Study - Review of

Schemes, Halcrow Fox 1997, which reviewed four schemes with safeguarded

routes to identify if the safeguarding should be maintained.

11

1/1

5.4. The preparation of the A38 - A370 Link Road Study, JMP 2002, involved two

rounds of public consultation to examine eleven routes including a public transport

option. Following consideration of the main alternative alignments, the report

recommended the 'Orange Route', that ran between the A370 and the A38 close to

Barrow Gurney, as the most appropriate to take -forward. A bid for funding was

subsequently made to the DfT within the North Somerset Local Transport Plan.

However, this was unsuccessful because it did not address wider strategic

objectives.

5.5. As a consequence, the assessment of strategic transport objectives was taken

forward as part of the West of England Joint Local Transport Plan in 2006 (CD3/1),

informed by the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS: CD3/3), the

details of which are contained in section 3 of Robert Thompson's proof of evidence,

which had been commissioned by the former Government Office for the South West

and prepared by Atkins in 2006. The GBSTS was a wide-ranging strategic transport

study for Greater Bristol that aimed to produce an effective strategy to support the

future development of the sub-region in the period up to 2031. The approach

adopted by the study was to develop a strategy for public transport and demand

management and only then to consider highway improvements. The proposed

highway improvements included the A370 to A38 Link (termed SBL Phase 1) and

A38 to A4 Hicks Gate (SBL Phases 2 and 3).

5.6. All phases were included in the programme of major transport schemes in the Joint

Local Transport Plan in 2006. The South West Regional Assembly identified

Phases 1 and 2 as regional priorities for implementation before 2016, through the

Regional Funding Allocation (RFA). This priority was further confirmed by the

publication of the second RFA, for construction between 2014 and 2017.

5.7. In October 2009 the Joint Transport Executive (CD2I30) considered the options for

the Scheme as part of agreeing the next phase of scheme development. There

were five options included in the public consultation undertaken between November

2008 and March 2009 and these are shown in Appendix 6. The route

configurations included highway only, Rapid Transit only and highway and Rapid

Transit combined. JTEC agreed that further assessment should be undertaken on

those options for a combined highway and Rapid Transit link as the combined

options provided the best fit against both national and local objectives. The

12

/1

combined options were further appraised and Option 4 was then subject to further

public consultation (CD4/2 Chapter 5 paragraphs 5.2.32-39 and CD4/3 at Section

3.02.02 paragraphs 3.1.56-57).

5.8. In March 2010, the authorities submitted a Major Scheme Business Case to the

Department for Transport (CD3/4). This set out the business case for a scheme that

included segregated bus rapid transit along its whole length.

5.9. In October 2010 DfT requested that promoters confirm they still wished to proceed

with the funding application process and indicated that funding bids would need to

be significantly reduced. In December 2010 the authorities duly confirmed their

intention to submit a revised funding bid.

5.10. In September 2011 the authorities submitted a fully revised business case known as

the BAFB (Best and Final Bid) for a scheme with a significantly reduced scope,

however, without compromising the objectives of the scheme (CD3/5). In November

2011 DfT confirmed that their funding contribution was available (subject to

conditions) for the construction of the South Bristol Link. With confirmed fUnding

available from the local authorities and third parties the full funding package is now

in place, as explained later in paragraph 7.1.3 of my proof of evidence. In

conclusion the Scheme design as currently promoted has been shown to perform

best against local and national objectives. A number of alternatives options, as

explained in CD4/2 chapter 5 and in CD4/3 (the Options Appraisal Report), have

been tested and this has included public transport, highway and demand

management options, with the conclusion that the Scheme performs as the best

alternative against the Scheme objectives.

5.11. Scheme Description

5.11.1. The Scheme comprises sections of new and realigned highway with a total of

length of 4.5 kilometres from the A370 Long Ashton bypass within North Somerset

to the A38 and onwards to the Cater Road roundabout within the Hartcliffe area of

south BristoL. Realigned sections are at Highridge Green, King Georges Road and

Whitchurch Lane. A Scheme plan is included as Appendix 1.

5.11.2. New junctions are proposed at the A370, Brookgate, A38, Highridge

Green/Highridge Road, Queens Road and Hareclive Road. Bridges are provided

13

/1

at Colliters Brook and Longmoore Brook. SBL crosses the Bristol to Taunton

railway line using a new under bridge.

5.11.3. A bus spur connects the Scheme with the AVTM guided bus route, thus providing

access to the City Centre. Dedicated bus lanes are provided between the

Brookgate junction and the new A38 roundabout junction. New bus stops and

shelters, and a continuous shared cycleway and footway are provided along the

route corridor with links to existing dedicated networks. The benefits of an

integrated approach to cycling provision and in particular the benefits of linking into

Festival Way, which is part of Sustans' CONNECT 2 project and now provides an

eight mile long path from the Create Centre in the Cumberland Basin to

Millennium Park, Nailsea, were acknowledged in the AVTM Inspector's

conclusions (CD2/4 - at paragraph 7.18.25).

5.12. Planning Consent

5.12.1. The Scheme was granted planning consent in November2013 by North Somerset

Council (CD2I1) and Bristol City Council's Development Control (South and East)

Committee granted planning consent for the Scheme in December 2013 (CD2/2).

5.12.2. The report to North Somerset Councils Area Committees in recommending

approval acknowledges the development and evolution of the Scheme over a

number of years and the extensive consultation exercises undertaken to seek the

views of a range of stakeholders, including local residents (CD2I31 at page 35).

Similarly the report to Bristol City Council Planning committee acknowledges the

importance of the public consultation carried out and evaluation of alternatives

through a number of studies (CD2/32 at pages 46-47).

5.13. Discharge of Conditions

5.13.1. A number of conditions were applied to the granting of planning permission for

South Bristol Link by both North Somerset Council (38, along with 15 advice

notes) and Bristol City Council (16 conditions and 4 advice notes).

5.13.2. The pre-commencement conditions imposed on the planning permissions are in

the process of being discharged together with a programme of works to ensure

timely discharge of the remainder

14

/1

6. CONSULTATION

6.1. Philip Paterson in his evidence demonstrates how the Scheme's design has

responded to consultation and engagement with general public and key

stakeholders. In addition Nick Rowson in his proof of evidence addresses in detail

the consultation undertaken in selecting suitable exchange land for loss of open

space at Highridge Common. I set out below the consultation undertaken in the

development of the Scheme leading up to the grant of planning consent in 2013.

6.2. In addition to the public consultation and engagement exercises, there was also

engagement with Statutory Authorities and individual land owners and those

affected by the Scheme. John Yexley in his proof of evidence deals with the

discussions which have taken place with landowners and objectors in an attempt to

address their concerns. There are no objections to the Scheme from statutory

environmental bodies.

6.3. Pre-planning application consultation

6.3.1. Public and Stakeholder Consultation November 2008 - March 2009: A

programme of public and stakeholder consultation began in November 2008, which

included a series of exhibitions and presentations, and the publication and

distribution of a consultation leaflet, also available at consultation venues and via

the West of England Partnership website. Throughout the consultation period,

stakeholders and members of the public were invited to telephone, write or email

with questions or comments about the proposal. Consultation was publicised on

North Somerset Council, Bristol City Council and the West of England Partnership

websites. Press releases were issued and articles published in Bristol Evening Post

and local newsletters. This led to a Preferred Scheme.

6.3.2. Preferred Scheme Consultation: November 2009 - 31 December 2009: The

Preferred Scheme formed the basis of an additional stage of public consultation

from 1 November to 31 December 2009. This included public and stakeholder

consultations, presentations and exhibitions held at three local venues on 2, 3 and 4

15

/1

November (at Withywood Centre, Long Ashton Community Centre and Ashton Vale

Youth Club). The consultation was publicised through the distribution of over 6,000

postcards to households in affected areas along with notices to local press and

other media. 3,000 pamphlets and questionnaires were printed and distributed via

local libraries, community centres and at the three public exhibitions.

6.3.3. Pre-application Consultation: May-June 2012: The methodology for the pre-

application consultation strategy for SBL, prepared in April 2012 was shaped by the

Statement of Community Involvement documents (SCI) produced by Bristol City

Council and North Somerset CounciL. Bristol's SCI sets out 10 methods of pre-

application community involvement which are expected to be provided for large

scale developments, which would encompass the SBL proposals.

6.4. Planning applications and receiving planning consent: July - December 2013

6.4.1. 321 representations were received from individuals and local businesses in

response to the consultation, with 44% in support, 50% objecting to the proposals

and 6% neither specifically objecting nor supporting the Scheme. The majority of

businesses responding supported SBL while residents objecting came from

Bishopsworth, Highridge, Hartcliffe, Bedminster and Long Ashton. However,

representations from residents of Barrow Gurney were supportive of SBL. _

6.4.2. Natural England, English Heritage and the Environment Agency raised no

objections to the Scheme. Bristol Water and Wessex Water also raised no

objections to the Scheme.

6A.3. There were two petitions in support of the Scheme. One from Barrow Gurney

residents expressing strong support for the Scheme citing the need to have better

links to Bristol Airport and the congestion benefit this would bring to their village and

similar areas that have had to suffer the consequences of poor transport link to the

Airport. A further petition in support was presented by "Better Transport 4 South

Bristol" from people in a number of communities within South BristoL.

6.4.4. Although not a formal petition as such, 65 copies of the same letter requesting that

the Bristol City Council Planning committee refuses the application were submitted

in advance of the committee decision

16

7. DELIVERY

7.1. Budget

7.1.1. Cost of the works and associated risks have been accounted for in the Scheme

budget. These are updated through regular reviews by the project manager and the

technical teams. The Scheme budget is estimated to be £46.98m. DfT funding is

secured for £27.6m when the Scheme gained Programme Entry in November 2011

and is included in the National Infrastructure Plan (CD2/15 page 21) and the

remainder is being sourced from Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council

on an equal share basis. Appendix 7 provides details of principal cost components.

7.1.2. Both Bristol City and North Somerset Councils have confirmed through their budget

setting process the availability of resources to meet their commitments for the

Scheme and consider the Scheme to provide good value for money with a Benefit

Cost Ratio of greater than 6 representing very high value for money, as set out in

paragraph 4.14 of Robert Thompson's proof of evidence.

7.1.3. Bristol City Council has confirmed that it will through prudential borrowing meet its

local funding contribution and North Somerset Council has confirmed that it will

through prudential borrowing and its own resources (including Section 106

contributions) meet its proportion of the local contribution, see Appendices 8A and

8B. As part of North Somerset Council's funding, £3.19M has been secured

through the S1 06 agreement between Bristol Airportand North Somerset CounciL.

7.2. Procurement and construction

7.2.1. The Joint Procurement Strategy for MetroBus includes three major elements, a)

Infrastructure, b) operations c) ticketing. The delivery of infrastructure relies upon

contracts being in place including design and build elements. Bus shelters and

other operational equipments will be procured at a programme leveL. Procurement

of services will follow a "Quality Partnership Route" and this is expected to be in

place by middle of 2015 and commence network services the following year.

17

/1

7.2.2. The Scheme infrastructure works are being procured through two separate

contracts. Network Rail is contracted to deliver the under bridge work and the

remaining works are being procured under a separate design and build contract.

7.2.3. Scheme construction is proposed to start in late 2014 with a two year programme of

delivery. The Network Rail underbridge works are expected to be completed in

early 2015. In addition many of the advance work elements including the necessary

survey works will be completed by end of 2014.

7.2.4. The SBL delivery programme has been divided into Network Rail Underbridge

works, Design & Build of the main works, installation of supporting equipments

(shelters, signals, information systems) and utilities. All of these work elements

have in place a named lead officer with interface requirements clearly identified to

ensure proper management of the contracts.

8. JUSTIFICATION FOR COMPULSORY PURCHASE

8.1. The JPA (CD2/28) makes provisions for the Council to use powers of acquisition

under the Highways Act 1980 and to promote and deliver the Scheme within both

Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council administrative boundaries. In

resolving to exercise the CPO powers the Council did so with due regard to the

Circular advice relevant to acquisition by CPO. The relevant tests for confirming a

CPO are set out in INSP/1 (paragraph 2.4). I have demonstrated in the following

paragraphs how the Council satisfies these.

8.2. Compelling case in public interest - In Section 3 of my proof of evidence i have set

out how the Scheme meets both national and local objectives. It is part of an

integrated transport strategy for the West of England and as such is closely aligned

to the Strategic Economic Plan for the area. The evidence base supporting the

planning application clearly identifies significant levels of disadvantage and

deprivation in South Bristol which has been sustained over many years. There is

clear evidence to show that the Scheme implemented as part of a wider network of

transport improvements and economic interventions will deliver economic growth

and jobs, improve accessibility and reduces congestion in vulnerable areas. Robert

Thompson in his proof of evidence has shown the overwhelming transport benefits

to be gained from the Scheme and how it meets its objectives. The cost benefit

18

ratio has been assessed in accordance with DfT guidelines demonstrating

categorically that SBL represents excellent value for money.

8.3. The reports to Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council planning committees

confirmed the Scheme as delivering significant transport and economic benefits.

Furthermore in considering the planning case the reports concluded that the

submitted scheme, subject to conditions and some detailed design variations has

mitigated its harmful effects as far as possible, including the wider and local traffic

impacts of the Scheme. In terms of any residual harm the report concluded that this

is outweighed by the substantial public benefits of the development. The report to

North Somerset Council Planning Committee (CD2I31 - at page 36) assesses the

Scheme against a number local and national policy requirements and concludes

that:

i) - Overall the SBL is a sustainable scheme offering significant benefits to the

transport infrastructure of the wider region and to the local economies. Its adverse

effects have been mitigated and beneficial effects enhanced in terms of socio

economics, transport, design and sustainability, health, recreation and amenity land,

flood risk, water quality, agricultural land, ground and land contamination, amenity

(air quality, noise and light), ecology and the historic environment in the proposal is

considered to comply with the objectives of the NPPF and Core Strategy policies.

8.4. Bristol City Council Planning Report (CD2/32 at page 48) in considering the

principle of the Scheme concludes that:

i) - Underpinning the proposal is the access and economic benefits it will bring to

south Bristol in particular but also to the wider sub region such as better access to

the airport and the proposal being part of a wider network of transport infrastructure

for the greater Bristol area. The challenges to the economic and transport benefits

predictions by some objectors have to be weighed against the very strong policy

basis, particularly BCS1 and BCS10 and the significant level of support forSBL

from business organisations, individual businesses and some residents. It is

considered, therefore, that the principle of SBL should be supported and very

significant weight should be attached to this aspect of the assessment.

19

/1

8.5. Interference with Human Rights of those with an interest in the land affected - The

Council in resolving to exercise its CPO powers gave due regard to the Human

Rights implications. The need to strike a careful balance between the rights of the

individual and the wider public interest is understood and considered and it was

concluded that action taken by the Council was proportionate. The evidence

presented by Robert Thompson sets out the overall transport benefits and lIias

Drvylas demonstrates the economic benefits to arise from the Scheme in his proof

of evidence. Nicholas Rowson in his proof of evidence has demonstrated the

detailed assessment undertaken to identify exchange land in relation to loss of

Open Space. Furthermore, John Yexley in his proof of evidence has outlined the

extensive engagement undertaken with those who have raised objections to the

CPO. There has been extensive public consultation during all stages of scheme

development. A high degree of engagement has been maintained. The Scheme

design has, prior to planning consent being granted, included changes in response

to accommodating the rights of those with interest in the land and property affected.

Since the planning application, liaison with land owners has continued.

8.6. Acquiring authority should have a clear idea of how it intends to use the land it is

proposing to acquire- The Scheme has clear objectives as set out in Section 4 of

my proof and furthermore i have explained the origins of the Scheme and Section

5.11 describes the Scheme route and its key features. In addition Philip Paterson in

Section 4 of his proof provides a detailed description of the Scheme alignment and

in Section 9 describes the engineering details underpinning the Scheme design.

The Council has therefore satisfactorily demonstrated with sufficient level of detail

how it intends to use the land it is proposing to acquire.

8.7. Demonstrate that the land is required immediately in order to secure the purpose for

which it is to be acquired - In this proof i have confirmed a clear timeline, from initial

studies, development of a transport strategy, formulation of funding bids to

approvals gained and our programme for implementation. Subject to the granting of

the powers sought through the CPO and SRO, the Scheme can commence later

this year and will be completed in late 2016. Contracts with construction companies

are either in place or are being progressed. The programme clearly shows that the

Scheme is ready for delivery and it is critical that access to land is secured

immediately.

20

8.8. All the necessary resource are available to achieve the scheme purpose within a

reasonable timescale - The Scheme has been given programme entry status by

DfT and the availability funding has been confirmed. Bristol City and North

Somerset Councils have confirmed the availability of their share of the local

contribution, a sum of £16.15m, over and above the £27.64m confirmed by DfT.

The Scheme has secured £3.19m funding from Bristol Airport and this is confirmed

through a S 106 agreement. The funding is therefore available to complete the

acquisition and deliver the Scheme. Appendices 8A and 8B contain confirmation

of funding commitments to the Scheme from both North Somerset Council and

Bristol City CounciL.

8.9. If the Order powers are granted it is reasonable to conclude that the Scheme will

proceed. Considerable progress has been made to enable the delivery of the

Scheme to the programme set out in this proof. The scope of works has been

agreed with the relevant Utility Contractors. Network Rail have been contracted to

deliver the underbridge works and a contractor has been appointed. Tenders for the

main works, on design and build arrangement, are expected back by the end of July

2014.

8.10. Reasonable prospect of the scheme going ahead - Planning permission for the

Scheme has been granted. A programme of activities is underway to discharge the

conditions at the appropriate time. There are no objections to the Scheme from

statutory environmental bodies. The Council is working to resolve objections to the

Orders and anticipates being able to resolve a significant proportion of the issues

raised and expects withdrawal of majority of the objections.

8.11. I consider therefore that the tests for confirmation of CPO powers are met.

9. OBJECTIONS

9.1. Forty-two objections were received to the Compulsory Purchase and Side Road

Orders. John Yexley in his proof of evidence deals with consultation with individual

interests who have raised objections to the Orders. There has been one objection

raised in relation to the need for the Scheme and one objection to the "vires" of the

Order. My evidence is restricted to addressing these two objections under this

21

1/1

section. There is in addition one objection to the Supplementary CPO from a

statutory consultee, which I anticipate will be withdrawn.

9.2. Need for the Scheme

9.3. The objection received from Ms Penny Tomlinson (OBJ/36) states she sees no

reason for investment in the Scheme and furthermore on the basis of her

observations claims that because of decreasing traffic levels she does not see the

need for the Scheme now or in the foreseeable future.

9.4. Robert Thompson in Section 4 of his proof of evidence deals with the approach to

the Economic Appraisal of the Scheme and in Section 5 deals with the transport

benefits the Scheme will bring to the operation of the road network, improvements

in accessibility and aiding regeneration and economic growth. Furthermore lIias

Drivylas demonstrates in his proof of evidence the wider economic benefits of the

Scheme. I have set out in Section 5 of my proof of evidence both the national and

local context and how the Scheme will deliver economic growth and regeneration,

reduce congestion and improve accessibility. I consider the need for the Scheme

has been amply demonstrated.

9.5. Vires

9.6. An objection has been received to the vires of the CPO by the Burnells (OBJ/29),

the owners of the land being acquired to provide suitable exchange land for the

common land required for the Scheme,

9.7. The basis of the Burnells' objection is that the land authorised to be acquired by

BCC on 29 May 2013 referred to land edged red on Appendix 1 and that the plan

does not exist and therefore there is uncertainty as to what BCC authorised.

9.8. As outlined in paragraph 2.3 of my proof of evidence, a Joint Promotion Agreement

was entered into on 8 January 2013.

9.9. This agreement transfers BCC's function of construction of the Scheme, including

any CPO promotions, to NSC. At this point full authority was therefore given to

NSC to make the CPO to acquire all the land required for the Scheme including

acquisition of the proposed exchange land. No further authorisation was needed

from BCC.

22

/...~

9.10. Notwithstanding this, a report was taken to the Mayor on 29 May 2013 to outline the

Scheme and to seek his endorsement (see above). The report refers to an

appended plan, which was to mirror the plan attached to NSC's Executive Report of

5 February 2013 (showing the land to be the subject of the CPO). I understand that

this plan was not physically attached to the BCC report.

9.11. However, I presented the Scheme to the Mayor when he considered the report and

part of my presentation included the 5 February 2013 NSC Executive Report plan

as well as a number of other Scheme design drawings (which included landscape

plans showing the exchange land and cross sections). Therefore, the Mayor had

the relevant plan in front of him showing the land to be the subject of the CPO when

he considered the Scheme.

9.12. A further issue raised by the Burnells is that more land than authorised appears to

have been included in the CPO. This appears to be on the basis that a revised plan

was taken to NSC Executive Committee on 3 September 2013 (CD2/24) which

could be read as slightly reducing the boundaries of the land authorised to be

acquired from the Burnells. However, this report needs to be read in conjunction

with the 5 February 2013 report. The 3 September 2013 report expressly

recognises at paragraph 3.5 that the land investigations were ongoing and that

responses to these or other information may necessitate amendments to the plan.

Recommendation 4 of the Report is expressly made subject to paragraph 3.5. It

was therefore recognised that the plan might be amended and it was not therefore

definitive. The relevant land needed for the Scheme is included in the CPO and

NSC's authorisation in September 2013 provides sufficient authority for all the land

included in the Scheme.

9.13. Finally Mr Burnell also raises an objection on the basis that the report to the

Executive on 3 September did not make reference to his letter of 30 August to Mr

David Tate, the case officer for SBL planning application. The letter was received

on 4 September, the day after the Executive and in any event the report to the

Executive made it clear that all the land including the Burnells land was required for

the Scheme.

23

/1

10. CONCLUSIONS

10.1. Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council have entered into a joint promotion

agreement to progress the Scheme through to implementation. The Council has

granted the necessary authorisations and resolutions to progress the Scheme.

10.2. Investment in infrastructure is central to securing jobs and growth. The Scheme

forms part of an integrated programme of transport interventions to help boost the

West of England economy. Investment in the Scheme is justified and accords with

government's approach to directing investment in infrastructure.

10.3. The objectives of the Scheme are to facilitate regeneration and growth in South

Bristol, reduce congestion and to improve accessibility and these objectives are

widely shared and supported by inclusion of the Scheme in the joint investment

programmes (CD7/2, CD3/1 & CD3/2)) in West of England. The reports to Bristol

City Council (CD2/32) and North Somerset Council (CD2/31) planning committees

confirm the economic benefits the Scheme will bring. Robert Thompson and llias

Drivylas have in their proof of evidence demonstrated how the Scheme delivers

transport and economic benefits respectively.

10.4. The Scheme has been subject to public consultation during every stage of its

development and is supported by a wide range of stakeholders.

10.5. The cost of the Scheme is estimated to be £46.98m and has secured both DfT and

local funding. Procurement of works have reached their final stages with contract

to deliver the underbridge with Network Rail in place with the contract for the

remaining works expected to be awarded later this year.

10.6. The Scheme as part of an integrated programme of investment is critical to the

wider economic growth of the West of England and in particular presents a

compelling case in terms of addressing barriers to growth and prosperity in South

BristoL. The Scheme has planning consent and subject to confirmation of the

Order powers is in advance state of readiness, including committed funding, to start

construction later this year.

10.7. The overarching case for the Scheme is strong and the tests in Circular 6/2004 for

confirming the Order powers sought by the Council are met.

24