Cambo

major scheme submissions to the LTB including all Business Case development and post opening monitoring and evaluation costs. All three LTAs were members of the West Midlands Highways Alliance (WMHA) and it was intended to use the WMHA Framework to appoint the ITE due to the tight timescales involved. Members were advised that consultants in this framework were split into two tiers, depending on the level of work packages required. The sole Tier 1 consultant was Atkins, with Tier 2 being Jacobs and WSP Group. It was not considered that the appointment of an ITE from a particular company would preclude that company from future procurement processes although further advice could be obtained in this regard and also with regard to contracting the services of the ITE. Members were referred to the report which detailed the four stages of the Scheme Approval Process: essentially prior to July, scheme promoters would submit Strategic Outline Cases to the TOG for assessment. TOG and the ITE would consider these alongside the LEP Growth Strategy and each Authority‟s Local Transport Plans and Local Development Frameworks, possibly including some cross-boundary work. If approval was given at this stage, the scheme promoter would then have confidence to go on to provide further detail in an Outline Business Case, for further consideration by the TOG and, if approved at that stage it would receive Programme Entry status and formally enter the LTB programme. Each Approval Stage and Business Case would build upon the last, it was a very fluid system and, although a scheme may receive initial approval, it may become clear as progress was made that a scheme was not suitable for Full Approval. Funding from the LTB would be fixed, so if the scheme costs increased, the scheme promoter would have to bear the cost of the shortfall. However, there may be some programme slippage over the four year period for a wide variety of reasons (eg problems with ground conditions, poor winter conditions, etc) and some flexibility would be required. The DfT would probably wish to monitor the LTB to ensure that timely delivery of suitable schemes was made, and if the LTB failed in this regard, future allocations may possibly be affected. Members were advised that the Funding Allocation would not necessarily be split equally between the three Authorities or distributed on a “turn†basis, but rather that each scheme put forward would be independently evaluated and decisions made on the basis of a whole range of factors including value for money, impact on businesses and job creation etc. Whilst some concern was expressed that problems could be encountered if the funding allocation was not shared roughly evenly, it was noted that similar experience of cross-boundary prioritisation on the English Severn & Wye Regional Flood & Coastal Committee was positive. It was suggested that each Authority needed to decide on projects deliverable within the timeframe given and then also have a “wishlist†of projects. In this way the likelihood of each Authority receiving a portion of the funding allocation was increased. Further discussion took place between Members on alternative sources of funding and it was considered that the LEP Board may need to take the lead in this respect as part of it‟s Growth Plan to ensure job creation in the immediate future and in the longer term to ensure that the Marches would be a place where businesses could continue to grow. Concern was expressed at the tight timescale that would be in operation prior to the next meeting of the Board, particularly with regard to the work of the ITE. Whilst it was acknowledged that the timetable was tight, it would be the Officers of the TOG undertaking the majority of the evaluation work, with the ITE evaluating and moderating the scoring over the course of, say, a single day. It was essential that a Chair designate be appointed to ensure that both the formal invitation to scheme promoters and the appointment of the ITE could be made early in the process.

5. Draft Assurance Framework The Interim Service Delivery Manager – Highways (Telford & Wrekin Council) advised that the Draft Assurance Framework (AF) had been written in conjunction with Officers from all Member bodies following the DfT‟s Guidance on Assurance Frameworks which was published late in 2012. The draft had been submitted to DfT in accordance with DfT deadlines; the DfT had partly responded on Part 1 (purpose, structure, and operating principles) and appropriate amendments had been incorporated within the document. A further response from DfT was awaited on Parts 2 and 3 (dealing with technical matters and processes). The AF proposed that Telford & Wrekin Council would act as the legally constituted “Accountable Body†with all necessary financial, legal, audit and administrative services and resources being provided free of charge. The Accountable Body would also hold the devolved major scheme funding and make payments to the delivery bodies. Independent financial auditors would be appointed to verify that the LTB was operating effectively within the terms of its agreed AF. The Members were advised that the Chair designate would be required to sign off the finalised AF before the next meeting of the Marches LTB. Members sought clarification on the voting mechanism and were advised that in accordance with paragraphs 11.4 and 11.5 of the draft AF, each of the four Full Member organisations would have one vote each and the three LTA Members would have second and casting votes in the event of an equal number of votes being cast in favour of/against decisions. This meant there was no mathematical requirement for the Chair to have a casting vote. The quorum for the meeting was three Members, consisting of one representative or deputy of each of the LTAs. Conflicts of interest were required to be disclosed at meetings. RESOLVED – that the Assurance Framework attached to the report at Appendix 1 be approved for re-submission to the Department for Transport. 6. Technical Support and Processes The Secretary of the LTB Technical Officers Group (Telford & Wrekin Council) informed Members that a significant level of technical resource was required to support the LTB and, in this regard, it was explained that a Technical Officer Group (TOG) had been set up to facilitate ongoing discussion with the DfT. Formal endorsement of the TOG was now being sought. The TOG would help the Marches LTB to oversee and manage development of the major scheme programme including ongoing review, delivery and post opening scheme monitoring and evaluation. This would include consideration and assessment of a wide variety of highly technical and complex supporting scheme information, as well as management of the overall Transport Business Case and associated scheme approval procedures. Each LTA and LEP Officer sitting on the TOG would act independently of their host scheme promoting authority. An Independent Technical Evaluator (ITE) would also need to be appointed to provide appropriate advice and guidance for the group and to sign off the prioritised list of schemes to be forwarded to the DfT together with all associated technical reports. The Chair Designate would be asked to make an appointment to the post of ITE due to the short time available to assess and prioritise schemes. In response to questioning, Members were advised that the DfT had provided a one off grant of £131,579 to support the work of The Marches LTB (with equal grants being made to other LTBs) and it was proposed that this be used to fund the work of the ITE over the period June 2013-April 2019. There was no additional funding for the TOG and each scheme promoter would be expected to bear the costs associated with its own 3

an outline programme of up to £25m to cover the full four year period of the spending review (2015-19). In response to questions, Members were advised that the figures quoted were indicative pending the spending review and funding would be allocated through a formula based on population size. It would then be for the LTB to allocate the funds over the four year period. Traditionally, the major scheme threshold was £5m but it was felt there was a strong local case to reduce this threshold to £1m and it was hoped that DfT would agree to the reduction to better align with local priorities. DfT were entitled to attend and observe meetings of the LTB and had formally asked to be invited, but unfortunately were unable to make this meeting. 4. Terms of Reference The Interim Service Delivery Manager – Highways (Telford & Wrekin Council) presented a report which set out the proposed Terms of Reference and governance arrangements for the Marches LTB. He formally thanked the four member organisations for their agreement in creating this informal partnership. He referred Members to the report which outlined the role of the board, governance issues and also the key objectives set out in Appendix 1 to the report. Underpinning the LTB was the TOG which constituted officers from the member organisations, alongside whom there would be an Independent Technical Evaluator (ITE). There was also the Scheme Evaluation Sub-Group, Transport for the Marches LEP Growth Agenda Sub-Group, and The Marches Rail Sub- Group. The Terms of Reference was set out in Appendix 2 to the report. In response to questioning, Members were advised that the Sub-Groups were administered and facilitated by the TOG and that the LTB would consider all forms of transport scheme – road, rail (passenger and freight), bus and sustainable transport (eg cycling, walking) – seeking capital funding rather than revenue, as not all schemes would fall under the guise of the LTB. It was noted that government was moving towards decentralisation of certain franchising systems for rail and that a unified voice for the region would be essential. A body of expertise with regard to rail existed in the West Midlands Regional Rail Forum and Marches Rail Group and it may be necessary to invite those groups to join the Marches LTB as Associate Members in future. The mechanism for the release of funds to the accountable body was not yet known. Discussion took place around how funding could be gained for schemes above the funding allocation and it was stressed that the Board needed to remain mindful of its budget and priorities, although there may be other opportunities outside this partnership for LTAs to seek additional funds elsewhere. Members agreed that it was important to encourage deputies to attend all meetings of the LTB as a contingency measure to ensure that a quorum was always available. RESOLVED – that:- (a) the Marches Local Transport Body governance arrangements as set out in part B of the report be approved; and (b) the Terms of Reference for The Marches Local Transport Body outlined at Appendix 2 of the report be approved.

Evening all anybody heard of the marches transport body? Here's the minutes notice how few representative there are from HC The Marches Local Transport Body (LTB) A Minutes of a meeting of The Marches Local Transport Body held on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 at 2.00pm in Meeting Room 3, Darby House, Lawn Central, Telford Present:- Councillors W A M McClements (Telford & Wrekin Council); M T Price (Shropshire Council); P D Price (Herefordshire Council); H Rhodes (Telford & Wrekin Council); C Wild (Shropshire Council); and Mr G Wynn OBE (Local Enterprise Partnership). Officers:- Steve Burgess, Head of Transportation and Access (Herefordshire Council); Jacqui Casey, Local Enterprise Partnership Co-ordinator (Local Enterprise Partnership); Jan Cook, Team Leader Transport Planning (Shropshire Council); Keith Harris, Interim Service Delivery Manager – Highways (Telford & Wrekin Council); Geoff Kitching, LTB Technical Officer Group Secretary (Telford & Wrekin Council); and Deborah Moseley, Democratic Services Support Officer (Telford & Wrekin Council). Also Present:- Councillor P Adams (Shropshire Council). 1. Welcome, Introductions and Apologies The Interim Service Delivery Manager – Highways (Telford & Wrekin Council) welcomed Members and Technical Officers to the first meeting of the Marches Local Transport Body (LTB) and individuals introduced themselves. Apologies were received from Councillor R B Hamilton (Herefordshire Council), Elizabeth Charlton (Department for Transport) and Katie McCann (Department for Transport). 2. Appointment of Chair for the Meeting RESOLVED – that Councillor W A M McClements be elected as Chair for the meeting. 3. Scene Setting The Secretary of the LTB Technical Officers Group (Telford & Wrekin Council) explained the major scheme funding process which had previously been in place for many years and provided funding direct to local authorities for transport schemes over £5m. The programme had been managed by Central Government which had established a detailed process for appraisal. The process of securing funds was extremely resource intensive and lengthy. However, following a consultation period, the Department for Transport (DfT) had devolved its major scheme funding programme for the next spending review period (2015-2019) to „Local Transport Bodies‟ (LTB) which were based on the existing Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) geographies and would be responsible for allocating and managing the devolved major scheme funds. For the Marches area it was agreed that the three Transport Authorities (Herefordshire, Telford & Wrekin and Shropshire) would form an informal partnership with the Marches LEP to form the basis of the LTB. It was anticipated that for the Marches area, the budget share allocation could be in the region of £16m although a degree of over-programming would be need to be allowed for as major scheme programmes were notorious for slippage due to complexities in construction and delivery. It was, therefore, anticipated that, at the next meeting of the LTB, the Technical Officers Group (TOG) would present 1

Pm me & I'll share it with you & if you think I should post it then I might well do? Also had mr Johnson ring me tonite?

It was quite eventful dippy mr bramer had been out all night by the look of it? & he was none to pleased to see me I can tell you!!

Yes Rudhall manor I went there this morning to see mr bramer & I found him to be a very unsavoury character indeed but he didn't faze me!!

No worries dippy have one for me

Well I don't know yet as I've had no signal all day but Harry sent his txt this morning so my reply back was somewhat later…but having said that its an answer he's going to have to really think about before he does reply & one that he will have to answer sooner or later because I will go to his house if I have to & ask him face to face for an answer…as my democratic right to do so of course!!!…& besides its only polite for him to answer as I've asked the question?!

Ok dippy here it is… Well thank you for responding to me councillor! Yes I know the land behind the Odeon is not surplus to requirements yet, but it will be in 2 years time! as that will be the case I cannot see why it is not possible to bring it forward 2 years? especially as it would be to the city's greater benefit in doing so! Because even if the boys home was not there on bath street, it still would not be the correct place to locate a new fire station. Ps you cannot say the bus station is a proper bus station either because it is not?! Regards Michael Hayes

No your right dippy it is not over yet I don't hear the fat lady singing?! Would you like to see my reply to Harry?

Hello dippy how are you? Did you see cllr bramer sent me a txt message?

Thanks ubique that's very interesting. HC have wot I would describe as car park madness & they need to be cured of this sickness so I say sod the car park a fire station is more important & particularly it being in the right place!!!

I know it will be surplus to requirement in 2years as I've got an email from the transport department saying so but I think it should be brought forward NOW!!! As its not really a proper bus station!

Hi everyone sorry for being late been stuck in a place with no bloody signal!!!!! Anyway my news is this had a txt of cllr bramer Dear Mr Hayes Thank you for your letter regarding the land behind the Odeon cinema - delivered to various councillors yesterday. The land in question is not surplus to requirements but your views are now well known. The decision in respect of the Bath Street site is due to be taken on Monday. Councillor H Bramer Cabinet Member - Contracts and Assets Althought he says that the bus station is not surplus to requirements it will be in 2 years so why can't it be brought forward 2years for a new fire station?? Don't make sense not to do so!!!

Amen to that!!

Evening dippy well the fat lady still ain't sing yet! We still have one game left to play & it will be the deciding factor in the battle for middle earth & the shire?…it commonly goes by the name of planning!!! As mark says its a public consultation for when the fire service are ready to show us all, wot they plan to build. so I take it they won't be putting in for planning, until after the public consultation? I'm sure mark will correct me on that if I'm reading it wrong?

Well @ lest that is something good anyway Mark & i shall look forward to it!! as with a public consultation we will get a chance to ask a lot, of serious question & hopefully get some answers to this whole sorry affair? Especially when I believe a more practical & workable solution could have been achived,where all parties involved, would have been satisfied with the outcome?!…instead of the sense of bad taste in one's mouth,which is being felt @ present!!

Lets get bobby's barmy army on the march!

I totally agree dippy next May we need to keep hold of the good guys & get sum young fresh blood into help those good guys fight back in a positive way for the better good of the county & the city!

Well said dippy couldn't agree more!! the council cabinet & lying seem to go hand in hand?! Also mr Johnson doesn't seem to have the balls to respond to emails sent to him by the public? But instead gets his lap dog to do it for him!!

I've got to say I take issue with all of wot mr featherstone is saying I'd also add he's being very very economical with the truth?!

I've just had an email from my aunts from mr featherstone. Mike, This is the response I received to my email, sounds as if it is all cut and dried. Mary. Dear Ms Hayes Thank you for your email that the Leader has asked me to respond to on his behalf. If you see below, the responses are annotated to the suggestions made in red.(it did not copy over in red but I'm sure you clever lot will see where mr featherstone has responded) Regards Tony Featherstone Dear Cllr Johnson, I am writing to you regarding the Proposed land swap with Hereford & Worcester Fire & Rescue Service, and the former Hereford Working Boys Home, Bath Street. I strongly object to this proposal. The former Hereford Working Boys club is a very beautiful and interesting building with a long history. It may not have achieved a listed status but that does not mean it should be pulled down. We should not have to lose our history to relocate the fire station, there are far better places it could go within Herefordshire, without having to demolish the former Hereford Working Boys Home. Hereford people do not want this. We want to retain our old buildings and have something beautiful and interesting made out of them, not pulled down and replaced with yet another ugly concrete block. I am disappointed with the Hereford Council for keeping this all so quiet, this matter should have been out in the open and brought to the public attention immediately. This has not been kept quiet, the Cabinet Member report, the Fire service resolution and any planning application are public documents. The first 2 are already in the public domain. We should have been consulted so that we, the people of Hereford could say what we want, not what is pushed on us because it’s all too late to do anything about it. If it was not for those public spirited Hereford people sick of what is happening to our town, standing up and letting us all know what is going on, we would be none the wiser until the bulldozers move in. I urge you to reconsider the proposal of Knocking down The Former Hereford Working Boys club and moving the Fire Station to that site. I urge you to listen to the people of Hereford who you represent. There are far more options that should be considered including: · Move the Hereford Fire Station to the old Hereford Bus Station Site, or on the new Hereford link road we all are hearing so much about. Unlike the Bath Street Site which has been declared surplus to the Council’s operational requirements, all parts of the bus station, car park and associated buildings are fully operational and essential for service delivery. There is no suitable accommodation/sites to relocate the services to and no budgeted funds to do so. · Move the bus Station next to the Train Station, makes sense to have two transport hubs together. There is no capital allocation to undertake this move. · Refurbish The Former Hereford Working Boys club, use it for apartments/flats, who would not want to live in such a beautiful building, or use it for student accommodation for the new Hereford university. There is no justification to do this. The present building bears no relation to this former use. It is beyond economic repair/refurbishment . It will be demolished to accommodate a new fire station or the whole site will be sold on the open market for total redevelopment. The Council will not be restoring any part of the site. The council has identified other sites for providing potential University accommodation. · If and when the Hereford fire Station is moved, don’t knock that beautiful old building down. Refurbish it and use it. Should the fire station project be delivered, then the total site will need to be demolished. We want Hereford to stay beautiful, we want to save our heritage. we will not get visitors coming here to see yet another car park or another concrete monstrosity.

This is it folks the battle for Herefords heritage is nearing critical?! As dippy says we all need to unite as in unity there is strength!!! Now that HWFRS have agreed this dumb ass deal?! We should all focus our attention onto that of the cabinet. So if we can start hitting those keys & letting our emails go again,making sure that we target those councillors dippy has listed!!! Then that would be fab thanks everyone!!

Earlier this evening I gave councillor Harry bramer a call to get his thoughts on the idea of using the county bus for the location of a new fire station?…but unfortunately Harry was none to please to hear from & refused to discuss it & in fact he hung up?!…so I decided to send him a txt message… Harry you might think I will go away quietly? but you are very much mistaken as you are a councillor? I regard you as a public servant who is suppose to be serving the greater good of the community?(although I don't see a lot of that going on in Herefordshire in recent years) & as such answerable to the public unless I'm very much mistaken & the uk is no longer a democracy? So I will be in touch speak soon!! Luv u x