LOCAL AUTHORITY MAJOR SCHEMES APPLICATION FOR FULL APPROVAL

LOCAL AUTHORITY MAJOR SCHEMES APPLICATION FOR FULL APPROVAL Scheme Name Rail Growth Package Local Authority West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) STRATEGIC CASE 1.1 Has the Strategic Case for the scheme altered in any way since the submission of your Best and Final Funding Bid? In particular any external developments, changes in local plan, changes in developers plans or any new issues arising impacting upon public or business support for the scheme. If yes please provide details. No The Strategic Case for the scheme has not changed. The scheme aligns with national, regional and local rail, transport and planning policy, including the West Yorkshire LTP and Railplan 7. However, it is worth noting that whilst Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall Forge new rail stations will be delivered as one package with the longer term objectives of encouraging modal shift from cars, they are rail stations of a very different nature. Apperley Bridge is essentially a park and ride station. Kirkstall Forge will be a local park and ride station with the specific objective of facilitating the development of a strategic brownfield redevelopment site at Kirkstall Forge to lever in 400m of private investment. The Developer of the Kirkstall Forge site, Commercial Estates Group (CEG), is fully committed to the development at Kirkstall Forge. CEG have so far invested approximately 20million on the site including land acquisition, design and remediation works. In addition to their financial contribution of over 5million towards the Rail Growth Package, they are also committed to fund the access road, temporary car park and the associated drop off facilities which are required for the development and the rail station at Kirkstall Forge. It is estimated that these works will cost approximately 10million. Leeds City Council (LCC) have agreed to carry out the works on behalf of CEG, with CEG reimbursing the Council over a ten year period commencing in 2018. The Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) is also making available a loan of up to 5million from the Growing Places Fund to support CEG s contribution towards the cost of constructing Kirkstall Forge station. Both the LCC and LEP loan arrangement is covered by

a formal agreement between LCC and CEG. A copy of the agreement between LCC and CEG is attached in Appendix A. It is envisaged that the agreement will be signed by 11 April 2014. The LCC/CEG agreement demonstrates that a mechanism is in place to deliver the access road and the associated infrastructure required for the Kirkstall Forge rail station and the development. It also indicates the importance of Rail Growth Package to the region with the full support of LCC and the LEP. Please note that CEG s contribution towards the Rail Growth Package will be paid to an Escrow Account prior to the granting of FA approval so that CEG s contribution is secured. Please see a copy of the side letter between WYCA and CEG in Appendix T. It is also worth noting that CEG has so far committed approximately 2million towards the Rail Growth Package development cost at risk even before FA approval has been secured. Whilst the recent downturn in the economy has led to a slight delay in the planned timescales for the wider Kirkstall Forge development, the overall masterplan of the site remains unchanged. The proposed Kirkstall Forge development programme that consists of commercial (Grade A offices) and residential development remains robust. This is supported by the following evidence: Based on the economic forecasts for the Regional Economic Intelligence Unit (Sept 2013), the strength of the Leeds economy in the last decade has centred around the growth in finance & business services. Over the last decade these grew by 29%, compared with 26% for the region and 20% for the UK. During the next decade, growth in Leeds is expected to be higher than both the region and the UK. The research report published by GVA Leeds City Centre Office Market, Tipping Point (March 2013) forecasts that Leeds will reach the tipping point (position of undersupply in Grade A offices) by the end of 2014. The Leeds Core Strategy identified the need for 70,000 more homes suggests a significant potential market for residential development. The fact that CEG is prepared to sign up to an agreement with LCC with a longstop date in April 2018 for repayment indicates the developer s confidence in the proposed development programme. WYCA, working with Northern Rail, have proposed an interim timetable solution in the early years of operation so that appropriate train service level is provided in line with the level of development at Kirkstall Forge. The business case of the scheme has been updated

to reflect these changes and sensitivity tests carried out on scenarios agreed with DfT. The Value for Money Assessment technical note was provided to DfT on 18 March 2014 prior to the submission of this FA application. Letters of support from Network Rail and Northern in relation to the proposed timetable are attached in Appendices P and Q. 1.2. Has the scope of the scheme changed from that described in the Best and Final Funding Bid? If so please provide details, including any changes resulting from conditions attached to statutory powers granted. NO The current scope of the scheme is consistent with the scheme which gained planning approvals (11 March 2010 for Apperley Bridge and 18 June 2010 for Kirkstall Forge) and DfT approval for the Best and Final Funding Bid in September 2011. The planning conditions of Apperley Bridge new rail station were discharged in early 2013. The planning conditions of Kirkstall Forge new rail station are scheduled to be fully discharged by early June 2014. The preapplication submission to discharge the key planning conditions was submitted to LCC in December 2013. Discharge is expected by mid- April 2014. Further information to discharge the remaining conditions of the station will be submitted by Network Rail by the end of April 2014. ECONOMIC CASE 2.1 What is the latest BCR of the scheme? Please provide updated AMCB, TEE and Public Accounts Tables in Excel form. Unless specifically requested by DfT no new analysis is required, merely the updating of information known to have changed e.g. costs; and reflecting reduced optimism bias where applicable. The current BCR of the scheme, based on an agreed central development scenario is 4.5 which is significantly higher than the benchmark of 2:1 and represents Very High Value for Money under DfT s Value for Money Guidance. It has been agreed with DfT that the BCR is tested against agreed development scenarios - central, low and high. In the low development scenario the BCR of 2.6 is still above the 2.0 threshold. Various cost and growth sensitivity tests have been carried out with the results indicating that the BCR generally remains within a band between 3 and 5. This indicates that the Value for Money Case is relatively stable and extremely robust.

Within the sensitivity tests, there is a scenario that drops the BCR to 1.5 if there is no housing development at Kirkstall Forge. It is, however, considered to be an unlikely scenario given the strong demand for residential development in Leeds supported by the Leeds Core Strategy which identified the need for 70,000 more homes. There is also a scenario with a BCR of 0.5 if the full rail service timetable is never introduced over the whole appraisal period. Again this is considered to be an unlikely scenario. When the development at Kirkstall Forge is developed to a level to generate sufficient demand and operating revenue to cover the revenue cost of the full rail services timetable, it is very unlikely that the operator and WYCA will not respond to this. WYCA will continue to monitor the development progress of the Kirkstall Forge site and the actual performance of the stations, in order that the appropriate service level can be introduced at the appropriate time. We have updated the BCR of the scheme based on updated information on cost, development timescales, timetable solutions and the latest Web TAG guidance. A Value for Money assessment technical note is provided in Appendix B which was submitted to DfT on 18 March 2014. The updated AMCB, TEE and Public Accounts Tables are included in Appendix C in Excel Format. 2.2 Please attach an assessment of the Social and Distribution Impacts of the scheme (conducted in line with DfT guidance) including, where appropriate, include details of appropriate mitigations? If you have already agreed with DfT that no update is required beyond that included in your BAFB please state here. There are six steps in SDI analysis. A further SDI analysis has been carried out to step 3 in accordance with DfT Guidance. The results demonstrate that there is no need to progress to steps 4 and 5. A copy of the report is attached in Appendix D. This report was submitted to DfT on 24 February 2014. Following a review of the assessment, DfT confirmed on 14 March 2014 by E-mail that no further work is required on SDI. FINANCIAL CASE 3.1 What is your estimate of the total outturn cost of the scheme? Please provide a breakdown of costs using the template below. Please use cost headings consistent with those used in your BAFB, although you may identify the contracted construction price in its own line. In the column showing the BAFB costs please incorporate any adjustments made by DfT as advised in

your Programme Entry letter. Please ensure that in the risk/qra cost You have removed risks now transferred to the contractor as part of the final tendered price You have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs You have used the P50 value. Please quote all amounts in m to three decimal points (i.e. to the nearest 1000) Please provide detailed cost estimate and QRA as Annexes. The cost breakdown is provided in Appendix E and a copy of the QRA report is attached in Appendix F. Cost Heading As per BAFB (including any adjustments advised by DfT)( m) Contractor s direct costs 8.370 10.904 Network Rail direct costs 0.400 0.064 Contractor indirect costs 2.166 0.925 Network Rail indirect costs and other costs 2.459 1.322 Non Network Rail Elements 0.095 0.510 Other elements 0.265 0.442 WYCA project management cost - 0.241 Risk (P50) 1.777 (adjusted 1.413 by DfT) Escalation (inflation) 1.365 0.149 Currently Estimated Cost( m) Total 16.897 15.970 3.2 Please state what inflation assumptions you are using. Inflation rates for different categories (e.g. general inflation, construction cost, operating cost) should be separately identified. Cost inflation is not included in the Contractor s direct and indirect costs as it is a fixed price valid until early July 2014. However, if there is any delay to the grant of DfT Full Approval beyond the end of May 2014, the target price will be subject to further review and validation and the cost is likely to increase. Inflation of 2.7% has been applied to all other elements apart from the Contractor s direct and indirect cost in accordance with DfT Guidance. 3.3 Please describe any significant remaining risks to the current cost estimates? A QRA workshop was held on 30 January 2014 attended by WYCA, Network Rail, City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (CBMDC) and Commercial Estates Group. The QRA report is provided in Appendix F. The five key risks identified in the QRA are: o Unexpected protected species (Apperley Bridge) o Telecoms connections may not be delivered in the allocated timescales and costs (Kirkstall Forge).

o Unexpected ground conditions (Kirkstall Forge) o The provision of the new electricity supply required (Apperley Bridge) o The load bearing of the Blue Truss Bridge (Kirkstall Forge) The key risks were assessed as part of the QRA and appropriate provision is included in the risk value. The mitigation measures of the key identified risks are included in section 4.4. The current cost plan is based on the assumption that a DfT decision will be announced by the end of May 2014 to enable WYCA to enter into an Implementation Agreement with Network Rail for delivery of the new stations. Should there be delay to the timescales of FA approval, there will be an impact on the cost plan. 3.4 Please provide a breakdown of the proposed funding sources for the scheme (a) Local Authority contribution Please include the LA costs incurred or expected to be incurred since Programme Entry (that is the original Programme Entry approval if prior to 2011) excluding ineligible preparatory costs as defined by previous guidance and excluding the cost of any Part 1 Claims. (b) Agreed third party contributions This should include only committed third party contributions, Please name each contributor on a separate line and provide evidence of agreement (e.g. a letter from the funder confirming their degree of commitment, timing for release of funds and any other conditions etc.). Funding Approval has been granted by the ITA to this expenditure. Reports can be provided upon request. This developer contribution will be made available prior to the grant of FA approval. The developer s funding is secured. The relevant agreements are included in Appendices G and T. The developer s contribution is funded by CEG but supported by the Growing Places Fund (which is offered as a loan to CEG) to help with CEG s cash flow. The terms and conditions of the Growing Places Fund loan repayment are covered in the CEG/LCC funding agreement. A copy of the agreement is included in Appendix A. (c) DfT funding requested The funding requested from DfT must not exceed that requested in your Best and Final Funding Bid (BAFB). If the total estimated cost of the scheme is less than that quoted in the Department s Programme Entry letter, the requested contribution from DfT DfT : 9.573m The DfT funding requirement based on the current cost plan is 9.573m, including a capex saving shared with DfT in line with the original funding contribution proportions in the BAFFB submission. The maximum DfT funding identified in the

should be reduced by the same proportion. Programme Entry stage was 10.27m. Should there be a delay of FA approval which leads to delay in programme and increase in costs, the required DfT funding will be increased but capped at the 10.27m. 3.5 What is the estimated funding profile? Please do not include in any of the costs shown in this table o ineligible preparatory costs as defined by previous guidance o the cost of any Part 1 Claims. Although the maximum level of DfT funding will be fixed, profiles across years may be subject to further discussion and agreement. Please specify the third party contributor(s) and list each one (if more than one) on a separate line. The DfT contribution to costs that have already been incurred should not exceed what was assumed in the BAFB and should include no more than 50% of eligible preparatory costs (as defined by previous guidance). Please note that the DfT contribution to costs already incurred should, if the scheme is approved, be included in the first quarterly claim submitted to the Department. m Costs already incurred LA contribution 2012/ 13 2013/ 14 2014/ 15 2015/ 16 2016/ 17 2017/ 18 Beyond April 2018 Total and % Third Party contribution DfT funding requested TOTAL 3.6 Please indicate the level of flexibility with regard to the phasing of the local contribution of the bid (including the third party contribution), should the DfT have a need to vary the phasing of its own contribution for budgetary reasons. Please detail the level of change in DfT support per funding year you could accommodate within the project and from which sources any change would be made up. - Approximately 50% of WYCA s funding towards the scheme has either been spent on development costs or project management costs. The rest of WYCA s funding will be beyond the current spending review period and therefore there is not much flexibility in reallocating WYCA s funding contribution. - There is flexibility in the timing of the CEG funding contribution. CEG funding will be placed in an Escrow Account prior to the FA approval. 3.7 Please explain how the Local Authority contribution will be funded. Please reference any council decisions allocating the required budget or approving any necessary borrowing etc The Local Authority contribution for this scheme is funded by WYCA.

The Local Authority/WYCA s contribution includes the following elements: Funding sources Amount WYCA s contribution was approved by the ITA in March 2014. A copy of the report is available on the WYITA website.

COMMERCIAL CASE 4.1 Please provide details of the firm and final offer for the main contract, including the price and period of validity. If there are multiple contracts and none can be regarded as the primary contract please explain this on a separate sheet, also addressing the questions below. The core contract for Rail Growth package construction will be an Implementation Agreement between WYCA and Network Rail. An Implementation agreement is a standardised Network Rail contract template issued and regulated by the Office of the Rail Regulator. At the June 2012 Rail Growth Package Project Board meeting, the Board approved the procurement strategy for the Rail Growth Package to seek competitive tenders through Network Rail for GRIP stage 5 8 works for the following reasons: a) Due to the size and the engineering complexities of this project, it is more economically advantageous to competitively tender the project and engage contractors who are appropriately sized and resourced. b) A target price from the appointed contractor together with Network Rail s ownership of the scheme will ensure price certainty for the project. c) Competitive tendering will have minimal impact on the timescales of the Project. d) A direct contract with Network Rail would involve less time, cost and risks than WYCA procuring a contractor separately. This will also improve the sense of ownership of the project as Network Rail will be the ultimate asset owner of the new rail stations. e) Network Rail operates the Industry Risk Fund which in effect provides an appropriate level of insurance cover for rail infrastructure projects. Network Rail s contractor, C Spencer, has been appointed since summer 2013 to carry out GRIP stage 5-8 works with a break point at the end of GRIP stage 5. This approach provides early contractor involvement. A target price has now been provided by Network Rail following the completion of essential design works. The target price agreed with Network Rail s contractor is 10.968m ( 10.904m+0.064m) and is included in Table 3.1. This target price will be valid until 07 July 2014. WYCA and Network Rail will need to enter into an Implementation Agreement in early June 2014 following FA approval to secure the specified target price. Following engrossment of the Implementation Agreement, Network Rail will enter into an NR12 Target Cost contract with C Spencer, who will be engaged to deliver the implementation, testing, and commissioning of the works on behalf of Network Rail. The NR12 is one of the standard NR Suite forms of contract based on the ICE target cost form of contract. 4.2 Is this a fixed price or target price contract? If target price, please provide details of the pain/gain arrangements The Implementation Agreement (IA) between WYCA and Network Rail is an Emerging

Cost (EC) funding agreement with an estimated contract cost measured and agreed by both parties collaboratively, in an open book fashion. WYCA considers an Emerging Cost IA as the most appropriate form of funding agreement given the nature and complexity of the scheme. There was an option to enter into a Fixed Price IA with Network Rail, however this would attract higher industry and client fees (as regulated by the use of the ORR funding templates) in the region of 1m which WYCA does not consider necessary given the advanced design stage of the scheme (having designed out significant risk previously) and with the collaborative behaviours enshrined in the Project Board. Network Rail s contract with external contractors are in standardised form, governed though industry regulation and best practice. The contract between Network Rail and the main contractor The Spencer Group will be an NR12 Target Cost Contract. 4.3 Please provide details of any incentive or other clauses that may affect the total cost or the timing of payments? There are no incentive provisions within the Implementation Agreement between WYCA and Network Rail which affect the total cost or timing of payments. There is, however, a pain/gain share agreement in the Target Cost Contract between Network Rail and the contractor. Under the NR12 Contract between Network Rail and The Spencer Group, pain (over spend) is shared on an equal basis (50/50 straight line split) up to 110% of Target Cost. Beyond this, all overspend falls to the Contractor. Gain (underspend) is shared on a 50%-50% basis. 4.4 Please list the significant risks that are transferred to the contractor, and those that remain with the authority. Risks transferred to the Contractor (Network Rail) are listed below These risks were identified through a multi-disciplinary risk analysis. Risk APPERLEY RISK: Unexpected protected species may be discovered which impact on the delivery of the planned works KIRKSTALL RISK: Telecoms connections may not be delivered in the timescales and costs allocated KIRKSTALL RISK: Unexpected ground conditions may be encountered which impacts on the delivery of planned work APPERLEY RISK: Provision of new DNO supply may take longer and cost more than anticipated KIRKSTALL RISK: Assessment of load bearing capacity of the Blue Truss bridge may indicate that it is not suitable for construction access and delivery of materials Mitigation Trees within station area already cut. C Spencer to arrange further tree cutting at the station car park and access the road. Instruction was issued to C Spencer to carry out all the de-vegetation work ASAP. Management of programme with utility provider Recent survey did not highlight any issues. Geotechnical survey has been done and did not highlight any issues/ will not affect surveys. Monitor risk to see what is found when digging commences early in Spencer s programme. Spencer s to order diversionary works from utilities who may expect 100% payment upfront. Alternative access can be sought through delivery of bespoke access road if required

Risks remaining with the Authority Capital risks associated with unforeseeable events. Revenue shortfall risks related to the operation of the two new rail stations. o WYCA will enter into an agreement with Northern to fix the maximum level of subsidy during the Direct Award (DA) period. A copy of the signed agreement is attached in Appendix R. This is subject to the approval of the DfT. o Beyond the DA period, the level of subsidy will be subject to competitive bids and the actual performance of the stations. o WYCA prepare to underwrite the revenue risks of the scheme and recognise that it is possible that the revenue shortfall of the scheme could be recovered in the future years. DfT advised that this should be part of the next franchise specification discussions. 4.5 Please describe how you will ensure effective contract management Include details of reporting and liaison requirements, meeting frequency, interface of contractor with internal governance arrangements. The Implementation Agreement specifies how the contract between WYCA and Network Rail will be managed. Governance arrangement and liaison The governance arrangement of the scheme is detailed in Section 3 (Project Management Team Structure) in the Project Initiation Document (Appendix H). The engagement and liaison with various relevant parties are set out in the Communication Management Strategy (Appendix I). The table below summarises the details of the key meetings and reports: Meeting Objectives Frequency Reports Attendees WYCA s Monthly WYCA s directors Portfolio Board Rail Growth Project Board Approve project cost and overall timescale tolerance - Ensure Rail Growth is delivered within agreed budget, timescales and scope - Monitor key risks and issues 2 monthly or as required - Portfolio dashboard showing the current status of the project - Exception report in the event of a forecast to exceed a tolerance - Highlight report - Issues report - Exception report - Risks and - Senior representatives from WYCA, Network Rail, Northern, CBMDC, LCC and CEG - Chaired by the

Design meeting (Progress meeting) - Monitor financial, Programme and deliverables performance - Discuss risks and issues and escalate to Project Board as appropriate Bi-weekly to monthly issues log WYCA SRO - Notes of meeting covering progress and issues. WYCA, Network Rail, CEG, LCC and CBMDC (as required) 4.6 Please provide brief details of procurement arrangements for works outside the main contract, and what stage these have reached? There are two elements of work that are outside the main construction contract: Supply and installation of traffic signals (junction improvement at Apperley Bridge) New traffic signals will be required to facilitate the access road to the Apperley Bridge new rail station. This element of work will be managed and delivered by CBMDC due to the specialised nature of the signalling design, equipment and works. CBMDC has been appointed by WYCA to carry out the work through a S38/S278 agreement with an agreed fixed price. The supply and installation of traffic signals will be procured through the CBMDC term call-off contract for traffic signals (ref BFDMDC YORE/9CTJGN). The contract was renewed in early January 2014. Access road and junction improvements at Kirkstall Forge A new access road and junction improvements will be required to facilitate the operation of Kirkstall Forge station. This element of work will be delivered by LCC on behalf of CEG through a CEG/LCC funding agreement as described in Section1.1. The works are to be procured by LCC and tender documents have been issued. Please note that this element of work is outside the scope of Rail Growth Package for the purpose of the FA submission.

DELIVERY CASE 5.1 Please provide details of the statutory powers you have acquired Please list separately each power obtained, details of date acquired, challenge period (if applicable) and date of expiry of powers, and any conditions attached to them. Statutory Power Date acquired Challenge Period Expiry CBMDC planning 11 March 2010 Expired No expiry date approval for as preconstruction Apperley Bridge work station and car has commenced, park the planning (09/05887/FUL) approval will be valid throughout the life of the LCC planning approval for Kirkstall Forge station and car park (10/01211/FU) Conditions attached The precommencement conditions were discharged on 24 January 2013 and pre-construction work was commenced on project. 4 th February 2013. 18 June 2010 Expired 17 June 2015. It is envisaged that precommencement conditions will be discharged by 1 st May 2014. Preapplication was submitted to LCC on 20 Dec 2013. 5.2 Please provide details of further engagement since the BAFB with the Statutory Bodies (Environment Agency, Natural England, English Heritage) Please include evidence of how you have taken account of their views and any requirements for mitigation etc. There has been no further engagement with any Statutory Bodies since the BAFB submission. As part of the grant of planning consent, detailed consultation was carried out with the Environment Agency and Natural England in relation to the station applications (there was no heritage impact for either scheme and hence no requirement to engage with English Heritage). The requirements of the associated flood risk assessments and ecology reports (as captured in the relevant planning conditions) ensure that an ongoing dialogue will be maintained with relevant bodies prior to and during the construction phase of the project. 5.3 Please provide brief details of your evaluation plans for the scheme and attach your full evaluation plan as an Annex. A Monitoring and Evaluation Plan has already been submitted to DfT on 31 January 2014. DfT s comments were included in the latest version of this plan included in Appendix J.

5.4 Please provide details of your construction milestones below Please include interim milestones (at least one but no more than 5 or 6) between start and completion of works. If the completion date has slipped from the date estimated in your BAFB please provide an explanation. Please provide a copy of the latest project plan (programme) as an Annex. A project Plan is included in Appendix L. Date estimated in Current estimated date BAFB Start of works July 2013 Sept 2014 Completion of Apperley Bridge access roads and car park October 2013 by CBMDC No longer relevant as this will now be delivered by Network Rail as part of the overall construction Completion of works (including testing and commissioning) work November 2014 7 August 2015 Opening date December 2014 7 August 2015 5.5 Please briefly describe the most significant risk remaining to the above timetable and attach the latest version of your project risk register (if different from the QRA risk register). The top 3 risks that have an impact on the timing of the scheme are shown below. A copy of the project risk and issue log is included in Appendix K. Check this when Risk and issues log are updated Description of risks Mitigation 1 Delay of the grant of FA Submit relevant information to DfT prior to the approval FA submission. On going dialogue between 2 Delay in the signing of agreement with Northern to operate the proposed train services and stations during Direct Award Period 3 Telecoms connection may not be delivered in the timescales allocated (Kirkstall Forge) WYCA and DfT. Liaise closely with Northern and DfT. NWR to liaise closely with CEG and BT. 5.6 Have your governance arrangements changed since submission of your BAFB? If so please provide details, including changes to SRO, Project Manager, Project Board composition, approval processes and, in particular, details of how your contractor will fit into your governance structure. Please note that West Yorkshire Combined Authority was established on 1 st April 2014 pursuant to article 3(1) of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2014 (SI). Pursuant to article 8(2) of that Order all functions, property, rights and liabilities of the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive ('WYPTE' or Metro) were transferred

to the West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority ('ITA'), and pursuant to article 6(2) of that Order, all functions property, rights and liabilities of the ITA were transferred to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, which is therefore the successor to both the ITA and WYPTE / Metro. All the contracts and approvals previously made by Metro and ITA will be transferred to WYCA and will remain valid. The governance arrangement is described in Section 4.5 of this submission. The details of governance structure are detailed in Section 3 (Project Management Team Structure) of the Project Initiation Document (PID). A copy of the PID is included in Appendix H. The key delivery agent of the construction element i.e. Network Rail is represented at Project Board so that any key issues are discussed and dealt with at the Project Board level. There are also regular design / progress meetings with Network Rail and the contractor to deal with the day-to-day project management issues to ensure that risks and issues are escalated to the Project Board as appropriate. 5.7 Please provide details of the assurance process you have undertaken including results of any project assurance reports since your BAFB, with any resulting action taken or planned. Please attach a copy of the summary recommendations of the most recent project assurance report. The project assurance strategy is included in Appendix M. Project assurance is carried out by WYCA s internal audit department. An audit was carried out in April 2013 and a copy of the report is attached in Appendix N. The next audit is programmed to be carried out in Spring 2014. 5.8 If not provided in previous submissions, please provide a copy of your benefits realisation plan. A copy of the benefits realisation plan is included in Appendix O. The plan was also submitted to DfT on 28 March 2014. 5.9 Please provide brief details of major stakeholder and public engagement carried out since the BAFB and further engagement planned during construction. Please provide a copy of your Stakeholder Analysis and Communications Plans. Please also highlight whether any significant shifts of stakeholder opinion have taken place or new issues have arisen and describe and how you are responding to them. Stakeholder Engagement A Communication Management Strategy has been developed for the project as part of WYCA s project management protocol. This identifies key stakeholders as well as the frequency, methodology and level of communication. All key stakeholders including LCC, CBMDC and CEG are represented in regular Project Board meetings. A copy of the Strategy is included in Appendix I.

Public Engagement Extensive public consultation events were held prior to the submission of planning applications. Details of the public consultation events were included as part of the previous BAFFB submission. Since the submission of BAFFB the following meetings have been held with local Councillors and residents: Apperley Bridge station A meeting was held with the relevant Ward Councillor and Little Park residents on 23 October 2012. Further meetings with residents will be arranged following FA submission. Residents will be kept informed throughout the construction works by post, specifically about any night time possessions and works that affect the local highway. The information letter will include details of the work and the relevant contact details. WYCA s website will also be kept updated with key construction and contact information. Kirkstall Forge - Meetings were held with Ward Councillors in November 2011 and January 2014 so that the public are informed of the progress of the project through their councillors. As the proposed rail station at Kirkstall Forge is in the middle of a development site, the impact on local residents will be minimal.

SENIOR RESPONSIBLE OWNER DECLARATION As Senior Responsible Owner for the Rail Growth Package I hereby submit this request for Full Approval to DfT on behalf of West Yorkshire Combined Authority and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so. I confirm that West Yorkshire Combined Authority has acquired all the statutory powers (Traffic Regulation Orders excepted) necessary to construct the scheme. Name: David Hoggarth Signed: Position: Chair of the Rail Growth Project Board and Director of Development SECTION 73 OFFICER DECLARATION As Section 73 Officer for West Yorkshire Combined Authority I declare that the scheme cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that West Yorkshire Combined Authority - has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding contribution at section 3.4(a) above - accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties - accepts responsibility for meeting any on-going revenue requirements in relation to the scheme - accepts that no further increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum contribution requested Name: Angela Taylor Signed: Director of Resource & S73 Officer, West Yorkshire Combined Authority See attached letter CONTACT DETAILS FOR FURTHER ENQUIRIES Lead Contact: Rebecca Cheung Position: Rail Development Team Leader Tel: 01132517285 E-mail: Rebecca.cheung@westyorks-ca.gov.uk Alternative Contact: Chris Mason Position: Projects Manager Tel: 0113 348 1762 E-mail: Chris.mason@westyorks-ca.gov.uk

CONTACT DETAILS OF YOUR CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER (If the scheme is granted Full Approval we will need these details for the formal offer of DfT grant) Name: Angela Taylor Job Title: Director of Resources (S73 Officer) Full Postal Address: West Yorkshire Combined Authority Wellington House 40-50 Wellington Street Leeds LS1 2DE

Summary of Appendices Appendix Description Form Ref A LCC / CEG Funding Agreement 1.1, 3.4 B Value for Money Technical note 2.1 C Revised TEE, AMCB and Public Accounts Tables (in 2.1 Excel form) D Social and Distributional Impacts analysis 2.2 E Detailed Cost Breakdown 3.1 F Quantified Risk Assessment Report 3.1, 3.3 G WYCA / CEG Funding Agreement 3.4 H Project Initiation Document 4.5, 5.6 I Communications Management Strategy 4.5 J Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 5.3 K Project Risk and Issue Log 5.5 L Project Plan (Programme) 5.4 M Project Assurance Strategy 5.7 N Project Assurance Recommendations Report 5.7 O Benefits Realisation Plan 5.8 P Letter of Support from Northern 1.1 Q Letter of Support from Network Rail 1.1 R Draft agreement between Northern and Metro 4.4 S S73 Officer Approval Letter Section 73 Officer declaration T Side letter between WYCA and CEG 1.1, 3.4 Please note that whilst some of the appendices in the submission still refer to Metro, West Yorkshire Combined Authority was established on 1 st APRIL 2014 pursuant to article 3(1) of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2014 (SI ). Pursuant to article 8(2) of that Order all functions, property, rights and liabilities of the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive ('WYPTE' or Metro) were transferred to the West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority ('ITA'), and pursuant to article 6(2) of that Order, all functions property, rights and liabilities of the ITA were transferred to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, which is therefore the successor to both the ITA and WYPTE / Metro.