To scrutinise the methodology used to determine the full business case for phase 1 of Hereford Bypass.

The committee considered a report on the Hereford Bypass Phase 1 – methodology item.

The principal points of the subsequent discussion are summarised below:

1. The Chairperson clarified at the outset that the purpose of the item was to consider whether the proposed assessment criteria for the full business case for phase one of the western bypass were robust, transparent and capable of supporting a sound decision by Cabinet. It was emphasised that the committee was not considering the merits of the bypass itself, the route, or whether the scheme should proceed which instead are matters for later when the full business case is brought forward.

2. The Infrastructure Delivery Director explained that Cabinet had agreed that a full business case would need to be published and reviewed before any decision to proceed to construction was made. He added that the full business case is a substantial document and that the draft assessment criteria had therefore been brought forward in advance so that members could consider what Cabinet would use when reaching that later decision.

3. It was noted that the draft assessment criteria included both requirements and assessment criteria, and that these had been grouped under five themes: technical, planning, environmental, commercial and financial.

4. The Chairperson welcomed the opportunity for scrutiny to consider the draft assessment criteria at this stage and introduced Tom van Vuren to provide independent expert support. Mr van Vuren explained that his role was to help identify criteria aligned with the Green Book and Department for Transport best practice so that Cabinet could make an informed and defensible decision when the full business case is presented.

5. In response to a question about how the assessment criteria would enable Cabinet to distinguish between a strong business case and a more marginal one, the Infrastructure Delivery Director explained that value for money, including the benefit-cost ratio, would be one key element of the assessment. He noted that the recommendation would be for at least medium value for money scheme, while also stressing that Cabinet would need to consider the full package of matters rather than rely on a single metric.

6. It was further noted that the full business case would include modelling validation and Green Book-compliant appraisal, but that Cabinet would also need assurance across a broader range of issues before a construction decision could be taken.

7. A committee member questioned whether the draft table in appendix 1 sufficiently distinguished between true assessment criteria and procedural or evidential checks. Officers acknowledged the value of providing more granular and graded information rather than relying on pass/fail wording alone.

8. During discussion on road safety, it was noted that the impact of the scheme may not be uniformly positive across all locations because a higher-speed road could reduce traffic on some residential routes while creating different risks elsewhere. It was suggested that more information should be provided on the underlying modelling, collision assumptions and distribution of impacts so that Cabinet can better understand the significance of any positive or negative safety effects.

9. A committee member raised concerns that social value appeared to be framed too narrowly around contractor activity rather than the wider benefits or disbenefits of the scheme for local communities. It was accepted that both contractor-led social value activity and the broader social impact of the infrastructure itself should be more clearly reflected in the assessment criteria.

10. A committee member suggested that absolute statutory requirements, such as planning permissions and Natural England approval, should be more clearly distinguished from evaluative criteria which indicate how good the outcome is.

11. In response, the Infrastructure Delivery Director agreed that some requirements are minimum standards, but noted that they still involve substantial work and remain essential preconditions before construction could commence. It was also noted that ranges would be helpful in areas such as cost and value for money, particularly as final construction prices and value engineering options are still being developed.

12. In response to a question about the criteria itself, Mr van Vuren explained that a robust framework should combine three elements: clear yes/no requirements, value-for-money evidence as per the Green Book and Department for Transport appraisal practice, and wider information that decision-makers may judge important even where it is not fully monetised. He suggested that the presentation to Cabinet could make risk assumptions, uncertainty and scenario testing more visible, including how benefit-cost outcomes change under different growth scenarios. 

13. A committee member asked how the proposed assessment criteria compared with the approach used for national schemes. In response, the Infrastructure Delivery Director noted that the council is preparing a Green Book-compliant full business case so that it would meet Department for Transport expectations and remain suitable should future government funding become available.

14. It was clarified that the full business case and the assessment criteria are intended to assess phase one on its own merits, rather than rely on assumptions about any later phase. It was noted that wider strategic fit with adopted council policy remains relevant, but the value-for-money assessment itself is being undertaken on the basis of the phase one scheme as a standalone intervention.

15. A committee member suggested that references to mitigation should be handled carefully in relation to ancient woodland and raised concern about whether the environmental baseline was sufficiently broad. The Infrastructure Delivery Director acknowledged the point on terminology and outlined the scale of ancient woodland impact and proposed compensatory planting.

16. In response to a question about competing objectives within the Local Transport Plan, the Infrastructure Delivery Director explained that the criteria should help Cabinet understand trade-offs more explicitly. It was suggested that more granular data beneath the headline value-for-money figure would better show how benefits and disbenefits are distributed across competing objectives.

Resolved

1. Move from pass/fail assessments to scored or graded assessments, to ensure more granularity in traffic outcomes, safety outcomes, land acquisition, carbon reduction, woodland mitigation, biodiversity net gain, construction price, social value, affordability, and value for money.

2. Widen the criteria for measuring social value to include the distribution of impacts on people in Herefordshire.

3. Ensure clearer reporting of project risks, assumptions and uncertainty.

4. Ensure the report to Cabinet incorporates high/medium/low growth risk scenarios.