|
Meeting: |
Executive |
|
Meeting date: |
15th July 2025 |
|
Report of: |
Garry Taylor, Director of City Development |
|
Portfolio of: |
Councillor Kilbane Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Economy and Culture Councillor Lomas Executive Member for Finance, Performance, Major Projects, Human Rights, Equality and Inclusion Councillor Ravilious Executive Member for Transport |
Decision Report: Major Projects –York Station Gateway & York Outer Ring Road
Subject of Report
1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Executive with an update on the design, delivery and current progress of York Station Gateway and York Outer Ring Road, including their funding status.
2. The report also seeks approval for the next steps for the delivery of each of the schemes as follows:
a) York Station Gateway (YSG) - to complete the approved scheme that is currently delivering on site and agree to an additional funding allocation, made-up of reallocated funding from external grant providers.
b) York Outer Ring Road (YORR) - to agree to deliver the scheme in four phases, prioritising available funding to the local plan infrastructure requirements, unlocking key development sites and providing much needed new homes.
c) To delegate relevant provision to make and accept funding bids against the outline programme to the Director of City Development in consultation with the Director of Governance, the Director of Finance and relevant Executive member(s).
Benefits and Challenges
Benefits
3. Completing the York Station Gateway scheme, will transform the city, creating an attractive and welcoming entrance to the east of the station, complementing the planned new western entrance onto York Central. It will drive accessibility and transport benefits and provide a suitable setting for York’s iconic and nationally significant walls together with space and opportunity to encourage people to dwell and linger in what is a unique heritage asset.
4. York is a world-class destination which is home to 200,000 proud citizens and accommodates circa 9m visitors a year, it is critical the YSG is a safe, accessible space that encourages more residents and visitors to choose sustainable rail travel to and from the city.
5. The design of the YSG will complement plans for the footstreets and spaces across the city centre (known as Reimagining York Streets), creating a seamless and cohesive experience and clearly setting out York’s offer, both culturally, for economic opportunity and for leisure and retail.
6. YSG will provide significantly improved access to the station for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users. Make it easier to change between different modes of transport. Create new public spaces and a more pedestrian friendly experience. As well as create an improved setting for the city walls and other heritage buildings in the area.
7. YORR - Taking the recommended phased/iterative approach to deliver the Outer Ring Road will mean the benefits of the Outer Ring Road are delivered where analysis shows they are most needed. By initially focusing on unlocking the Local Plan through junction improvements and active travel routes, more housing for residents will be delivered allowing the city to grow in line with demand. The active travel routes will provide greater options for pedestrians and cyclists. Works will enhance connections to the A1(M), cross country routes and enable better access for residents to wider employment opportunities, whilst attracting more residents to York. This will also reduce localised congestion and delays.
Challenges
8. Increases in construction costs, inflation, and market volatility have impacted procurement and delivery costs across both schemes.
9. In the case of YSG specifically, abnormal works and the change of specifications to improve access, better cycling provision, and the associated delay, has led to substantial additional costs, which CYC are contracted to fund.
10. The Contract chosen for P2 and P4 which are managed by CYC was New Engineering Contract (NEC)3 Option A which is a fixed priced lump sum with a schedule of activities. This NEC contract operates the EWN -Early Warning Notice and CE -Compensation Event mechanisms for managing risk, change and variations. There were Provisional Sums (PS) (where works are identified but not all of the details around their delivery known) contained in the contract (e.g. the Substation). The inclusion of PS in this type of contract is generally not ideal, as it assumes there is a degree of uncertainty and likely changes / instructions / variations to come, which in this case did materialise.
11. There was also an agreed risk register for allocation of risk items between Client and Contractor. A number of these risks have materialised through the project, and these have largely been elements that were allocated to the Client.
Policy Basis for Decision
12. Delivering York Station Gateway and the Outer Ring Road are key actions within the Council Plan 2023-2027. Both schemes contribute to the council plan vision and will establish the conditions that would make York a healthier, fairer, more affordable, more sustainable and more accessible place, creating more regional opportunities to help today’s residents and benefit future generations. Improving the connection of rail and road to the region and beyond will enable economic growth aligned to the emerging MCA Local Growth Plan for the benefit of residents.
13. The York Station Gateway and Outer Ring Road directly contributes to the Climate Change Strategy 2022-2032 and subsequent Local Transport Strategy 2024-2040, which seeks to reduce carbon emissions from transport by 71%. Prompting more residents and visitors to choose rail and use the sustainable travel infrastructure will directly contribute to the reduction in carbon emissions. The Outer Ring Road includes complementary active travel infrastructure, and will reduce congestion in the city, to enable residents to make modal choices that would also reduce emissions.
14. The Outer Ring Road is also critical to delivering the strategic sites identified in the recently adopted Local Plan, with the phasing focused on delivering the junctions to unlock housing growth – providing much needed homes in the City at pace.
15. These projects will also help to deliver against ‘Our City Centre’ Vision, approved by Executive in October 2023, with particular regard to the themes below:
Theme 1 – Family friendly and affordable city centre
Theme 2 – An attractive, active, and healthy city centre
Theme 3 – A sustainable city fit for the future
Theme 5 – A safe city centre, which is welcoming and accessible to all
Theme 6 – Celebrating heritage and making modern history
Financial Strategy Implications
York Station Gateway
16. Appendix A provides a detailed description of the original works packages and the current works packages. The YSG scheme is to be delivered in five packages as follows,
Package 1 (P1) – Enabling works is complete at a cost of £2m
Package 2 (P2) – Highway works is in delivery, is 1 year delayed and is estimated to complete at a cost of £26m, this includes the following additional costs:
o Substation works £1.2m,
o Complications relating to contractor accommodation and Utilities consents at the outset £1.4m,
o Delay due to design development/ground conditions and utilities £3.9m
o Additional/ works reprioritised between packages £5m
Package 3 (P3) – Station works is currently estimated to cost £23m (including Network Rail (NR) land purchase costs). CYC are in the process of agreeing a fixed price position with London Northeastern Railway (LNER). These works are on land owned by LNER and are to be delivered by LNER. This is part of the Works Agreement entered into by LNER and City of York Council (CYC) on 21st July 2022 with an estimated cost at the time of £9.6m plus land purchase costs
Package 4 (P4) – Loop Road and short stay is estimated to complete at a cost of £4m. Land costs are included.
Package 5 (P5) – Multi-storey car park is estimated to be completed by 2029 and the cost of this will be borne by Network Rail (NR).
17. The current approved budget is £32.4m, which is made up from a combination of funds from West Yorkshire-Plus Transport Fund (WYTF), Department for Transport Transforming Cities Fund (DfT), and LNER funds. In addition, funding of £2.8m is to come from Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) through reprofiling of the current programme and £1m from the 2025/26 Mayoral Bus Grant to provide a current total of £36.2m.
18. Package 4 of the YSG scheme comprises construction of an access route around the York Railway Institute building at the southwestern edge of the station. New bus stands and a turning loop for bus services will be delivered alongside improved and new connections for pedestrians, wheelchair users, wheeling and cycling. New bus stands will enable services to be reallocated from existing stops outside the Railway Station, increasing capacity to help enable ambitions for bus passenger growth and providing a location for rail replacement bus services. The bus loop will allow bus services arriving at York City Centre to turn at the Railway Station, which removes the need for circuitous bus routing, such as operating down Skeldergate and Nunnery Lane, purely to be facing in the right direction at the Railway Station.
19. Reprofiling existing BSIP1 funding into YSG will significantly reduce the risk that the intended benefits to bus users and operators will not be realised. The York Enhanced Bus Partnership agreed in January 2025 that £2.8m of Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) funding could be reprofiled from delivering radial route bus priority into delivering YSG bus improvements including the new loop road to enable the outlined bus benefits to be achieved. Should Executive be content with the recommendation officers will complete the administrative work with the Department for Transport (Dft) to reprofile the funding. Initial, positive, discussions have been held with the Dft.
20. Financial Ask – Additional funding of £18.5m to be allocated from within the existing capital programme.
York Outer Ring Road
York Outer Ring Road financial implications are as follows:
21. Current spend on YORR is £14m, with further phases to be funded through a mix of grant funding, future borrowing, and developer contributions aligned with housing delivery.
22. Original estimates for YORR were based on the roundabouts being upgraded (2016) followed by simple dualling (2019) and a non-detailed high-level costing of works in 2020. As part of obtaining the planning permission a more detailed pricing review was undertaken October 2024 with a final report from Pell Frishmann in March 2025. In addition, works were commissioned to market test and estimate the project, this was done in accordance with Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) class 3.
23. The approved budget was originally £67.4m, broken down as follows; DfT £25.1m, CYC £4.3m and WYCA £38m, however recent estimates from our cost consultants indicate a total cost of £164m.
24. This takes account of recent global events, new legislation and the additional needs of the project which impacted significantly on the costings as detailed below. The scale of inflationary impact over this time period is not out of step with that experienced on other major development schemes of this type globally and nationally, with the compounding impact over time, and particular pressures within construction sector activity and supply chains making this a key challenge. Main factors effecting forecasted costs being:
a) Increased inflationary pressure due to global and national fiscal events giving industry wide cost increases of over 35% approximately £23.6m.
b) The impact of guidance and legislation such as LTN1/20 in expanding the needs and requirements for cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, which includes ecology, archaeology and noise restrictions. Approximated £8.7m
c) To ensure any changes satisfy the 25 planning conditions. In addition, the technical evaluation of the roundabouts was £44.4m
d) Other factors include £10m estimate for structures to incorporate underpasses and new bridges relating to the dualling.
e) Estimated utility costs of £7.4m.
f) Landscape and Archaeological costs £2.75m.
25. It is proposed to fund this through a combination of (WYTF) from YORR and Castle Mills Bridge, and a request for funding from the York & North Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (YNYCA). Should this approach be unsuccessful, we would need to explore reprioritisation within the capital programme.
26. We would recommend that we ensure as far as possible that we maximise early spend of WYTF on YSG and YNYCA, to ensure that we are spending external funding before committing to borrowing. This will both support delivery against spend milestones with external partners, and minimise borrowing costs associated with wider funding sources, making the cashflow more efficient.
27. We are therefore proposing to deliver this via four distinct phases to match spend to available budget, prioritising elements critical to Local Plan infrastructure, unlocking housing allocations, and avoiding over exposure to financial risk.
28. Financial Ask - Pre-Tender-Estimates include a 15% Contingency & Inflation allowance of 4.1%.
29. Commit £27m of existing £52m budget to begin the scheme with the first phase being the delivery of Clifton Moor roundabout, unlocking housing development. Release £14.55m of the remaining budget to complete YSG, subject to WYCA approval and other funding options outlined below. It is also proposed to add £5m to the scheme as developer contribution.
Options to Reduce Costs
30. York Station Gateway:
31. Do Minimum Option: Deliver a reduced scheme omitting demolition of train operator accommodation (TOC) and the full bus loop design. Estimated cost of £3m. However, this option risks loss of external support and strategic transport integration. A contract was entered into in July 2022, for these works and this option would potentially result in a breach of that contract.
32. Value Engineering: Further work could be done on Packages 3 and 4 to rescope to simplify finishes, rationalise materials, and reduce bespoke architectural elements. As many of the materials are present in the Package 2 works this would result in a lack of cohesion within the whole project.
33. Phased Delivery: Defer some elements of Packages 3 or 4 into a later phase if matched funding or value capture opportunities arise (e.g. station retail lease income). LNER have explored such options with CYC Planning & Conservation Officers and this conversation is ongoing.
34. York Outer Ring Road:
35. Defer Lower-Priority Junctions: If funding remains constrained, lower-priority junction upgrades could be postponed until housing trigger points or planning gain funding is secured.
36. Simplify Underpasses: Assess potential to convert some proposed underpasses to at-grade crossings or simpler infrastructure to reduce ecological and construction complexity.
Recommendation and Reasons
37. Recommendations - The Executive is asked to:
a) Note the status and funding position of the YSG and YORR programmes.
b) Approve the continuation and completion of the YSG scheme – (YSG Option 3 below), including the allocation of an additional sum of £18.5million, to be funded through a reprioritisation of a combination of external grants and contributions from the rail industry.
c) Approve the review and renegotiation of any existing grant funding arrangements in relation to the YSG and YORR schemes and delegate authority to the Director of City Development, in consultation with the Director of Governance and the Director of Finance, to conduct that review and renegotiation and to take such steps as are necessary to enter into the resulting agreements.
d) Approve £2.8m of CYC BSIP1 funding be allocated to the YSG scheme and delegate authority to the Director of City Development, in consultation with the Executive Member, Director of Governance and the Director of Finance, to take such steps as are necessary to enter into any resulting agreements.
e) Approve the procurement of contractors and specialist support services to enable timely completion of the YSG project and delegate authority to the Director of City Development, in consultation with the Director of Governance and the Director of Finance, to procure such contractors and/or consultants and to take such steps as are necessary to award and enter into the resulting contracts (including any and all planning agreements and/or highways/land agreements as required; however for the sake of clarity this delegation is not for any requirements of either the Local Planning and/or Highways Authority). The delegations given in this recommendation must be exercised within the budgets approved within this report.
f) Approve the proposed phased approach to delivering the YORR scheme – (YORR Option 3), prioritising infrastructure that unlocks housing and underpins the Local Plan objectives.
g) Approve the procurement of contractors and specialist support services to enable timely delivery of future phases of the YORR programme and delegate authority to the Director of City Development, in consultation with the Director of Governance and the Director of Finance, to procure such contractors and/or consultants and to take such steps as are necessary to award and enter into the resulting contracts (including any and all planning agreements and/or highways / land agreements as required; however for the sake of clarity this delegation is not for any requirements of either the Local Planning and/or Highways Authority). The delegations given in this recommendation must be exercised within the budgets approved within this report.
h) Approve the application for and acceptance of funding bids necessary to deliver the YSG and YORR schemes and delegate authority to the Director of City Development, in consultation with the Executive Member, Director of Governance and the Director of Finance, to apply for and accept such funding bids, and to take such steps as are necessary to enter into the resulting agreements and any subsequent modifications and/or extensions thereto.
i) Note the financial and delivery risks associated with both schemes and the mitigation measures proposed.
j) Note the lessons learned to date and instruct officers to carry out a formal lesson learned process post completion of YSG Phase 2 and YORR Phase 1.
Reasons
38. The agreement of the above recommendations will enable the following outcomes:
a) The completion of key strategic transport and regeneration infrastructure projects that are central to the delivery of the Council Plan 2023–27, the Local Plan, and ‘Our City Centre’ vision.
b) To secure the regeneration benefits of YSG, including improved active travel links, a transformed public realm, more efficient public transport to and from York Station.
c) To unlock the delivery of over 3,557 homes (based on local plan allocations) and critical infrastructure through a phased YORR programme, while managing financial risk and maintaining delivery momentum.
d) To ensure appropriate governance and delegation for the pursuit of funding opportunities that will enable both schemes to be delivered within an affordable and sustainable framework.
e) To ensure that we have the correct skills and resources to deliver world class regeneration outcomes as befits a globally renowned city.
Background
39. The YSG and YORR schemes represent two of the City of York Council’s most significant infrastructure and regeneration projects, each delivering long-term benefits to connectivity, active travel, sustainable transport, housing growth, and place-making across the city. Both schemes need to be considered now as they are at key decision points.
40. YSG requires additional investment to complete the programme in full following revised cost estimates and tender returns.
41. The YSG project has been in development for several years in partnership with NR and LNER, supported by funding from the WYTF and the DfT. It aims to reconfigure the area in front of YSG to improve public transport integration, reduce congestion, improve air quality and deliver a high-quality public realm.
42. Appendix 1 – provides a detailed breakdown of what was contained in the original package and what is now in each of the packages.
43. YORR requires formal approval for phased delivery and associated procurement to secure continued momentum, unlock development land, and align with available funding.
44. YORR is a strategic transport intervention intended to address congestion and journey time reliability around York’s outer ring road, support the Local Plan housing allocations, and deliver essential active travel and ecological improvements. It has been developed incrementally, with junction upgrades already completed and the remaining works proposed to be delivered in four prioritised phases.
45. The Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/20 which relates to the “Cycle Infrastructure Design” was published by the DfT on the 27th July 2020 and provides guidance and good practice for local authorities to follow. Non-statutory guidance of this nature places the onus on Local Authorities to either follow or exceed the recommendations otherwise there would be a risk of damage or harm (discriminatory, reputational, financial, legal) from non-compliance.
46. As part of the planning review for YORR the outline proposals were evaluated against this document resulting in some key design alterations and requirements some of which are mentioned below:
a) Reduction of speed limits at all roundabout locations from 60mph to 40mph.
b) Scheme limits defined at A19 Shipton Road Roundabout; scheme proposals only allow for the connection of the proposed orbital route to the existing cycling infrastructure and not the crossing of the A19.
c) Realignment of the shared cycleway footway between Clifton Moor and Wigginton Road Roundabout; the route now utilises the proposed underpass at Clifton Moor Roundabout with users provided with a shared cycleway footway on the south side of the A1237. This connects into existing provision on Stirling Road via a parallel crossing.
d) Provision of Toucan crossing facilities on the south side of Wigginton Road to connect with Stirling Road and the cycleway / footway link currently provided between Wigginton Road and Haxby Road Roundabouts.
e) Provision of two Toucan crossing facilities on the east side of Wigginton Road Roundabout to allow users a controlled crossing point across the A1237.
f) Provision of a shared cycleway / footway between Wigginton Road Roundabout and a new Toucan Crossing location some 180m to the north. The shared cycleway / footway is proposed to replace the previously proposed outline design
47. All these requirements for compliance have meant an increase in costs from not only construction and infrastructure but also land take.
48. It should be noted that whilst the above guidance is not statutory, non-compliance will reduce our ability to apply for funding from DfT and other government institutions.
49. This report has been brought forward to provide a full update on the status of both projects, to seek approval for the proposed funding, delivery, and governance approach, and to secure the next steps required to deliver both programmes effectively and within an appropriate financial framework.
Previous Executive decisions that have impacted this report are listed below.
York Station Gateway
50. On 26th November 2020, Executive approved the project Delivery and Procurement Strategy and enabled arrangements to be put in place to purchase land, place orders with utility companies and to proceed with the detailed design and procurement of Packages 1, 2 and 4 of the Scheme.
51. At the same meeting, the Executive also approved a revised budget of £25,723k which was funded from West Yorkshire Transport Fund (WYTF) to a value of £12,873k, West Yorkshire Transforming Cities (TCF) to a value of £12,250k and LNER contribution of £600k. The council were also granted £5,005k development funding to pursue land purchase negotiations, place orders with statutory utility providers and proceed with the scheme detailed design of Packages 1, 2 and 4. Following this approval, the drawing down of funds was agreed with West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) and the project team enacted the Executive approval accordingly.
52. Members were updated by a further report (on the 18th of November 2021) which showed an updated budget (£26,490k) funded from WYTF £12,873k, TCF £13,117k and LNER contribution of £500k. The assumed spend at that time was as follows:
I. Package 1 was £3.876m (Including £620k plus fees for land)
II. Package 2 was £6.109m
III. Package 3 was £7.319m
IV. Package 4 was £9.186m.
V. Package 5 was to be paid by LNER
53. In August 2024, an Officer Decision was published. This was in response to concerns raised by the York Access Forum (YAF) regarding accessibility and materials used in the YSG design. These changes resulted in increased delivery costs which were necessary to meet equalities obligations and public expectations.
54. The Executive were advised on the 21 January 2025 of the following;
a) The YSG scheme was to be delivered in five works packages. The first package of enabling works involving the diversion of key statutory utilities from in and around Queen Street Bridge to enable its demolition this was completed in October 2023. This package of work was delivered by CYC and completed on budget.
b) Following a procurement exercise, John Sisk and Son were appointed, in August 2023 as the main delivery contractor for Package 2 Highway Works. At the time (21 January 2025) estimated completion of the Package 2 works was February 2026, a one-year delay.
c) Package 2 of the scheme required the acquisition of two areas of land: an area of the station long stay car park owned by Network Rail; and an area of land to the front of George Stephenson House owned by Canada Life. Both parcels of land have been acquired at a total cost of £2.8m (including fees).
d) A further parcel of land currently in the station car park is required for the delivery of Packages 3 and 4 of the YSG scheme, and negotiations are taking place. At the time of the report dated 21 January 2025 the Package 2 works were forecasting a £7m funding gap to complete delivery.
55. This report builds upon the above decisions and sets out the updated financial, delivery, and strategic case for continuing both programmes.
56. YSG – as advised above owing to further design development, the works package boundaries were redefined, and at the time of going into contract for Package 2, the values of P2 and P4 had been reset as £12.647m and £1.664m respectively. These values were agreed by the project cost planners Turner and Townsend and were subsequently agreed by the West Yorkshire Combine Authority (WYCA) in the approval of the Final Business Case with costs (FBC+). Approval to Proceed on Package 2 was subsequently given by WYCA and the contract with Sisk was signed.
57. It should be noted that if the Works Agreement dated 21 July 2022 had not been entered into CYC would potentially have lost £13.117m from DFT funding for transforming cities.
58. The full value of P2, including project development and land costs is currently estimated as £26.139m (rounded to £26m above). If the project is paused after the delivery of P2, then accounting for land and project development costs across all packages, the overall spend forecasted is £31m (rounded).
59. The value of Package 3 station Works (P3) increased by £2.7m (rounded) following tender returns in January 2025. This tender was non-compliant and was therefore rejected by LNER. CYC and LNER are currently working to deliver a variation to the contract mentioned above dated July 2022, to provide a fixed price to CYC for the package 3 works. The value of P3 is currently estimated as £23m (rounded), this includes land cost and fees for package 3 and CYC Direct costs.
York Outer Ring Road
60. Executive in March 2021 were advised as follows;
a) The YORR Improvement programme comprises two main elements which have become a single scheme of delivery. Members were reminded that in 2016, a scheme to upgrade seven junctions between Wetherby Road and Monks Cross secured funding through the West Yorkshire Plus Transport Fund administered by West Yorkshire Combined Authority.
b) In late 2019, the Department for Transport (DfT) gave endorsement to a Major Roads Network grant for dualling a 7.5km length of the A1237 between A19 Rawcliffe and A1036 Little Hopgrove. This element has now been merged with the junction upgrades, for planning and legal reasons, and this was approved by Members at the Executive Meeting in February 2020.
c) For the York Outer Ring Road, Executive has previously endorsed the principle of phased delivery, most recently in November 2023, aligning the scheme with Local Plan infrastructure priorities and housing site unlocks
61. The Executive in January 2025 were advised as follows.
a) During 2024/25, the focus of activity for the project team was gaining planning approval for the scheme. The scheme was approved by the City of York’s planning committee on Tuesday 19 March 2024, and referred to the Secretary of State, and the York Outer Ring Road planning application was approved on the 12 April 2024.
b) After the granting of planning approval, a cost review was undertaken with the aim of updating all the key areas of the project such as the latest anticipated cost, programme, risk and land acquisition against the original business case and funding. The review will help inform the required update to the business case for funders and the best way for the project to progress forward through to delivery.
c) The cost review report which was issued in October 2024 has confirmed that there is a significant funding gap to deliver the whole of the dualling scheme. Due to the funding gap, CYC is looking to reduce the scope of the works to accord with the available funding. This involves optioneering and value engineering to establish what elements of the scheme, in economic terms, are best value for money. Given the nature of the works, the likely reduction in scope will involve sections of the dualling scheme being omitted and focus being turned to upgrade roundabouts and improvements to active travel measures. The outcome of this cost review has generated a number of queries and issues to address prior to determining a way forward and has thus impacted on the programme. The previous programme was to present a report to Executive Committee by November 2024; this has now slipped to July 2025.
Next Steps / Lessons Learned
62. As part of managing major projects going forward officers are undertaking a deep dive into the capital programme, however these are the things that are currently known.
a) Making Changes once a project has started is very expensive.
b) Project Delivery Capacity must be improved including resourcing in legal and procurement, with Corporate Programme Management Office (PMO) including corporate compliance, financial and resource provision and oversight. A number of posts are currently out for permanent recruitment.
c) Better oversight of external grants and S106 and their incorporation within the whole approach to capital programme delivery.
d) Wider training, clearer process maps for decisions with clear gateway points, monthly corporate capital programme meetings.
e) A more strategic approach to procurement, which looks at how we package up procurements, partner more effectively and take a 5-year horizon plan with regular overview discussions across the programme.
f) Recognising skills gap and getting staff on board to deliver instead of relying so heavily on external consultants, accepting these will still be needed.
g) It is suggested that governance be strengthened with the introduction of two new meetings Programme Executive Liaison and Corporate Programme Management providing strength to the existing structure.
h) The NEC3 (Form A) Contract should only be used on the basis that the design and scope are sufficiently developed and agreed (with minimal or no provisional sums), and a clearer apportionment of the risk to the contractor.
i) The choice of contract will also be influenced by market conditions and contractor appetite, particularly around risk. Awareness and apportionment of residual risks should be clearly defined and well understood and documented.
j) Ensuring that all legal consents regarding statutory undertakers are agreed and in place prior to signing any Construction Contracts.
k) Required site investigations are as exhaustive as possible to ensure risks are mitigated.
Consultation
63. The above schemes have been developed through extensive consultation with all stakeholders going back many years. In addition, consultation took place throughout the planning process.
64. A version of this report was discussed at Corporate Scrutiny Committee on the 9th of June 2025, and this report has been updated to reflect comments received.
Options
65. Station Gateway:
a) Option 1 - Station Gateway – Do nothing and stop after package 2.
b) Option 2 – Station Gateway – Deliver a compromised scheme with no demolition of the train operator's accommodation (TOC) and Cycle heaven with a different taxi solution. It should be noted that City of York Council do not own the land.
c) Option 3 – Station Gateway - Continue to deliver the full scheme and agree to the funding allocation requested by the Rail Industry.
66. York Outer Ring Road:
a) Option 1 – York Outer Ring Road – Do nothing. Shelve the project and do not take the works forward.
b) Option 2 – York Outer Ring Road - Do minimum. Complete the work to the existing roundabouts and do not complete the dualling of the highway between A19 and Little Hopgrove.
c) Option 3 – York Outer Ring Road – Phase the scheme. Establish a phased approach to the scheme using housing as a criterion to determine the delivery order.
Analysis
67. Station Gateway:
a) Option 1 - significant cost overruns risk will be eliminated; however, the benefits of the scheme will not be achieved the relationship with the Rail Industry, Government office will be severely damaged bearing in mind we are currently in contracts with LNER. This option would risk a breach of the existing contract. This option is not recommended.
b) Option 2 - will deliver completed cycle lanes, the bus interchange, portico and semi-permanent taxi / drop off arrangements. This will require circa £3m in expenditure and this will not be supported by the rail industry, this option also puts the bus loop at risk. This option would risk a breach of the existing contract. This option is not recommended.
c) Option 3 - this option will deliver most of the benefits of the scheme, however, officers will need to confirm that the rail industry will be delivering Package 5. This option will also remove the cost overrun risk on package 3. This would require circa £18.5m additional funding to complete the project. This option is recommended.
68. York Outer Ring Road
a) Option 1 – The regeneration ambitions for this area would not be achieved. Additional housing could not be delivered for the wider York area. The benefits set out in the section above would not be deliverable. There have been costs to date associated with the achievement of the confirmed design and the planning process these would become abortive costs.
The recent planning application (April 24), that took 18 months to achieve, would lapse within the 3-year period (April 27) requiring a new planning application should the works become viable in the future. In addition, the existing grant funding could be at risk. The further funding opportunities would be lost due to the scheme being abandoned. This option is not recommended.
b) Option 2 – Limited scheme without the dualling element to the highway between A19 and Little Hopgrove. Whilst some of the housing could be achieved most of the listed benefits (see above) would be compromised or not realised. This would require a new planning application which could take in the region of two years to achieve including the stakeholder engagement and the revised designs required, plus the additional costs associated with a planning application. This option is not recommended.
c) Option 3 – Deliver existing scheme but through a carefully phased approach. Unlocking the regeneration of the YORR has always presented significant challenges to overcome. The previously agreed delivery approach could be phased and can be achieved. This would allow the current planning permission (April 24) to be utilised and the delay to starting the works therefore minimised. Phasing would allow time to an enable further funding streams to be explored and achieved. This option is recommended.
Implications - Financial
York Outer Ring Road
69. Current spend on YORR is £14m, with further phases to be funded through a mix of grant funding, future borrowing, and developer contributions aligned with housing delivery. The whole approved scheme was estimated to cost £66.4m, however recent estimates from our cost consultants indicate a total cost of £164m this has been driven by:
a) Increased inflationary pressure due to national fiscal events giving industry wide cost increases of over 35%.
b) The impact of guidance and legislation such as LTN/1/20 in expanding the needs and requirements for cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, which includes ecology, archaeology and noise restrictions.
c) To ensure any changes satisfy the 25 planning conditions.
d) Other factors include £10m estimate for structures to incorporate underpasses and new bridges relating to the dualling.
e) Estimated utility costs of £7.4m.
f) Landscape and Archaeological costs £2.75m.
70. The recommendations of the report transfer funding from the YORR Scheme to support the completion of the YSG scheme. The impact on the YORR scheme is shown below.
|
Funding |
Remaining Budget at 31/3/2025 £’m |
Proposed £’m |
Change £’m |
|
WYTF |
23.834 |
9.284 |
-14.55 |
|
DfT Grant |
25.093 |
25.093 |
- |
|
CYC |
3.474 |
3.474 |
- |
|
Developer Contributions |
- |
5.000 |
+5.0 |
|
Total Funding |
52.401 |
42.851 |
-9.55 |
71. The additional funding from developer contributions (anticipated from the Clifton Moor roundabout) will mitigate the reduction in the scheme and allow the next phase to progress.
York Station Gateway
72. Executive approved the budget for York Station Gateway of £26.49m at its meeting 18 November 2021.
73. Executive agreed to an increase of the budget in January 2025 of £5.908m (subject to approval of West Yorkshire Combined Authority) transferring £5m from the York Outer Ring Road Scheme and utilising £908k from the unallocated West Yorkshire Transport Fund Budget. There has also been a £3.8m contribution from Capital Bus Grants to deliver the improved bus infrastructure and loop road at the station. £2.8m is to come from Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) through reprofiling of the current programme and £1m from the 2025/26 Mayoral Bus Grant.
74. This leads to the current budget for the scheme
|
Funding |
Nov 2021 £’m |
Jan 2025 £’m |
|
WYTF |
12.873 |
18.781 |
|
WYCA Transforming Cities |
13.117 |
13.117 |
|
LNER Contribution |
0.500 |
0.500 |
|
Contribution from Capital Bus Grants |
|
3.800 |
|
Total Funding |
26.490 |
36.198 |
75. The recommendations of the report add a further £18.5m to the scheme which is proposed to be funded from a reallocation from the West Yorkshire Transport Fund allocation £14.55m and additional funding from the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority £3.956m.
|
Funding |
Jan 2025 £’m |
Proposed £’m |
Change £’m |
|
WYTF |
18.781 |
33.331 |
+14.55 |
|
WYCA Transforming Cities |
13.117 |
13.117 |
0.0 |
|
Contribution from Capital Bus Grants |
3.800 |
3.800 |
0.0 |
|
YNYCA |
- |
3.956 |
+3.956 |
|
LNER Contribution |
0.500 |
0.500 |
0.0 |
|
Total Funding |
36.198 |
54.704 |
+18.506 |
76. Human Resources (HR) There are no HR implications contained within this report. Should any additional resource be required by the Council to deliver these schemes these would be established and resourced in accordance with Council policy.
77. Legal - In respect of the grant funding arrangements for both projects, consideration will need to be given to the impact of varying the schemes for which grant funding has been awarded. Any changes to the schemes may need to be captured in a variation of the relevant funding agreements to ensure the Council remains compliant with the terms of those agreements.
78. For the purposes of the Subsidy Control Act 2022, as most grant funding in relation to both the YSG and YORR Schemes will be used to commission civil engineering and/or construction works packages, or to commission specialist consultancy services in relation to the works, it is anticipated that such funding would not be treated as controlled subsidies under the 2022 Act as:
I. Any grant funding used by the Council to fund any works, goods and/or services related to these Schemes, will not been seen as giving any contractor, consultant and/or supplier any economic advantage or benefit confer an economic advantage if the relevant works, goods and/or services could reasonably be considered to have been given on the same terms and price as they could have been obtained on the market. This is known as the ‘commercial market operator’ (CMO) principle. Public authorities will generally be acting in accordance with the CMO principle when they engage in a compliant competitive public procurement for works, goods or services. Payment for the works, goods or services purchased will, therefore, not generally be considered to confer an economic advantage, as the public authority will be purchasing such goods or services at a market rate.
II. In addition to (i) above, if a public authority has commissioned works, goods and/or services using grant funding following a compliant competitive public procurement, this will not be seen to have any relevant effect on competition or investment in the UK or international trade or investment.
III. If there is any change to how the works, goods and/or services are to be procured Legal Services must be consulted, in order to make a full and proper detailed assessment under the 2022 Act at the start of any grant funding application process that the Council decides to take part in. The Council’s collaborative partners may also need to be consulted and take part in any such applications for additional funding.
79. In respect of the YORR scheme, should option 3 be chosen as the preferred option, consideration will need to be given to the legal opinion previously obtained from a barrister in respect of phasing to ensure any such phased scheme remains consistent with the advised approach given in that opinion in relation to potential CPO requirements.
80. The Council’s Legal Services team have been and will continue to be consulted on all matters relevant to the YSG and YORR schemes and where appropriate external legal advice may need to be commissioned.
81. Procurement - Any proposed works or services on all schemes will need to be commissioned via a compliant procurement route under the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules and where applicable, Procurement Act 2023. All tenders will need to be conducted in an open, fair, and transparent way to capture the key principles of procurement. Further advice regarding the procurement routes, strategies and markets must be sought from the Commercial Procurement team.
82. Health and Wellbeing - Transport schemes and the built environment have a major impact on health. Liveable and accessible schemes which prioritise walking, wheeling and cycling and which consider and mitigate poor air quality and noise are shown to be linked to reduced rates of obesity-linked diseases such as cardiovascular disease, and diseases such as asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease COPD and poorer mental health.
83. The integration of active travel options into both schemes covered by this report will be an important part of mitigating these risks, and members will need to be mindful when taking these decisions of the health evidence showing that reducing the number of car journeys people take positively affects health and for example mitigates air and noise pollution, a fact reflected in the Local Transport Strategy aspiration to reduce the number of miles travelled on York’s roads by at least 20% by 2030. When the YORR schemes are brought forward, Health Impact Assessments should be considered using the guidance and resources forthcoming in the Healthy Places Supplementary Planning Document.
84. Environment and Climate action - The carbon assessment undertaken for YORR shows that the scheme would lead to reductions in operational GHG emissions of 147 tCO2e and 935 tCO2e in the opening year (2025) and future year (2040) respectively. However, the assessment also shows that scheme would have an overall net adverse impact upon carbon (net of +50,638 tCO2e) due to emissions during the construction phase.
85. The scheme proposes a Carbon Reduction Plan to reduce construction carbon emissions, and this will be built into tender documentation and be an important part of any early contractor engagement. Mitigation measures associated with the build phase to reduce the construction emissions will be secured and could include working with contractors to use recovered/recycled/low carbon materials, introducing measures for green site compounds, minimising site vehicle miles and using low emissions/electric site vehicles were possible.
86. The construction element of the scheme will contribute 51,573 tCO2e to the UK's fourth carbon budget. This represents only 0.0026% of the budget and therefore within national context is considered to have negligible magnitude. In the local York context, 51,573tCO2e represents 5% of the current annual emissions in the city (2022) and could be considered non-negligible. The assessment follows relevant industry procedure and national guidance in this respect, as contained within the Climate Change Act (as amended) and the Carbon Budget Order 2021.
87. Overall emissions associated with YSG are estimated to be 12,276 tCO2e. A Carbon Impact Assessment has been completed with identified mitigations.
88. Affordability - York Station Gateway will attract tourism, potentially grow and maintain new and existing businesses and support the creation of new jobs.
89. Equalities and Human Rights - A full Equalities Impact Assessment has been completed. It highlights the need for ongoing dialogue with groups who may be impacted by the schemes and there have already been some changes made to designs as a result of this engagement taking place.
90. Data Protection and Privacy - The data protection impact assessment (DPIAs) screening questions were completed for the recommendations and options in this report and as there is no personal, special categories or criminal offence data being processed to set these out, there is no requirement to complete a DPIA at this time. However, this will be reviewed following the approved recommendations and options from this report and a DPIA completed if required.
91. Communications - As significant projects for the city they require communications support throughout the planning and construction phases, supported by a communications strategy to support and inform residents and businesses. The communications team already work closely with partners on communications for both projects and will continue to do so.
92. Economy - The full delivery of YSG and YORR projects is vital for driving economic growth, attracting inward investment and the delivery the agreed objectives of CYC’s economic strategy. The YSG project will modernise the city’s main transport hub which will in turn improving connectivity and create a more attractive gateway for residents, businesses and visitors.
93. YORR will unlock over 3,557 homes and key development land, supporting housing delivery and the Local Plan which again will be a key enabler in generating direct and indirect economic growth. These projects enhance access to jobs, services, and regional transport links for our residents and businesses making York more competitive and resilient business location. Not progressing these schemes risks losing external funding, delaying housing delivery, and damaging relationships with key partners.
94. Crime and Disorder – The Planning permission will be followed to ensure that all secure by Design elements are implemented.
95. Information Technology (IT) – There are no IT implications in this report.
96. Property – Property implications are covered within this report. Land acquisitions needed for the delivery of the schemes will involve property and legal work requiring internal resources, who will work with the Project Team.
Risk Management
97. The principal risks associated with the York Station Gateway and YORR projects at this stage are reputational, non-delivery and impact loss of revenue. This is why phasing the projects as proposed in this report is necessary, so that the regeneration of this area can progress and is not further stalled.
98. There is a risk that having engaged extensively and raised expectations amongst the public, the change of approach will not fully deliver initial expectations. However, the bigger risk to the city is not to delivery anything and see the regeneration of the area continue to stall.
99. There is a risk of further cost overruns for both schemes in the future. To mitigate this risk improved project management arrangements need to be in place. Regular reviews of the progress and the funding need to be shared with senior managers and any issues acted upon in a timely manner.
100. There is a risk that future funding bids may be unsuccessful, or funding/ grant streams may reduce due to economic conditions. CYC needs to be more proactive in seeking out and achieving additional funding. In addition, future borrowing may be considered.
Wards Impacted
101. All wards
Contact details
102.For further information please contact the authors of this Decision Report.
|
Name: |
Garry Taylor |
|
Job Title: |
Director of City Development |
|
Service Area: |
City Development |
|
Telephone: |
01904 551263 |
|
Report approved: |
Yes |
|
Date: |
03/07/2025 |
|
Name: |
Julie Burns |
|
Job Title: |
Head of City Development |
|
Service Area: |
City Development |
|
Telephone: |
01904 551768 |
|
Report approved: |
Yes |
|
Date: |
03/07/2025 |
|
Name: |
Patricia Salami |
|
Job Title: |
Head of Regeneration |
|
Service Area: |
City Development |
|
Telephone: |
01904 551031 |
|
Report approved: |
Yes |
|
Date: |
03/07/2025 |
Specialist officer (s)
Patrick Looker, AD Finance
Abbreviations
BSIP – Bus Services Improvement Plan
FBC – Full (final) Business Case
NR – Network Rail
NEC – New Engineering Contract
TCF – Transforming Cities Fund
WYCA – West Yorkshire Combined Authority
WYTF – West Yorkshire Transport Fund
YAF – York Access Forum
YORR – York Outer Ring Road
YSG – York Station Gateway
Background papers
Local Transport Strategy www.york.gov.uk/LocalTransportStrategy
Climate Change Strategy www.york.gov.uk/ClimateChange10YearStrategy
Economic Strategy www.york.gov.uk/StrategiesPoliciesPlans
Council Plan www.york.gov.uk/CouncilPlan
Executive February 2020
York Outer Ring Road Improvements February 2021
https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11116&Ver=4 item 94
Executive November
2020
York Station Gateway Funding
and Delivery
https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=12407&Ver=4
item 60
Executive March 2021
York Outer Ring Road Phase 1 Dualling
https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=12509&Ver=4 item 113
Executive November 2021
York Station Gateway project update
https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=12797&Ver=4 item 56
Executive October 2023
Delivering the Vision for the City Centre
https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=13931&Ver=4 item 37
Executive November 2023
Capital Programme Monitor
https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=13932&Ver=4 item 61
Officer Decision August 2024
(https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=7189) Decision ID: 7189
Executive January 2025
Budget report
https://modgov.york.gov.uk/documents/s181116/Capital%20Budget%20Jan%202025.pdf
Annexes
Annex A: Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA)
Annex B: Data Protection Impact Assessment DPIA)
Appendices
Appendix A: Detailed Package Details
ANNEX A
City of York Council
Equalities Impact Assessment
Who is submitting the proposal?
|
Directorate:
|
City Development |
|||
|
Service Area:
|
City Development |
|||
|
Name of the proposal:
|
Major Projects - York Station Gateway & York Outer Ring Road |
|||
|
Lead officer:
|
Garry Taylor – Director of City Development |
|||
|
Date assessment completed:
|
15/05/2025 |
|||
|
Names of those who contributed to the assessment: |
||||
|
Name |
Job title |
Organisation |
Area of expertise |
|
|
Laura Williams |
Assistant Director Customer, Communities and Inclusion |
CYC |
Equalities/ Information Governance |
|
|
Patricia Salami |
Head of Regeneration |
CYC |
Capital programme management |
|
|
Julie Burns |
Head of City Development |
CYC |
Capital Programme Management |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 1 - Aims and intended outcomes
|
1.1 |
What is the purpose of the proposal? Please explain your proposal in Plain English avoiding acronyms and jargon. |
|
|
This assessment covers two major strategic infrastructure projects: the Station Gateway and York Outer Ring Road (YORR). The Station Gateway aims to redevelop the area in front of York Station to enhance accessibility, improve active travel options, create a high-quality public realm, and support regeneration. YORR focuses on reducing congestion, enhancing journey reliability, and unlocking housing developments by delivering a phased upgrade of the outer ring road. |
|
1.2 |
Are there any external considerations? (Legislation/government directive/codes of practice etc.) |
|
|
Yes. Both projects are subject to statutory planning, funding conditions from the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Department for Transport and must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and human rights legislation. Public sector equality duties and environmental regulations also apply. |
|
1.3 |
Who are the stakeholders and what are their interests? |
|
|
Stakeholders include residents, commuters, transport operators (e.g., LNER, Network Rail), local businesses, accessibility groups such as the York Access Forum, planning authorities, developers, and funding bodies. Their interests range from improved connectivity and safety to economic growth, heritage preservation, and equitable access. |
|
1.4 |
What results/outcomes do we want to achieve and for whom? This section should explain what outcomes you want to achieve for service users, staff and/or the wider community. Demonstrate how the proposal links to the Council Plan (2019- 2023) and other corporate strategies and plans. |
|
|
Outcomes include enhanced accessibility and safety for all users, especially those with protected characteristics; reduced congestion; increased active travel; support for economic development and housing delivery; and alignment with the Council Plan (2023–2027), ‘Our City Centre’ Vision, and Climate Change Strategy. |
Step 2 - Gathering the information and feedback
|
2.1 |
What sources of data, evidence and consultation feedback do we have to help us understand the impact of the proposal on equality rights and human rights? Please consider a range of sources, including consultation exercises, surveys, feedback from staff, stakeholders, participants, research reports, the views of equality groups, as well your own experience of working in this area etc. |
|
|
Source of data/supporting evidence |
Reason for using |
|
|
Public consultations including feedback from York Access Forum (YAF) |
To gather a wide range of views on accessibility from disabled people who live, work, study and visit here, while recognising that this will not cover all views and issues. |
|
|
Reports from Turner & Townsend (T&T) (cost and impact
assessments) |
T&T are cost consultants on the scheme and therefore our professional services provider. |
|
|
Council Plan 2023–2027, Health and Wellbeing Strategy |
|
|
|
Climate Change Strategy |
|
|
|
Project planning documents and financial analysis reports |
|
|
|
Demographic and socioeconomic data from York Open Data |
|
|
|
Stakeholder meetings and formal representations from residents and transport partners |
|
|
Step 3 – Gaps in data and knowledge
|
3.1 |
What are the main gaps in information and understanding of the impact of your proposal? Please indicate how any gaps will be dealt with. |
|
|
Gaps in data or knowledge |
Action to deal with this |
|
|
Limited detailed modelling of long-term socioeconomic impacts across diverse communities |
Extend stakeholder engagement to include targeted outreach with underrepresented groups |
|
|
Incomplete forecasting of how construction phases will impact those with protected characteristics. |
Monitor feedback through implementation and conduct ongoing EIA
review |
|
|
Limited direct feedback from seldom-heard communities, including rural populations and disabled residents |
Collaborate with equality-focused community organisations for more inclusive consultation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 4 - Analysing the impacts or effects.
|
4.1 |
Please consider what the evidence tells you about the likely impact (positive or negative) on people sharing a protected characteristic, i.e., how significant could the impacts be if we did not make any adjustments? Remember the duty is also positive – so please identify where the proposal offers opportunities to promote equality and/or foster good relations. |
|||
|
Equality Groups and Human Rights. |
Key Findings/Impacts |
Positive (+) Negative (-) Neutral (0) |
High (H) Medium (M) Low (L) |
|
|
Age |
Improved active travel infrastructure and safer crossings enhance accessibility for older and younger people. |
+ |
H |
|
|
Disability
|
Some design choices (e.g., tactile surfacing, route gradients) initially raised concerns but are now under review after stakeholder input. |
+ |
H |
|
|
Gender
|
Neutral impact expected; project benefits are universally accessible. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Gender Reassignment |
No differential impact identified. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Marriage and civil partnership |
No differential impact identified. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Pregnancy and maternity |
Improved pedestrian routes and removal of congestion likely to benefit expectant mothers and those with young children. |
+ |
M |
|
|
Race |
No evidence of differential impact, but further monitoring recommended. |
0 |
M |
|
|
Religion and belief |
No differential impact identified. |
0 |
L
|
|
|
Sexual orientation
|
No differential impact identified. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Other Socio-economic groups including: |
Could other socio-economic groups be affected e.g., carers, ex-offenders, low incomes? |
|
||
|
Carer |
Improved connectivity and safer crossings benefit carers supporting individuals with mobility issues. |
+ |
M |
|
|
Low income groups |
Better transport access supports inclusive access to jobs and services; possible indirect benefit. |
+ |
H |
|
|
Veterans, Armed Forces Community |
Neutral impact; potential for improved access to support services via better connectivity. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Human Rights |
Projects promote the right to mobility, decent standard of living, and health by improving access and air quality. |
+ |
H |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on human rights: |
|
|
||
|
List any human rights impacted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use the following guidance to inform your responses:
Indicate:
· Where you think that the proposal could have a POSITIVE impact on any of the equality groups like promoting equality and equal opportunities or improving relations within equality groups
· Where you think that the proposal could have a NEGATIVE impact on any of the equality groups, i.e., it could disadvantage them
· Where you think that this proposal has a NEUTRAL effect on any of the equality groups listed below i.e., it has no effect currently on equality groups.
It is important to remember that a proposal may be highly relevant to one aspect of equality and not relevant to another.
|
High impact (The proposal or process is very equality relevant) |
· There is significant potential for or evidence of adverse impact · The proposal is institution wide or public facing · The proposal has consequences for or affects significant numbers of people · The proposal has the potential to make a significant contribution to promoting equality and the exercise of human rights.
|
|
Medium impact (The proposal or process is somewhat equality relevant) |
· There is some evidence to suggest potential for or evidence of adverse impact · The proposal is institution wide or across services, but mainly internal · The proposal has consequences for or affects some people · The proposal has the potential to make a contribution to promoting equality and the exercise of human rights
|
|
Low impact (The proposal or process might be equality relevant) |
· There is little evidence to suggest that the proposal could result in adverse impact · The proposal operates in a limited way · The proposal has consequences for or affects few people · The proposal may have the potential to contribute to promoting equality and the exercise of human rights
|
Step 5 - Mitigating adverse impacts and maximising positive impacts
|
5.1 |
Based on your findings, explain ways you plan to mitigate any unlawful prohibited conduct or unwanted adverse impact. Where positive impacts have been identified, what is been done to optimise opportunities to advance equality or foster good relations? |
|
· Based on the findings from Step 4, several measures are being undertaken to mitigate potential negative impacts and to promote positive outcomes: · Ongoing engagement with the York Access Forum and other stakeholder groups to review detailed design elements, especially related to accessibility. · Adjustments to materials and tactile surfacing following feedback from people with visual and mobility impairments. · Prioritising the sequencing of phases to avoid disproportionately affecting low-income and carer populations during construction. · Promotion of inclusive employment opportunities tied to the development process and long-term economic benefits. · Incorporating human rights principles into project governance to uphold access, non-discrimination, and community participation. |
|
Step 6 - Recommendations and conclusions of the assessment
|
6.1 |
Having considered the potential or actual impacts you should be in a position to make an informed judgement on what should be done. In all cases, document your reasoning that justifies your decision. There are four main options you can take: |
|
|
No major change to the proposal – the EIA demonstrates the proposal is robust. There is no potential for unlawful discrimination or adverse impact and you have taken all opportunities to advance equality and foster good relations, subject to continuing monitor and review. Adjust the proposal – the EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. This involves taking steps to remove any barriers, to better advance quality or to foster good relations.
Continue with the proposal (despite the potential for adverse impact) – you should clearly set out the justifications for doing this and how you believe the decision is compatible with our obligations under the duty
Stop and remove the proposal – if there are adverse effects that are not justified and cannot be mitigated, you should consider stopping the proposal altogether. If a proposal leads to unlawful discrimination, it should be removed or changed.
Important: If there are any adverse impacts you cannot mitigate, please provide a compelling reason in the justification column. |
||
|
Option selected |
Conclusions/justification |
|
|
Adjust the proposal
Adjust the proposal
|
The EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. Adjustments are required to address stakeholder concerns, especially regarding accessibility and socio-economic disadvantage.
Justification: Both Station Gateway and York Outer Ring Road projects align with York's strategic goals and demonstrate clear equality and human rights benefits. Concerns raised—such as those from disability groups and low-income communities—are being actively addressed through design adjustments, consultation, and monitoring. Therefore, the proposals should continue with modifications and inclusive oversight. |
|
Step 7 - Summary of agreed actions resulting from the assessment
|
7.1 |
What action, by whom, will be undertaken as a result of the impact assessment. |
|||
|
Impact/issue |
Action to be taken |
Person responsible |
Timescale |
|
|
Accessibility concerns (cycleways, surfacing, signage) |
Revise design based on feedback from York Access Forum |
Project Design Lead |
Accessibility concerns (cycleways, surfacing, signage) |
|
|
Socio-economic access during construction |
Sequence works to avoid disruption to key service routes |
Project / Programme Manager – |
Socio-economic access during construction |
|
|
Inclusive consultation |
Continue engagement with equality groups and community partners |
Community Engagement Officer |
Inclusive consultation |
|
|
Monitoring impacts on protected groups |
Establish review checkpoints during delivery phases |
Equalities Officer |
Monitoring impacts on protected groups |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 8 - Monitor, review and improve
|
8. 1 |
How will the impact of your proposal be monitored and improved upon going forward? Consider how will you identify the impact of activities on protected characteristics and other marginalised groups going forward? How will any learning and enhancements be capitalised on and embedded?
|
|
· The impact of both the Station Gateway and York Outer Ring Road proposals will be monitored through regular project review meetings, quarterly performance reporting, and updates to the Council’s Executive. · Equality metrics will be tracked, including accessibility audits, user satisfaction surveys, and consultation feedback analysis. · Issues raised during construction or post-implementation will be logged and addressed through established project governance. · Independent accessibility reviews will be carried out before each project phase reaches detailed design sign-off. · Learning will be documented and shared across council infrastructure programmes to ensure continuous improvement in inclusive planning and delivery.
|
|
ANNEX B
Data Protection Impact Assessment Screening Questionnaire
To confirm whether a full DPIA is required please go through the below and tick any boxes that are relevant.
|
Ref number: |
|
|
Name and Job title: |
Patricia Salami/Lorraine Lunt |
|
Date: |
19 May 2025 |
|
Description - Explain broadly what you aim to achieve and what type of processing it involves. You may find it helpful to refer or link to other documents, such as a project proposal, business case etc. |
|
|
Major Projects –York Station Gateway & York Outer Ring Road Purpose of the report To provide the executive with an update on the design and delivery of York Station Gateway and York Outer Ring Road and provide an update on the current progress on each of these schemes including their funding status. The report also seeks approval for the next steps for the delivery of each of the schemes as follows: · York Station Gateway (YSG) - to complete the approved scheme that is currently delivering on site and agree to an additional funding allocation, made-up of reallocated funding from external grant providers. · York Outer Ring Road (YORR) - to agree to deliver the scheme in four phases, prioritising available funding to the local plan infrastructure requirements, unlocking key development sites and providing much needed new homes. · To delegate relevant provision to make and accept funding bids against the outline programme to the Director of City Development in conjunction with the relevant Executive Member(s). |
|
Are you:
☒ starting a new (or reviewing an existing) project involving the use of personal data.
Are you planning to carry out any
☒ evaluation or scoring
☐ automated decision-making with significant effects;
☐systematic monitoring;
☒ processing of sensitive data or data of a highly personal nature
☐ processing on a large scale
☐ processing of data concerning vulnerable data subjects
☐ innovative technological or organisational solutions
☐ processing that involves preventing data subjects from exercising a right or using a service or contract.
☐ profiling to make decisions about people
☐ automated decision-making to make decisions about people
☐ process special-category data or criminal-offence data
☐ systematically monitor a publicly accessible place eg CCTV
☐ use innovative technology in combination with any of the criteria in the European guidelines
☒ use profiling to help make decisions on someone’s access to a service, opportunity or benefit
☐ use automated decision-making to help make decisions on someone’s access to a service, opportunity or benefit
☒ use special category data to help make decisions on someone’s access to a service, opportunity or benefit
☐ carry out profiling on a large scale
☐ process biometric or genetic data in combination with any of the criteria in the European guidelines
☒ combine, compare or match data from multiple sources
☐ process personal data without providing a privacy notice directly to the individual in combination with any of the criteria in the European guidelines
☐ process personal data in a way that involves tracking individuals’ online or offline location or behaviour, in combination with any of the criteria in the European guidelines
☐ process children’s personal data for profiling or automated decision-making or for marketing purposes, or offer online services directly to them
☒ process personal data that could result in a risk of harm in the event of a breach
☒ a change to the nature, scope, context or purposes of existing processing
If you have ticked any of the boxes above, you must complete a full DPIA. Please contact information.governance@york.gov.uk who will be able to advise and support you to do this
If you have not ticked any of the boxes above, you are not required to complete a full DPIA. However, we must record all decision making regarding DPIA, so please send your completed screening questionnaire to information.governance@york.gov.uk