Department for Regional Development DRD Draft Budget 2011-2015

8/8/2019 Department for Regional Development DRD Draft Budget 2011-2015

1/52

DRAFT BUDGET 2011-15:

SPENDING AND SAVING PROPOSALS WITHIN DEPARTMENT

FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

13 JANUARY 2011


2/52

DRAFT BUDGET 2011-15:SPENDING AND SAVINGS PROPOSALS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OFREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Contents

PageIntroduction 3

Spending Proposals 5

Savings Delivery Plans 11

Appendices

Appendix 1 Savings Delivery Plans 13

Appendix 2 Draft Budget 2010 Policy and Equality ImpactAssessment Consultation

[This shall be published shortly]

52

2


3/52

DRAFT BUDGET 2011-15:SPENDING AND SAVINGS PROPOSALS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENTFOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

1. The NI Executives Draft Budget Document 2011-15 was announced on

the 15 December by the Minister for Finance and Personnel. The Draft

Budget set out the proposed current expenditure and capital investment

allocation for NI Departments over the four Budget periods 2011-15. It canbe accessed on the Budget website:

www.northernireland.gov.uk/budget2010

2. This paper sets out the spending proposals and savings plans for the

Department for Regional Development (DRD) over the Budget years.

Consultation Arrangements

3. The announcement of the Draft Budget commenced a period of public

consultation the closing date being 9 February 2011. This has been

extended to 16 February.

4. In parallel DRD is also running a consultation on its own departmental

spending proposals and savings plans. This will include a separate

Equality Impact Assessment details of which can be found at Appendix 2.

This shall be published shortly.

5. The Department has already met with the Assembly Committee for

Regional Development on its spending proposals and savings options.

The Department will continue to consult with the Committee and other

stakeholders over the coming weeks.

3
http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/budget2010http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/budget2010http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/budget2010


4/52

6. We are also interested in hearing your views on any aspect of the attached

documents and would ask all interested parties to provide their responses

prior to the consultation closing date of 16 February 2011.

7. If this document is not in a format that suits you please let us know.

Contact details can be found below.

Contact Details

Roger Downey

Acting Director of FinanceDepartment for Regional Development

Room 4.27

Clarence Court

10-18 Adelaide Street

Belfast

BT2 8GB

Telephone: 02890 540848

E-mail: [email protected]

8. Comments should be sent to arrive no later than 16 February 2011.

9. Individual replies will not be issued to respondents, but a list of

respondents together with responses will be published on the

Departments website. If you do not wish your response or name to be

published on the website please advise in your correspondence to us.

4


5/52

DRAFT BUDGET 2010 SPENDING PROPOSALS - DEPARTMENT FORREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (DRD)

10. The Executives priority in this Budget is to stimulate the economy, tackle

disadvantage, protect the most vulnerable in our society and protect front

line services. As historically the largest capital department, DRD has a

lead role to improve the infrastructure to support this within the available

funding.

11. The overall aim of the Department is to improve quality of life by securing

transport and water infrastructure and shaping the regions long-term

strategic development. In pursuing this aim the key objectives of the

Department are:

Objective A - Supporting the economy by planning, developing and

maintaining safe and sustainable transportation networks; promoting

airport and harbour services; addressing regional imbalance in

infrastructure; and shaping the long-term future of the region; and

Objective B - Contributing to the health and well-being of the

community and the protection of the environment by maintaining and

developing the policy and regulatory environment which provides

sustainable, high quality water and sewerage services.

Investment in Public Services in 2011-15

12. The Draft Budget allocations for 2011-15 are set out in Tables 1 and 2

below.

5


6/52

Table 1 - Department for Regional Development Current Expenditure

2011-12 2012-13

2013-14 2014-15Objective and Spending Area m m m m

Objective ARoads 209.5 200.8 194.9 188.7Transport 90.5 92.8 71.1 71.7Total Objective A 300.0 293.6 266.0 260.4Objective BWater and Sewerage 200.3 193.6 193.6 193.6Total Objective B 200.3 193.6 193.6 193.6

Total 500.3 487.2 459.6 454.0Table 2 - Department for Regional Development InvestmentExpenditure

2011-12 2012-13

2013-14 2014-15Objective and Spending Area m m m m

Objective ARoads 144.9 254.5 387.4 324.7Transport 90.7 25.7 13.3 53.9EU Structural Funds 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2Total Objective A 235.8 280.3 400.9 378.8Objective BWater and Sewerage 202.5 145.0 140.0 180.0Total Objective B 202.5 145.0 140.0 180.0Total 438.3 425.3 540.9 558.8

13. The Draft Budget allocations would help DRD to continue to improve

elements of our roads, transport and water infrastructure. They would also

allow us to continue to fund the majority of our existing programmes

including concessionary fares across DRD, albeit at a much reduced level.

14. The Draft Budget allocations would provide capital investment to DRD of

almost 2 billion over the Budget 2010 period. This includes over 1.1

6


7/52

billion for roads, around 185 million for public transport and over 665

million for water and sewerage services.

15. However whilst Roads Service has a significant allocation, around 790million (or 70% of it) is tied up in two major road schemes the A5

between Derry and Aughnacloy and the A8 between Belfast and Larne.

The Department acknowledges the Republic of Ireland's contribution of

400 million towards the A5 and A8 schemes (of which 274 million is

scheduled for this Budget period). However the overall reduction of 40%

in the Executives Spending Review settlement, and the scale of these

schemes, means that that there are no allocations to commenceconstruction on other major roads schemes such as:

the A6 Randalstown to Castledawson;

the A2 Greenisland;

the York Street Flyover; and

the Sydenham Bypass Widening.

16. In addition there will be significant reductions in other capital improvement

programmes such as walking and cycling, traffic calming, collision

remedial, traffic management measures, local safety improvements and

bridge strengthening. The impact will be particularly severe in 2012-13

and 2013-14.

17. This funding of the A5 and A8 also reduces the available funding for the

transport and water and sewerage programmes, and there is no funding

for the Knockmore to Lurgan track replacement or to fund the Utility

Regulators recommended capital funding level in 2012-13.

18. As part of the Draft Budget the Executive signalled its intent to continue to

focus on additional revenue raising methods. If, over the course of the

budget period, additional funding became available to DRD as a

consequence of such methods then the Department would seek to allocate

7


8/52

funding to valuable projects which are currently unfunded, such as the

Knockmore to Lurgan rail track improvement project, major roads schemes

like those noted at paragraph 15 above, and further funding to meet the

current investment shortfall for water and sewerage infrastructure.

19. The Department would still however be able to take forward the following

projects.

Roads

20. On roads, the allocations would allow the Department to beginconstruction of:

the 85km dual carriageway on the A5 between Derry and Aughnacloy;

the 14km dual carriageway on the A8 between Belfast and Larne;

the A32 in Enniskillen, providing improved transport links and

improving access to the new acute hospital in Enniskillen; and

continue development work on the A6 Dungiven to Derry.

21. The Draft Budget allocations in capital and current expenditure for roads

structural maintenance total around 94m / 52m / 56m / 82m over the

Budget period. This averages at around current levels totalling over 280

million over the four year period. However these levels of structural

maintenance expenditure are still around 200 million short of levels

recommended in the Structural Maintenance funding Plan over the Budget

period (at nominal prices). It should be noted that given the profile of

expenditure on the A5 and A8, the available funding is much lower in

years 2012-13 and 2013-14 falling from a record high of 94 million in

year 2011-12.

8


9/52

22. This level of investment, coupled with reductions in roads maintenance

activities, is predicted to lead to the network being less resilient to extreme

weather events such as freeze / thaw cycles and flooding.

Transport

23. On transport the Draft Budget allocations would allow the Department to

continue to support Translink to:

procure 20 new trains to replace the 13 trains that are life expired and

provide additional trains to enhance capacity on the commutercorridors;

build a new train maintenance facility, including engineering and

workshop facilities;

begin the Coleraine to Derry rail track improvement project by the end

of the Budget period;

replace hand-held ticketing machines on train services; and

replace some elements of the existing bus fleet.

24. The spending proposals would also allow the Department to fund the

development of a bus based Rapid Transit system on a pilot network of

three routes connecting East Belfast, West Belfast and Titanic Quarter

with and through the City Centre.

25. In addition DRD would be able to plan to invest in a number of sustainable

transport initiatives - electric vehicle charging infrastructure, the Belfast on

the Move proposals, and some other bus priority measures.

Water And Sewerage

26. On water and sewerage the allocations would also allow DRD to provide

funding to NI Water to help meet the priorities agreed by the Executive (in

Social and Environmental Guidance for Water and Sewerage Services -

9


10/52

May 2010) to maintain and improve our infrastructure, deliver sustainable

and affordable levels of service to consumers and meet EU compliance

obligations. The levels of funding are based on an assessment by the NI

Authority for Utility Regulation (Water and Sewerage Services PriceControl 2010-2013 Final Determination February 2010

http://www.uregni.gov.uk/uploads/publications/Final_Main_Report_PC10_

FD_-_Main_Report_0300_revised_web_version.pdf

27. NI Water will continue to deliver the improvements in its significant capital

works programme over the three year Price Control (PC10) period. This

includes:

900km of water mains rehabilitation;

4 new trunk main schemes;

quality improvements at 2 water treatment works;

increased capacity at 13 service reservoirs or clear water tanks;

renewing / relining 72km of sewer;

quality improvements at 43 waste water treatment works; and addressing 117 unsatisfactory intermittent sewage discharges.

28. Recent interruptions to water supplies have highlighted the ongoing need

for adequate investment in our water and sewerage infrastructure.

Investment in 2011-12 and 2014-15 is largely as planned. However in

2012-13 and 2013-14 only around three quarters of the planned

investment has been allocated. Although the funding will not meet all

proposals it is still a significant level of investment of 203m / 145m /

140m / 180m. The Regulators Determination targets are subject to

revision once budgetary allocations are agreed as part of the Revised

Budget and the Department will work with NI Water, the Regulator and

other stakeholders to undertake any necessary re-prioritisation.

10


11/52

Savings Delivery Plans

29. DRD will take forward a range of measures to deliver the additional

savings of 15.7m / 28.8m / 56.4m / 62m current expenditure by 2014-15. The main areas for the proposed savings include:

Roads

Increased parking charges;

Reductions in expenditure on technical advisors and depreciation;

Savings in street lighting energy and parking enforcement; and Reductions in maintenance activities.

Transport

Savings from Park and Ride through reduced service specification;

Public Transport Reform Savings;

Reduced expenditure on technical advisors; Dividend from Ports: and

Reduction in reimbursement / subsidy rates to Translink.

Water and Sewerage

The Regulators assessment of the level of funding required by NI

Water to deliver the Executives priorities and maintain water andsewerage services.

30. Details of these savings and their impacts are available in the

Departments Savings Delivery Plans (SDPs) in Appendix 1.

31. Due to the historic underfunding of the railway Public Service Obligation

the Department proposes to allocate around 13 million over the Budget

period to this programme. 5.2 million of this is proposed to be funded

11


12/52

from additional savings in the SDPs and 7.7 million from a reclassification

from capital expenditure. The Department also proposes to reclassify 1.6

million from capital expenditure to fund roads maintenance activities in

current expenditure in 2014-15. These reclassifications are subject toExecutive approval as part of the Revised Budget process.

12


13/52

Appendix 1

DEPARTMENT FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (DRD)SAVINGS DELIVERY PLANS

Introduction

The Department is required to fund cumulative current expenditure reductions

of 17.0m / 30.1m / 57.7m / 63.3m over the Budget period from the

opening 2010-11 budget position of 517.3m.

Included in the 517.3m is an allocation of 1.3m for roads and transport

Invest to Save projects. As this is automatically returned to the Executive as

part of the terms of the original allocation, DRD has to fund the remaining

reductions of 15.7m / 28.8m / 56.4m / 62m totalling 162.9m. This is set

out as follows.

Table 1 Calculation of Savings Delivery Plan (SDP) Targets

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

m m m m

Draft Budget Current

Expenditure Reductions

in each year 17.0 30.1

57.7 63.3

Removal of 2010-11

Invest to Save (1.3) (1.3)

(1.3) (1.3)

Savings Delivery

Plan Targets 15.7 28.8

56.4 62.0

The Department is treating these reductions as the overall savings target.

There are no proposals to make further savings to allocate additional funding

to existing current expenditure programmes.

13


14/52

Context

There have already been significant reductions to the Departments currentexpenditure budget over recent years:

Budget 2004 required the Department to deliver savings of 17.8m /

30.3m / 39.4m over the period 2005-08;

Budget 2007 required the delivery of further efficiencies of 22.5m /

44.3m / 65.4m over the period 2008-11; and

the Review of 2010-11 Spending Plans reduced DRDs current

expenditure baselines by a further 45.3m.

Significantly though in previous budgets, these savings were mitigated by

additional allocations. This is not the case in this budget.

Approach

It has been a very difficult process to identify savings to these levels and the

Department has looked at all programmes across DRD.

The process of reviewing savings and income generation options has been

led by the senior management within the Department and a series of

workshops has been conducted with the Minister. Each option has been

considered by the Minister and senior management against an agreed list of

priorities in order to assess the relative impact of each option put forward.

The options proposed reflect the Departments Objectives and Ministers

priorities.

Each saving proposal has also been subject to an equality screening to

identify the differential equality impacts on Section 75 groups. Consideration

was also given to the impact on sustainable development, good relations,

14


15/52

poverty and social inclusion. A detailed Equality Impact Assessment can be

found at Appendix 2. This shall be published shortly.

Summary of Savings Required

The Departments proposed savings are summarised in the following table.

Table 2 - Budget 2010 Savings Delivery Plan Summary

Title of SavingsMeasure

SpendingArea

2011-12(000s)

2012-13(000s)

2013-14(000s)

2014-15(000s)

Total(000s)

Type ofSavings

IncreasedParking Charges

Roads 2,000 8,500 12,500

14,500 37,500IncreasingRevenue

Reductions in

Expenditure onTechnicalAdvisors andDepreciation

Roads 8,000 8,000 8,000

8,000 32,000Administration /Policy

Reductions inMaintenanceActivities

Roads 300 1,500 2,440

660 4,900Lower PriorityProgrammes

Savings in StreetLighting Energyand ParkingEnforcement

Roads1,400 2,400 3,400

3,400

10,600 Procurement

Park and Ride Transport 500 700 700

700 2,600 Procurement

ConcessionaryFares Policy

Transport 400 400 400

400 1,600 Policy

Rural TransportFund

Transport - 300 600

800 1,700 Funding

TransportProgramme forPeople withDisabilities

Transport - 700 700

900 2,300 Funding

Public TransportReform

Transport 2,000 700 700700 4,100 Funding

Rathlin FerrySubsidy

Transport - - 200

200 400 Funding

NILGOSCSubsidy,ReimbursementRates and FuelDuty Rebate toNITHC

Transport - 860 5,800

2,800 9,460 Funding

15


16/52

Title of SavingsMeasure

SpendingArea

2011-12(000s)

2012-13(000s)

2013-14(000s)

Type of2014-15 Total

Savings(000s) (000s)

TechnicalAdvisors

Transportand Core

1,100 1,740 1,760

1,740 6,340Administration /Policy

Dividend fromPorts

Transport - - 15,000

15,000 30,000IncreasingRevenue

Based onRegulatorsassessment

Waterand

Sewerage- 6,200 6,200

6,200 18,600 Funding

Sub Total 15,700 32,000 58,400

56,000 162,100

Proposed switchfrom capital

Budget - - -

6,000 6,000

Additionalsavingsproposed to bereallocated tothe RailwayPublic ServiceObligation

- (3,200) (2,000)

- (5,200)

Total15,700 28,800 56,400

62,000 162,900

The savings reflect reductions of 3.3% / 5.8% / 11.2% / 12.2% on the

Departments 2010-11 opening baseline of 517.3m and are outlined in

more detail in the Draft Budget Savings Delivery Plans at Annex 1.

Reclassification from capital to current expenditure

The Department proposes to reclassify 6m of capital to current expenditure

in 2014-15 to mitigate the current expenditure reductions in that year. This

reclassification is subject to Executive approval as part of the Revised

Budget process.

16


17/52

Draft Budget Savings Delivery Plans (SDPs) Annex 1

1.Title of Savings Measure

DepartmentDRD

Savings Measure Increased Parking Charges and Penalties

Spending Area & UoB Roads Service A0102

Senior Responsible Officer B Cairns / S Richardson

Date of Latest Version of DeliveryPlan

11/01/2011

Date Assembly committee consultedon Delivery Plan

12/01/2011

2. Forecast of Savings Accruing from Savings Measure (000s)2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Admin 0 0 0 0Resource 2,000 8,500 12,500 14,500Total 2,000 8,500 12,500 14,500

3. Summary of Savings Measure.Provide summary details of the savings measure including supporting evidence forthe forecast level of savings.

This saving comprises increased income from car parking charges in three areas:

(1) an average 15% per annum increase to existing car park income for each of the

budget years;

(2) an increase in the penalty for parking illegally; and

(3) currently only three cities have on-street parking charges. Additional revenue couldbe raised by introducing on-street charging to all towns / cities covered by the SubRegional Transport Plan (SRTP) and Belfast Metropolitan Transport Plan (BMTP) approx 27 towns / cities. The extension of charging hours for all car parks and on-street Pay and Display (P&D) could also be considered.

4. Impact on Frontline Services of Savings Measure.

Will the savings measure have an impact on the standard ofpublic services provided to the public?

No

If yes, provide a clear justification as well as any mitigating actions.

5. Timetable for Actions to Deliver Savings.Action Target

DateOutcome

2010-11 car park tariff review was completed and agreed inJuly 2010. This will be implemented in April 2011.At the beginning of each year of the Budget an annual tariffreview will be commissioned for implementation thefollowing April.

April 2011

April 2012April 2013April 2014

Implement 1st

review

Implement the January2011/12/13 reviews

17


18/52

Action Target OutcomeDate

Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) increase. Amend PenaltyCharge regulations including consultation/EQIA if required.

Feb 2011

Dec 2011

Start process

Complete process

Implement new PCN level. Apr 2012

Extending on-street P&D. Establishment of a Project Boardto oversee this project.

Mar 2011

Development of parking schemes in each of the 27 towns /cities being considered and completion of the legislativeprocess including consultation.

Mar 2012

Installation of parking schemes (signs, lines and machines)on a phased basis.

Oct 2012

6. Summary of Implementation Costs for Savings Measure.Please provide details of any implementation costs and how they will be funded.

There will be significant implementation costs for the purchase and installation of the equipment andthe associated signing and road markings approx. 5m.

7. Key risks and interdependencies to implementation of Savings Measure anddetails of contingencies.

Key risks Probabilityof riskoccurring(1-5)*

Impactof risk(1-5)*

Contingent Action(s)

Public opposition 2 4 Public statements to highlightthe time since last increasesand disparity between RoadsService and private car parks.Comparison of cost of PCNsin GB would also be useful.Introducing on-street P&Dacross all towns should bepromoted as equitable for all.

Reduction in usage levels for car parks. 4 2 Only in the latter years of theBudget would prices start tocompare with the privatesector so usage is likely tocontinue.

Reduction in numbers of PCNs 2 4 Likely that numbers ofviolations may reduce but willbe compensated by theincreased tariff.

Potential Impact on other departments and public bodies. Mitigating Action(s)None.

18


19/52

* 1 is the highest and 5 the least8. Summary of assessment of potential impact in respect of Equality, Good

Relations and Sustainable Development as well as details of any mitigatingactions.

Impact Mitigating Action(s)Impact across all Section 75 groups.

Could be negative impact on good relations if individuals aredeterred by high cost of parking form using neutral town/city centres.

Positive impact in terms of sustainable development as it mayencourage greater use of public transport.

Creating this additionalincome will protect funding forthe Departments coreprogrammes and maintain itsfocus on the delivery oftransport services toindividuals.

19


20/52

1. Title of Savings Measure

DepartmentDRD

Savings MeasureReduction in expenditure on technical advisorsand depreciation


Senior Responsible Officer J White /J Saulters


11/01/2011


12/01/2011

2. Forecast of Savings Accruing from Savings Measure (000s)

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Admin 0 0 0 0Resource 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000Total 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000

3. Summary of Savings Measure.Provide summary details of the savings measure including supporting evidence for the forecastlevel of savings.

This budget covers the requirement for technical advisor fees in respect of a wide variety ofcommissions. These include the external professional advisor costs incorporating the Design BuildFinance Operate (DBFO) professional advisors and incorporate a wide variety of commissionsincluding the Road Service Consultant (RSC) partnership contract, travel surveys, telematics,

geotechnical certification, Traffic Impact Assessments, feasibility studies, parking schemes and bridgeassessments.The full saving is realised in year one and anticipates the reduction in DBFO work and a much reducedcapital programme going forward.

Given that there has been significant investment in the trunk road and motorway network in recentyears, that DBFO contracts cover significant sections of this part of the network and that these roadsare maintained at defined levels, there is scope to achieve this depreciation saving.



No


20


21/52

5. Timetable for Actions to Deliver Savings.Action Target Date OutcomeIssue reduced allocations to match the reduced TechnicalAdvisor Fees Budget

April 2011andsubsequentyears

Reduced ProfessionalAdvisor Costs

Manage the depreciation budget in line with maintenanceexpenditure plans.

March 2011 Maintenance anddepreciation plans forthe Budget period.


None.



Impactof risk(1-5)*


Inability to conduct pre-scheme feasibilitystudies and other pre-contract work coulddelay the potential to spend improvedcapital funds in the next budget.

1 3 Roads Service will reviewpre-scheme preparation inbudget years 3 and 4.

Inability to provide One Off technicalsupport to arising needs

1 3 Roads Service will reviewpre-scheme preparation inbudget years 3 and 4.

Inability to develop further DBFO packagesif required.

2 3

Increased maintenance on trunk roadnetwork is required.(Depreciation)

5 4 Retain sufficient depreciationbudget in DEL.

Other elements of DEL depreciationincrease.(Depreciation)

3 3 Retain sufficient depreciationbudget in DEL.

Further structural maintenance funding isreceived in-year.(Depreciation)

4 5 Continue to prioritise fundingin favour of non-trunk roads.Retain sufficient DEL budgetshould more trunk roadmaintenance be required.

Potential Impact on other departments and public bodies. Mitigating Action(s)

None.

21


22/52

* 1 is the highest and 5 the least8. Summary of assessment of potential impact in respect of Equality, Good

Relations and Sustainable Development as well as details of any mitigatingactions.

Impact Mitigating Action(s)

No impact.

22


23/52


DepartmentDRD

Savings MeasureReductions in Maintenance Activities


Senior Responsible Officer A Murray/R Crilly


11/01/2011


12/01/2011


2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Admin 0 0 0 0Resource 300 1,500 2,440 660Total 300 1,500 2,440 660


The Roads Service maintenance guidelines for safety will be amended to reduce thefrequency and range of maintenance activities, in order to ensure that more urgent / safetyrelated maintenance can be delivered. Areas where savings may be achieved include carpark maintenance, grass cutting and weed control, maintenance of street trees, patching,structures, gully emptying, traffic signs and road markings.

As maintenance functions within the Resource block are already funded to optimum levels

savings can not be achieved without an immediate impact on service delivery.

4. Impact on Frontline Services of Savings Measure.Will the savings measure have an impact on the standard Yes


As all of the savings relate to the costs of frontline services, the standards of service tothe public will reduce. The effects are likely to include:

- car parks with defective surfaces and litter present;- longer grass and more weeds in road verges;-

poorly maintained street trees;- less frequently cleaned road signs;- poorly maintained road markings; andincreased numbers of blocked gullies.

Roads Service will attempt to mitigate the effects on the public, by concentrating onthose elements of our work that are most closely related to safety.

23


24/52

5. Timetable for Actions to Deliver Savings.Action Target Date OutcomeAmend Road Maintenance Standards for safety. Mid

February2012

Implement savings measures for each of the four years 1st

Aprileach year &ongoing


None.



Impactof risk(1-5)*


Road safety 3 3 Increased levels ofinspections and reactivemaintenance. Repair ofsafety-related defects as apriority. Re-focussing ofguidelines toward safety as apriority. Large part of

Motorway network maintainedby DBFO Cos.

Increased Public Liability claims 3 3 Guidelines will be amendedto set revised standards. Thesuccess of which will only bedetermined after being testedin the courts.

Public perception/reputational damage 1 5 Budget consultation willprovide an opportunity tocommunicate the changesand reassure the public.

Long term damage to the network andadditional expense due to lack of plannedmaintenance such as patching.

3 4 Investigate possible savings /efficiencies in other areaswhich may result in areduction of damage to thenetwork. Explore newmethods of deliveringmaintenance.

Potential Impact on other departments and public bodies. Mitigating Action(s)Possible increase in the numbers of public liability claims couldaffect the courts system as well as the Department of Health ifinjuries caused are serious.

Advise public to be morevigilant.

* 1 is the highest and 5 the least

24


25/52

8. Summary of assessment of potential impact in respect of Equality, GoodRelations and Sustainable Development as well as details of any mitigatingactions.

Impact Mitigating Action(s)Impact across all Section 75 groups.

Car park Defective Surfaces could potentially impact on those whoare disabled, elderly and those with dependants.

Less frequently cleaned road signs could potentially impact on thosewho are disabled.

Regarding Sustainable Development, the frequency of gully cleaningmay result in increased risk of flood damage to home andtransportation infrastructure.

Reduction in weed control may impact on industry and commercedue to transportation and access difficulties due to overgrownhedgerows, especially in rural areas.

Roads service will attempt tomitigate effects byconcentrating work on thatmost closely related to safety.

25


26/52


DepartmentDRD

Savings MeasureProcurement of Street Lighting Energy andParking Enforcement.


Senior Responsible Officer B Cairns/S Richardson/F Miskelly


11/01/2011


12/01/2011




Procurement efficiencies in the supply of street lighting energy could produce savings from2011 onward.

Cost savings could be made through the introduction of a revised car park services contractin mid-2012. It is anticipated that a fundamental review of the provision, including revisedservice levels, a change in how some car parks are operated and the introduction of newtechnology could result in these levels of savings once the new contract is introduced.



Yes/No


To realise the savings in the new car park services contract it is likely that the number of trafficattendants deployed will be reduced. This has a risk that illegal parking will increase due todecreased enforcement with the knock on effect of increased congestion and reduced accessto town centres. The use of modern technology may go some way to offsetting the reduction indeployment levels.

26


27/52


DateOutcome

Establish a car park services contract procurement team todeliver a new contract by the start date of October 2012

Feb 2011

Complete the tender process and appoint a new serviceprovider

Jun 2012

New contract commences with reduced contract costs. Oct 2012

Liaise with Central Procurement Directorate (CPD) to agreespecification and timetable to tender for a 12 monthcontract for public lighting electricity.

Dec 2010 Tender advertised w/c 13Dec 2010.

Agree procurement strategy and contract arrangements for

public lighting electricity for 2012 - 2015 with CPD, and putin place arrangements for tendering as required.

Dec 2011


There will be implementation costs for the replacement of manned kiosks with pay and displayequipment approx 600k.



Impactof risk(1-5)*


Not sufficient interest in the competition.

Car Park Services

Public Lighting Electricity

5

5

2

4

Competition will be widelyadvertised and RoadsService will monitor interestfrom possible tenderers.

Competition does not produce required

efficiencies.

Car Park Services


2

2

5

5

Roads Service will providetendering firms withappropriate information soprofit margins can beaccurately forecast. RoadsService set level of service totry and meet efficiencysavings.

Alternative efficiency savingsmay need to be found, suchas dimming or removal ofstreet lights or introducingshorter burning hours.

27


28/52


Impact Contingent Action(s)of risk(1-5)*

No operator is found.

Car Park Services


5

5

1

5

Roads Service could opt tocontinue with existing supplieror perform the services itself.Enforcement could bereduced or suspended.

If no operator found, NIEEnergy would be the defaultsupplier.

Potential Impact on other departments and public bodies. Mitigating Action(s)None




No significant impact.

28


29/52


DepartmentDRD

Savings Measure Park and Ride

Spending Area & UoB Transport Policy A0203

Senior Responsible Officer B White


11/01/2011


12/01/2011


2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Admin 0 0 0 0Resource 500 700 700 700Total 500 700 700 700


The Department had originally secured funding for Park and Ride services that would haveallowed the Cairnshill services to be competitively tendered.

The savings will be effected by making a direct award to Translink to provide a service at areduced specification compared to that originally intended



No



DateOutcome

No timetable required.


None

29


30/52



Impactof risk(1-5)*


No specific risks identified


None



Impact Mitigating Action(s)No impacts on Section 75 groups.

There is no impact on good relations or social inclusion.

May be minor negative impact on sustainable development asreduced specification may make the service less attractive and soprove less effective in promoting sustainable development.

30


31/52


DepartmentDRD

Savings Measure Concessionary Fares Policy

Spending Area & UoB Transport Policy A0203



11/01/2011


12/01/2011




This is purely an administrative saving and no service reduction is required. Costs in thisarea relate to the issue of new passes and the administrative and other costs of changes tothe Northern Ireland Concessionary Fares Scheme. The saving is predicated on theassumption that the scheme will not be extended or significantly revised during the relevantperiod.



No



DateOutcome

No timetable required.


None



Impactof risk(1-5)*


No specific risks to identify as this is anadministrative savingPotential Impact on other departments and public bodies. Mitigating Action(s)

None

1 is the highest and 5 the least

31


32/52



The service offered to the public remains the same, the change is tothe administrative process. Therefore there is no impact on anySection 75 groups.

There is no impact anticipated on good relations, sustainabledevelopment or social inclusion.

32


33/52


34/52



Yes


a.The CTA provides the Department with advice and guidance in relation to the RuralTransport Fund and also provides training to the staff and Board of the Rural CommunityTransport Partnerships. The Department considers that with the significant improvementsmade in the governance of Partnerships together with a reduction in their numbers meansthat the level of advice and training required can be significantly reduced. Each newpartnership will cover a larger area ensuring the same level of service is being offered to thepublic.

b.Currently Rural Community Transport Partnerships are funded to provide group transport aswell as transport for individuals. The Department considers that meeting the travel needs ofindividuals is an important element in reducing social exclusion and has recently beenincreasing individual travel while at the same time reducing group travel. Savings would be

achieved through the withdrawal of group transport. The Department considers that it isimportant to protect its core programme of providing transport for individuals and believesthat most of the groups affected have the ability to raise funds from other sources to assistwith their travel provision.

c.Currently the Department provides support from the RTF to Translink to operate ruralservices that are socially necessary but uneconomic to run. Proposals would see thereduction in the level of funding in years 2, 3 and 4. The change would be effected bytightening the criteria for support. While this would lead to a reduction in the number ofservices, other services such as Door-to-Door or the RTF may provide an alternative.

d.As well as being supported for the provision of services, the Rural Community TransportPartnerships are given support for administrative costs. The Department intends to reduce

the number of Partnerships which receive support from the Rural Transport Fund fromsixteen to seven. This should be achievable without any impact on the services beingdelivered.


DateOutcome

Meet with CTA to discuss budget allocation and get them tocomplete business plan for 2013 - 2015

June 2011 Business Plan completedfor Budget periodreflecting allocation

Advise Partnerships and service providers in writing of the

Departments intention to cease providing support for grouptravel and voucher scheme with effect from 31 March 2012.

March 2011 No support for group

services with effect from1 April 2012

Advise Translink of Departments intention to reducesupport from 1 April 2013 and amend FinancialMemorandum (FM) and support criteria

June 2011 Amended FM, newcriteria agreed andimplemented

Continue to work towards the reduction in the number ofPartnerships receiving support from the RTF to 7 by 31March 2012

On-going Number of Partnershipsreduced by 31 March2012

34


35/52


Implementation costs to a maximum of 300k to assist Partnerships with legal and HR costs relatingto potential amalgamations and also assistance towards any redundancy costs. These costs will bemet from the RTF budget.



Impactof risk(1-5)*


Lack of co-operation from stakeholders 1 3 Effective communication andproper planning

Negative political reaction to plans 1 4 Communication anddiscussion with electedrepresentatives

Negative public reaction to plans 1 3 Effective communication andproper planning


None




The reduction in rural Translink services and withdrawal of grouptravel may have a negative impact on women, younger people, olderpeople, people with dependants, people with disabilities,Nationalists, and Catholics as surveys have identified that thesegroups are the main users of the services.

No significant impact on good relations

Withdrawal of group travel and funding to Translink for someuneconomical rural services will have a negative impact on:

Sustainability, as it may force people to go back to usingprivate care; and

Poverty and social inclusion, for vulnerable rural dwellers.

The streamlining of processleading to the reduction inCTA partnerships and theremoval of lesser usedservices will allow theDepartment to protect its coreprogramme and maintain itsfocus on the delivery of

transport services toindividuals.

35


36/52


Department DRD

Savings Measure

Transport Programme for People with Disabilities:

Reduction in support to Shopmobility;

Reduction in funding for Door-to-Doorservices;

Reduction in Easibus services providedby Translink; and

Cessation of group transport provided byDisability Action.

Spending Area & UoBTransport Programme for People with Disabilities A0203



11/01/2011


12/01/2011



3. Summary of Savings Measure.

Provide summary details of the savings measure including supporting evidence forthe forecast level of savings.

Reduction in support paid to Shopmobility schemes;

Reduction in support for Door-to-Door services;

Reduction in support to Translink for Easibus services; and Withdraw support for group transport services provided by Disability Action.

36


37/52



Yes


Some of the current Shopmobility Schemes have proven unsuccessful in terms of generatingusage and do not represent value for money. The Department will systematically withdrawfunding to these schemes while at the same time investigating ways of meeting the needs oflocal people.

Easibus services in Belfast and Derry were recently reviewed and it is considered that theyare no longer required as they are largely duplicated by the existing bus network. TheDepartment will work with Translink and local stakeholders to make adjustments to theexisting network to ensure that the transport needs of Easibus users are met where possible.

Demand for Door-to-Door services in the evenings has historically been low. The Department

intends to reduce the availability of evening services while at the same time protecting andincreasing access to the heavily used core services.

Currently the Department provides support to Disability Action to provide Group Travel to anumber of organisations representing people with disabilities. This is the only scheme fullyfunded by the Department and has been superseded to a degree by the introduction of Door-to-Door services. The Department considers it appropriate to systematically withdraw supportfor these services in order to protect its core Door-to-Door services for and also considers thatthe groups affected have the capacity to secure replacement funding from other sources


Date

Outcome

Meet with underperforming Shopmobility Schemes. June 2011 Give 3-6 months noticeof cessation of funding.

Undertake review of Belfast Easibus Scheme March 2012 Support for Easibus toend in March 2014.

New Door-to-Door contract to allow for a reduced numberof trips outside the hours of 9am and 5pm.

April 2012 Availability of eveningtrips will be reduced inApril 2012.

Meet with Disability Action to advise them that funding willcease in March 2012

January2011

Funding will cease in2012

37


38/52


No implementation costs envisaged.



Impactof risk(1-5)*


Lack of co-operation from stakeholders 1 3 Effective communication andproper planning

Negative political reaction to plans 1 4 Communication and

discussion with electedrepresentatives

Negative public reaction to plans 1 3 Effective communication andproper planning


None None


38


39/52



The withdrawal of Easibus services may have a negative impact onwomen, older people (over 45), and people with disabilities, assurveys have identified these groups as the main users of theservices.

Reduction in support to shop mobility, and the cessation of grouptransport provided by Disability Action may have a minor negativeimpact on women, older people and people with disabilities.

Reduction in operating hours of Door to Door may have a negativeimpact on older people, women, those from a Protestant andUnionist background, those who have been widowed and peoplewith disabilities.

There is no impact anticipated on good relations and sustainability.

The withdrawal of funding for group travel may have negative impacton social inclusion however door to door is still in operation whichmay be used as an alternative.

Removal of Easibus is incognisance of improvedaccessibility to currentscheduled town servicesfollowing significantinvestment in upgrading ofthe Ulsterbus fleet sinceEasibus was introduced.

Only underperforming shopmobility schemes are losingfunding.

The Department will continueto fund Door-to Door whichoperates for individuals whoare disabled and in need oftransport.

Door to Door services arebeing maintaining during itspeak operating hours.

The removal/reduction ofthese services will allow theDepartment to protect its core

programme and maintain itsfocus on the delivery oftransport services toindividuals.

39


40/52


DepartmentDRD

Savings MeasureReductions in cost of public transport reform

Spending Area & UoBTransport A0203



11/01/2011


12/01/2011


2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Admin 0 0 0 0Resource 2,000 700 700 700Total 2,000 700 700 700


The savings have been achieved through delaying the implementation of the newarrangements, analysing the functions and process involved and benchmarking the requiredresources with other Authority-type functions elsewhere. This will result in efficiencies in theway the new institutional arrangements are designed and implemented.


Will the savings measure have an impact on the standard of

public services provided to the public? No


The efficiencies will not impact on frontline services. However, any further delay or reductionin the resources made available to perform Authority-type functions would begin to impact onservices as new contractual arrangements would be implemented without effective contractspecification and management.


DateOutcome

Defer implementation of the new institutional arrangements. April 2011 2m savings

Implement new streamlined public transport reformarrangements.

April 2012 0.7m savings annually

6. Summary of Implementation Costs for Savings Measure.Please provide details of any implementation costs and how they will be funded.The costs of designing the new arrangements have largely been incurred already. No significantadditional costs are envisaged.

40


41/52



Impactof risk(1-5)*


The new arrangements have been designedto handle the required efficiencies. Riskswould arise only if further efficiencymeasures are necessary.

Potential Impact on other departments and public bodies. Mitigating Action(s)N/A



Impact Mitigating Action(s)The new institutional arrangements have been designed to avoidany adverse impact on equality, good relations or sustainability andan EQIA and a rural impact assessment have been completed forthe underlying reform programme. The implementation of theefficiency saving is not expected to have any adverse impacts.There is no impact anticipated on good relations, sustainabledevelopment or social inclusion.

N/A

41


42/52


DepartmentDRD

Savings MeasureRathlin Ferry subsidy

Spending Area & UoB Ports and Public Transport Division A0208



11/01/2011


12/01/2011




Indicative savings released from consultancy support due to Small Ferries Project notproceeding within Budget period and from negotiations on variation of contract to achievereduced subsidy requirement.



public services provided to the public?No



DateOutcome

Negotiate variation of contract April 2011 Reduced subsidyrequirement forremainder of contract.


In-house staff costs.

42


43/52



Impactof risk(1-5)*


None identified at this stage

Potential Impact on other departments and public bodies. Mitigating Action(s)None




No impact.

43


44/52


DepartmentDRD

Savings Measure

Remove NILGOSC subsidy, restrictConcessionary Fares Reimbursement Rates andreduce amount of Fuel Duty Rebate available to

NITHC

Spending Area & UoB Road Passenger Services A0203

Senior Responsible Officer C Doran


11/01/2011


12/01/2011


2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Admin nil nil nil nilResource nil 860 5,800 2,800

Total nil 860 5,800 2,800


The overall impact on the two bus companies of the savings and unfunded pressures willmean a combination of fare increases and efficiency savings above the levels set out in thereview Outline Business Case for Public Transport reform. The budget settlement restrictsthe level of revenue support to the bus companies despite anticipated increases in

Concessionary travel and Fuel Duty. This will require Translink to look at further ways ofreducing costs and ways of generating more income, including from fares.



Yes


In order to achieve further significant efficiency savings it will be necessary to reduce servicesin Belfast and across the Ulsterbus network. This will be based on the levels of current andprojected usage. The service cuts could lead to a number of job losses.


DateOutcome

DRD will discuss the funding available over the next fouryears, and the impact of the savings and unfundedpressures, with Translink, who will then produce theirCorporate Plan to demonstrate exactly how the savings willimpact on their business. This could take some time andcannot be finalised until Final Budget completed.

Mid 2011althoughplans fornext yearshould be inplace earlier

Production of TranslinksBusiness and CorporatePlan

44


45/52

6. Summary of Implementation Costs for Savings Measure.Please provide details of any implementation costs and how they will be funded.The efficiencies to be realised per the Outline Business Case for Public Transport Reform will lead toredundancies, the cost of which would have to be covered by Translink.



Impactof risk(1-5)*


Translink may have to meet revenueshortfalls through fare increases. Demandby fare paying passengers for publictransport is likely to be affected byincreases in fares.

3 2

Large increases in fares and service cutscould mean that the current PSA target of77m passenger journeys will not be met.This will depend on the relative price ofPublic Transport and continued trends onConcessionary Fares as well as widertransport policy including availability of carparks and bus priority measures.

3 2

Potential Impact on other departments and public bodies. Mitigating Action(s)The agreement of the Schools transport contract has a direct impacton Translink and funding constraints in the Department of Education(DE) could be key interdependency.

DRD will be discussing theseissues with DE




Fare increases will have a negative impact on all Section 75 groups,especially women, younger people and people with disabilities, whohave less access to private car transport.

Translink are also subject to Section 75 obligations therefore would

have to screen their subsequent actions for S75 implications.

Increased fares could have a negative impact on SustainableDevelopment, as people will have fewer transport options. Privatecar usage may increase due to fewer public transport services andincreased cost.

Fare increases will impact on low income groups who tend to usebus services and could lead to transfer payments between farepaying passengers to concessionary fare groups

45


46/52


DepartmentDRD

Savings MeasureReduction in expenditure on technical advisors

Spending Area & UoB Transport A0203 Core B0103

Senior Responsible Officer R Downey


11/01/2011


12/01/2011



3. Summary of Savings Measure.Provide summary details of the savings measure including supporting evidence for the forecastlevel of savings.

This saving relates to a reduction in the requirement for external consultants and the associated costs.



public services provided to the public? No


5. Timetable for Actions to Deliver Savings.Action Target Date OutcomeIssue reduced allocations April 2011

andsubsequentyears

Reduced ExternalConsultancy Fees


None.

46


47/52



Impactof risk(1-5)*


No specific risks to identify as this is anadministrative saving


None.




None.

47


48/52


DepartmentDRD

Savings Measure Release of value from Belfast Harbour

Commissioners

Spending Area & UoB A0208



11/01/2011


12/01/2011


2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Capital Nil Nil Nil NilResource Nil Nil 15,000 15,000Total Nil Nil 15,000 15,000


Release of value from Belfast Harbour Commissioners to provide additional funding to DRD.


Will the savings measure have an impact on the standard ofpublic services provided to the public? No


The measure is to be developed so as not to impact adversely on the delivery of BelfastHarbour Commissioners statutory functions.


DateOutcome

Officials from DRD and Belfast Harbour Commissioners are

currently scoping options for realising the proposedrevenue.

This is at too early a stage of development to be outlinedspecifically.


Too early to say. Potentially new primary legislation will be required, although it can be anticipatedthat the administrative resources associated with the development of new legislation would be foundfrom within existing DRD resources.

48


49/52


Probabilityof riskoccurring(1-5)*

Impactof risk(1-5)*


Opposition from stakeholders (Harbourusers) to potential impact on port chargesand services.

1 3 Full public consultation on theproposal

Depending on solution adopted, it may benecessary to promote new primarylegislation through the Assembly.Realisation of the additional revenue wouldtherefore be subject to the will of theAssembly. It may be that the option thatemerges to deliver this additional revenue isnot acceptable to the Assembly.

2 1 Full support to the progress ofthe legislation though theAssemblys legislation-making processes.

Potential Impact on other departments and public bodies. Mitigating Action(s)None.




No significant impact.

49


50/52

Title of Savings Measure

DepartmentDRD

Savings Measure

The Regulators assessment of the level offunding required by NI Water to deliver theExecutives priorities and maintain water and

sewerage services.

Spending Area & UoB Water and Sewerage UoB B0113

Senior Responsible Officer G Fair / J Mills


11/01/2011


12/01/2011


2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Admin 0 0 0 0Resource 0 6,200 6,200 6,200Total 0 6,200 6,200 6,200


The Regulator carried out this assessment (Price Control or PC 10) for the period 2010-11 to2012-13. This was published in February 2010 and will be finally agreed shortly. The 6.2msaving will be delivered by NIW through its Outputs Monitoring submission and monitored bythe Regulator as part of the PC10 process.



No


The impacts are set out in PC10 Final determination.


DateOutcome

PC10 monitoring timetable will apply. This will be agreedbetween NI Water and the Utility Regulator (NIAUR).

6. Summary of Implementation Costs for Savings Measure.Please provide details of any implementation costs and how they will be funded.Fully funded under PC10.

50


51/52



Impactof risk(1-5)*


These issues are considered in the PC10Final Determination.

Potential Impact on other departments and public bodies. Mitigating Action(s)This has not been assessed at this stage




Equality and Good Relations Neutral impact

No impact anticipated on sustainable development or socialinclusion.

This is one of theconsiderations included inPC10 and the FinalDetermination. There will be apositive impact [sections7.2.4 and 7.6.4].

51


52/52

Appendix 2

DEPARTMENT FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (DRD)

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

This is currently being finalised and will be published shortly.

Department for Regional Development DRD Draft Budget 2011-2015

Documents

Transcript of Department for Regional Development DRD Draft Budget 2011-2015