The approval of plans and projects - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 375

ensuring that the resources required for preparation were being efficiently directed.
Nevertheless advantage tended to be held by schemes of a conventional nature and/
or by ones which were of long standing since these implied less risk in being able to
achieve implementation within the planned period.
The experience of the first-round RFA process was comprehensively reviewed and
commented on (DfT 2006f). The regions themselves had an 'overwhelmingly positive'
view:
All regions felt that the exercise had been very well worth undertaking and
that a remarkable amount had been achieved from a standing start and in very
difficult circumstances. Whatever their reservations about the size of the funding
allocations they recognised that the financial discipline they entailed was crucial
to making a reality of infrastructure planning at the regional level and to breaking
away from the traditional wish-list mentality. Stakeholders had appreciated that it
was crucial for their region not to fall at the first hurdle and had been determined
that the exercise should succeed.
The exercise had also demonstrated to promoters that there was no realistic
prospect of implementing many of their long-cherished schemes in the foreseeable
future. For the most part, that message seemed to have been received and
understood; there might even have been an element of relief that some of the
more aspirational projects could now be dropped without loss of face.
(ibid. paras 7.1-2)
Items where further guidance from the DfT was requested included:
• The treatment of schemes which, by virtue of their cost, qualify as 'major'
(and hence depend on regional prioritisation) but which are primarily of local
rather than regional importance; conversely the treatment of very large schemes
(typically on trunk roads which are not classed of 'national' significance) and
which potentially consume a disproportionate share of a region's overall allocation.
• The balance of 'value for money' and deliverability considerations versus
contribution to regional objectives. (Arguably the former are tested in detail by
DfT as part of the process of appraising individual schemes leading to potential
overlap or duplication in the prioritisation process.)
Regions were also interested in exploring ways of encouraging promoters to bring
forward new schemes which would better fit contemporary objectives. The DfT
commented that consensus-building in some regions may prove more challenging in
future when new schemes will have emerged to compete with long-standing ones and
the problems of accommodating very large schemes become more acute.
As anticipated the second round of the RFA process is being broadened to include
from 2011-12 the 'integrated block' expenditure of local highway authorities (HM
Treasury et al 2008). In addition to continuing to provide advice to Government on
the prioritisation of major schemes regional bodies have been invited to comment on
the overall balance of expenditure as between these two main categories and on the
distribution of integrated block funding between individual authorities (DfT 2008j).
Separate guidance (DfT 2008k) has been issued on the linking of this work on RFA
advice with regional work on strategic options for the longer term being developed
under the Government's TaSTS initiative (24.7).