Agenda item

Report for Decision

 

ORDERED that Executive:

 

1.    Approve the continued allocation of CRSTS funding across both Highways Maintenance and Integrated Transport workstreams, noting that 75% of schemes were currently on programme (RAG: Green) and a further 25% were experiencing minor delays (RAG: Amber) but remained deliverable within the current or next financial year

2.    Approve the implementation of mitigation measures for schemes at risk of delay or underspend — particularly those in the Carriageways, Structures & Bridges, and Stainton Way Phase 2 schemes — to ensure continued alignment with CRSTS grant conditions, avoid clawback risk, and maintain the Council’s ability to meet statutory obligations.

 

AGREED that Executive

 

1.    Note the progress to date on the delivery of the 2025/26 Capital Programme funded through the £4.154m City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS) grant, as detailed in Appendices 1 and 1A of the report.

2.    Note ongoing programme management flexibilities, allowing officers to reprofile or reallocate approved funds where appropriate to support accelerated delivery of shovel-ready schemes or respond to emerging priorities.

The Executive Member for Environment and Sustainability submitted a report for Executive’s consideration. The purpose of the report was to gain approval for the funding allocations and to outline the delivery progress of the approved schemes.

 

Middlesbrough Council received City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement funding via Tees Valley Combined Authority.

 

The 2025/26 allocations were:

·         £1.065m for Integrated Transport

·         £2.339m for Highways Maintenance

·         £0.750m additional DfT resurfacing grant

 

The total proposed programme (including Council funding) was £8.436m. The Scheme-level detail and financial breakdown was outlined in Appendix one of the report while progress against schemes was outlined in Appendix 1A of the report.

 

The Mayor expressed his thanks to all involved in the continuing delivery of the programme.

 

OPTIONS

 

Re-assessing the project proposals was not recommended. They had been identified using a robust scoring matrix and the prescribed funding criteria; to ensure effective and prudent allocation of resources. Reassessing proposals at this stage would have undermined the integrity of this established process and introduced significant delays to a time-sensitive delivery programme. With 75% of schemes progressing on schedule and 25% experiencing only minor delays, detailed in Appendix 1A, the current approach remained the most efficient and strategically sound.

 

Doing nothing was also not recommended. Failing to approve the updated funding allocations and associated programme management arrangements would jeopardise timely delivery, reduce the Council’s ability to respond flexibly to delivery risks, and would have potentially resulted in underspend or clawback of CRSTS funding. The infrastructure programme required forward planning and financial approval to secure contractor capacity, align delivery windows, and remain compliant with grant conditions. Delaying approvals would have impeded progress and risk non-delivery of schemes that were essential to maintaining the highway network and improving active travel infrastructure

 

ORDERED that Executive:

 

1.    Approve the continued allocation of CRSTS funding across both Highways Maintenance and Integrated Transport workstreams, noting that 75% of schemes were currently on programme (RAG: Green) and a further 25% were experiencing minor delays (RAG: Amber) but remained deliverable within the current or next financial year

2.    Approve the implementation of mitigation measures for schemes at risk of delay or underspend — particularly those in the Carriageways, Structures & Bridges, and Stainton Way Phase 2 schemes — to ensure continued alignment with CRSTS grant conditions, avoid clawback risk, and maintain the Council’s ability to meet statutory obligations.

 

AGREED that Executive

 

1.    Note the progress to date on the delivery of the 2025/26 Capital Programme funded through the £4.154m City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS) grant, as detailed in Appendices 1 and 1A of the report.

2.    Note ongoing programme management flexibilities, allowing officers to reprofile or reallocate approved funds where appropriate to support accelerated delivery of shovel-ready schemes or respond to emerging priorities.

 

REASONS

 

This update was necessary to ensure continued effective management of the CRSTS programme, considering delivery progress reported at Q2 (Appendices 1 and 1A of the report). While most schemes remained on track, a few key infrastructure maintenance and cycle infrastructure works were experiencing moderate delays which required Executive awareness and mitigation planning.

 

Without formal approval of revised profiles and proactive mitigations, the Council risked underspending the allocated CRSTS funds within the required grant periods.

 

The updated recommendations ensured that the authority remained compliant with grant conditions and maintained credibility with our funding partners.

 

Key programme risks had been identified in a small number of areas, notably:

 

·         Carriageways and Structures & Bridges: Delivery delayed due to ongoing contract/legal issues. Completion is now forecast for Q1 of 2026/27.

·         Stainton Way Phase 2 and Ormesby Beck: Minor delays due to ward-level consultation and resourcing gaps earlier in the year. Mitigations proposed include carrying forward delivery into next financial year, accelerating delivery of ‘Green’ rated schemes, and utilising contingency allowances for inflation or emergent issues.

 

While the overall programme remained strategically aligned and financially balanced: with a total funding envelope of £8.436m comprising £4.154m CRSTS and £4.282m Council funding, detailed at Appendix one of the report, the scale and complexity of schemes, combined with the need for formal approval of CRSTS allocations, meant the decision fell within Executive responsibility under Section 6.38 of the Executive Scheme of Delegation.