Option Appraisal Template
Step 1 - Outline of proposed service change project and objectives
Describe the benefits that the service change/ project is seeking to deliver. Please note that this description should cover the
benefits of the service change and not a method of delivering those benefits (for example, improve access to library services in a
location not build a new library in a location).
KLATS option assessment
Give details of the service output objectives that the project is intended to meet (including the Service Plan reference i.e. service
plan, service objective and the Corporate Objectives), along with details of how these objectives are to be measured (e.g. 5%
increase in library issues in location after 12 months). Objectives should also be weighted in order of relative importance (1 = Low,
5 = High) to assist with later assessment of the options.
Objective
Number
1
2
3
Service Output Objective
Weight-ing
Service objective
Must improve air quality in declared areas
Design public transport and car parking strategies to deliver regeneration
and growth
5
4
Reduce need for travel and promotion of low carbon options through
better planning
4
LTP2 Enhance the environment
LTP2 Deliver sustainable growth;
improve accessibility; reduce
congestion
KLWNBC Policy review of parking
strategy; improve accessibility; work
with developers and PT operators
KLURS create car park strategy for
town centre; investigate opportunity
for park and ride and PT
improvements
LTP2 Deliver sustainable growth;
improve accessibility
KLWNBC Policy emphasis on
walking/cycling; reduction of non-
4
Reduce short inter-urban journeys
4
5
Target capacity improvements where growth impacts on existing network
4
6
Improve access to strategic transport network
3
essential car journeys through land
use planning; encourage smarter
choices; work with developers and PT
operators
KLURS Focus residential
development in town centre; improve
ped/cycle routes
LTP2 Reduce congestion
KLWNBC Policy reduction of nonessential car journeys through land
use planning; emphasis on walking
and cycling; encourage smarter
choices
KLURS Focus residential
development in the town centre;
provide additional employment in town
centre; create car park strategy;
investigate PT improvements
LTP2 Deliver sustainable growth;
improve road safety; reduce
congestion; improve accessibility
KLWNBC Policy highway
improvements to ease congestion and
provide longer term capacity; improve
accessibility
LTP2 Improving accessibility
KLWNBC Policy improve accessibility;
improve connectivity for ped/cycle/PT
users; improve PT infrastructure;
highway improvements to ease
congestion; work with developers and
PT operators
7
5
8
Infrastructure for growth adaptable to climate change and minimise
environmental impact
Ensure growth supports road safety
9
Enhance access to jobs, leisure, retail & social
3
10
Develop safe, secure public realm
3
3
KLURS Improve ped/cycle routes;
investigate opportunity for park and
ride and PT improvements
LTP2 Delivering sustainable growth;
enhancing the environment
LTP2 Improving road safety
KLURS Improve ped/cycle routes
LTP2 Improve accessibility
KLWNBC Policy improve accessibility
KLURS Provide additional
employment in town centre;
strengthen North/South movement in
town centre
LTP2 Enhancing the environment
KLURS Redevelop waterside;
reinstate historic urban structure;
improve first impressions through
landmark buildings; create new and
improve existing open spaces
Please note that the measures outlined in the table above will be used to support performance monitoring, to assess the success of
the investment decision or project when a post project review is undertaken (if applicable).
Step 2 - Initial identification of a wide range of options
Give details of all the options identified that might deliver the service objectives.
When considering the possible options, the following considerations should be taken
into account to ensure all possible options are considered:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Deliver the service through revenue expenditure only (e.g. buy in the service)
Delivery through capital project
Vary the mix of capital and revenue expenditure to deliver the service objective
Refurbish existing facilities
Lease, build or purchase new facilities
Share facilities with other bodies / services
Change the location of service delivery
Vary the balance between in-house and external service provision
Include the Do Nothing option (can the objectives be met without additional
investment)
Always include the Do Minimum option (the minimum amount of investment to
achieve the objectives)
Where similar options are identified, it may be appropriate to combine these into a
hybrid option.
Not all the above considerations will be relevant. The more complex the service
objective is, the greater the number of options that should be identified at this stage.
Option
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Description
Western Bypass/Bridge
Hardwick Road Alternative – Sand Line
Eastern Relief/Gaywood Link Road
A149 Dualling/Junction Improvements
Inbound H.O.V. Gaywood Clock
Pullover and Saddlebow Roundabouts
Town Centre Gyratory
Saddlebow Roundabout
QEH Access improvements
Intelligent Transport Systems
Norfolk Street Outbound Bus Priority
Park & Ride/Car Parks/PT improvements
Rail Parkway
Ferry improvements
Sustainable and smarter choices
Rural Accessibility
Do nothing
Do minimum
South East Quadrant
Step 3 - Identify a shortlist of options for further consideration
Assess each of the options identified in Step 2 against the objectives identified in
Step 1. Each option should be scored against how well it meets the targets set for
each objective (0 = Does not meet objective; 1 = Substantially meets objective; 2 =
Meets objective; 3 = Exceeds objective). This assessment should be used to identify
a shortlist of options for further consideration. The shortlist should always include
the Do Minimum option, and a range of other options (rather than variations on a
theme). The minimum number of options considered will vary with the scale of the
project (minimum of three options including the Do Minimum option for small
projects, minimum of four options including the Do Minimum option for larger
projects). Ideally no more than about six options should be short-listed. The
reasons for short-listing or eliminating an option at this stage should be fully
documented.
Option
Scoring of options against objectives:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1
2
3
4
1
2
0.5
0.5
0
0
2
0
0
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
0.5
0
2
0
0
2
0.5
0.5
0
0
2
0
1
1
0.5
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
1
0
0.5
0
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
0
0
2
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
0
0
0
0.5
Objective
5
6
0.5
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
0.5
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
2
2
0.5
2
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
1
0
0.5
2
7
8
9
10
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
0.5
0
0
1
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
2
2
2
0.5
0.5
2
1
2
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
ShortList? (Score
over 10)
6.5
14.5
6
10.5
2
6
16
6 (CIF)
12.5
6.5
5.5
12
6
6.5
8.5
5
0
8
14.5
Reasons for short-listing or eliminating options:
Option
Number
2
Shortlisted/score
12
4
10.5
7
14
9
11.5
12
11
13
12
Option
Number
1
Eliminated
/score
7
3
7
5
6
2
7
8
9
10
6.5
Reason
Scores well in terms of delivering strategic link improvements which is also likely to benefit journeys from
growth areas
Whilst road building schemes are appreciated to be complex and expensive, it was felt that improving the
flow around the town would also have a benefit to traffic levels within the town and potentially improve
links to the growth area
The potential for addressing air quality and ongoing importance of the effectiveness of the gyratory on
the town centre considering additional demand from growth produces a high score for any measures
The seriousness of the current parking and access issues at the hospital, and the additional demand that
growth will place on the services result in a high score for improvements for the site
The close alignment between objectives and these measures have produced a good score across the
board, although a more precise assessment of each potential site would be required
This measure showed potential for reducing short journeys and the importance of improving links to the
town centre for retail/leisure/employment produced a high score
Reason
Whilst this option may improve access to the A47 and A17 it is unlikely to substantially reduce car
dependency and is unlikely to reduce congestion in the town centre
There is potential to improve access within the town with this measure but it is unlikely to increase
journeys made by sustainable modes and may create additional congestion hotspots
The small scale of this option subsequently generates low scores throughout
Improvements at this junction score highly on road safety and capacity improvements but are unlikely to
have a significant impact on the town centre traffic movements or mode share
Capacity improvements at the junction would be beneficial to transport in the study area but are unlikely
to reduce the overall number of car journeys or significantly encourage mode shift
Whilst these measures score reasonably across a number of objectives, the results of implementation
are unlikely to generate the step-change in transport required to fully meet the objectives. It will however
11
14
6
4.5
15
8.5
16
5
17
18
0
4
be built-in to any relevant schemes developed for the town.
This measure creates benefits for public transport but creates disbenefits for other road users
The potential for this measure to improve access from the West is noted, but the scale of the operation is
unlikely to achieve significant benefits for transport in the town as a whole
As a stand-alone measure, this option does not score highly enough as it is unlikely to achieve significant
benefits for transport in the town as a whole. It will however be built-in to any relevant schemes
developed for the town.
No specific measures have been suggested and it has been assumed that access is mainly for existing
residents/properties travelling longer distances so the option has scored poorly against those objectives
The do nothing option fails to score
The do minimum option has been assumed to include issues that must be addressed such as air quality
and planning policy
Step 4 – Non-financial assessment
Please complete the spreadsheet “Option Appraisal Non-Financial Template”.
Enter the Objective descriptions and weightings. Please note that these can be
copied from the table in Step 1 above.
Enter the Option descriptions and their scores against each objective. Please note
that the descriptions can be copied from the table in Step 2 above and the scores
can be copied from the first table in Step 3 above.
Please enter the level of risk associated with each option achieving each of the
objectives. There are four different levels of risk incorporated into the model:
A – Certain / Highly Likely (90%+)
B – Likely (75% - 90%)
C – Probable (50% - 75%)
D – Unlikely (Less than 50%)
This will be taken into account when scoring each option, and will also be relevant to
the post project review. Where an option is certain or highly likely to meet the
objective, the score for that objective is left unchanged. However, as the level of risk
increases the score is reduced to reflect the level of risk (½ a mark lost for each level
below certain). Where no risk level is entered, the score will be set to zero.
The model will score each of the short-listed options against the objectives, using the
weightings and risks entered above above. Options will then be placed in a ranked
order.
Option
Number
2
4
7
9
12
13
Shortlisted/score
12
10.5
14
11.5
11
12
Risk Level
Score
Rank
D
C
B
B
B
C
10.5
9.5
13.5
11
10.5
11
=4
6
1
=2
=4
=2
Step 5 - Financial assessment
Net present value calculation/ Whole life costing
The level of financial assessment required will depend on the options being
considered. Any fundamental changes to service delivery and major capital projects
should be subject to a full whole life costing assessment. This should identify all
revenue and capital costs associated with the options being considered.
We will now only be using one template for the financial evaluation and the relevant
years should be completed as required.
When assessing the capital cost, this should be the gross capital cost (i.e. not
reduced by any capital receipts or grants related to the project). A separate financial
assessment should be completed for each option on the shortlist.
For low value schemes, the assessment is based on the annual cost of the scheme
(allowing for financing charges).
For medium and high value schemes, the assessment is based on Net Present
Value calculations. Three discount rates are used in the spreadsheet; this is to
identify any cases where the choice of discount rate changes the ranking of the
options within the financial assessment.
Costs will be entered as L/M/H due to the high-level of options at this stage
Option
Number
2
4
7
9
12
13
Shortlisted/score
12
9.5
14
11.5
11
12
Cost
H
H
M
M
M
H
Step 6 – Selection of preferred option
Based on the non-financial and financial rankings of the options, the preferred option should be chosen. In an ideal world, the
chosen option will be the top ranked option for both the financial and non-financial assessments. Where this is not the case, a
compromise between the financial and non-financial elements will be required. The overall ranking of the options will depend on
how close to the top ranking option the various options are in both assessments. The reasons for the overall ranking of the options
and the choice of the preferred option should be documented below:
Option
Number
2
Description
Non-Financial
Ranking
=2
Risk
Ranking
=4
4
A149 Dualling
6
6
7
9
Town Centre gyratory
QEH access improvements
1
4
1
=2
12
Park & Ride/Car Parks
5
=4
13
Rail parkway/sand line/PT
=2
=2
Hardwick Road alternative
Overall Reason for Overall Ranking
Ranking
3
Cost/uncertainty of deliverability decreases
attractiveness
6
Scores less well due to high price and risk and
lower impact on town centre objectives
1
Meets large number of objectives
4
Scores less well against some objectives as
outside town centre
5
Measures are mainly car based so do not score
as highly against the sustainability objectives
2
Close links to growth and access
improvements produce a high score although
score would probably drop if financial risk could
be more accurately assessed
Give further details about the reasons for the preferred choice of option:
The town centre gyratory air quality management issues mean that this option scores well against related objectives. The need to
maintain a vibrant centre that can support current residents and assumed growth result in greater pressure on the gyratory and it’s
importance as a route to leisure/retail/employment will increase.