Tendring District Council TENDRING INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY – PART ONE
Final Report September 2009
ROGER TYM & PARTNERS
Fairfax House 15 Fulwood Place London WC1V 6HU
t (020) 7831 2711 f (020) 7831 7653 e [email protected] w www.tymconsult.com
This document is formatted for double-sided printing.
P1931
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
2 POLICY CONTEXT ...... 3 The evidence base that LDF Core Strategies need on infrastructure ...... 3
3 OPTIONS FOR GROWTH ...... 7
4 HEALTH ...... 11
5 EMERGENCY SERVICES ...... 23 Police ...... 23 Fire Service ...... 25 Ambulance ...... 26
6 EDUCATION ...... 31
7 TRANSPORT ...... 41
8 UTILITIES ...... 59 Electricity ...... 59 Gas ...... 60 Telecommunications...... 62 Water – Potable Supply ...... 64 Water – Wastewater ...... 65
9 WASTE ...... 69
10 CEMETERIES ...... 73
11 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FUNDING ...... 75 Introduction ...... 75 Our remit ...... 75 Background ...... 75 Past contribution levels ...... 76 Factors affecting future contribution levels ...... 76
12 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ...... 89
13 OPTIONS ...... 93 Harwich ...... 93 Clacton-on-Sea/Walton-on-the-Naze ...... 95 Other Locations ...... 96
14 CONCLUSIONS ...... 99 Consideration of Part One outputs ...... 99 Mechanisms for delivery ...... 101
APPENDICES Appendix 1 – List of Consultees Appendix 2 – Further education information (from ECC) Appendix 3 – Transport modelling outputs Appendix 4 – Funding for transport infrastructure schemes Appendix 5 – Previous developer contribution levels Appendix 6 – Developer contribution analysis assumptions
Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report is Part One of the Tendring Infrastructure Study. The report was written by Roger Tym & Partners with specialist transport input from Peter Brett Associates.
1.2 The Consultants’ brief was to prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan which will ensure that the delivery of any development required is not compromised by unrealistic expectations about the availability of infrastructure. The study will directly inform the Council and other service providers to identify and prioritise infrastructure provision as part of an integrated approach to planning and infrastructure development.
1.3 Essentially, the study will underpin the spatial development strategy of the Core Strategy in the face of testing. It seeks to show that the chosen development strategy is robust and ‘sound’ in planning terms.
1.4 Part One seeks to understand, in terms of infrastructure requirements, which of the possible development options that are being considered through the emerging Core Strategy have the greatest chance of being delivered. This considers existing infrastructure surpluses or deficits and the potential to secure mainstream public funding for particular types of development. This is coupled with an assessment of the issues affecting potential developer contribution funding for infrastructure.
1.5 The study brief requires only the following infrastructure items to be considered: . Education – pre-school, primary and secondary . Further Education . Health . Transport . Emergency Services – police, fire, ambulance . Utilities – electricity, gas, telecommunications . Water – potable water and wastewater . Cemeteries 1.6 A list of the consultees in the Part One study is given in Appendix 1. 1.7 Part Two of the study will consider in more depth the infrastructure needs of the Core Strategy Preferred Option.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 1
Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
2 POLICY CONTEXT
The evidence base that LDF Core Strategies need on infrastructure
2.1 There has been a growing recognition of the link between spatial plans and infrastructure provision in achieving timely and sustainable delivery of spatial growth. This has taken on a greater importance in recent years through planning documents. Local government is required to play an infrastructure co-ordinating role
2.2 The Local Government White Paper on Strong and Prosperous Communities published in October 2006 referred to local authorities playing a positive co-ordinating role in the delivery of infrastructure to ensure that the right infrastructure is provided at the right time. An increased emphasis on ‘place shaping’ was also made. The Planning White Paper, CSR 07 and PPS12 emphasise the need for an infrastructure planning evidence base
2.3 The Planning White Paper 2007 states that ‘local authorities should demonstrate how and when infrastructure that is required to facilitate development will be delivered’. This has also been a major theme in the H M Treasury’s CSR07 Policy Review on Supporting Housing Growth.
2.4 Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12) highlights the importance of ensuring that the core strategy of Local Development Frameworks is supported by a robust evidence base on infrastructure planning.1 PPS 12 states that: “The core strategy should be supported by evidence of what physical and social infrastructure is needed to enable the amount of development proposed for the area, taking account of its type and distribution. This evidence should cover who will provide the infrastructure and when it will be provided. The core strategy should draw on and in parallel influence any strategies and investment plans of the local authority and other organisations.”
2.5 The document also notes that: 'Good infrastructure planning considers the infrastructure required to support development, costs, sources of funding, timescales for delivery and gaps in funding. This allows for the identified infrastructure to be prioritised in discussions with key local partners.'
2.6 It states what should be considered as part of the infrastructure evidence base and emphasises the need for the alignment of investment plans of a range of key infrastructure providers. In particularly, PPS12 states that the planning process infrastructure evidence base should take account of:
. The scale, type and distribution of development proposed for the area;
1 PPS12 June 2008, paragraphs 4.8 to 4.12
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 3 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
. The physical, social and green infrastructure needed to enable the development proposed; . The phasing of development; . The cost, sources of funding and gaps in funding (recognising that the budgeting processes of different agencies could mean that less information may be available when the core strategy is being prepared than would be ideal); . The uncertainty of investment plans and undue reliance on critical elements of infrastructure whose funding is uncertain; . The prioritisation of infrastructure requirements in discussion with key partners; . The responsibility for the delivery of infrastructure. 2.7 Key infrastructure providers are to be encouraged to reflect the core strategy within their own future planning documents and seek alignment between their infrastructure planning and the planning process. There is no detailed guidance on what an infrastructure planning evidence base should consist of
2.8 Unlike some areas of the core strategy where the evidence base requirement is accompanied with a guidance manual on how to prepare the evidence (for instance in the case of retail, strategic housing land availability and employment), there is no such provision for undertaking the evidence base for infrastructure assessment.
2.9 Given the shortage of guidance, the key point to emphasise is that we are mindful of the need to create a realistic infrastructure assessment that will aid spatial growth delivery. But the content of the evidence base is not defined and is likely to vary depending on local circumstances. We are relying on our understanding of best practice in order to comply with inspectors’ likely requirements for an evidence base
2.10 Given this lack of guidance, we have relied more on our own work and expertise in this field. This has been cited by the Planning Advisory Service as good practice2. We have also reviewed Inspector’s Reports on core strategies to improve our understanding of the expectation from Infrastructure Plans.
2.11 From our review work and experience, it appears that the key is to ensure that we capture the infrastructure needed and identify the range of providers including the developers and others who will be responsible for funding the infrastructure. Further:
. The infrastructure assessment will be of no use if it is an unrealistic ‘wish list’ that has no likelihood of getting delivered and will hinder the overall delivery of the planned growth; . The infrastructure assessment is a way of ensuring that aspirational growth proposals in spatial plans are clearly grounded in terms of the likelihood of their delivery through a rigorous process that considers infrastructure ‘showstoppers’, funding, phasing, joint
2 Planning Advisory Service (2008) Local Development Framework seminars: Infrastructure planning and delivery – Participant’s resource book, Key references and links, p.74
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 4 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
collaboration and delivery mechanisms and builds these considerations into the core strategy and monitoring framework; . At this stage in the development of the infrastructure assessment, where all the detailed modelling and master planning is not yet available, it is important to note a point by the Inspector in his response to the Joint North Northamptonshire Core Strategy. The Inspector stated that ’I do not believe that for soundness, the specific solutions need to be identified in the Core Strategy, only that appropriate solutions would need to be found.’; . The Inspector will want to see there is a realistic prospect of delivery and if gaps in funding are identified then a mechanism should be in place to demonstrate how these are to be addressed in the future; and . The need for infrastructure to support housing growth and the associated need for an infrastructure delivery planning process has been highlighted in the Government’s Housing Green Paper. We consider this as an essential element of Infrastructure Planning and is considered later under the Delivery Process of the final report.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 5
Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
3 OPTIONS FOR GROWTH
3.1 The Tendring Core Strategy Issues and Options was published in March 2009. This provided four possible spatial strategy options to inform consultation. These options are:
. Option 1: Priority Areas for Regeneration. This option focuses new growth in jobs and housing on Clacton and Harwich, both being Priority Areas for Regeneration in the Haven Gateway. . Option 2: Incremental Growth. This option seeks to distribute growth between urban settlements broadly on a pro-rata basis relative to the size of the existing built up area and its population, recent development rates, the associated demand for new housing and the identified need for affordable housing. As with Option 1, Clacton would be the main focus for growth but there would be more scope for development in and around other settlements, including some of the key rural villages where local needs justify. . Option 3: Economic Potential. This option involves distributing housing growth on a pro-rata basis in line with the potential for job creation taking into account the proposed port expansion at Bathside Bay, Harwich and the strength of Colchester as an economic centre and a growth point in its own right. Harwich would see the biggest amount of growth but there would also be major developments in Clacton and eastward expansion of Colchester in the vicinity of the Crown Interchange where the A120 meets the A12. . Option 4: Hybrid Approach. This option is a hybrid between options 2 and 3. It distributes new housing growth on a pro-rata basis driven by the housing-led factors in option 2 but includes an element of employment growth on the fringe of Colchester to take advantage of its economic strength.
3.2 It would be reasonable to expect that one or a combination of these options will be taken forward as the Preferred Option, but this will depend on the outcome of the consultation process and emerging technical evidence, including the findings of this study.
3.3 This study was commenced through a workshop with the service providers. The purpose of the workshop was to introduce service providers to the study and the new approaches to understanding infrastructure needs. It also enabled service providers to identify particular issues with their respective services.
3.4 In order to provide the most appropriate representation of these development options (or any combination thereof), a broad mapping approach was adopted using the sites put forward under the Call for Sites process. However, it is important to be clear that Part One of this infrastructure study is not an assessment of individual sites. Rather, it is an assessment of the theoretical levels of growth in broad locations across the district. It will be the role of the Part Two study to understand the specific needs of the individual development sites and therefore come to a view as to which are the best options in terms of the ability to deliver development sites along with the necessary accompanying infrastructure.
3.5 These maps were shared with service providers who then provided a broad response by location in terms of:
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 7 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
. Existing infrastructure surpluses or deficits; . Possible future issues for providing additional services; and . Mainstream funding that may be available to fund development. 3.6 An example of the type of map used is shown in Figure 3.1.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 8 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report Figure 3.1 Possible development locations for testing
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 9
Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
4 HEALTH
Introduction
4.1 Primary health care services in Tendring are delivered by the North East Essex Primary Care Trust (NEEPCT). NEEPCT was set up in October 2006 through a merger of the former Tendring and Colchester PCTs, as part of national plans to reconfigure primary care trusts in England.
4.2 In total, there are 318,000 residents that have registered with commissioned GP practices. This represents, in effect, the population served by the PCT. Although the proportion of those aged 0-14 years is largely similar between the two PCTs, the proportion of older people is markedly different between Colchester (14.5%) and Tendring (26.2%). Colchester (3.8%) has a slightly more diverse ethnic population than Tendring (1.3%). The PCT is also responsible for any itinerant or unregistered patients within its geographical patch, but this is estimated as a relatively low number within North East Essex. Our remit
4.3 The following areas are outside our study. . Acute health care. We do not cover acute (generally hospital) care in this report. Our reasoning here is that whilst PCTs operate as the purchasers and thus the funders of hospital services, acute service providers are responsible for ensuring the provision of the infrastructure required to deliver their contracted activity and therefore have funding which adjusts for capitation . . Pharmacies and Optometrists. PCTs do not financially support the initial provision or ongoing costs of pharmaceutical and optometric premises. This is a private sector function. However, the PCT does have a role in advising on the optimal location of pharmacy and optometric services to ensure access and patient choice is determined by the national regulations. Applications for the location of pharmacies are managed on a case by case basis, in line with national regulations. . Dental Premises. PCTs issue a contract to dentists but there are no ongoing capital or revenue issues. Dentists are contracted to provide an agreed level of units of dental activity. For this they receive an income. All running costs are charged against this income. Infrastructure needs
4.4 Our assessment needs to try to separate out a number of complex and overlapping issues. The provision of premises is broadly determined by:
. Changes in demand – population changes and growth, and expanded patient choice and public expectations; . Changes in services – new models of care, and new clinical pathways. There is currently a strong focus from the Government to improve the quality of GPs surgeries. (For example, the provision of GPs surgeries from converted private housing stock is no longer seen as adequate); and . Statutory requirements – including the DDA, and Health and Safety.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 11 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
4.5 Clearly all of these dimensions are important, but it is changes in demand, specifically regarding population, which fundamentally concerns this report. In particular, it is important to clearly distinguish between the current reconfiguration of health service delivery (in larger, more fit-for-purpose health centres) and the expansion in demand which results from new housing development.
4.6 However, it is the case that the health services can use all of the above drivers to help them reconfigure the way that services are delivered in order to respond to changing population sizes, distributions and profiles.
4.7 For example, the PCTs’ mainstream funding has been recently used to improve the quality of GP surgeries (converted houses being used as surgeries are no longer seen as adequate), and this process of modernisation that would occur anyway can be intelligently applied to the changing circumstances of growth. Examples of good practice include the use by both PCTs of the Department of Health’s Equitable Access Programme, used to provide money for new facilities. Importantly, future growth requirements over a five year period were reviewed before spending decisions were made. Primary health needs are driven by population, not housing growth
4.8 PCTs undertake detailed demographic work, and make planning assumptions about a growing population. A rough rule of thumb used by PCTs across the country is that there should be 1 GP for every 2,000 people.
4.9 However, it is the case that some GPs’ lists serve significantly more people than the rough average of 2,000 while some serve significantly fewer. In practice, there is a good degree of flexibility in list lengths and no longer, as might be imagined, any statutory maximum list size. Practices are contracted to provide a range of primary care services to a registered population and increasingly this means engaging a much richer skill mix of appropriately trained staff (such as nurse practitioners or health advisory staff) than in previous years. It is therefore often difficult to identify a “slice” of new provision specifically targeted at new growth. The provision of new surgeries
4.10 The size of an average GP’s list means that, even if existing GPs were working at the maximum sustainable rate, 2,000 new people (or approximately 800 new homes based on a household size of 2.5 people) would be needed before a new GP practice would become sustainable. As a result, there is very often no requirement to provide a new GP surgery for each new development. However, PCTs need to ensure there is sufficient capacity for patients to register with a local GP, with a degree of choice where possible. Where there is a small growth in population this may mean extending an existing practice rather than creation of a new practice and/or building a new practice premise.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 12 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
4.11 The solution sometimes proposed, that of opening branch surgeries to treat a smaller, more local population, is not always optimal. Branch surgeries often find it difficult to offer the wide range of services demanded due to their size although this may be feasible where premises or facilities can be shared with other agencies, such as local authorities and social care providers.
4.12 Conversely: . Larger surgeries can be more economically efficient, with shared ancillary and support facilities; . Larger surgeries often offer wider range of co-located primary services, therefore providing a wider choice and better access for patients – the national drivers for change are to provide a wider range of services in a primary care setting;and . Surgeries with a number of GPs are often able to provide additional capacity and can (at times) absorb some new housing growth. This can be a combination of physical extension of premises, or more intensive use of existing premises.
4.13 As GP practices accept patients from within an agreed practice boundary, the location of the proposed developments will impact on some practices more than others, particularly in more rural areas where the increased demand may fall on only one or two practices.
4.14 NEEPCT suggests a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) should be required for developments of more than 50 dwellings. There is a need to make best use of existing capacity
4.15 Overall, though, PCTs believe that there is a need to make use of existing capacity in order to use resources efficiently.
4.16 NEEPCT’s Estates Strategy 2008-2011 is an implementation strategy, setting out ways to identify and close gaps in the infrastructure which may affect the capacity and/or capability of the organisation to deliver the objectives set out in the Five Year Strategic Plan.
4.17 The Estates Strategy contains a Capital Plan, which outlines designated capital expenses for the financial years 2008/2009 to 2013/2014. For this period, the plan contains mainly maintenance activities and works on existing buildings. It also contains the Strategic Service Development Plan 2007/2008. This is a plan setting out the improvements to the primary and community health and social care infrastructure for North East Essex.
4.18 A summary of existing capacity is set out in Table 4.1 below. Capital needs resulting from new growth in Tendring
4.19 The RSS target of 8,500 dwellings would equate to approximately 21,250 new people (based on a household size of 2.5 people3), and therefore approximately 12 new GPs would be required in Tendring to 2021. The configuration of this new provision will
3 From ONS mid-year population projections
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 13 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
depend upon a number of factors which will be specific to each growth area, some of which are set out below:
. Location and capacity of existing practices – whether there is capacity for them to absorb some/all of the growth; . Distance to services for patients – whether the geographic locations of existing practices are suitable for the new patients; . Workforce availability – recruitment and retention of GPs and supporting staff can fluctuate; . Relationship to wider strategies and the movement of services, from acute to community settings for example; and . Cost, including the viability of establishing a small practice and the balance of funding other priorities at the time of the decision.
4.20 In broad terms, commissioning new practices below around 5,000 patients is unlikely to be financially viable and the quantum of growth for a new facility would need to exceed this in order to justify the required infrastructure investment. NEEPCT has a preference for absorbing growth below this level into existing primary care practices where possible.
4.21 This may mean that the existing premises are no longer viable and a new facility will need to be considered for the expanding practices. This will have to be judged practice by practice as capacity needs to be assessed at this individual level. Current Strategy
4.22 NEEPCT is currently developing its spatial planning for extending or developing new primary care facilities. At present this is carried out by a combination of direct commissioning (e.g. through LIFT which is discussed in paragraph 4.29 below) and applications from GPs.
4.23 NEEPCT has carried out a number of reports, assessments and strategy documents which are summarised below. However, it does not currently have a detailed 5-year financial plan, or a longer term assessment of the implications of growth in Tendring. This is being constructed, alongside revised service delivery strategies, in line with the East of England Strategic Health Authority World Class Commissioning (WCC) developments. Making Healthy Choices – Vision and 5-year Health Strategy 2008-2013 – North East Essex NHS
4.24 The North East Essex NHS’s vision and 5-year health strategy document (2008-13), entitled Making Healthy Choices, was published in May 2008. It contains nine commitments for the development of healthcare services. Commitment 6 relates to improving premises and making them suitable for modern healthcare. The document explains that a survey of all 44 DP practices and the PCT’s premises has been undertaken, to inform the PCT’s estates strategy. This document will be superseded by the new 5 year strategy which the PCT is required to produce as part of the WCC development but many aspects will remain the same.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 14 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
4.25 Making Healthy Choices states that the estates strategy will be shaping priorities for the improvement of healthcare premises which are sub-standard, inadequate in size, or where local needs can be met in better ways. Making Healthy Choices then states that consultation with GPs and other healthcare professionals was under way at the time of the publication of the document. This consultation was particularly concerned with improving premises in the following locations:
. Frinton Road Medical Centre, Holland-on-Sea; . Epping Close Surgery, Great Clacton; . North Road, Great Clacton; . Parsons Heath, Colchester4; . Wivenhoe; and . West Mersea. 4.26 The document states that the Estates Strategy will provide an investment plan to maintain existing premises and prioritise premises developments for funding decisions. It also states that the design brief for these premises is being developed. It states that the PCT is also investigating areas where there are insufficient primary care premises, and that the next tranche of development priorities for future investment will be considered. Annual Public Health Report and Needs Assessment - North Essex PCT (March 2008)
4.27 NEEPCT’s Annual Public Health Report and Needs Assessment for North Essex contains an annual assessment of the local health-related needs. The latest available assessment from March 2008 explains that a number of organisations work in a partnership to set new targets for improving the health and well-being of the community, as well as health and social care services. These organisations include The Strategic Health Authority for the East of England, Essex County Council, and local Councils.
4.28 The document describes a number of health and lifestyle trends in the region, but does not currently identify specific requirements. Commissioners' Investment and Asset Management Strategy (CIAMS)
4.29 Arguably the most relevant strategy document to this study is the Commissioners' Investment and Asset Management Strategy (CIAMS). The CIAMS is a Department of Health requirement for PCTs to be completed by April 2010. It involves a stock take of existing premises and then overlaying this information with current need and service delivery.
4.30 The CIAMS is intended to be future looking to ensure that service reconfiguration and population needs drive the evidence base for estates rationalisation and configuration for the future.
4.31 We understand NEEPCT hope to complete the first part of the CIAMS, the estates audit, by October 2009.
4 We understand Parsons Heath is no longer proceeding and as a result of a public consultation Epping Close will remain autonomous and has been removed from the LIFT programme
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 15 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Colchester and Tendring LIFT
4.32 The Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) company for Tendring and Colchester is called Realise Health Ltd. It builds, maintains, operates and owns primary care buildings. The company is 60% privately owned, with 20% owned by Community Health Partnerships Ltd (a private company formed by Government to deliver LIFT) and 20% owned by NEEPCT. The partnership spans 25 years to enable long term benefits to be gained from the partnership arrangement, both in terms of the transfer of skills and knowledge, and maintenance of the premises. The Colchester & Tendring 25 year NEEPCT LIFT agreement began in 2004.
4.33 The LIFT Strategic Service Development Plan 2008/09 – 2013/14 sets out proposed projects, which are identified below. The first LIFT project was Fryatt Hospital & Mayflower medical centre in Harwich. The second completed LIFT project was Colchester PCC completed in 2006. Colchester Primary Care Centre
4.34 The most recent development by Realise Health Ltd is the new North Colchester Primary Healthcare Centre on Turner Road in Colchester, which is due to open on 1st June 2009 and can accommodate up to 6,000 patients. This follows the Darzi report which outlined reforms to improve patients' access to GPs through the creation of 150 extra health centres in easily-accessible places across the country, open seven days a week from 8am to 8pm. Other LIFT developments
4.35 There are currently plans for the following LIFT developments in Tendring: . North Road, Gt Clacton; and . Frinton Road, Holland-on-Sea (currently in negotiation with the Council to purchase the site in Brighton Road)
4.36 The following LIFT developments in the Colchester catchment may also affect Tendring: . West Mersea (negotiations underway for purchase of land); and . Wivenhoe (negotiations underway for purchase of land) GP led expansions & relocations
4.37 There are a number of other non-LIFT, GP led potential expansions and relocations in Tendring. The capital or lease costs of these are still borne by the PCT however, and proposals must meet the overarching strategic objectives of the PCT. The largest, in Frinton, near Walton-on-the-Naze, is a proposal for a 8,500 patient health centre which was recently subject to public consultation; funding for the scheme will be subject to assessment by the PCT in the summer of 2009. Other applications in Tendring have been made, but are currently confidential. Capacity of existing infrastructure
4.38 Based on discussions with NEEPCT, we have summarised the current capacity of the key areas of Tendring below. It should be noted this is only an approximate “snapshot” in time
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 16 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
and will need to be reviewed on a regular basis. It is also prior to more detailed capacity consideration which we understand NEEPCT will be carrying out for Part 2 of the study and will be subject to the findings of NEEPCT’s Commissioners' Investment and Asset Management Strategy (CIAMS), which will assess current capacity and is due to be completed next year (see 4.29 above). Table 4.1 Summary of primary health care capacity in Tendring
Area Capacity Comments
Clacton Reasonable Current capacity is reasonable, but plans need to be reviewed in light of potential housing and population growth. Consequently, this capacity may be insufficient to accommodate growth.
Harwich Reasonable Primary care centre in Harwich hospital. Capacity for some growth may be absorbed into existing primary care practices, but further provision may be required if subsequent growth exceeds estimated population growth.
Walton-on-the- Limited Existing capacity is very limited, but new Naze capacity is subject to approval of the funding for a new premise at Frinton (see above). Other options would be developed and explored with the practice should the scheme not proceed.
Manningtree Limited Current capacity is limited. Potential extension of existing practice under consideration; options would need to be developed/explored with the practice if the application for the extension is not successful
Brightlingsea At capacity Existing modern facility, but no additional capacity available to accommodate growth
Source: RTP & NEEPCT Funding Some mainstream capital funding is available
4.39 Funding for health services is provided to PCTs on a capitation basis, i.e. an amount per patient. The Trusts are expected to manage their requirements within this. They have a
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 17 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
degree of flexibility in this respect including use of their own capital, realisation of surplus assets and through various flavours of the PFI.
4.40 The DoH states that part of the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement was a capital funding increase of 10 per cent in 2008/09, which will support continued growth in capital investment programmes. Nationally in 2008/09, £400 million is being made available to fund PCT local capital schemes, with an additional £250 million to fund national initiatives, such as the community hospitals programme.5 However, there are expected to be significant constraints on public service funding after 2011 as the country deals with the ongoing impact of the global recession. This is now being considered urgently by all public sector bodies, including the NHS, in terms of how it will impact on current and future investments.
4.41 As explained in paragraph 4.32, there is also a LIFT company in place in Tendring and Colchester, which can provide capital for some new projects. However, whilst the LIFT scheme can secure capital funding through the private sector to develop new premises, the cost of these is borne by the NHS through annual lease payments and hence the consequences of this revenue must be taken into account as PCTs judge investment proposals.
4.42 There has always been significant private sector involvement in the creation and capital funding of new health centres which are then leased to GP practices, with the rent met from the PCT’s revenue funding within the PCTs budgetary restraints (e.g. development companies such as Primary Health Properties and Carecapital, together with a number of specialist investment funds).
4.43 The LIFT company is therefore a procurement option for accommodating future growth requirements in Tendring, rather than a source of mainstream funding for it. Indeed, using LIFT may become more difficult for some PCTs in the future as LIFT developments will have to go on balance sheets next year and will require capital cover. We understand the Department of Health has only agreed to cover existing assets until 2011. Those PCTs which have a number of such assets may be the most constrained, although we understand the LIFT company in Tendring and Colchester is not as stretched as other PCTs. Mainstream funding should pay for new capital requirements
4.44 In theory, capitation funding should follow population growth and provide PCTs with the necessary funds to pay for the new facilities needed. In practice, this is not straightforward. Firstly, facilities will need to be built in advance of the full realisation of the population increase, and secondly there will be a subsequent time lag before Health Service revenue funding catches up with the population growth.
4.45 Changes to the funding allocation mechanism should go some way to address this but will probably not eradicate it. Neither is it entirely clear that capitation funding responds fully to the needs of the growth. This was tacitly recognised by Government with a specific
5 DoH (2007) The Operating Framework for the NHS in England 2008/09 (chapter 4)
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 18 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
budget for additional strategic capital investment in the Growth Areas but none for Growth Points such as Haven Gateway. In any event, the funding made available to the Growth Areas only amounted to £20 million during the period 2005-6. The result is that NHS budgets are under pressure in all areas experiencing growth. PCTs do receive payments for premises, but do not receive specific budget for premises development
4.46 PCTs get funding for GP premises from PCT budget allocations. Funding arrangements in place at 1st April 2004 (at the time of the new General Medical Services contract) cannot be rescinded, but PCTs can now negotiate more flexibility in the extent and duration of new funding commitments. There is no ringfenced funding within PCT budgets, and all premises costs (existing and new) must come from central PCT allocations.
4.47 PCTs do not receive a specific budget for new premises developments. Funding for expansion to the current provision would be at the expense of other competing priorities and ultimately may not be possible.
4.48 The revenue consequences will be critical to NEEPCT; capital costs are embedded in the revenue costs attached to new development. Therefore other sources of funding for new facilities have to be explored. As part of this it is the PCT’s policy is to seek S106 contributions towards healthcare for housing developments. PCTs have provision in place for small scale premises improvement and extension
4.49 NEEPCT will consider funding small scale improvements and expansion to extend the range of services they provide where this meets with the overarching strategic objectives of the PCT. The approach to capital funding for growth will need to be different in individual cases
4.50 As discussed above, in the case of GP practices only, the PCT pays rent (recurrent revenue) to the GPs for the use of existing premises and, where funding permits, the PCT can provide capital and/or recurrent revenue funding for new and expanded premises for new developments.
4.51 In some instances a form of private finance arrangement exists, where independent contractor GPs enter into agreements with third party developer companies that specialise in building Primary Care developments to lease back to the GPs. However, the GPs will expect this rent to be funded by the PCT and will seek reimbursement assurances prior to the development proceeding. Developer funding (Sec.106 agreements)
4.52 NEEPCT does not currently have a developer contribution policy for primary care premises. We understand it is currently considering the most appropriate way to secure developer funding for health needs, and is seeking to continue discussions with the Council and other service providers as part of wider service planning and delivery.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 19 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Priorities
4.53 The PCT has identified three key priorities which underpin its healthcare strategy: . Addressing health inequalities; . Mental health; and . Children’s services. 4.54 These priorities do not preclude investment in other services, but are intended to steer attention into these particularly pressing areas of need. The PCT’s 5 year health strategy is currently being revised and is due for completion in Autumn 2009, but indications are that these three key items will remain a high area of priority in future strategy iterations.
4.55 The Tendring area itself has already been identified through the PCT’s health needs assessment and six facet premises survey as the priority development area. These assessments were undertaken in 2008 and found that 22% of the PCT’s population is registered in an area of greatest health need, with the worst premises. This is likely to effect where NEEPCT funding is directed to meet these needs, and could benefit Tendring’s ability to accommodate new growth.
4.56 In terms of specific localities, it is likely that the housing development and population growth in the West Clacton area will be a priority development, as capacity in the vicinity of that area is unlikely to be able to absorb the additional people requiring primary care services. Timing of provision
4.57 As set out above, West Clacton is a key priority in terms of need, and if allocations are made there and development plans are taken forward, this is likely to need to be delivered early on.
4.58 The PCT is therefore already in discussions with the Council and the developer of the first phase to address this issue. The wider Clacton area capacity needs will follow, to ensure that any proposals for new services fit into a wider ranging plan. Two LIFT schemes are already underway in Great Clacton and Holland-on-Sea, and these will be factored in to the locality planning process. Key issues & conclusions
4.59 The key issues and conclusions for primary health care requirements and funding to respond to housing growth in Tendring are:
. Funding for larger facilities in areas of potential high growth – both Clacton and Harwich have potential for significant development. As set out above, it may not be viable to commission a new facility where the increased population from housing growth is less than 5,000 people (without additional government or developer contribution funding). Consequently, the actual level of growth in these respective areas could be a key determinant as to whether NEEPCT can provide the necessary new facilities that will almost certainly be needed. Where it is found that the additional primary care capacity cannot be found within local existing practices, then additional facilities or a new practice may need to be considered even where this is
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 20 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
below the expected lower list size – the PCT is duty bound to commission sufficient capacity for its population so all options must be explored; . Ability of GPs to absorb capacity where limited development could be located to accommodate new patients – this won’t be known until the capacity of individual surgeries is assessed. Assessment will focus on physical capacity, as well as workforce and recruitment issues; . Capacity created by current applications for extended/new facilities– although Table 4.1 shows there is reasonable capacity in primary care facilities in Tendring, much of this is dependent on the success of applications by GPs to extend or relocate existing premises. All new investments are expected to demonstrate a match to the strategic plans of the PCT and expected population changes – where this is the case, then these provider led schemes may be considered for funding. Priority will be given to schemes which address the priority development areas above; . Patient choice –Where possible, patients will be offered a choice of GP practice. However, in rural areas or areas of low density population this is not always possible. GP practices in such areas are encouraged to provide as much service choice to patients as possible, such as gender of the GP, locally based services, etc but there are sometimes constraints which limit the possible choices available. The PCT works closely with patient groups and GP practices to address these issues as far as it is practical to do so; . Movement of services from acute hospital settings to the community. The PCT is committed to providing services closer to where patients live whenever it is practical to do so. There will be limitations on this, such as workforce availability, cost of some specialist equipment, and maintaining the skill level of staff providing highly specialist treatments. The PCT strategy will set out some of the services which will move to community settings, including some diagnostic and surgical services, and the infrastructure requirements will be recognised within any premises development plans; . Changes to the location and/or delivery of services. Services are increasingly being delivered at times to suit patients’ changing lifestyles, including early or late sessions and weekends. All new facilities will have lock down areas to enable the premises to be open out of normal hours without the need for full staffing. One or two members of staff will be able to work safely (in line with the PCT’s lone worker policy) and have access to the facilities they need without needing to leave secure staff areas. Security and IT systems are similarly geared towards these new ways of working, which will become increasingly common in the coming years; and . Shared facilities. The PCT is keen to work with partners, through the auspices of the Strategic Partnering Board, to explore the possibility of shared facilities. Evidence shows that these are best developed on the basis of service, rather than premises, needs. Work will continue to explore this potential.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 21
Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
5 EMERGENCY SERVICES
Police
5.1 The Essex Police Authority is an independent organisation whose purpose is to support and oversee the work of Essex Police. The Police Authority currently comprises nine councillors, three magistrates and five independent members, but from 1st October 2008 this will become nine councillors and eight independent members, though at least one independent member must be a magistrate. The functions of the Authority are to:
. Ensure Essex has an efficient and effective Police Force; . Obtain the views of the general public as to the kind of Police Service it wishes to see; . Approve the annual budget; . Appoint Chief Police Officers; . Ensure the provision of a continuously improving service by Essex Police; . Act as a responsible authority on Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs); . Maintain a statutory scheme for independent custody visiting; . Ensure Essex Police cooperates with other forces where such cooperation would be efficient or effective to do so; and . Promote equality and diversity within Essex Police. Key Policy Documents Essex Police Authority and Essex Police – Strategy 2008-2011 and Plan 2008-2009
5.2 This document aims to set a clear direction for the policing of Essex, and provides a framework for the annual plan. In terms of capital investment, it makes the following three points:
. The annual capital grant for 2008/2009 and subsequent financial years will be £3.2 m; . Capital requirements for the next three years have been identified, totalling £42.4 m. These payments will be phased over three years to 2010/2011; and . In addition to Government Capital Grant, further capital resources will be found from existing reserves and the sale of existing assets.
5.3 The Strategy also includes some planned budget reductions, as part of the Operation Austin programme being run by the Police. As part of this programme, full year savings of £4.4m have been identified towards the 2008/2009 budget, as of 31st December 2007. The 2008/2009 budget contains total savings of £5.2m, states the strategy. In addition, the strategy states that the Austin Programme has a target of £6.0m by 31st of March 2009, in line with the published police year plan. Essex Police Authority Business Plan 2008-2011
5.4 This Plan contains a budget for financial years 2008/2009 to 2010/2011. For 2008/2009, the overall revenue budget for the Police Authority is £251m, with a capital programme of £18m.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 23 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Capacity of Existing Infrastructure
5.5 The existing facilities are sufficient to serve the needs of the Police force at present in Tendring. Needs
5.6 No new build facilities are required, but additional officers and police vehicles are needed. In terms of officers, there is a need in all areas for sergeants, constables and Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) in all areas. The overall assessed impact of providing for each of the LDF options being tested is as follows:
. Clacton – low resourcing impact; . Tendring – medium resourcing impact; . Harwich – medium/high resourcing impact; and . Manningtree/Mistley – high resourcing impact 5.7 The consideration of what constitutes a ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’ resourcing impact is a judgement made by the Essex Police Authority.
5.8 In addition, a need for one additional police vehicle for each area has been identified. Costs
5.9 ACPO in the Eastern Region has undertaken an assessment of the one-off capital cost of providing an additional officer - £8,136. The table below shows the assessed overall cost of providing the numbers of additional officers that would be required to police the additional growth in each location. So, for Clacton for example, the total additional cost of £81,360 is to provide 10 additional officers (1 sergeant, 6 constables and 3 PCSOs). Table 5.1 Cost of providing additional officers by location
Area Sergeants Constables PCSOs Total
Cost per officer (£8,136)
Clacton £8,136 £48,816 £24,408 £81,360
Tendring Rural (St Osyth, Elmstead Market, Frinton/Walton. Includes £8,136 £32,544 £32,544 £73,224 Little Clacton, Bentley, Thorpe-le-Soken; Alresford and Brightlingsea)
Harwich £8,136 £56,952 £16,272 £81,360
Manningtree &Mistley £8,136 £24,408 £16,272 £48,816 (includes Ardleigh)
Total £284,760
Source: ACPO Eastern Region (2006) Policing Contributions from Development Schemes
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 24 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
5.10 This shows that, for all of the options in aggregate, there would be a total cost of provision of £285,000. By option, this varies from £48,800 for Manningtree/Mistley to £81,400 for Clacton or Harwich.
5.11 The cost of a fully equipped new police vehicle has been estimated at £50,000. Therefore, there would be an additional £50,000 cost per growth option. Funding
5.12 Essex Police is revenue funded by a mixture of Central Government and local government funding, with the former only intended to cover national projects. It is assumed that the Police will effectively fund its capital requirements out of its revenue budget either by saving, borrowing or renting.
5.13 At a national level, a formula is currently being put together to justify a charge on development. This has been commissioned by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities and the intention is to roll this out nationally. It is likely to be adopted nationally later in 2009. The formula is based on needs being population, not housing, driven. It reflects the fact that not all occupants of new housing are new to an area so it discounts the population in new housing to reflect the fact that many occupants will be in-migrants.
5.14 This formula is, as yet, still in draft and there are several issues that would need to be reviewed to ensure that it is consistent with the information used by other service providers. However, the recommendation is that planning contributions are assumed to have to meet the full cost of growth needs. This is because the capital needs of the Police are comparatively small and also because the pressure on local authority capital budgets is likely to become increasingly severe. Priorities
5.15 No particular priorities have been identified. Timing of provision
5.16 It is critical that new or enhanced police facilities are provided early on as local police need to be able to build relationships with expanded or new communities from the outset, and to react to the need for police services, demand for which will typically commence as soon as growth starts. Issues
5.17 No particular issues have been identified. However, it will be important to understand further the Police’s new contributions policy, and in particular, the demographic assumptions that underpin it.
Fire Service
5.18 The Essex Fire Authority was formed on April 1st 1998 by virtue of the Local Government Act 1992. Essex County Fire and Rescue Service (ECFRS), which serves Tendring district, is directly responsible to the Essex Fire Authority.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 25 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Key Policy Documents Essex Fire Service Budget 2008/2009
5.19 This document states that the budget for capital payments for 2008/2009 has been set at £10.870m.The greatest part of this budget are the capital financing costs associated with the development of a new headquarters and a new fire station at Rayleigh Weir. The provisional figures for the 2009/10 and 2010/11 programmes are £16.681m and £15.441m. Capacity of Existing Infrastructure
5.20 There is no current spare capacity within the existing service covering Tendring district. However, neither was it reported that the service is over-capacity. Needs
5.21 Under almost all growth scenarios, there would be no foreseen change to current resource deployment. Only the options in Harwich/Dovercourt would possible require a change in the current staffing model at Dovercourt Fire Station, as part of ECFRS’s Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP). However, this is unlikely to require any new capital expenditure. Costs
5.22 No specific costs have been identified that would arise from growth. Funding
5.23 ECFRS mainstream funding comes from a combination of grants from Central Government and precept from Essex County Council via council tax. These are constrained by Government Comprehensive Spending Review (three-year plan) and Government capping on local authorities. In addition to normal capital funding arrangements, ECFRS will, if necessary, continue to explore opportunities through partnership working and PFI.
5.24 However, in light of the zero cost figure identified, funding is not an issue. Priorities
5.25 There are no priorities identified. Timing of Provision
5.26 There are no issues related to the ECFRS in respect of the timing of growth. Issues
5.27 There are no particular issues.
Ambulance
5.28 The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EEAST) provides emergency and unscheduled care and patient transport services in Tendring. The EEAST was formed on 1 July 2006 by the amalgamation of the former Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance and Paramedic Service NHS Trust, the East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust and the
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 26 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Essex Ambulance NHS Trust. The new Trust is, geographically, the second largest in England, employing about 4,000 people (as at July 2007) with more than 2,000 volunteers working in community response schemes and as non-emergency drivers.
5.29 The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust is required to reach 75% of all life threatening emergencies within 8 minutes. This target is now measured from the time the Trust receives the call to arrival on scene.
5.30 The Trust’s main objectives are to: . meet these mandatory standards in service delivery;
. deliver current priorities such as Call Connect and the new digital radio and despatch systems;
. begin work on projects to deliver the vision, particularly the technical preparation for building a knowledge management system and reshaping HEOCs to move to the emergency and urgent care assessment centre concept; and
. prepare the organisation to apply for Foundation Trust status.
5.31 EEAST has service level agreements with the PCTs, specifically in respect of Accident and Emergency. Key Policy Documents Strategic Direction (2007-12)
5.32 The future issues and direction for EEAST is set out in its “Strategic Direction” (2007-12) document.
5.33 The Trust anticipates that the five-year period covered by this Strategic Direction document will see “a major shift in the pattern of demand for services”.
5.34 The shift will be driven by “radical changes in the way that different types of emergency and urgent calls are classified, how they are commissioned, the need to place the patient at the centre of determining how services are delivered, and a focus on clinical evidence of patient outcomes, as opposed to target response times, as the key measure of performance”.
5.35 The ambulance service is therefore demand driven, as opposed to purely population driven. EEAST is already experiencing a 6% a year increase in calls, which has doubled since 1992/93; partly driven by changing public attitudes to using the 999 service, an ageing population profile and increased resources being allocated to emergency capability.
5.36 These challenges are resulting in consideration of major changes to the delivery of the ambulance service, which could result in a more flexible “hub and spoke” approach, with operational staff not assigned to a single centre and only going there as required (e.g. for training). This could reduce the number of command centres and therefore its property portfolio.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 27 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
5.37 In terms of specific requirements relating to housing and jobs growth, we understand no studies or strategies have been completed to date. Indeed, some more detailed physical planning relating to new development has been frozen due to the abrupt slow down in housing development. Capacity of Existing Infrastructure
5.38 EEAST is currently undertaking a regional review of facilities. While this is intended as an internal document, we understand EEAST could circulate this to external stakeholders, such as local authorities and the PCTs.
5.39 EEAST has the following stations in Tendring: . Harwich . Frinton . Clacton . Weeley 5.40 We understand that EEAST generally has difficulty in achieving mandatory national response time requirements in Tendring because of:
. Relatively old stations not now located in optimal locations . Lack of resources at stations . Constraints of the road network . Limited “dynamic deployment” facilities (see 5.45 below) Pressure on services from Clacton and Frinton stations
5.41 We further understand that Clacton and Frinton are the stations currently under most pressure, with Weeley also under a significant amount of pressure. All areas served by these stations therefore have no additional capacity to accommodate any increased demand for services as a result of new development.
5.42 In particular, there is no station in Brightlingsea; the closest are in Greenstead (east of Colchester) and then Clacton. Consequently, EEAST struggles to meet response times to this area and therefore any additional growth would need to be carefully considered on the basis of current capacity. There is a similar situation in Manningtree/Lawford/Mistley although the problem is not quite as significant as in Brightlingsea. Some potential capacity at Harwich station
5.43 We understand the ambulance station in Harwich is likely to be able to cope with additional growth up to the potential level identified through the call for sites. Additional resources (including staff and potentially vehicles) would be required in this instance. Needs Dynamic Deployment to be introduced more widely
5.44 EEAST is hoping to deliver more of a “hub and spoke” service arrangement in Tendring over the next 5-10 years to meet demand from the existing population.
5.45 This is part of a “dynamic deployment” approach to improve patient care and response times through the placement of resources in areas of predicted high demand. Dynamic
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 28 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
deployment is the pre-positioning of resources rather than the activation or mobilisation of resources to calls. In simple terms, it is about where staff work from during the course of their shifts.
5.46 The identified locations in this respect are currently identified as: . Traditional ambulance stations (the “hubs”); . Response posts – smaller 24/7 buildings for staff (a “spoke”); . Dynamic activation (or stand by) points – limited or no facilities, but can be a better location to meet predicted demand (a “spoke”); and . Temporary holding areas 5.47 Demand profiles are analysed by geographical areas and resources matched wherever possible to the predicted demand. This demand fluctuates depending on time of day, day of the week and seasonal variations within the year. Expansion of some facilities, consolidation of others
5.48 As stated above, Tendring does not currently have any response posts or dynamic activation posts. Consequently, some of these are likely to be introduced in the future.
5.49 However, EEAST is currently considering the consolidation or relocation of some of the existing ambulance stations. In particular, EEAST would like to co-locate the Weeley and Clacton stations.
5.50 If there were significant growth in West Clacton, this could be an appropriate location for such a facility, with a response post or DAP located in Clacton town centre. This would also potentially improve EEAST’s service to Brightlingsea. Funding
5.51 EEAST is funded largely by the PCTs, with some additional charitable donations. This funding is tied to the service level agreements, and is driven more by demand than housing numbers. For more information on the funding of PCT’s, please refer to the health section.
5.52 There is, however, often a funding “time lag” where mainstream funding is not provided in advance or at the same time as step changes in demand, such as through significant new development. We often reflect this as a need for other funding sources, the annualised equivalent of the capital costs of the required facilities for three years.
5.53 Where facilities are co-located or relocated, the sale of the existing asset(s) can be used to fund new facilities. We understand this has not been considered in detail at this stage, although this may be carried out as a more detailed exercise following the completion of the regional review of facilities (see above).
5.54 EEAST may seek to secure contributions from development to help fund any shortfall in new facilities where significant additional demand is created that cannot be adequately met by current facilities, particularly in Clacton and Frinton.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 29 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Priorities
5.55 As stated above, EEASTs priorities are to introduce more dynamic deployment capabilities in Tendring, and consolidate and/or relocate existing stations that are dated or not in an optimal location and therefore under pressure to deliver a quality service. Timing of Provision
5.56 Any significant growth in the Clacton and Frinton areas may require the early provision of a new station, or introduction of other dynamic deployment facilities. Issues
5.57 There are no further issues in addition to those identified above.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 30 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
6 EDUCATION
Introduction
6.1 Education services in Tendring are largely delivered by Essex County Council (ECC). This section seeks to simplify what is a very complicated subject, based on information provided by the County Council and our own research. Our remit
6.2 We have included the following education services within our assessment: . Early Years; . Primary Education; . Secondary Education; and . Post-16 Education / Further Education (FE). 6.3 Only further education is principally provided by the private sector. Infrastructure Need Infrastructure requirements are guided by demographic change and shifting demand/supply
6.4 Overall demand for education will be affected by both the quantum and location of new school aged pupils associated with housing growth, but also changes in the quantum and location of the current population.
6.5 How this translates into actual infrastructure requirements for education will also be affected by the quantum and location of existing school capacity. Understanding this demand and supply equation spatially is critical to assessing education requirements. Education is now part of a wider approach to children’s services
6.6 It is also important to consider education as part of a wider Children’s Service offer. The Every Child Matters White Paper and the Children Act 2004 focused on providing a joined up approach to Children’s services. There are a large number of changes affecting the delivery of children’s education service delivery, including greater parental choice, the move to transfer post 16 education funding from Learning and Skills Councils to local authorities in March 2010, the creation of Children’s Centres, Sure Start programmes, Extended School provision, the creation of Academies, Voluntary Aided Schools, and delivery and roll out of programmes such as Building Schools for the Future to help rebuild or refurbish existing schools. ‘Strategies for Change’ will have a major impact on the future provision of education infrastructure
6.7 There is a process in place aimed at taking a longer term, joined-up look at primary, secondary and in some instances FE provision, based on forecast population growth, needs of the community and business in order to provide the best service to the community. This is being channelled through the preparation of Strategies for Change.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 31 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
This will involve the merging of various funding programmes to create a holistic delivery programme for a modernised school infrastructure.
6.8 ECC has completed Parts I and II of its “Strategies for Change”. There is a need to make best use of existing capacity
6.9 ECC recognises that there is a need to make use of existing capacity in schools in order to use resources efficiently.
6.10 ECC produces the Essex Schools Organisation Plan (the Organisation Plan) each year. This is not a statutory requirement following the need for a Children & Young Persons Plan (C & YP Plan). However, ECC still view the Organisation Plan as a key document, but that it is not appropriate to include this in the higher level C & YP Plan.
6.11 The Organisation Plan sets out the requirement for places in maintained primary and secondary schools over a five year period, and identifies the areas where providers will need to match supply more closely with demand. It provides the context for the future organisation of school places in Essex and sets out the principles that need to be given serious consideration when planning school places.
6.12 In doing so, the Organisation Plan reflects the Local Authority’s changing role as it moves from being a provider to a strategic commissioner of school places. The last published plan was for the period 2007-12, although the 2008-13 plan is set to be published shortly. Constantly evolving and changing requirements
6.13 Any education plans or infrastructure requirements could be subject to considerable alteration over the next few years as the investment and provision in education is expected to undergo major changes. Therefore it will be essential to keep this information under constant review and updated regularly. Current Strategy
6.14 The Organisation Plan is the key education document relevant to this study. Not only does it consider key county wide objectives such as the appropriate size of schools, remedies for a surplus or shortage of spaces and admission arrangements, it also looks at the demand/supply of spaces up to 2012 in each individual area. Planning for housing growth not yet undertaken
6.15 At present the plan is unable to consider the impact of housing growth but in the event of the Tendring Local Development Framework making provision for additional housing in the area, a further review of places is recognised as necessary. ECC prefers to undertake full scenario testing to influence the spatial strategy adopted and provide a firm footing for its long term service planning.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 32 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Childcare
6.16 The Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2008 (Essex County Council Directorate of Schools, Children and Families) sets out the assessment of sufficiency regarding the supply of childcare and parental demand for childcare within Essex. This identifies perceived unmet need and barriers to take-up identified through parental surveys.
6.17 Its aim is to identify gaps and establish plans to ensure the provision of high quality, accessible and affordable childcare. The report provides a detailed picture of each district, enabling the planning of services to take place, together with relevant partners and childcare providers. In terms of Tendring, this report provides a picture of current services that are available, and use levels.
6.18 The 2008 assessment for Tendring District identifies gaps in childcare provisions by geographical area. In Mistley a gap in the provision of flexible childcare options has been identified. The assessment proposes that a pre-school be developed in the area, together with a local childminding network.
6.19 Another area where a ‘physical’ gap has been identified is Walton and Frinton. There is a lack of out-of-school provision, which is proposed to be dealt with through working with potential providers of out-of-school provision, and the establishment of an all year round services in the area. Building schools for the future
6.20 The government’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme seeks to rebuild and renew secondary schools and the Primary Capital Programme seeks to provide substantial new investment in primary schools.
6.21 Local authorities are being encouraged to consider from first principles what secondary school buildings are needed, where they should be located and what facilities they should have, including their potential development as extended schools. BSF is likely to have a major impact on the pattern of secondary provision across the county, but it is a long-term initiative, extending from 2005/6 to at least 2020, subject to continuing political support beyond the next Comprehensive Spending Review (see para 6.42).
6.22 The indicative programme allocated to Essex anticipates a start in the south of the county during the period 2008 to 2011, for the west 2011 to 2014 and for central and north Essex 2017 to 2020. An announcement on the start date for the south of the county was made in December 2006 and Essex formally joined the BSF programme in February 2007.
6.23 The latest Essex Schools Organisation Plan (2007-12) anticipates that the procurement of a private sector partner to form the Local Education Partnership (LEP) will commence early in 2008 and this should take around 18-20 month, with building works should commence on schools in the south of the county in the spring of 2010.
6.24 The 2008 summary progress of the Essex Children and Young People’s Plan (CYPSP) 2006 states that the current Building Schools for the Future programme brings a funding package of approximately £350 million to cover the construction of 22 secondary schools, 6 special schools and 2 Pupil Referral Units.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 33 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
6.25 The outline business case for Wave 4 was approved in November 2008, which includes the Shorefields Special School in Clacton. Capacity of existing infrastructure
6.26 As set out in 6.10, the Essex Schools Organisation Plan assesses the demand and supply for education in the County, and by district. The 2007 projections (up to 2012) for primary and secondary schools are set out below: Table 6.1 Tendring District Primary Schools (2007-2012) Number on roll Capacity of Schools Surplus/Deficit Actual Forecast 2012 with 2012 with 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 housing housing
10,800 10,678 9,836 8,603 9,002 964 2,075 1,676 Source: Essex County Council Table 6.2 Tendring District Secondary Schools (2007-2012) Number on roll Capacity of Schools Surplus/Deficit Actual Forecast 2012 with 2012 with 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 housing housing 9,571 9,717 8,928 8,254 8,577 643 1,463 1,140 Source: Essex County Council Primary & secondary schools currently have capacity
6.27 Overall, there is anticipated to be an increased surplus in primary and secondary school places in Tendring up to 2012, even with additional housing. Rural areas have surplus but pressure in Harwich
6.28 The Organisation Plan comments that some primary schools in rural areas are identified as having a number of surplus places. It also states that whilst the removal of permanent accommodation from rural primary schools remains difficult, the situation will be closely monitored with a view to removing more surplus accommodation in the future.
6.29 The latest plan has not assumed growth in primary school pupil numbers in Clacton due to inward migration, which had been a previous theme. However, it comments that large housing developments have taken place in the Harwich area, which has led to pressure on school places but where appropriate additional accommodation has been put in place. ECC preliminary assessment of potential education capacity & requirements in Tendring
6.30 ECC has provided an assessment of education capacity and requirements for each of the potential development sites from the Council’s call for sites.
6.31 Capacity can either be in the form of existing school places or an ability to expand or improve an existing school. A summary of this is set out in Table 6.2 below.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 34 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
6.32 A key school with potential existing physical capacity is the new Clacton Coastal Academy. This is effectively a merger of the existing Bishops Park College and Colbayns High School, and opened in September 2009. We understand Bishops Park College was built using PFI in anticipation of housing growth in the area. As this growth has been limited, there is significant existing physical capacity. However, some of the school buildings are likely to be decommissioned in the short term as it is unlikely this capacity will be needed. We therefore understand the new Academy would have fewer places than the two existing schools but would retain a degree of flexibility to expand and accommodate demand from new development in the future. This could provide critical capacity for development in and around Clacton, if decommissioned buildings can be cost effectively brought back into use, thereby potentially negating the need for new schools or school buildings.
6.33 Our analysis has assumed this is provided before development, although we understand a decision from the government is expected in August. We therefore suggest the assessment of education capacity and need in the Clacton areas is reviewed when this decision is made, and the design for the school is monitored closely.
6.34 Two other existing secondary schools that will be critical to accommodate growth are Tendring Technology College and Colne Community School. Both would only require limited expansion based on the numbers tested. Bussing pupils to these schools from the more remote locations considered, and the impacts of additional traffic from parents driving longer distances, would be opposed by ECC. Funding Schools Capital Allocations Funding
6.35 Funding for education is a complex picture, with numerous mainstream sources available to the service provider (in this case Essex County Council). The bulk of schools’ capital funding is allocated by formula to education authorities by central Government in line with the national spending review. Thus the published information for this study relates to the period from 2008 to 2011. This funding is provided in the form of a grant or as supported borrowing.
6.36 The main sources of capital funding for the purpose of this study are made up of Basic Needs Funding, Modernisation Funding and Building Schools for the Future Funding. Basic Needs Funding
6.37 Basic Needs Funding (BNF) is a capital allocation for building investment based on forecast population growth using a national formula (adjusted for area differentials). It therefore responds to a situation in which there is a need for additional school places aggregated over the entire area covered by an education authority. This aggregation means that any funding anticipated in growth areas is reduced if numbers on roll are falling elsewhere. The County has been allocated £51,422,101 for the period 2008/9 to 2010/11.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 35 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Modernisation Funding
6.38 This capital funding is available to support building programmes for new or refurbishment of existing provision and is not intended to meet the growth agenda. The current 2008 – 2011 Capital Allocation is £43,764,695.The County Council Capital Programmes team are currently completing a new ‘suitability assessment’ that will set priorities for this funding. We understand it is unlikely any funding will be available for helping to fund new or expanded schools to accommodate housing growth. Local Authority Coordinated Voluntary Aided Programme (LCVAP)
6.39 LCVAP is a formulaic programme where the local authority and its partners (usually the associated dioceses) allocate DCSF funding in line with local needs and priorities for Voluntary Aided (VA) schools. A project can be phased over several years. Governing bodies must contribute 10 per cent of the LCVAP project costs. Building Schools for the Future / Secondary School Funding
6.40 As discussed above, Building Schools for the Future (BSF) is aimed at providing a new approach to capital investment. It is bringing together significant investment (circa £45bn nationally) in buildings and in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) over the coming years to support educational reform. It will be used for replacing and renewing the existing school stock and funded through the PFI mechanism.
6.41 Generally speaking the sums available have been adequate for these purposes, although many education authorities claim that the need to demonstrate value for money in PFI bids makes it difficult to meet the highest standards of provision. Some local authorities also object to the alleged use by DCSF of BSF to promote Academy schools.
6.42 This focus has restricted the possible application of the BSF to finance the growth agenda. However the last Comprehensive Spending Review (2007) stated that DCSF would be looking at the ways in which their capital programmes responded to the growth agenda and that this review would include Building Schools for the Future Wave 7. In the future, the rules governing new investment in schools might be more supportive of the growth agenda than hitherto. Conversely, there is no Government commitment to fund the BSF programme beyond the duration of the current spending review.
6.43 There is also no indication of when each of the remaining areas in the county will receive funding. The process by which areas have been identified as areas which will receive funding has recently changed and there could be further future changes. The level of funding provided through BSF does not cover the full costs of new provision for marginal additional pupils. On the PfS funding formula, additional pupils generate 75% of the costs of new additional provision. Primary Capital Programme
6.44 The Primary Capital Programme (often inaccurately referred to as BSF for primary schools) is part of the strategic programme by the government to put more focus on primary education. Because this is a relatively new focus of attention there is a more explicit focus on new and universal provision.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 36 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
6.45 The County has been allocated £30,164,384 for the period 2008/9 to 2010/11. As this is a relatively new funding stream, it is difficult to evaluate its effectiveness in the context of existing and emerging needs. Developer Contributions
6.46 Developer contributions are relied upon to fund new schools and provide the land for the development. Developer contributions will remain a major source of funding but will be competing in a climate for limited resources to fund other social and community provision.
6.47 We are aware Essex County Council has a policy on developer contributions, which is set out in its Developer Contributions Guide. Conclusions on Education funding
6.48 Although there are numerous mainstream funding sources for education provision, in reality there is no specific funding (other than discretionary sources such as growth area funding) for requirements related to housing growth.
6.49 The main funding source, Basic Needs Funding, makes no allowance for a situation in which there is a need for spaces in one part of an education authority area offset by a reduction in the number of spaces required in another part. Usually, the proceeds of selling a surplus school only make a small contribution to the cost of constructing a new one elsewhere. In any event, these receipts will diminish if planning contributions increase.
6.50 Consequently, dealing with demographic shifts in the existing population from mainstream funding sources and existing assets is already a major challenge for education authorities.
6.51 It is therefore likely that developer contribution funding will be required to fund a significant proportion of any new education requirements resulting from new housing development in Tendring. Issues
6.52 Based on our experience elsewhere, education is likely to be, after transport, the second highest infrastructure cost as a result of housing growth in Tendring.
6.53 Given the complex nature of spatial demand and supply for school places, in addition to education funding, understanding the key issues is critical to helping shape a spatial strategy for housing growth in Tendring.
6.54 Based on our conversations with ECC, the above information and our general experience of education infrastructure, we have summarised the general education issues in Tendring below:
. The importance of existing capacity – there is existing school place capacity in some areas of Tendring, but not necessarily in the right places or sufficient to accommodate all the new potential housing growth in an area; . Constraints on using existing capacity - the County Council is required to provide school transport to any child that would need to walk in excess of two miles up to the age of eight or three miles for older children, using a safe route. Unless balanced by better utilisation of existing school places, developments that do not meet these
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 37 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
criteria should be avoided. ‘Tolerable’ walking distances may of course be lower than these thresholds and opposed on sustainability grounds. The quality of walking and cycling routes to schools and potential improvements to them must be considered; . Achieving critical mass from development – justifying new schools requires sufficient demand for new school places. Developments of 200 – 600 dwellings in an area are often difficult to provide for, being too small to justify a new primary school but too large to integrate into existing provision; . Risk of underestimating impacts from urban “infill” development – although this development may be more difficult to identify, provision in an area should not just rely on the implications of the large greenfield sites. Urban infill sites can change an education strategy, so should be accounted for as far as possible at the start; and . Availability of developer contributions to cover new requirements – there is likely to be limited, if any, mainstream funding for new or extended education facilities. Consequently, securing sufficient developer contributions to be spent in the right areas will be critical to ensuring the delivery of the necessary future education requirements resulting from new housing growth in Tendring. Key risk areas
6.55 In some areas there is currently either no solution or a potentially undesirable solution (such as provision of a new school where there would be insufficient critical mass of new pupils) to the levels of potential growth. Other education ‘show-stoppers’ are likely to emerge once infill development and combinations of site are considered. At this stage, most of the significant issues appear to relate to primary school provision, except for secondary school provision in Parkeston/Bathside. Early Years and childcare needs have not been included below as facilities are generally smaller and, as a result, easier to establish:
. Frinton (impact of 100 additional dwellings) - Frinton Primary would not have sufficient capacity to take the number of additional pupils without displacing children living in areas that currently have a reasonable expectation of entry to the school. In order to maintain single age teaching groups it would be undesirable to expand the school. Rolls are falling in the area and places may be found at Kirby Primary, although development in Kirby may require these places; . Kirby Cross (500 dwellings) – the only solution would be to either secure some adjoining land for Kirby Primary School or move the school to a larger site on the new development; . Elmstead Market (200 dwellings) - Elmstead Primary is full and does not have site area to expand. There are no alternative schools within safe walking distance. The town relies upon school transport to secondary provision; . Great Bentley (200 dwellings) - Great Bentley Primary is full and does not have site area to expand. There are no alternative schools within safe walking distance. The village relies upon school transport to secondary provision; . Thorpe-le-Soken (200 dwellings) - Rolph CE Primary could, with an additional permanent classbase, accommodate around half this level of development. There are no alternative suitable schools within walking distance to accommodate the balance;
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 38 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
. Mistley (600 dwellings) - The precise location of these homes would be key to finding a solution to the lack of primary capacity in the area, as a single development of 600 dwellings would not quite sustain a new school. Limited surplus capacity at Highfields and Lawford CE Primaries could be utilised and Mistley Norman could potentially be expanded. The ‘wrong’ number of homes in the priority admissions area of any one of the three schools could prove very disruptive to current admission patterns; . Harwich (600 dwellings) - This on its own is not sufficient to justify a new primary school, yet potentially too large to easily accommodate through expansion of existing schools. A new primary school in this case may only be justifiable if further urban infill development creates additional demand. If a new primary school is needed as a result of development, this creates potential opportunity for urban infill development to use school without putting pressure on existing schools; . Parkeston/Bathside (3,150 dwellings) - In the absence of other development within its priority admissions area, a little less than half of this number of homes could be accommodated within existing capacity at The Harwich (Secondary) School. Expansion to 1,800 places may be possible given the school’s site area, but this would be tight and may still not quite accommodate the number of pupils that would require a place. Summary of capacity and requirements
6.56 We have identified where existing capacity in school places is available, capacity to expand or improve an existing school or where new provision is required to accommodate the potential growth in different areas of Tendring below.
6.57 The following should be noted: . This information has largely been provided by ECC; it has been prepared on the basis that this stage of the study is ‘a filtering exercise’, with full impacts being considered as sites (and feasible combinations of sites) are clarified; . ECC was therefore instructed to consider each site in isolation and without accounting for infill sites that may have or gain planning permission; . ECC point out that once details of site allocations to deliver growth are known and tested a significantly different picture from the one below may emerge; . If the level of housing growth in an area is lowered, this may affect the proposed solution for accommodating these additional pupils; . Where capacity for expansion/improvement has been identified, full feasibility studies will be required to confirm this is possible and acceptable (approximately six month process); and . Finally, the table should be read in conjunction with Appendix 2 for additional information and the key risk areas set out in 6.55 above.
6.58 Where there is existing capacity of school places, this would represent a potentially zero cost solution to accommodating housing growth. Although new provision represents a higher cost than expansion/improvement, this is not necessarily a higher cost solution on the basis of costs per pupil (or new house).
6.59 For example, half the new requirement for school places in West Clacton (based on 3,400 dwellings) could be accommodated utilising, and where appropriate expanding existing
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 39 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
primary schools. Consequently, the new requirement would only be for a single two-form entry school on this basis. Table 6.2 Summary of potential education solutions to accommodating tested housing growth6 Potential Use of Existing for Potential Expansion of Potential New for Growth Growth Needs Existing for Growth Needs Needs (subject to needs of existing population) (subject to feasibility studies) (subject to suitable land)
Early Years & Childcare Clacton Town Centre Frinton West & Little Clacton Brightlingsea urban area Great Clacton & Holland-on-Sea Elmstead Market Harwich* Alresford Dovercourt* Thorpe-le-Soken Parkeston/ Bathside Colchester Fringe Walton* Kirby Cross Brightlingsea Waterside Area* Mistley Great Bentley* St Osyth Primary Clac ton Town Great Clacton, Little Clacton & West Clacton (assuming no additional urban infill) Holland-on-Sea Dovercourt Walton Harwich* St.Osyth Brightlingsea Waterside & Urban Parkeston/ Bathside Areas Mistley Colchester Fringe Alresford
Secondary Dovercourt Clacton areas, Holland-on-Sea & Colchester Fringe * St.Osyth** (if linked with Colchester North Growth Area) Brightlingsea urban area Parkeston/ Bathside (key risk area and therefore potentially not possible/ desirable - see 6.54 above) Harwich Walton Elmstead Market** Frinton Alresford** Kirby Cross Great Bentley** Brightlingsea Waterside Area Mistley Colchester Fringe ** (if not linked with Colchester North Growth Area) Thorpe-le-Soken Source: RTP & ECC * expansion of existing verses new provision would require careful consideration at the appropriate time ** subject to safe transport routes and costs being met
6 These solutions are dependent on the dwelling numbers tested (see Appendix 2). Areas where no potential solution has been identified are not shown.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 40 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
7 TRANSPORT
Introduction
7.1 Responsibility for transportation policy within Tendring District Council is shared by Essex County Council, as the Highways Authority, Tendring District Council and the Highways Agency. Background
7.2 The principal strategic roads within the district are the A120 and the A133. The A120, running from Colchester to Harwich, is the only trunk road to pass through the district and is managed by the Highways Agency. From Harwich to Hare Green the road is single carriageway, and from Hare Green to Crown Interchange the road is dual carriageway. Figure 7.1 shows the strategic highway network. Figure 7.1 The strategic highway network serving Tendring District
7.3 With up to 30,000 vehicles per day on the dual carriageway sections and up to 12,000 vehicles per day on the single carriageway sections, the A120 provides the main transport link for the movement of freight and passenger traffic travelling between the port of Harwich and the national road network. As such the proportion of HGV traffic on the road is relatively high (between 10 and 14%) compared to other roads within Tendring and Essex.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 41 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
7.4 The A133 runs from Colchester to Clacton-on-Sea linking into the A120 at Hare Green. The road is single carriageway apart from the final section from Crabtree roundabout leading into the A120.
7.5 Aside from the A137 running from Colchester to Manningtree, all other roads within the district are rural B-roads, providing local access to the coastal towns of Brightlingsea, Walton-on-the-Naze and Manningtree.
7.6 The district has 14 railway stations, with 6 along the Manningtree to Harwich branch line and 8 on the Colchester to Clacton and Walton-on-the-Naze lines. Services are operated by National Express East Anglia. All the stations provide services to London Liverpool Street; however, these differ in their frequency and journey time. Manningtree provides the quickest and most frequent service to London with four services an hour in the peak and a journey time of approximately an hour. Services to Clacton-on-Sea and Harwich run at a frequency of one an hour in the peak periods and take 1 hour 30 minutes approximately. To access Walton-on-the-Naze requires changing trains at Thorpe-Le- Soken.
7.7 The Great Eastern Mainline carries around 60,000 passengers a day into London during the morning peak, of which approximately 14,000 are from outer suburban areas including Ipswich, Colchester, Clacton and Chelmsford (Great Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy, 2007).
7.8 First Group operates the bus network which covers the majority of the district. Due to the rural nature of the district, service frequencies are generally low, apart from in the town centres of Clacton-on-Sea and Harwich. The majority of services are local, however there are some more strategic routes.
7.9 Within the district there is also the major international port of Harwich as well as the smaller coastal ports of Mistley Quay and Brightlingsea. Key Policy Documents
7.10 A number of key documents provide the policy background for transport provision within Tendring. These are summarised as follows: Regional Transport Strategy
7.11 The key objectives of the Regional Transport Strategy for the East of England (May 2008) are:
. to manage travel behaviour and the demand for transport to reduce the rate of road traffic growth and ensure the transport sector makes an appropriate contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions; . to encourage efficient use of existing transport infrastructure; . to enable the provision of the infrastructure and transport services necessary to support existing communities and development proposed in the spatial strategy; and . to improve access to jobs, services and leisure facilities. 7.12 The Haven Gateway (a sub region based around the three ports of Harwich, Felixstowe and Ipswich) is identified as an area likely to come under increasing transport pressure as a result of underlying traffic growth and the development strategy of the Regional Spatial
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 42 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Strategy. Changing travel behaviour and managing traffic demand as well as improving public transport provision will be key to alleviating this transport pressure. Essex Local Transport Plan 2006-2011
7.13 Essex’s Second Local Transport Plan (LTP2) (2006-2011) is a long term plan which sets out Essex County Council's plans and policies for the future of transport in Essex. The Plan sets out five key objectives:
. Tackling Congestion: To reduce the rate and incidence of congestion and its effect on residents and businesses in Essex; . Delivering Accessibility: To enhance accessibility to key services (Education, Employment, Healthcare and Retail); . Creating Safer Roads: To improve safety on the transport network and to enhance and promote a safe travelling environment; . Promoting Better Air Quality: To manage the impact of road and air transport on air pollution; and . Enhancing Maintenance: To maintain highways and public rights of way to a standard appropriate to their use.
7.14 Within the LTP2, the Haven Gateway forms one of the five Area Transport Delivery Strategies that have been identified. It is recognised within the plan that the level of growth expected in the Haven Gateway, specifically Colchester (17,000 dwellings to be located in and around Colchester town, and 8,500 to be built in Tendring District), will bring a number of transport opportunities and challenges. Tendring District Local Plan
7.15 The overriding aim of the Tendring Local Plan is to, “reduce the need to travel and promote an integrated transportation system, which meets the needs of the whole community, encourages economic growth and minimises environmental damage.” As part of this, new development needs to integrate with all forms of transport provision and ensure that transport needs generated by new development are met. Capacity of existing infrastructure Highways
7.16 Current levels of congestion on the strategic highway network are shown in Figure 7.2 (sourced from the Essex Local Transport Plan 2006 -2011). This shows the Congestion Reference Flow (CRF) which is a measure of the ability of a particular highway link to accommodate the traffic imposed on it. The CRF is determined by a combination of factors including traffic composition (e.g. HGV content), traffic flow variation and type of link. When actual daily traffic levels reach the CRF value (1.0) it is expected that congestion will occur in the peak periods on a regular basis. When the CRF value exceeds 1.0, congestion will be experienced during peak and off-peak periods.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 43 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Figure 7.2 Highway network congestion – present day
7.17 Currently the majority of the strategic highway network is operating within capacity. Discussion held with Essex County Council’s Environment, Sustainability and Highways department supported this view. However, pinch points can be identified on the A133 between Crabtree roundabout and Green Lane roundabout, where CRF values are between 0.8 and 0.99. It is likely that this section of the highway network will become a constraint in the future. The A120 is currently operating within capacity.
7.18 The CRF flow focuses on link capacity. However the significant limiting factor on the links will be the key junctions. With regard to the A133 the key junctions are the Crabtree roundabout and Green Lane roundabout.
7.19 Investigating the A133 pinch point further, localised junction modelling was undertaken of the existing situation at Crabtree roundabout and Green Lane roundabout. Essex County Council provided turning count surveys of the junctions undertaken in July 2008, and this base data was used within the ARCADY model.
7.20 The results show significant queuing on the A133 northbound from Clacton-on-Sea in the AM peak (0800-0900), and on the A133 southbound in the PM peak (1700-1800). Green Lane roundabout showed less queuing. Full modelling outputs are contained within Appendix 3. Maximum queues seen are 84 vehicles in the AM peak and 30 vehicles in the PM peak on the A133.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 44 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
7.21 In discussion with Essex County Council it was also noted that access roads leading to the coast get congested on sunny days. In particular, the B1029 approach to Brightlingsea experiences queuing on occasions as it is the sole access into the town.
7.22 Figure 7.3 shows fatal accident locations over the last three years within Tendring District, as obtained from Essex County Council. It can be seen that there are not a significant number of fatal accidents in the district giving rise to concerns or the need for mitigation. Figure 7.3 Fatal accidents in Tendring District, 2005-2008
Public Transport
7.23 A public transport accessibility model, Accession, has been used to show how accessible the District is with regard to public transport services. This accession work highlights the current areas of under provision and can be used to develop a strategy for serving areas and highlighting the best areas for the location of sustainable developments.
7.24 Figure 2 shows the peak rail capacity utilisation across the district, as obtained from the Great Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy (December 2007). This shows the Capacity Utilisation Index (CUI). The CUI, developed by Network Rail, is a measure of how much of the available capacity on a section of line is used by the train service taking account of route characteristics, timetable, the order of trains in the timetable and the headways.
7.25 Figure 7.4 indicates that there are no significant capacity issues on any of the lines within Tendring district. The maximum capacity utilisation seen is up to 30-70%, on the Colchester to Manningtree and Colchester to Clacton and Walton-on-the-Naze lines. The Manningtree to Harwich line sees a particularly low capacity utilisation currently with less
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 45 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
than 30%. Utilisation greatly increases when reaching Colchester and in particular onward travel to London. Figure 7.4 Rail capacity utilisation
7.26 It is understood, from discussions with First Group that the bus network currently operates within capacity. Although services cover the majority of the district, service frequencies are generally low apart from in town centres such as Clacton-on-Sea, Harwich and Walton-on-the-Naze. This is shown in Figure 7.5.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 46 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Figure 7.5 Bus frequency
Committed Development
7.27 The most significant committed development within the district that is likely to affect future transport infrastructure needs is Bathside Bay, a £300 million container terminal development that will make Harwich International Port the second largest container port in the UK. Planning permission was granted in March 2006 and permissions will run out in 2016.
7.28 Road and rail infrastructure is already in place, servicing the present Harwich International Port; however, upgrades to the A120 have been recommended by the London to Ipswich Multi-Modal Study (LOIS) which has been carried out on behalf of the Government.
7.29 In particular LOIS recommended dualling of the A120 between Hare Green and the Ramsey roundabout to give improved access to the Harwich ports, significant accident benefits and support for rural regeneration policies. This was identified within the Inspectors Report for Bathside Bay, where it was stated that the A120 Hare Green to Harwich dualling was identified as a longer term proposal (post 2016). It was also stated that in July 2003, the Secretary of State - in referring to the dualling of the A120 between Hare Green and Harwich – indicated that the scheme is for the longer term and that he was not asking the Highways Agency to prioritise work on it at that stage as it would require further detailed examination. In the shorter term, it was suggested that the Highways Agency address safety issues within its Route Management Strategies.
7.30 As stated within the Inspector’s Report:
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 47 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
“In the base case Traffic Impact Assessment, Bathside Bay Container Terminal (BBCT) would - when fully developed - introduce 3,000 extra 2-way HGV movements/day onto the A120. The volume of traffic on those sections of the A120 between Hare Green and the A120/Little Bentley/Bentley Road junction, and between the Horsley Cross and Ramsey Bridge roundabouts, would exceed the Congestion Reference Flow (CRF) by about 2010/11. These sections of the A120 would need to be improved to at least wide single 2 lane carriageway (WS2) standard if they were to accommodate this level of traffic.”
7.31 Improvements in the short term would however also be needed for the A12/A120/A1232 Ardleigh Crown interchange, the A120/Harwich Road, Wix junction, the A120/Church Hill/Main Road Ramsey Bridge roundabout and the Parkeston roundabout.
7.32 Development of Bathside Bay will not go ahead until a Preferred Route Announcement has been made for the A120, together with associated works. Hutchinson Ports UK Limited (HPUK) would fund any road improvements necessary. If the development does go ahead, there would be a period of several years from the opening of Phase one of the development during which an HGV capping measure would operate until the necessary highway works have been completed.
7.33 In addition to Bathside Bay, Pond Hall Farm, a 27ha site located to the south of the Dovercourt bypass on land north of the main residential areas of Dovercourt, is allocated for the development of a new business park for storage and distribution along with general and light industrial uses. As part of this new development a new access will be needed directly onto the A120.
7.34 Assuming the Pond Hall Farm site remains an employment-only land use, an at-grade roundabout access onto to A120 would be appropriate, as advised by the Highways Agency. The construction cost of this would be in the region of £750,000. The full cost of the works, including earthworks, telecoms diversions, drainage works and other infrastructure is likely to come to approximately £1.5 million. The timescales for delivering an access onto the A120 is likely to be up to three years from application to completion.
7.35 Aside from the access onto the A120, there is also a possibility that if Pond Hall Farm goes ahead in conjunction with Bathside Bay, the road will need to be dualled from Ramsey roundabout eastwards to Parkeston roundabout, or there will be a need to provide suitable demand management measures to ensure the trunk road continues to operate within capacity. The cost of this, at least in part, may have to be borne by the Pond Hall Farm developers.
7.36 If the A120 is required to be dualled on this section, the likely cost would be in the order of £20 million. Such a scheme represents a long term aspiration for the District Council and is expected to be addressed in the first review of the LDF.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 48 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Needs
7.37 The housing requirements for the district, as provided by the East of England Plan, will need to be supported by appropriate transport infrastructure. It has been assumed that the dwellings will be allocated across the district, but with the majority being located in the major coastal towns of Clacton-on-Sea and Harwich. Highways
7.38 Figure 7.6 (sourced from the Essex Local Transport Plan 2006 -2011) shows that by 2021, under a ‘do nothing’ scenario, congestion on the strategic highway is expected to rise with the additional housing proposed within the East of England Plan (i.e. 8,500 dwellings for Tendring). Figure 7.6 Highway network congestion, 2021 Do Nothing scenario
7.39 Clacton-on-Sea/Walton-on-the-Naze: In particular the A133 between Crabtree roundabout and Green Lane roundabout will become increasingly congested in both the peak and off- peak periods, and links to Walton-on-the-Naze and Clacton-on-Sea will also see increased congestion in the peak periods.
7.40 It can be seen therefore that the allocation of significant levels of new development within the Clacton-on-Sea or Walton-on-the-Naze areas will potentially require improvements or upgrading of certain sections of the A133, or a robust sustainable transport strategy.
7.41 It is difficult to be exact on what level of development would represent the ‘tipping point’, such that the A133 improvements are then required. However, it is considered likely that a
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 49 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
figure of approximately 50% of the total development levels assessed (3,000 dwellings across Clacton and Walton) would potentially create unacceptable levels of congestion. Essex County Council are currently undertaking a modelling exercise to understand fully the impact this development might have on the A133.
7.42 What is clear is that currently, congestion is experienced in the peak periods on the pinch point on the A133. Therefore, further development will put further pressure on this pinch point and improvements are likely to be needed for relatively small additional levels of development.
7.43 Harwich: The A120 is shown to have no capacity constraints by 2021 with the addition of the East of England housing allocations. Therefore, with the housing allocation only, it can be assumed that upgrades to the A120 will not be necessary.
7.44 This plan however does not take into account the Bathside Bay development, which is estimated to add up to 3,000 extra 2-way HGV movements per day onto the A1207. If the Bathside Bay development was to come forward by 2016, Hutchinson Ports UK Limited (HPUK) will need to upgrade the A120, including dualling of particular sections as well as other minor improvements. If the development does go ahead, there would be a period of several years from the opening of Phase One of the development, during which an HGV capping measure would operate until the necessary highway works have been completed. HPUK would fund the necessary highways works. This is the situation at present but it is understood that the Section 106 agreement to which these requirements are tied has yet to be signed.
7.45 Other areas of development: In addition to Harwich, Clacton-on-Sea and Walton-on-the- Naze, a lower allocation of additional housing is proposed in Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley and Brightlingsea. Although these areas of development will have a smaller impact there may be local access issues arising, particularly where access to a town is by one road only, e.g. Brightlingsea.
7.46 Sustainable Transport Strategy: The highway impacts stated above all presume that a sustainable transport strategy would not be implemented with any new development within the district, and that current mode shares will remain the same. However sustainable transport and reducing the need to travel are key aims within the adopted Tendring Local Plan, and therefore it is likely that car usage within the new housing developments will be discouraged and more sustainable modes of transport encouraged. This will create mode shifts towards public transport, walking and cycling. Whilst this will lessen the impact of development on the strategic highway network, investment will be required to improve the public transport system within Tendring. Rail
7.47 Currently there are no capacity issues on the rail lines within Tendring District. With the addition of the allocated housing development within the district, it is not envisaged that there will be significant problems. Currently the main constraint on rail travel is the low
7 source: Inspectors Report on the Bathside Bay Inquiry
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 50 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
service frequency and journey times to key destinations such as London. In the future demand for services may increase if the main coastal towns such as Clacton-on-Sea grow significantly, and as such there may be a need to upgrade lines or increase services. New rail services would be provided by the franchisee, currently National Express East Anglia. Bus
7.48 Currently there are no significant capacity issues with the bus network in Tendring, however, this, like rail, may be associated with the lack of demand for services. With the new housing allocation within the district, demand for services, particularly local, may increase which will require planning and delivering new services. One such area that this might apply is West Clacton, where a significant amount of housing is planned. New services would be provided by First Group, who would either pay for this directly or look for an appropriate contribution. There will be a need to place greater emphasis on local services to link the major housing developments at Clacton and Harwich with town centres and local jobs - even if existing services are not very well used. Accessibility
7.49 Accessibility analysis has been undertaken using the public transport modelling software, Accession. This shows how accessible the potential development areas will be in terms of public transport (rail and bus) times. The promotion of a sustainable transport strategy will require good public transport accessibility. Figures 7.7 to 7.12 show the results of the accessibility modelling.
7.50 Development sites located within town centres (Clacton-on-Sea, Harwich and Walton-on- the-Naze) are closer to public transport nodes and therefore have the ability to access more places within 60 minutes. From Clacton-on-Sea for example, Colchester and Walton-on-the-Naze can be accessed within 31-40 minutes. From Harwich, Manningtree can be accessed in 21-30 minutes.
7.51 By contrast, developments in more ‘greenfield’ locations have less accessibility. From the edge of Clacton-on-Sea, Colchester can no longer be accessed within a 60-minute public transport ride. Similarly, access from Brightlingsea to Clacton has a journey time of 60 minutes despite being relatively close in distance terms. Lack of accessibility to key destinations by public transport will constrain development. Therefore as stated earlier, there will be a need to place greater emphasis on local bus provision.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 51 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Figure 7.7 Clacton-on-Sea future development – public transport accessibility
Figure 7.8 Harwich Town future development – public transport accessibility
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 52 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Figure 7.9 Walton-on-the-Naze future development – public transport accessibility
Figure 7.10 Brightlingsea future development – public transport accessibility
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 53 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Figure 7.11 Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley future development – public transport accessibility
Figure 7.12 West Clacton future development – public transport accessibility
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 54 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Costs
7.52 It is estimated that the cost of construction of the dualling of the A120 from Hare Green to Ramsey will be in the order of £45 million. Dualling will need to come forward when the Bathside Bay development is progressing, however, it is envisaged dualling will be a longer term scheme, and in the interim shorter term improvements of the A120 will be implemented in order to enable the early phases of the Bathside Bay development to be operational.
7.53 The cost of providing access to the A120 for the Pond Hall Farm employment allocation is likely to be in the order of £1.5 million (including construction costs, earthworks and drainage works etc). This is assuming Pond Hall Farm remains an employment site only. If further dualling of the A120 is required between Ramsey Roundabout and Parkeston Roundabout the approximate cost would be likely to be in the region of £20 million. This further dualling of the A120 would likely follow the dualling from Hare Green to Ramsey, therefore would be covered by the first review of the Local Development Framework.
7.54 For the improvements to the A133 between the Crabtree and Green Lane roundabouts, including upgrades of the roundabouts, the cost is likely to be approximately £12 million. Funding
7.55 The main sources of funding available for transport infrastructure can be summarised as follows:
. Local Transport Plan (LTP) funding – LTP2 funding is now closed. There may be potential for LTP3 funding which will run between 2012 and 2016; . Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) funding – This applies for schemes over £5m. As part of this funding a Major Schemes Business Case needs to be prepared; . Growth Area Funding (GAF); . Growth Point Funding (GPF) – Haven Gateway now has Growth Point Status and can therefore apply for this funding; . Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) funding – this closes on May 22nd 2009. Future funding for CIF currently unknown; and . Regional Infrastructure Funding (RIF) – This is a newer source of funding coming forward and its applicability is currently unknown.
7.56 More information about these funds and the process for bidding for them is included in Appendix 4.
7.57 In addition, developer contributions can be secured to help pay for infrastructure access by all travel modes and to ‘pump prime’ new bus services. Typically, a developer may need to provide a new bus service as part of a S106 agreement, or provide contributions. Currently, the District Council are in pre-application discussions with Bloor Homes on a 400-dwelling proposal at West Clacton, where this will be discussed. If a developer has to provide the service directly, they will go to bus companies and form an agreement. The key point is that this process is negotiable. Only where a route is profitable will a bus company provide it in any event.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 55 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
7.58 Out of these sources of funding, the most significant will be LTP and RFA funding. In financial years 2006/07 to 2010/11 Essex County was allocated £68.3 million from LTP (integrated transport) funding. For the Colchester and Haven Gateway sub area, a number of major schemes are highlighted within the delivery programme for 2006-2011. These include £5m for the regeneration of Jaywick, £7.1m for countywide schemes, £516,000 for urban traffic management schemes (potentially to resolve localised congestion problems including in the Clacton-on-Sea area) and £150,000 for Community Rail Partnership Station Enhancements (for promotion and support of the enhancement of the Clacton branch rail line). The £12 million for the A133 upgrades could be sought from LTP3 but it is unlikely that the full amount could be secured.
7.59 Previous funding from GAF has allocated £55,200,000 in 2008/09 – 2010/11 to support schemes in Chelmsford, Braintree, Haven Gateway and Harlow.
7.60 It should be noted that the proposals for investment on the A120 from Stanway to Braintree have been cancelled. This was a Highways Agency scheme and therefore does not have any implications for money that might otherwise become available to spend in Tendring because it was not under the discretion of Essex County Council.
7.61 The potential from these funding pots, by timescale, is shown in Table 7.1.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 56 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report Table 7.1 Summary of funding allocations £m 2006/07- 2011/12 – 2016/17 – 2021/22- Comments 2010/11 2015/16 2020/21 2025/26 LTP - Essex Wide LTP (integrated £68.345 £68.345 £68.345 £68.345 This is the Essex wide figure. The first period is projected through to transport) 2025/26. LTP - Colchester and Haven Gateway Sub Area Jaywick Regeneration £5 Funding will be made available for this through 2nd and 3rd LTPs (majority 3rd). Countywide schemes £7.130 This is funding from the countywide programme (£68m) for Colchester and the Haven Gateway. Urban traffic £0.516 Delivery of a traffic management strategy to resolve localised congestion Management problems including in Clacton-on-Sea. Community Rail £0.150 Promotion and support the enhancement of the Clacton branch rail line. Partnership Station enhancements Total funding for Tendring related 12.796 12.796 12.796 This is the figure currently allocated for projects applicable to schemes Tendring District within the Delivery programme as outlined in the Essex LTP 2006-2011.The first period is projected through to 2021/22 – 2025/26. Growth Area Funding GAF £55.200 * £92 £92 £92 * This figure is the allocation for 2008/09 -2010/11. Future projections have been growthed up to 5 years. This is a provisional total allocated by government to support schemes in Chelmsford, Braintree, Haven Gateway and Harlow. Growth Point Funding GPF £12 £12 £12 £12 Identified for Haven Gateway as a Growth Point.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 57
Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
8 UTILITIES
Electricity
8.1 Electricity is generated from power stations and transmitted through a national network of electricity lines operating at 275 and 400kv before connecting to local networks owned by distribution companies. EDF Energy is the appointed distribution company for Tendring district.
8.2 Electricity in Tendring is supplied from the National Grid transmission system to EDF Energy at 132kV. Their Grid and Primary sub-stations supply the towns and villages at 33kV and within the catchments via smaller sub-stations and a network of underground cables at 11kV.
8.3 The area is served by two 132/33kV (Grid) substations, one at Lawford supplying the area to the north including Manningtree, Harwich and Dovercourt, the other at Clacton supplying Walton, Frinton, Clacton and areas to the south. Each Grid substation supplies several 33/11kV substations that finally provide the 11kV distribution network to meet the local requirements. Capacity of Existing Infrastructure
8.4 Generally across Tendring district there are no existing capacity issues. The Clacton 132/33kV substation is nearing capacity and is expected to require reinforcement in the fullness of time. Lawford was reinforced a few years ago and so, at present, has a greater level of available transformer capacity. Needs
8.5 As stated above, the Clacton 132/33kV substation will need reinforcement at some stage in the near future. This is expected to be achieved on the existing site with new larger capacity transformers and 33kV switchgear.
8.6 Network capacity in the area to the west of Clacton is limited at present. Some reinforcement has been taking place to maintain the network for generic growth. If an additional 3,400 dwellings were developed there, it would exceed the existing headroom available. This may prompt the establishment of a new 33/11kV primary substation in the area. Land would be required to facilitate this - a new substation would require a plot of approximately 30m x 40m - and should ideally not be located adjacent to housing. Initial supplies to new housing would be available from existing 11kV circuits, with the new primary being delivered when required. In addition, locating a further primary sub-station to the west of Clacton could also support further development in the area if it was required.
8.7 All other growth options would be capable of being accommodated by the existing network of primary sub-stations. In all cases, there may be a requirement to install some new 11kV network in order to provide new supplies. Development of this network in the Kirby Cross area may require new crossings of Network Rail lines. However, none of this is considered to be significant in terms of preventing development.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 59 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Costs
8.8 As a guide the current cost of a new sub-station – as may be required to serve high levels of growth in West Clacton - would be in the region of £2m and the off-site network cable works are likely to be between £1-3m, dependent on the extent to which operational and upgrading works are needed to serve the developments. Funding
8.9 The existing charging methodology is for developers to support the capital investment needed to extend or reinforce the electricity network to their developments. The charges made to existing connected customers does not support network extension; it supports maintenance, repairs and generic reinforcement. Where a development prompts infrastructure reinforcement they may be required to contribute towards the reinforcement on a total or a proportional basis.
8.10 EDF may be prepared to fund some strategic infrastructure if that has the benefit of reinforcing supply to the existing networks. However, the developer will be recharged a proportion of these costs. Priorities
8.11 If there is spare capacity within the system this will be allocated on a first come first served basis. Developments located closer to the point of connection will generally require a lower capital investment then developments located a distance from the major infrastructure. EDF will look to invest in the existing infrastructure where customers are experiencing problems with supply and will look to carry out the necessary reinforcement works as a priority. Timing of Provision
8.12 The installation of network and sub-stations to supply a new development could take in the region of two to three years and this would be phased with the planned growth. Issues
8.13 The assessment is based on existing network loading. The available headroom capacity may change as a result of other new connections or increases in demand. This may affect the assessment of need currently identified. A diverse approach to the increase in provision of new dwellings across the district reduces the overall impact to the electricity infrastructure, making large scale projects unlikely.
Gas
8.14 Gas is delivered through seven reception points into the United Kingdom and distributed through a National Transmission System (NTS). National Grid is responsible for the NTS which covers the whole of Great Britain.
8.15 A series of off-take points in the NTS supplies gas to twelve Local Distribution Zones. In the Tendring area, National Grid Gas is the licensed gas transporter.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 60 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Capacity of Existing Infrastructure
8.16 Across Tendring district there are no existing capacity issues. Needs
8.17 All of the possible growth locations, based on the indicative dwelling numbers, currently have sufficient good quality infrastructure gas mains to support development. The exact needs will depend on the specific requirements of the particular development (i.e. exact locations and whether the existing network is providing low pressure/medium pressure, etc).
8.18 The only growth options that would cause a potential requirement for reinforcement would be those at St. Osyth (200 dwellings), Brightlingsea (600 dwellings), and Walton-on-the- Naze (1,000 dwellings). The reason for this is that these locations are at the extremity of the infrastructure network. Costs
8.19 The costs of upgrading the existing network – as opposed to providing new infrastructure – are comparatively small. Funding
8.20 The expectation by National Grid is that the cost of the network infrastructure both on-site (i.e. direct services to dwellings) and off-site (i.e. new connections to provide gas from the National Grid) will be borne solely by developers. The gas company may wish to install strategic pipelines at an early stage of the developments and will recharge a proportion of the costs to each developer. Priorities
8.21 If there is spare capacity within the system this will be allocated on a first come first served basis. Developments located closer to the point of connection will generally require a lower capital investment then developments located a distance from the major infrastructure. Timing of Provision
8.22 Given that only upgrading of the network is needed, National Grid Gas would be able to supply these new loads, or reinforce them on a reasonably short timescale, i.e. within six months. Therefore, the need would follow the planned provision of development.
8.23 Only if a large number of loads are added to the network in a short period of time could the upstream systems be overloaded. These reinforcements could cause delays in "gas on dates" but these delays are not considered to be significant within the context of the likely programme of housing delivery. Issues
8.24 It will be important to fully engage with National Grid Gas once specific site information is available, specifying what size loads are likely to be connected and a proposed time scale. Within NGG’s Network Planning, infrastructure budgets are heavily regulated and constrained by OFGEM (the gas regulator). This means that reinforcement projects are
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 61 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
planned on a very reactive basis as and when new loads connect to the network. The connections analysis process and regulatory rules force a reactive, rather than proactive, approach and any reinforcement requirements are subject to an economic test to apportion costs. As a wider issue – outside the confines of the study – it will be important for the infrastructure planning system to work with NGG in order to determine whether a more proactive approach can be taken.
Telecommunications Introduction
8.25 This section considers telecommunications infrastructure in Tendring. We review this subject briefly because landline and broadband provision is dealt with between developers and providers. Capacity of existing infrastructure
8.26 We understand there are some current broadband capacity issues in Tendring. ADSL Max (8Mbps) enabled broadband presence in Essex is 98.4%, although it is 100% in many other areas of the country8. There are currently the following exchanges in Tendring:
. Harwich . Clacton-on-Sea . Frinton-on-Sea . Holland-on-Sea . Brightlingsea . St Osyth . Little Clacton . Weeley . Great Bentley . Wivenhoe . Ardleigh . Manningtree . Wix . Ramsey Source: – www.samknowsbest.com Needs
8.27 There are no infrastructure requirements on the public sector for providing either fixed-line or mobile telecom services. BT has an obligation to provide a landline to every household in the UK, and developers will want to facilitate this otherwise their developments will be unsellable. The market is functioning well in this regard and there is no need for public involvement. Mobile phone provision is also a matter for private sector provision. The
8 www.samknowsbest.com
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 62 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
main requirement is for sites for masts. This is dealt with through the development system.
8.28 Broadband access is also almost universally available through the market, so this places no infrastructure demands on the public sector either. Business users can purchase additional bandwidth to speed up their internet access if they wish to. Those requiring speeds higher than ADSL (up to 8 mbps) can obtain increased bandwidth through the market.
8.29 It is noted that many users across the district have complained of slow or intermittent broadband access. Costs
8.30 As the infrastructure provision is private investment, we have not felt it necessary to identify the costs. Funding
8.31 In the case of both fixed-line and mobile, telecoms, new infrastructure will be funded from the capital programmes of BT and also cable companies, where the latter operate.
8.32 The Digital Britain review mentions a universal access to 2mbps broadband by 2012, but is unclear on exactly how this will be funded (although it appears to be an extension of BT’s Public Service Obligation on phone provision across the broadband industry). By the summer, the review will decide whether the government needs to invest in next- generation broadband - a superfast network which would further revolutionise communications and, so the theory runs, stimulate the economy.9 Priorities
8.33 Telecom services should be rolled out as the new housing and commercial development is built so the issue of priorities does not arise.
8.34 If issues of prioritisation arise with regard to high-speed internet access, BT and other providers should be encouraged to give priority to employment areas, although they will probably wish to do so on commercial grounds in any event. But it is important to note that many existing residents are currently experiencing poor levels of broadband connectivity and performance. This needs to be addressed.
8.35 We have shown above that these infrastructure costs are generally picked up by the private sector. They do not represent a priority for public sector investment. Timing of provision
8.36 Our assessment concentrates on infrastructure provided by the public sector. Telecoms connections are dealt with privately by the developer. We have therefore not made any timing assumptions.
9 http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/5631.aspx
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 63 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Key issues and conclusions
8.37 We do not consider that the provision of telecoms infrastructure gives rise to any significant issues. It will not be a showstopper. However, there is a need to improve the levels of broadband quality serving existing residents and, by extension, all future residential developments.
Water – Potable Supply
8.38 The provider of potable (drinking) water supply to Tendring district is Tendring Hundred Water Services Limited. Capacity of Existing Infrastructure
8.39 Existing infrastructure is sufficient to deliver current demand. Needs
8.40 Nearly all of the major locations – Clacton, Frinton/Walton, Manningtree/Mistley/Lawford and Brightlingsea - either definitely or almost certainly have sufficient capacity to supply all the possible growth options. There are various issues that may impact on the need for particular additional potable water infrastructure but will not be sufficiently significant to potentially hinder development. These are:
. Clacton Town Centre – the water mains in the town centre are generally small diameter and therefore local mains reinforcements may be required. Special consideration would need to be given for any high rise development as the maximum mains pressure is potentially too low to support this; . Frinton - special consideration would need to be given for any high rise development as the maximum mains pressure is potentially too low to support this; and . Dovercourt, Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley and Brightlingsea – some local offsite reinforcement may be required depending upon the location of the development.
8.41 There is only one location that cannot come forward until new infrastructure is put in. This is at Parkeston/Bathside which is dependent on a new service water reservoir being provided on the outskirts of Dovercourt. This development is already planned. It is important to be clear that this only relates to new greenfield development around Parkeston/Bathside. The levels of development assessed within the existing Harwich urban area will not, on their own, require additional infrastructure.
8.42 The other locations, although within the Company’s area of supply, have limited mains capacity to serve them. This is principally because these are more rural locations that have not seen significant development in the past, so little network capacity has been needed or planned to support their needs. Costs
8.43 Cost information has not been provided. This is partly because it is dependent on the type and location of development. Also, it reflects the nature of the funding of water services, which is explained below.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 64 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Funding
8.44 Any new development would be funded by the developer in accordance with the requirements of the Water Industry Act. In reality, the actual payments made by the developer for any on-site water main would be significantly less than the cost of the asset. Any new service connection would be charged in accordance with standard rates and standard infrastructure charges would also apply. Given the fact that revenue will fill the shortfall, there are no funding issues with providing potable water supply. Priorities
8.45 No priorities have been identified. Timing of Provision
8.46 There are no particular priorities for timing identified. Issues
8.47 No particular issues have been identified.
Water – Wastewater
8.48 The provider of wastewater services to Tendring district is Anglian Water. Capacity of Existing Infrastructure
8.49 Across the East of England region as a whole, the sewage treatment works (STWs) and sewer networks are largely at or near to capacity. This is true of Tendring district where very little growth can be accommodated without the need for additional capacity to be provided. The exception is Harwich, where a STW was completed approximately 13 years ago to cope with anticipated growth at that time. As this growth largely did not materialise, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate potential levels of growth identified for this area, subject to more detailed feasibility assessment.
8.50 Anglian Water would therefore support growth in Harwich to enable the treatment works to operate efficiently. Needs
8.51 Growth in most locations will require some form of expansion of the network. This will either be in the form of an extension to an existing STW or additional tunnel networks.
8.52 In the major growth locations at Clacton, there would need to be an extension to the respective existing STW. For development in West Clacton, there could be an issue with the ability to expand the Jaywick STW (into which flows would discharge) if the full scale of development was delivered. Therefore, the solution would either be to develop a new STW in the nearest appropriate location or to move the existing STW to a new location capable of supporting a larger facility. Development in other parts of Clacton would require upgrading of Clacton STW and new sewers. In all cases the level of additional infrastructure required is directly related to the scale of development.
8.53 For all development at Harwich the existing STW is located to the north of the town and discharges into the River Stour. Therefore, brownfield development in and around
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 65 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Harwich Town/Dovercourt should be capable of being supported, as long as the tunnel sewer can be accessed. Development at Parkeston/Bathside would be on the other side of town to the STW, so would need significant additional sewer networks to be able to access it. The greater the level of development, the more significant the infrastructure requirement. Subject to maximising use of the tunnel sewer, there is sufficient treatment works capacity (subject to more detailed feasibility assessments) to accommodate the levels of potential growth in the Harwich area.
8.54 Development in Frinton/Walton is likely to be capable of being accommodated in terms of the capacity of the existing STW, but there is likely to be a need for upgrading to existing sewers or new sewers.
8.55 Development on the Colchester fringe would discharge into the Colchester STW. This has capacity to accommodate such levels of growth but the sewer network would need to be expanded.
8.56 Development at Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley would require expansion of the existing Manningtree STW. The same applies to any development at Brightlingsea.
8.57 Elmstead Market and Alresford are served by the Thorrington STW. This is a bio bubble STW and is comparatively new. When taken together, development at these locations should enable a small expansion of the capacity that this STW can accommodate, such that development could be supported. However, it is likely that new sewers will be needed.
8.58 Development at Great Bentley and St Osyth could not be supported by the existing STWs, so both would need expansion.
8.59 Development at Thorpe-le-Soken would flow into the Clacton STW which has sufficient capacity to support this development. Costs
8.60 At this point, it is not possible to determine the cost of extensions to existing STWs or the cost of providing additional sewer networks. This will need to be determined when particular schemes are assessed. However, the nature of funding of waste water services means that costs are not likely to create issues for the delivery of infrastructure needs (see below). Funding
8.61 Capital spending on waste water services is funded by the revenue collected from existing customers. Anglian Water produces a 5-year Asset Management Programme that is approved by OFWAT. The current 5-year plan is expected to be determined shortly. This identifies all needs over the next five years.
8.62 On large developments, Anglian Water would expect to see developer contributions being used to support early delivery of waste water facilities.
8.63 Anglian Water only pays for waste water services related to residential development. The costs for serving employment and retail development are expected to be met in full by the developer.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 66 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Priorities
8.64 Anglian Water does not consider that there are any particular priorities for growth. The key issue is timing of provision (see below). Timing of Provision
8.65 The lead-in times for providing new facilities are considerable. Depending on the size of the additional facilities (which in turn are directly related to the scale of additional housing growth) and their location, the expansion of an existing STW would take between 2½ and 5 years. A new STW would take up to 8 years to provide.
8.66 Therefore, any major growth that would require expansion of an existing STW would have a significant lead-in time. Issues
8.67 At present it is assumed that there is the land available to extend existing STWs. However, if there is not (and there is doubt over the ability to expand the Jaywick STW) then the additional land would have to be acquired which would create additional costs. This would need to be determined when considering specific schemes.
8.68 It will be the role of the Part Two study to look at the need for and potential to expand existing STWs.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 67
Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
9 WASTE
9.1 Essex County Council is responsible for the treatment and disposal of municipal waste. Tendring District Council is responsible for the collection of household waste. The brief for the study makes it clear that only the management (i.e. treatment and disposal) of waste should be considered. Therefore, it is only the County function that is relevant. Key Documents Essex Waste Strategy 2007 - 2032
9.2 In order to meet the requirements of the EU Landfill Directive, the Government has set the following targets for recycling and composting of household waste: at least 40% by 2010, 45% by 2015 and 50% by 2020. There are also specific targets for reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill to:
. 75% of 1995 levels by 2010; . 50% of 1995 levels by 2013; and . 35% of 1995 levels by 2020. 9.3 In practice, this would mean having to dispose of 225kg of residual waste per person by 2020.
9.4 The Essex Waste Strategy states that municipal waste in Essex is currently increasing by less than 0.5% per annum. This is based on a 7-year historical trend of waste generation in Essex, which has been 1% per annum. The Strategy estimates that in the future, that rate will be 0.5% per annum. This projected growth takes into account an increasing population and an increase in household numbers, as well as behavioural changes from the public, such as reuse and recycling, reduced packaging, etc.
9.5 In terms of costs, the Strategy states that the average gross cost of municipal waste management of the Essex CC (as reported under Best Value Performance Indicator 87) has increased from £35.66 per tonne in 2001/02 to £60.64 per tonne in 2006/07. Whilst this increase is partly due to service improvements, the increases are mainly as a result of the Landfill Tax price escalator and other landfill related factors such as diminishing landfill void space, tougher legislation governing landfill engineering and cost inflation. Total landfill costs for Essex County Council amounted to £23.3 million in 2006/07. Costs of waste collection per household in Tendring were £33.60 in 2006/2007. Capacity of Existing Infrastructure
9.6 There are currently five Recycling Centres for Household Waste in Tendring, located at: . Clacton; . Dovercourt; . Kirby-le-Soken; . Lawford; and . St Osyth. 9.7 The Waste Strategy states that Essex as a whole has been successful in achieving continued reductions in the total amount of municipal waste going to landfill each year and
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 69 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
increasing recycling rates for household waste year on year. At present there are no known shortfalls in provision for existing waste transfer and treatment facilities or for recycling services.
9.8 Equally, there is no known clear surplus in existing facilities. However, with the change in the type of provision – related to the targets for increased recycling and waste processing – some of the existing facilities will become obsolete over the long term. Needs
9.9 The Waste Strategy does not identify a physical infrastructure need as such. However, in order to deliver the targets in the Strategy for recycling and treatment of waste, it will be necessary to overhaul the service. To do this, new facilities are required.
9.10 As part of understanding future needs, Essex County Council has undertaken an options appraisal. In the outset, this looked at the potential for one or two waste processing plants serving the whole of Essex, or a series of much smaller facilities dotted about the County. It was determined that the preferred approach was to have either one or two facilities, and further analysis settled on a two-site approach.
9.11 Although the locations of these two sites have not been finalised – this will only be done once a bid for Private Finance Initiative funding has been approved – it has been confirmed that neither will be in Tendring, therefore there are no needs relating to the district. Costs
9.12 New households potentially give rise to the following requirements: . Civic Amenity Sites or Recycling Centres for Household Waste (RCHW) – These may need to be extended, redeveloped or relocated to accommodate the increased waste throughput. The costs of extending an existing site may be very small if the extension is modest, but a new site may cost up to £2.5 million; . Waste Transfer Stations – Depending on the location of new development, it may be more economical to transfer waste from collection vehicles for onward transport to treatment/disposal facilities. The cost of a waste transfer station is of the order of £1.5 million; and . Waste Treatment Facilities – These typically have a lifespan of at least 25 years and need to be designed to accommodate housing and waste growth over this period. It is generally not feasible to extend or upgrade waste treatment facilities and the capital costs for providing one large enough to deal with growth over its life must be borne at the beginning of the project. Costs depend on scale and technology adopted.
9.13 However, given that there are no needs associated with future waste provision in Tendring, there are zero costs as well. Funding
9.14 In order to deliver the objectives of the Waste Strategy and to meet environmental and legislative targets, Essex County Council estimates that an investment of £300m of capital funding is needed in Essex and Southend (on the basis of a joint working approach) over the next five years or so to provide the new facilities required.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 70 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
9.15 Essex County Council has put together an Outline Business Case for new strategic waste facilities. The purpose is to seek funding for these needs through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI).
9.16 The bid – and the identified need for two facilities – is based on several assumptions. These include the forecasts of population growth from the Office for National Statistics and the forecast change in the number of households that informed the East of England Regional Spatial Strategy.
9.17 It is understood that only 50% of the funding for capital need will come from PFI. Of the remaining £150m, Essex County Council considers that it will be able to cover the full outstanding amount through private finance funding sources with the public sector meeting the service costs that are recharged. Priorities
9.18 It is clear that the construction of these two waste facilities represents a priority for the county as a whole, including Tendring. Timing of Provision
9.19 It is understood that these facilities are to be provided within the first five years of the LDF period (2011-2016). Issues
9.20 There are no issues associated with this assessment.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 71
Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
10 CEMETERIES
Capacity of Existing Infrastructure
10.1 There are presently four cemeteries within the district: . Clacton . Dovercourt . Kirby-le-Soken . Walton-on-the-Naze 10.2 The cemetery at Walton is closed to new burials (i.e. it will accept burial of family members of those already buried there) but the other three still have available burial space. The cemetery at Kirby is sufficiently close by and with sufficient space to accommodate the needs of Frinton, Walton and Kirby for the duration of the plan period.
10.3 The Clacton facility has an adjacent plot which was to be used for further burials. Whilst it has some difficult land conditions, it is considered that there is sufficient burial space for at least the next 20 years.
10.4 The Dovercourt facility currently has plenty of space, sufficient to cover at least the duration of the plan period. Needs
10.5 Subject to mitigation against the ground conditions on the land at Clacton cemetery, there is no need for any further burial space in Tendring. Costs
10.6 There are no costs to be addressed. Funding
10.7 No additional funding is required for any capital growth. Priorities
10.8 There are no priorities. Timing of Provision
10.9 The additional space required at Clacton must come forward when required. Issues
10.10 There are no issues.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 73
Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
11 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FUNDING
Introduction
11.1 In the previous sections we have considered the existing capacity of different types of infrastructure in Tendring, and an indication of what the future needs and costs issues are likely to be in response to growth. We also considered what mainstream funding issues there will be in meeting these potential needs and costs.
11.2 There has generally been insufficient mainstream funding to meet all infrastructure needs and costs resulting from growth in the past. Developer contributions have been (and are likely to continue to be) critical to helping to fund new infrastructure requirements.
Our remit
11.3 It is therefore necessary to consider potential developer contribution funding as part of an infrastructure delivery plan. In this section we have assessed:
. Past levels of developer contribution funding; . Factors affecting developer contribution funding; and . Indicative potential developer contribution levels for different types of development in Tendring.
Background
Each development site is unique
11.4 Development is not a homogenous product; all the development sites identified to potentially accommodate the identified growth are different. At a fundamental level, the location of each site is unique. However, there are also likely to be potentially large differences in the value a site will generate from development, the cost of such development (including site acquisition costs) and the timing of when the development will be delivered. The potential development contribution “pot”
11.5 To understand what level of developer contribution a site could potentially provide towards funding infrastructure, it is important to understand how value is created by development to afford this.
11.6 As Figure 11.1 shows below, a theoretical surplus available for developer contributions can be created where development value exceeds total costs (which includes developer profit).
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 75 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Figure 11.1 Estimation of developer contribution approach Total Development Value Minus Land Acquisition Costs Minus Total Development Costs Minus Developers Profit
= Theoretical Surplus Available to Fund Developer Contributions
11.7 This theoretical surplus or contribution “pot” (where it exists) is a finite amount, and can be used by a developer to pay for required contributions. These contributions can include on-site infrastructure such as schools and/or financial contributions such as for strategic transport infrastructure and open space.
Past contribution levels
11.8 We have been provided with information from the Council on contribution levels for 20 developments in Tendring (see Appendix 5). This information indicates financial developer contributions ranged from £0 to £8,000 per unit and affordable housing of 0 – 100%. Unsurprisingly, the higher financial contributions levels (for infrastructure such as open space, education and transport) were achieved where low (or no) affordable housing was required.
Factors affecting future contribution levels
11.9 The following key variables will affect the general level of developer contribution that could be available from growth, and how much variation there will be between sites:
. The level of land values needed to maintain an adequate flow of land onto the market (or the site acquisition cost where it has already been acquired by a developer); . The types of sites earmarked for development in the context of their existing use value and preparation costs; . Whether there are different markets in terms of demand, supply and general sales values the earmarked sites are located in; . General economic issues such as the affect of the credit crunch on sales values and demand; . Policy issues such as layout and design rules, and sustainability requirements (such as Code for Sustainable Homes code levels); and . Potential availability of Housing and Communities Agency grant for affordable housing contributions.
11.10 Some of the key variables outlined above are discussed below. House prices and the property market
11.11 House prices are one of the main determinants of the level of potential theoretical value that a development creates which could be captured by a local planning authority as
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 76 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
developer contributions. As house prices can vary significantly across a district, so therefore can the potential developer contributions that could be secured to help fund infrastructure.
11.12 The Fordham Research Affordable Housing Site Viability Study (2006) identified four broad categories of development in Tendring:
. High value locations such as Frinton and Mistley; . Medium-high value rural inland locations such as Ardleigh; . Medium value locations such as Little Clacton; and . Low value sites in less attractive locations such as Dovercourt, Jaywick and some parts of Clacton.
11.13 When the study was carried out the property market was close to its “peak” in terms of house prices. The Fordham report suggested prices at this time varied between less than £2,000 per sq m in lower value areas to in excess of £2,500 per sq m in high value areas. House prices are falling
11.14 We are currently in an unstable housing market, with house prices having fallen significantly since 2007/8.
11.15 The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) 2009 Housing Forecast reports the consensus view is that residential prices (based on the mortgage approval indices compiled by HBOS and the Nationwide Building Society) are likely to decline by 10% - 15% over the course of 2009, with the peak to trough drop of somewhere between 25% and 30%. Predicated timescales for recovery
11.16 There is, however, no consensus view on when values will recover fully to their 2007/8 peak. The RICS Housing Market Survey in June 2009 showed a reported decline in the rate of price falls nationally. As noted by the Nationwide though, this is based on abnormally low supply levels. It predicts additional supply is likely to come from homeowners who see their financial position impacted by higher unemployment and lower incomes. Increased demand is therefore one potential obstacle to continuing to build towards a recovery.
11.17 In November 2008 Savills Research predicted that growth would return to the mainstream by early 2011, with a full recovery to 2007 values in the South East by 2012, and the South West, East Midlands, East of England, London and Scotland by 201310. Its latest research in May 2009 predicts growth will not return to the mainstream now until late 2011 or early 201211. Knight Frank reported last year that “prices will take some time to recover to their 2007 peak, a process which, on average, will be complete by 2015, led by central London (2012) and concluded by Northern Ireland (2019)”.
10 Savills Research – UK Residential Forecast: Boom and Bust – The Inevitable Cycle? (November 2008) 11 Savills Research – Residential Property Focus: Housing market recovery, the four stages (May 2009)
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 77 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
11.18 Price Waterhouse Coopers UK Economic Outlook (July 2009) includes a more pessimistic analysis of potential housing market recovery scenarios. Analysis of different economic conditions shows that even in 2020, after five years of relatively strong growth, real house prices are projected in a median scenario to be only around 8% above 2008 levels in real inflation-adjusted terms. Furthermore, their analysis shows there is a 30% chance that real house prices in 2020 could still be below 2008 levels. Assumed recovery scenario
11.19 With no consensus on the recovery of the housing market, a possible scenario for the future level of residential sales values in Tendring is set out below:
. Bottom of the market (sales values 25% lower than “peak” levels): 2009-11 . Partial recovery (sales values 10% lower than “peak” levels): 2012-14 . Full recovery (sales values return to “peak” levels): 2015 + Local authorities are currently under pressure to renegotiate Section 106 agreements
11.20 As house prices and demand have fallen significantly recently, developers who acquired land at peak land values, and secured planning permissions before the credit crunch, are now reassessing the viability of their schemes. In many cases, developers are arguing their schemes are now unviable on the basis of the Section 106 requirements previously agreed and are seeking to reduce these requirements. This may be due to genuine viability issues (such as high abnormal costs and existing use values which are discussed in more detail below) or because they paid too much for the land.
11.21 This suggests that developer contribution funding for infrastructure is likely be compromised to some degree until the property and land markets recover. The differences between brownfield and greenfield development
11.22 One of the key differences that will affect developer contribution levels is the land type. The most recognised distinction is between “greenfield” and “brownfield” land.
11.23 Although brownfield land can usually support a higher density of development, particularly where it is in an existing urban area, it still often less profitable to develop than greenfield land due to the following:
Brownfield existing use values (EUVs) are often higher – The Fordham study in 2006 suggested agricultural land values (i.e. greenfield sites) were £4,000 per ha, but were £450,000 per ha for industrial land. An agricultural landowner would expect a much higher price for its land where a residential planning permission can be secured, and the Fordhams study suggests a greenfield landowner would be prepared to sell at £150,000 per ha. However, brownfield residential development sites often have existing buildings on the site rather than been clear. For example, if the existing use is industrial, the EUV of a site could be in the order of £2m per ha (depending on factors such as the capital value of the existing buildings, site density etc) with buildings, rather than £450,000 per ha without buildings; and
Brownfield development costs can be higher. - Brownfield land often has site specific or “abnormal” development costs associated with it, such as remediation, demolition and relocation of existing businesses that are not associated with greenfield
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 78 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
development. These costs often have a major impact on viability, and can render sites unviable for development without public subsidy. The importance of land costs
11.24 Land costs can form a significant proportion of development costs. As a consequence, the land cost will have a major impact on the level of developer contributions that could be secured.
11.25 As set out above, brownfield land with existing value for employment uses often costs significantly more than greenfield land. As greenfield land forms a potential proportion of the sites under consideration in this study, we have considered this in more detail.
11.26 The uplift in value of greenfield land on the grant of planning permission for residential development is significant. However, much of this value goes to the landowner rather than the developer in the form of eventual development profit. Capturing this landowner value for developer contributions is critical to funding infrastructure.
11.27 In addition, due to its low existing use value, the land cost of greenfield land is usually based on the “residual” land value i.e. the residual value after taking into account projected development value, costs, profit and developer contribution requirements, including affordable housing that can be paid for land. Consequently, if a developer has assumed unrealistic values or much lower contributions than a local authority’s contribution policy, then development may be either unviable or the LA will not receive its required contributions (see para. 11.20 above).
11.28 Whether the land has already been acquired is therefore an important factor as to the level of developer contribution that can be secured, particularly in the current market if the land was acquired before the credit crunch at “peak” land prices. Developer “options”
11.29 Most medium to large “greenfield” development sites that have been (or could be) allocated for housing by the LPA are “optioned” by developers rather than purchased outright. One key reason is due to the risks involved in trying to calculate a set price for a development on a residual basis (where many costs and other variables such as development density are unknown).
11.30 A developer will usually pay the landowner (such as a farmer) a non-returnable, but relatively small, option fee (e.g. £100,000) to secure the legal right to acquire the land in agreed circumstances. Within the option agreement, there will be a mechanism for calculating what price will be paid by the developer for the land. This usually includes a minimum (or “base”) land price (e.g. £250,000 per ha) the landowner will receive if the developer exercises the option, and a mechanism for calculating a share of any further value created by the development (usually a percentage of open market value). This additional value (e.g. a further £250,000 per ha) will take into account development costs, such as infrastructure costs required to service the site for residential development.
11.31 However, developers usually closely guard details of their option agreements, and consequently obtaining this information is difficult (unlike, say, house prices which are publicly available through the Land Registry).
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 79 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
11.32 Even where land was optioned in a strong market with more optimistic assumptions on house prices, it is possible to secure reasonable developer contributions should the market weaken (such as now) if the base land price is not breached. In this situation, the lower development value will be passed on to the landowner through a lower land price rather than reducing a developer’s profit resulting in unviable development or a need for a renegotiated Section 106 agreement.
11.33 Indeed, even if a base option price is breached, to ensure reasonable contributions are secured a developer can seek to renegotiate the terms of the option rather than renegotiate the Section 106 agreement. The impact of other planning policies
11.34 As set out above, the potential contribution “pot” from a development is limited. Other planning policies, such as affordable housing, layout and sustainability requirements, will need to be borne from this pot. Consequently, planning policies are not mutually independent; for example, the greater the affordable housing requirements, the less contribution will be available towards infrastructure and visa versa.
11.35 Affordable housing policy requirements often take a substantial amount out of this pot (and in some instances render a development unviable). We understand there is a regional expectation in the RSS that 35% of all new housing should be affordable. We understand the current affordable housing policy of 40% is currently being reviewed, but that significant change is not anticipated.
11.36 The Fordhams Study tested the viability of a number of sites in Tendring at varying affordable housing requirement levels. Based on assumed developer contributions of £1,650 - £11,600 per unit, it found that 40% affordable housing is only viable in higher value areas, greenfield sites in other areas (assuming a low land value is required by the landowner) or brownfield sites with few abnormal development costs. Housing grant
11.37 The viability assessments in the Fordhams study were required to assume zero housing grant for affordable housing. This is consistent with the Housing Corporation’s (HC) previous national policy on grant funding to support procurement through Section 106 Agreements was that none would be available, unless the need for public subsidy could be demonstrated. Importantly, the HC wished to ensure it did not subsidise land values i.e. help maintain high land prices to the benefit of land owners. 11.38 In reality, we understand grant funding has been available for developments in Tendring in the past. We understand from the Council that for the right scheme delivering a balance of accommodation types with guaranteed delivery, grant rates in excess of £60,000 per unit were being achieved for socially rented units.
11.39 We also understand the Homes and Communities Agency have recently released their outturn figures for the East of England for 2008/09. These show an average grant per unit of £47,545 for social rent (£12,873 per person) and £22,354 per unit for low cost home ownership (£6,077 per person). This reflects payment of higher grant rates in order to
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 80 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
stimulate the housing industry at a time of recession. Previously the average grant rate for socially rented units was approximately £35,000 per unit.
11.40 However, it cannot be assumed such levels of grant funding will continue to be available in the future. Initial assessment of potential developer contribution funding levels
11.41 For the purposes of this stage of the study, we have undertaken an initial high level assessment of potential indicative levels of developer contribution funding based on “generic” development sites to help identify issues effecting infrastructure planning and selection of growth options in infrastructure terms.
11.42 It should be noted that this will be refined in Part 2 of the study and there are some important caveats, which are set out below. It should also be noted the Council would need robust planning policy in place to justify future contributions levels, particularly where they are significantly higher than previous contribution levels. Our approach
11.43 As set out above, there are likely to be significant differences in key variables that will affect potential future developer contribution levels in Tendring.
11.44 To understand the range of potential developer contributions from different developments, we have undertaken high level assessments of a notional urban extension and a notional town centre development site at varying house price levels (low, medium and high).
11.45 We have set out below the assumptions used in this analysis. We have varied some of the key assumptions, e.g. affordable housing, to understand the impact they might have on developer contribution levels. Important caveats Our assessment only draws out strategic issues
11.46 At this stage, we are seeking to understand broad developer contribution issues that will effect strategic infrastructure planning and the potential growth options on this basis. Our initial assessment of developer contribution levels does not accurately reflect the wide range of development sites within the potential growth options. Calculations used here are not based on, and do not constitute, “Red Book” valuations
11.47 It is very important to note that our assessment of indicative developer contribution estimates are produced at a high level with a number of assumptions made. The figures that will be reported from this exercise need to be treated as indicative figures on the basis of the inputs and assumptions made. They are calculations of the residual worth of land for development and not the price which it might fetch in the market which can be very different. They are not based on, and do not constitute, “Red Book” valuations (RICS Valuation Standards 6th Edition) and do not provide any kind of reliable guide to the market value of any particular site. It is not our intention in this work to attempt to provide a substitute for a detailed site viability assessment.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 81 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Our analysis is only at a high level. This work should not be used to calculate developer contributions from specific sites
11.48 Our analysis is not on an individual site basis; we have assessed two notional types of development sites (see below) to understand the potential developer contribution issues at this stage.
11.49 Consequently, this information should not be used for any purpose other than the infrastructure assessment, and should not be used in developer contribution negotiations or to support any developer contribution policy.
11.50 We have not used standard development appraisal software (such as Circle Developer). This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, they are not tailored to assessing long term residential development schemes which could form a large part of the expected growth in Tendring. Most, in our experience, work on the assumption that money will be borrowed by a developer to pay for a scheme in which they key financial aim is to achieve a satisfactory margin (profit) on cost whereas volume housebuilders manage equity funding and aim to achieve a target return on the capital they employ. We understand the emerging DCLG guidance on appraising Eco-towns recommends using a NPV (return on capital employed) approach.
11.51 Secondly, appraisal packages are standardised and are therefore not designed to be integrated with infrastructure spreadsheet models. In our experience, they are also not as user friendly to allow predetermined key variables to be changed (e.g. affordable housing percentages).
11.52 We have therefore undertaken our analysis in Excel as this can be refined and directly linked into a spreadsheet infrastructure funding model at a later stage as required. We have not undertaken any site specific research
11.53 Given the high level nature of this part of the study, we have not undertaken any research to understand individual site issues. Consequently, key variables such as site specific/abnormal costs and land costs are based on our general market knowledge and do not necessarily accurately reflect actual potential future development sites in Tendring. Estimated developer contributions are highly sensitive to the assumptions
11.54 Any estimate of developer contributions potentially available to contribute to infrastructure requirements are extremely sensitive to the assumptions made. Further refinement will be necessary in the future to understand potential developer contribution levels more accurately
11.55 On the basis of the above, further work and refinement will be necessary in the future to achieve a more accurate picture of potential developer contribution levels from development in Tendring to help fund infrastructure. We recommend this is carried out in Part Two of the study. Assumptions used for the initial analysis
11.56 In addition to the important caveats above, there are a number of important assumptions we have used. More detailed assumptions for the purposes of our high level assessment
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 82 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
of developer contribution issues (such as house price levels, densities, affordable housing etc) are set out after. No specific developer contribution mechanism is assumed
11.57 Development contributions are currently secured through the Section 106 system (governed by Circular 05/2005). Although the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is proposed to work alongside and partially replace the Section 106 system, the maximum level of contribution that development could afford (without becoming unviable) under each system is largely the same, although timing and certainty of required contribution will affect this level.
11.58 The purpose of this assessment is not to determine a CIL charge and implementation mechanism. However, we still need to include developer contributions that could realistically be secured to help fund the infrastructure requirements identified in the assessment. We therefore propose to calculate this based on the level of financial contribution that could be reasonably secured from development, regardless of the particular mechanism (whether Section 106 or CIL).
11.59 We have assumed the timing of contribution payments is spread out over the life of the development. This is envisaged in the latest CIL guidance and contributions in the majority of large residential and mixed use developments are either spread or back ended. Our specific assumptions on timing are set out in more detail below. We have used a notional large urban extension and a notional small, high density, town centre development 11.60 As set out above, we have used a notional urban extension and notional town centre development in our assessment. We have assumed a large “greenfield” urban extension of 25 ha (equating to 525 units) with some site abnormal cost issues, and a cleared 1 ha town centre development (equating to 70 units) with alternative use value for industrial development and some site abnormal cost issues.
Summary of key development assumptions
11.61 As set out above, at this stage we are seeking to understand developer contribution funding issues as opposed to assessing potential developer contribution funding. We have therefore based our high level assessment on assumptions made in the Fordhams report, such as sales values, build costs etc, although these will need to be refined through the next stage of the infrastructure study. More detailed information on our assumptions is provided in Appendix 6.
11.62 Our assumptions on affordable housing and sustainability requirements were agreed with the Council. Finally, we have used our own general market knowledge where necessary.
11.63 We have set our key base assumptions out below. It should be noted that sales values (i.e. house prices) are based on previous “peak” values rather than current values; this is discussed in more detail later on.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 83 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Table 11.1 Summary of key development assumptions Variable Urban Extension Category Town Centre Category Site size (gross) 25 1 Development Density 35dph 100dph Net/Gross Site Ratio 60% 70% Development Mix 90% houses/10% flats 10% houses/90% flats Sales Value £1,884 - £2,422psm (houses) £2,072 - £2,664psm (houses) Affordable Housing 40% of residential units 40% of residential units (78% socially rented / 22% (78% socially rented / 22% intermediate) intermediate) Affordable Housing £0 per unit £0 per unit Grant Funding Land Acquisition Cost £0.5m per ha £1.0m per ha Build Costs Apartments: £1,184psm Apartments: £1,342psm Houses: £766psm Houses: £766psm Sustainability Costs Code Level 3 assumed Code Level 3 assumed (Code for Sustainable (+ 5% build costs) (+ 5% build costs) Homes) Site Specific / Abnormal £0.5m per ha £0.5m per ha Costs Secondary £0.25m per ha £0.25m per ha Infrastructure Costs External Works 13% of build costs 13% of build costs Fees & Other Costs 10% of build costs 10% of build costs Sales Rates 100 units pa 50 units pa Average Unit Sizes Apartments: 65 sq m Apartments: 65 sq m (Private) Houses: 85 sq m Houses: 85 sq m Average Unit Sizes Apartments: 70 sq m Apartments: 70 sq m (Affordable) Houses: 90 sq m Houses: 90 sq m Developer’s Required 17%pa 17%pa Rate of Return
Key findings from the initial analysis New development may struggle to provide contributions on basis of assumptions
11.64 To provide a potential contribution to infrastructure funding, it is necessary for sites to produce a surplus after allowing for other planning requirements (e.g. affordable housing and sustainability standards).
11.65 Our initial analysis shows both the notional urban extension and town centre sites produce a negative theoretical surplus available for developer contributions on the basis of the above assumptions. This indicates not only that actual allocated development sites might not provide any contributions to infrastructure funding, they may also be financially
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 84 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
unviable i.e. a developer would not undertake the development as little or no profit is generated and therefore undeliverable. Urban extension sites appear more viable than town centre sites on basis of assumptions
11.66 Our initial analysis indicates the notional urban extension site is more viable than the town centre site on the basis of the above assumptions. Whereas the notional urban extension in a high value area is on the margins of viability (without producing any theoretical surplus for developer contributions for potential infrastructure funding), the notional town centre site in all the assumed value areas is significantly unviable. Sensitivity testing of key assumptions Reducing affordable housing requirements significantly improves viability
11.67 If affordable housing is reduced to 20%, with grant funding of approximately £20,000 per unit, a limited amount of theoretical surplus is created in the assumed high value areas. It should be noted this is based on previous “peak” house prices, and therefore it cannot be assumed that such indicative contribution levels could be achieved in the current market. Urban extension sites with limited or no abnormal cost issues could potentially provide significant contributions to infrastructure funding
11.68 We have assumed abnormal costs on the notional urban extension site of £500,000 per ha as an average to cover some of the types of abnormal issues that are encountered on development sites. For example, one site may require off site infrastructure works, such as a stretch of access road or additional utilities, a second remediation/decontamination and a third acquisition of existing buildings or land (with associated demolition costs).
11.69 We have used an average as we have not assessed individual development sites, and such information may not be available or accurate in any event. However, some “greenfield” development sites in Tendring may have limited abnormal costs for residential development.
11.70 If abnormal costs of only £100,000 per ha are assumed, our analysis indicates an indicative theoretical surplus available for developer contributions from the notional urban extension site of over £10,000 per unit in the assumed high value area, based on 40% affordable housing. If affordable housing is reduced to 20% this increases to over £25,000 per unit in assumed high value areas and over £5,000 per unit in medium value areas. The notional urban extension in an assumed low value area still struggles to produce a theoretical surplus to help fund infrastructure in our notional example though.
11.71 It should be noted that the Fordham Research Affordable Housing Site Viability Study assumed contributions on sites tested of £1,650 - £11,600 per unit. On this basis, its viability analysis indicated that 40% social rented affordable housing on sites such as the St Johns Rd urban extension site in Clacton (assuming £6,900 per unit contributions) was deliverable, although this assumed much lower land costs.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 85 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Lowering greenfield land costs, particularly in lower value areas, could be critical to securing developer contributions
11.72 We have assumed £500,000 per ha land costs for both the notional urban extension and notional town centre site. Although existing use values for agricultural land, which we understand will form part of the urban extensions in Tendring, are only approximately £10,000 per ha from Valuation Office Agency (VOA) information, greenfield landowners have historically been paid much higher levels where residential permission has been, or is likely to be, granted.
11.73 If it is assumed land costs for the notional urban extension site are reduced to £250,000 per ha in the future (but house prices have recovered to their 2007 peak levels), the indicative theoretical surplus available for developer contributions is approximately £5,000 per unit in the assumed high value area at 40% affordable housing. However, medium and low value areas struggle to produce theoretical surplus available for developer contributions at 40% affordable housing.
11.74 It should be noted that even if much higher planning contributions than have previously been secured are required (i.e. in excess of £3,000 per unit), and this is reflected by developers in the amount they are prepared to pay such landowners, there is a risk land will not come to the market as landowners may choose to wait for land values to increase again to past levels. Some town centre sites may have significantly higher land costs which will effect viability
11.75 While the urban extension land cost assumption is based on high previous levels and in reality could be lower in Tendring in the future, especially in low value areas, land costs for town centre and other brownfield land sites could be significantly higher on some sites.
11.76 Fordhams assumed an alternative use value for industrial development of £500,000 per ha. This is based on VOA information, which we understand assumes cleared sites for development. As set out in paragraph 11.23, where there are existing buildings on a site this can push up the value of a site considerably to in the region of £2m per ha. We therefore used an indicative land cost of £1,000,000 per ha which is likely to be between a cleared industrial site and one still in use for our notional town centre development site.
11.77 Where land costs are in the region of £2m per ha, this has a significant impact on viability and would make it extremely difficult for such sites to provide affordable housing, higher sustainability standards and contributions to infrastructure; one or more of these potential planning requirements is likely need to be significantly reduced to produce financially viable development.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 86 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Summary of initial developer contribution analysis
11.78 Set out below is a summary table of our findings and sensitivity testing: Table 11.2 Summary of initial developer contributions analysis Theoretical Surplus Available to Fund Developer Contributions
Lower Affordable Lower Abnormal Lower Affordable Base Housing Costs Housing & Abnormal Assumptions (20%) (£100k per ha) Costs
Over £5,000 per unit in Marginal viability Over £10,000 per Notional Urban Negative for all medium value area & in higher value unit in high value value areas over £25,000 per unit in Extension Site area area high value area
Marginal viability Notional Town Centre Negative for all Negative for all Over £5,000 per unit in in higher value value areas value areas high value area Site area
Summary of key issues and findings
11.79 A summary of the key issues and findings from our initial assessment of developer contribution funding for infrastructure is set out below:
Development only has a limited developer contribution “pot” - This pot can vary significantly between sites due to differences in variables such as house prices and development costs (particularly land and abnormal costs). In addition, other requirements such as affordable housing can significantly reduce the “pot”. The relationship between different types of contributions needs to be understood as not all these are likely to be secured without compromising viability and deliverability;
Past developer contribution levels in Tendring have been relatively low - Infrastructure costs from growth can vary significantly; our experience indicates this range could be in the order of £10,000 to £40,000 per unit. However, we understand on average only approximately £3,000 per unit has been secured from development in Tendring in the last five years, some of which required limited or no affordable housing. This suggests that developer contribution levels may need to increase if sufficient funding is to be secured for infrastructure requirements;
The current affordable housing requirements have a significant impact on viability and potential levels of developer contribution - We have assumed a 40% affordable housing requirement and no grant is provided by HCA. Our initial analysis, based on notional urban extension and town centre development sites, suggests such a requirement may risk sites in low and medium value areas being unviable (i.e. even if no developer contributions were required, sites may not be financially viable) and may severely restrict developer contributions from high value areas or those with low land and abnormal costs;
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 87 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Viability and developer contributions will be adversely affected until the housing market recovers - Our analysis has been on the basis of previous “peak” residential sales values. However, current residential values are significantly lower which will have a negative impact on the viability of all sites. Some sites may still be deliverable based on some affordable housing and developer contribution requirements in current market conditions e.g. where “options” for large greenfield site can be renegotiated to reflect the short term impact on land values, but it is likely planning requirements would need to be significantly reduced from those assumed in our initial analysis to deliver development at the moment;
Prioritisation of planning requirements is required - Our analysis has shown the impact of other potential planning requirements, in particular affordable housing. It is unlikely that sufficient developer contributions to infrastructure costs resulting from growth can be secured if other planning requirements are onerous and there is significant development in low value areas and brownfield sites with high existing use and/or abnormal costs. Prioritisation of policy objectives may be essential to ensure both development and infrastructure are deliverable; and
Allocation of sites and robust developer contribution planning policy will be critical to securing funding for infrastructure - Our analysis has highlighted the large differences in potential levels of developer contributions that could theoretically be secured between different types of site (e.g. straightforward greenfield urban extensions and brownfield town centre sites with a high existing use value) and the different value areas of Tendring. If relatively high affordable housing levels are still sought after prioritisation of planning requirements, then a careful allocation of development sites will be required to secure sufficient developer contributions to demonstrate the deliverability of key infrastructure required to support growth. This will need to be coupled with a robust developer contribution policy to secure the necessary infrastructure funding from development.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 88 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
12 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
12.1 Below is a short summary of the big issues arising from the Part One study. Major issues
12.2 There are fundamentally no infrastructure issues that will absolutely prevent development in any of the potential locations being considered in the study. However, there are some items that will have a significant bearing on the preferred locations and, in particular, on the possible scale of development that could occur. These are:
. Transport (A120): If Bathside Bay goes ahead, then significant improvements will need to be made to the A120, including dualling of certain sections. Without Bathside Bay, then housing development could occur without the need for these major improvements; . Transport (Pond Hall Farm): if this goes ahead solely for employment uses, then it will require an at-grade roundabout, costing £1.5 million and taking at least three years to deliver. If it goes ahead in conjunction with Bathside Bay, then additional dualling of the A120 could be needed at a cost of £20 million; . Transport (A133): If significant development occurs in Clacton-on-Sea and Walton-on- the-Naze, then there will need to be upgrading of the A133. This is thought to be in the region of 50% of the theoretical maximum level of development, i.e. 3,000 dwellings; . Waste water: Any significant development in the district will require extensions to existing sewage treatment works and major expansions to the capacity of the sewer network; and . Education: potentially, even with the highest levels of growth proposed, there may be insufficient need in Harwich to justify a new secondary school. Costs and Funding
12.3 A large proportion of the costs of providing the major infrastructure in Tendring will be met by the providers themselves. This particularly relates to the utilities, for whom this is a standard practice and part of their licence agreement with Central Government. Also for waste management, a large proportion of the costs will be met by the PFI that has been secured.
12.4 Most other infrastructure needs are part-funded by mainstream funding and part-funded by developer contributions. In this Part One study, it is not possible to be precise about the costs that would be incurred. This is because exact costs can only be provided when specific schemes and levels of development are looked at. This will be undertaken in Part Two.
12.5 Clearly it is the major items that will have a significant impact on the overall costs. In particular, this relates to the major transport schemes on the A120 and A133. Inevitably an increasing proportion of these costs will have to be met by the developer in the form of contributions. However, what developers can afford is limited by the viability of the development, which is discussed below.
12.6 A summary of the costs and funding of the major transportation schemes is shown in Table 12.1.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 89 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Table 12.1 Summary of major transport infrastructure scheme costs Scheme Indicative Likely Funding Funding available and Indicative Comments Cost (£m) Source source Timescale Dualling of the A120 45 Developer/Highways Majority will be Post-2016 Dualling will need to come forward when Bathside from Hare Green to Agency developer contributions Bay is progressed. However dualling is unlikely to Ramsey (HPUK) happen until several years after the opening of Phase One of the development (post 2016). In the Some Highways Agency interim an HGV capping measure would operate. funding (costs to be With regard to dualling HPUK have agreed to fund determined) any road improvements necessary. Dualling however is likely to be a cost shared with HPUK and the Highways Agency. Improvements to the 12 LTP3 Major LTP3 Major Schemes 2015/2016 Improvements to the A133 are likely to become A133 between Schemes Bid with bid for £12m necessary when approximately 50% of the housing Crabtree roundabout developer comes on board in the Clacton/Walton-on-the- and Green Lane contributions (Previously £68m Essex Naze area. This is likely to be funded through LTP roundabout including wide LTP2 funding for 3 (2012-1016) upgrades of the integrated transport) roundabouts Also GAF and GPF could be sought Pond Hall Farm 1.5 LTP3 LTP3 funding 2014 If brought on stream in conjunction with Bathside Access onto A120 (Previously £68m Essex Bay, then additional dualling of the A120 will be wide LTP2 funding for needed. This will push delivery back to 2017 at the integrated transport) earliest.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 90 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Developer contribution funding
12.7 Securing the maximum reasonable contributions possible from development will be an important way of funding, and therefore delivering, the infrastructure required to support growth in Tendring.
12.8 At the moment, relatively low levels of developer contribution have been secured from development (up to approximately £8,000 per residential unit). On the basis of other infrastructure studies and the capacity analysis in this study, it is likely this level of contributions will be insufficient to provide the necessary funding to meet infrastructure requirements (even after accounting for mainstream funding available for infrastructure).
12.9 There are likely to be significant differences in the developer contribution funding that could potentially be secured between areas and types of sites. Our initial analysis has suggested that both brownfield development and greenfield development in lower value areas may struggle to provide sufficient contributions based on current affordable housing requirements and the other assumptions set out in Section 11.
12.10 However, it is likely that a significant amount of the growth in Tendring will be delivered on these sites. Consequently, relatively large greenfield sites that do not offer reasonable contributions may need to limited, or those that are relatively straightforward to develop chosen.
12.11 In addition, securing relatively high contributions from smaller developments in medium to high value areas that will still have a cumulative impact on infrastructure requirements is likely to be needed.
12.12 To achieve the above the Council will need to have a robust developer contribution policy in place to justify higher contribution requirements than previously secured. Ensuring developers and landowners are aware of the expectations for contributions towards infrastructure may be important so this is reflected in future land values or results in renegotiated option agreements where necessary.
12.13 Public sector intervention, for example through the strategic use of HCA grant funding and Cascade Agreements, may also be required to ensure as much of the future development as possible provides reasonable contribution levels towards infrastructure.
12.14 We would recommend the Council undertakes further work to understand site specific issues (e.g. landownership and likely levels of site specific costs) to refine the findings of the viability analysis in this study.
12.15 In the next chapter we go on to consider the potential of each of the various development options by location. .
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 91
Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
13 OPTIONS
13.1 In respect of infrastructure considerations there are five key factors that will, to a greater or lesser degree, impact on which locations will be best to develop. All of these issues will require decisions to be made by Tendring District Council, informed by the other studies that make up the evidence base to the Core Strategy. This report outlines what these issues are and the potential impacts each could have.
13.2 The five key factors are: . The scale of growth that would be delivered (in terms of dwellings and also commercial space); . The prioritisation of key items needed to support growth; . The ability to fund the principal infrastructure items through public sources, and the associated impact that this would have on delivery timescales. ‘Principal’ infrastructure means the items without which development simply could not occur; . The mechanisms for securing developer funding, i.e. section 106 or a tariff approach;and . The differing levels of what development can afford, by location. 13.3 In addition to this, there is the associated impact of other major development to consider. In the case of Tendring, this fundamentally relates to the development of Bathside Bay. At present, this has planning permission, subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement. It is the Consultants’ understanding that one of the major issues currently outstanding relates to contributions for increases in capacity on the A120. Clearly this will also impact on delivery of housing at Harwich and also the ability to fund the related infrastructure.
13.4 The assessment of the various options will be shaped around these considerations.
Harwich
13.5 The principal issue dictating the scale of growth that could be achieved in Harwich is the need for improvements to the A120. Directly related to this is when the Bathside Bay development will go ahead and how much of the associated improvements to the A120 will be paid for by the developer, Hutchinson Ports UK Limited (HPUK). Without the Bathside Bay development it would likely be possible to deliver the highest levels of development (approximately 3,900 dwellings when taking into account all the development areas tested in Harwich) without the need for the improvements. Equally however, this may create other pressures on the transport network as the absence of the new container port would mean fewer local job opportunities for the new residents which would lead to higher levels of out-commuting. Indeed, the consideration of significant levels of housing in Harwich is underpinned by the large numbers of jobs that will be created by the Bathside Bay development.
13.6 However, it is assumed that Bathside Bay will go ahead and currently it is expected that the first phases of the development will be operational within the first half of the plan period (by 2018/19). For significant levels of housing development to come forward in the same first half of the plan period, then it is likely that dualling will be required earlier than
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 93 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
currently envisaged. Given that the proposed timetable for any dualling to go ahead is over the longer term, then it is unlikely that more than a small proportion of the total proposed number of dwellings could come forward before this dualling was undertaken. Nevertheless, following dualling of the A120, the full 3,900 dwellings could be delivered without unnecessarily detrimental impacts to the road network being experienced.
13.7 There is also the issue of the strategic site at Pond Hall Farm. This will require direct access to be provided onto the A120 and given the importance it will have in serving Bathside Bay’s associated employment land needs, this will need to come forward shortly after Bathside Bay is operational (or earlier). The extent to which this can be paid for by developer contributions depends on detailed viability analysis and on the possible mechanisms for charging for development. It is understood that the Pond Hall Farm site has not come forward to date because of the significant costs associated with providing the required access (estimated at £1.5m). Moreover, if it was developed along with Bathside Bay, then additional dualling of the A120 would be needed, pushing the costs up to £20 million, and delaying delivery until 2017.
13.8 However, if contributions from housing development were to be pooled in some way (possible through a Community Infrastructure Levy charge - if this is taken forward by Central Government – or equivalent), then there would be a greater potential for these costs to be met. Therefore, the higher the levels of housing development, the greater the chance of bringing forward the Pond Hall Farm site as a major strategic employment location, which would also provide local jobs for the new residents.
13.9 In terms of other infrastructure needs, it is likely that even at the highest levels of development, there will be insufficient numbers to justify a new secondary school. Equally therefore, the larger the number of houses developed, the greater the pressure on the existing secondary schools serving the area. It will be necessary to undertake further testing of more detailed options with the education authority (Essex County Council) in order to understand the optimum level of development from the point of view of secondary education.
13.10 Waste water is a significant issue for accommodating major development at Harwich, as it would require expansion of the existing sewerage treatment works and further capacity added to the sewer network. It will therefore be important to undertake testing of detailed options with Anglian Water at the earliest stage. Given the longer timescale for significant growth at Harwich coming forward, the need for expanded sewerage capacity is unlikely to provide a delay to this. Recommendation
13.11 It is considered that, subject to further testing of options with the education authority in respect of secondary education provision and Anglian Water in respect of waste water, Harwich could reasonably accommodate levels of development up to the maximum level of 3,900 dwellings. This would occur whether Bathside Bay was delivered or not, although it is assumed that it will be delivered. If it was not, then there would be other effects related to the loss of potential job opportunities for new residents that would have been created.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 94 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
13.12 Only a small proportion of this growth level (unlikely to be more than 20-25%) could come forward in the first half of the plan period, as the major improvements to the A120 will not come forward before then. These improvements are needed to increase the capacity for development.
13.13 An added consideration is that the development of Bathside Bay will provide a lot of the funding necessary to make improvements to the highway network, so it is likely that the development will need to come forward and to do so on its existing planned timescale if it is not to push major development at Harwich back further, and possibly beyond the 2026 end date of the plan period.
13.14 As Harwich is a lower value area of Tendring, the potential level of development contribution funding that could be secured from development, particularly on brownfield sites, could be lower than other areas. However, as there is the potential for significant greenfield urban extension development, we would recommend further work is undertaken to establish landownership in this area (i.e. has land been acquired by developers, and at what price) and the potential level of site specific/abnormal costs.
Clacton-on-Sea/Walton-on-the-Naze
13.15 Like at Harwich, one of the principal issues dictating the scale and timing of growth at Clacton-on-Sea and also Walton-on-the-Naze is the need for improvements to the A133. A high level assessment has determined that, if approximately 3,000 of the 6,500 dwellings assessed in the development areas (including existing allocations) were delivered, then a tipping point would be reached whereby the improvements would be needed. The majority of the cost of these improvements are likely to be funded through LTP 3 (2012-1016), so could come forward in the first part of the plan period. However, they would need to be supported by developer contributions to cover the full cost.
13.16 Moreover, even if possible growth locations at Clacton and/or Walton were developed prior to the A133 improvements being made, they would not exert unacceptable levels of congestion on the network. Part of the reason is that, as Clacton grows and moves towards the District Council’s intentional goal of it becoming a higher order service centre, increasing numbers of residents will be able to access jobs locally, rather than having to commute out to other locations, principally Colchester. Therefore, the comparative additional impact on the A133 will be small. It is only when the higher levels of development arise that the overall traffic levels on the network will require the improvements to be made.
13.17 Significant levels of housing development could bring with it significant developer contributions. In respect of improvements to the A133, these will be needed to support the LTP3 funding in covering the full costs of the required upgrade. Therefore it will be imperative that development at Clacton and Walton contributes towards meeting these costs. A possible risk is that, if planning contributions are sought through a Section 106 agreement, then it may be argued that development cannot directly be related to the need for the improvements. This is because Clacton and Walton are not adjacent to the location of the required upgrade, so such strategic needs should be funded by other means. Therefore, it may be appropriate to explore a mechanism of pooling contributions, either
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 95 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
district-wide or for development in the Clacton/Walton area, recognising its impact on key locations such as the A133. A clear case would need to be made for doing so, focussing on making the case that these developments would clearly create unacceptable levels of congestion on the A133.
13.18 Like at Harwich, waste water treatment will need significant additional infrastructure. This would be for an extension to the existing sewage treatment works and also significant additions to the sewer network. This would be the case whether development was in either west or east Clacton. Again, further work in respect of more specific options would need to be addressed at an early stage with Anglian Water. If significant levels of development are to be brought forward early in the plan period, then this is particularly important given the significant lead-in times generally for providing expanded sewerage capacity. Recommendation
13.19 It is recommended that higher levels of development are explored at Clacton and Walton, at least up to 5,000 dwellings. Certainly, a minimum level of development of 3,000 dwellings should be considered. But development beyond this could be considered because it is likely that the necessary improvements to the A133 will be delivered, as they are programmed in LTP3 (whilst recognising the need for developer contributions to meet some of the costs).
13.20 There is no particular issue that would prevent the focus of development being on either west or east Clacton, subject to further testing of waste water needs by Anglian Water.
13.21 There is no particular issue either with timescales, so a significant proportion of development could potentially occur in the first five years of the plan period.
13.22 Clacton, like Harwich, is another relatively low value area of Tendring and therefore the potential level of development contribution funding that could be secured from development, particularly on brownfield sites, could also be lower than other areas.
Other Locations
13.23 Most other locations in the district are small and could only accommodate small levels of development. Certainly those locations such as Brightlingsea that can only reasonably be accessed by a single road are restricted in their capacity to accommodate the growth levels proposed.
13.24 In respect of the utilities, and particularly waste water, such locations are operating at or close to their capacity. To provide additional capacity would be possible but would provide little additional value on the investment when considering the comparatively low levels of development that the new infrastructure would be expected to support. Therefore, it may be difficult to justify such development in a 5-year asset management plan.
13.25 In terms of education, development in any of these locations would certainly be insufficient to enable the provision of a new secondary school. However, in such a rural district, if these locations are permitted to grow, then they place significant additional pressures on the education system as children have to be bussed to the nearest
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 96 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
secondary schools, which can be some distance away. It is for the District Council to decide where education sits in its list of priorities; on the assumption that it is a high priority, then significant growth of the smaller towns and villages is not recommended.
13.26 Again, specific infrastructure requirements can more appropriately be assessed by service providers when they are given more specific growth options to respond to. Recommendation
13.27 In principle, none of the individual growth locations outside of Clacton/Walton and Harwich have any fundamental infrastructure problems that mean they could not accommodate at least some growth. The larger locations such as Brightlingsea and Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley have potential to accommodate the largest proportion of development of these areas.
13.28 However, it is a policy decision for the District Council as to the degree it wishes to grow its existing small towns and villages. Also, whilst service providers have suggested that there are no fundamental problems in providing additional infrastructure in these locations, it is clearly more cost efficient to provide for development in areas where there is already a significant base of infrastructure on which to build.
13.29 Many of the other potential development locations are medium to high value areas of Tendring. Consequently, relatively straightforward greenfield development sites in these locations could yield much higher developer contributions than areas such as Clacton and Harwich/Dovercourt.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 97
Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
14 CONCLUSIONS
Consideration of Part One outputs
14.1 Below is a matrix summarising the significance of the issues for each of the LDF options, by infrastructure item:
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 99 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Cemeteries/crematoria Secondary education Harwich – need for new Harwich – need for new Harwich – need for new secondary school but numbers secondary school but numbers secondary school but numbers possibly insufficient to justfiy possibly insufficient to justfiy possibly insufficient to justfiy Primary education Harwich Town – would put Harwich Town – would put Harwich Town – would put Harwich Town – would put significant pressure on existing pressure on existing primary significant pressure on existing pressure on existing primary primary schools but schools primary schools but schools insufficient to justify new insufficient to justify new school school Emergency services – fire Emergency services – police Emergency services – ambulance Health All areas ‐ Additional capacity All areas ‐ Additional capacity All areas ‐ Additional capacity All areas ‐ Additional capacity needed but levels of growth needed but levels of growth needed but levels of growth needed but levels of growth insufficient to justify new insufficient to justify new insufficient to justify new insufficient to justify new facilities facilities facilities facilities Utilities – telecommunications Utilities – electricity Clacton ‐ New substation Clacton ‐ New substation Clacton ‐ New substation Clacton ‐ New substation needed to serve growth at needed to serve growth at needed to serve growth at needed to serve growth at West Clacton West Clacton West Clacton West Clacton Utilities – gas Utilities – potable water supply Utilities – waste water Clacton – potential issue over Clacton – potential issue over Clacton – potential issue over Clacton – potential issue over ability to expand capacity of ability to expand capacity of ability to expand capacity of ability to expand capacity of Jaywick STW. Jaywick STW. Jaywick STW. Jaywick STW. Harwich – significant Harwich – significant Harwich – significant Harwich – significant additional capacity for sewer additional capacity for sewer additional capacity for sewer additional capacity for sewer network required network required network required network required Transport Waste management
No significant needs Some needs, each of which, in isolation, can be delivered without issue Significant needs which may be difficult to deliver or may serve to push back the timescale of development. Further work needed.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 100 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
14.2 This represents Part One of a two-part study of the infrastructure needs in Tendring district to support potential growth. The Part One study largely provides a baseline assessment of current infrastructure, any potential major issues that would significantly impact on development and possible requirements associated with growth levels in certain locations. It supports this with a broad understanding, where possible, of costs and available funding.
14.3 Inevitably the Part One study can only provide a broad understanding of potential and needs. It will be for the Part Two study to assess more specific options and understand process needs. Certainly, from the point of view of the service providers it is far easier to provide a coherent response to specific growth levels in precise locations. It is therefore important to stress that the study findings from Part One will in no way prejudice the future views of the service providers when it comes to the Part Two work or any subsequent negotiations with developers on particular planning applications.
14.4 The Part One assessment has determined that the main potential locations for development – Clacton and Harwich – can both accommodate significant levels of growth. In the case of Clacton, a significant proportion of this could come forward in the first half of the plan period, given what is known about funding streams for required development. In Harwich, it is likely that significant development may have to come in the second half of the plan period, as funding for major improvements to the A120 is not programmed until this period and this will be necessary to support major growth.
14.5 The other locations can potentially support growth but it is doubtful if it will be possible to accommodate all of the levels of growth being tested. Certainly for many of the service providers, it is inefficient to be providing additional infrastructure to service these areas because the absolute numbers of additional dwellings are relatively small.
Mechanisms for delivery
14.6 As has been briefly considered earlier in the report, it is important to consider not only the infrastructure needs associated with growth and what development can afford, but also what mechanisms should be used to secure the developer funding associated with that growth. At present, this is done through the use of Section 106 agreements which provide flexibility in the way they can be applied (within the restrictions of Circular 05/2005), but also lack the certainty of knowing how much developer funding will be secured. Furthermore, Circular 05/2005 ties the contributions firmly to the direct impact that the development has. This results in much of the strategic infrastructure (particularly roads, which development clearly places additional pressure upon) not being provided with developer funding in order to undertake the necessary upgrading.
14.7 The Government has recognised this and is currently considering a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This will be a broadly flat charge across all development in an area, which can then be pooled and contribute to providing for all the infrastructure needed across that area. A CIL charge would provide a solution to the possible issue that may arise with development in Clacton and Walton in respect of the improvements needed to the A133. Under Circular 05/2005, developers may argue that these developments are not directly related to the congestion on the A133, so should not
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 101 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
contribute to the needs. However, under a CIL, it would be possible to collect a charge per dwelling from across the district and use it to fund these upgrade works.
14.8 There is still much uncertainty as to whether CIL will be put in place. The recent pre- Budget report stated that it will not come forward until April 2010 at the earliest. In any event, districts are not obliged to use a CIL charge. But the draft guidance on CIL, published by the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) in August 2008, suggests that the Government is certainly looking at generally changing the existing system. It states at paragraph 20 that: “The Government is considering whether restrictions on the use of planning obligations should be made once CIL is introduced. There would be a transitional period before any restriction would take effect.”
14.9 Para 5.10 of the document also states that: “Other options include reducing the scope of planning obligations through a narrower set of criteria than those set out in Circular 05/05, or preventing planning obligations from being used to secure developer contributions through the use of standard charges.”
14.10 If this were to occur then a standard charge approach would not be possible. At present however, some form of standard charge could possibly alleviate the issues raised for development at Clacton and Walton. It could also be applied in respect of the development of Pond Hall Farm at Harwich, whereby a charge on housing development could contribute to the necessary highway access improvements onto the A120 of a major strategic employment site, which would provide significant employment opportunities for the new residents.
14.11 Figure 14.1 illustrates the differences between the alternative types of mechanism that could be used for collecting developer contributions. If greater certainty of contribution is wanted, then a tariff or CIL is most appropriate because for each new dwelling there will be a guaranteed contribution that will not have to be negotiated. If greater flexibility is required, then it is preferable to continue with the Section 106 approach of negotiating on a site by site basis.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 102 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report
Figure 14.1 Choices for collecting developer contributions
Need for Certainty of Contributions
Section 106 Standard Contribution Tariff / CIL
Need for Flexibility to Maximise Contributions
14.12 It is also important to consider the area over which a charging mechanism should apply. The draft CIL guidance is clear that a charge doesn’t necessarily have to be applied at just the district level. It could be applied across a county or sub-region. Potentially, a Haven Gateway-wide charge should be explored to see if this would provide the required developer contributions to address the significant needs of the sub-region.
14.13 The more detailed assessment that will be undertaken in the Part Two study will make it clearer what the preferred options for charging development should be for Tendring District.
Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 103
APPENDIX 1
List of Consultees
Infrastructure category Contact Organisation Education Blaise Gammie Essex County Council Health Tonia Parsons North East Essex Primary Care Trust Penny Lansdown North East Essex Primary Care Trust Ambulance East of England Ambulance Service Waste water Rob Morris Anglian Water Water Neil Walkington-Mayo Tendring Hundred Water Services Cemeteries David Hall Tendring DC Gas Paul Cudby National Grid Electricity Howard Green EDF Energy Police Jason Gwillim Essex Police Suzanne Allen Essex Police Strategic Waste Alex Creecy Essex County Council Fire Andy Butcher Essex Fire and Rescue Service Further Education Carol Snape Essex University Telecommunications N/a N/a Transport Martin Mason Essex County Council Alan Lindsay Essex County Council Peter Chappell Essex County Council Julian Elliot First Group
APPENDIX 2
Further Education Information (from ECC)
Summary of potential education solutions to accommodating tested housing growth1
Site Type ECC Comments Summary of potential type of provision required West Early Years A development of this scale would require a range of settings New facility Clacton & Childcare to be established, creating i.r.o. 270 additional places. The (Bockings majority of the provision would need to be on site, including
Elm) – 3,400 nurseries integrated into any new primary schools that are dwellings established. A full Childrens’ Centre may be needed to serve a community of this size if existing ‘reach areas’ cannot be
suitably adjusted.
Primary Approximately half of the pupils generated by a development New facility and of this size could be accommodated by utilising and, where expansion of
appropriate, expanding existing primary schools in West existing Clacton. Careful consideration regarding the suitability of each school for expansion and the availability of safe routes to them would be required. Assuming such expansion is feasible, a single new 2f.e. school would need to be established. It is likely that this would be on site and form part of the development’s community hub. Approximately two hectares of land would be needed.
Secondary A development of this size can be expected to generate up to Expansion of 680 secondary age pupils. Plans for a new Academy in Clacton proposed new
to replace Bishops Park College and Colbayns High School are Clacton academy under consideration. The new Academy would have fewer places than the two existing schools but would retain a degree of flexibility to expand and accommodate demand from new development. Recommissioning accommodation for secondary school use would incur a relatively small cost.
Great Early Years A development of this size would leave an estimated deficit of New facility Clacton & & Childcare 84 places in the relevant wards. On site provision is likely to be Holland‐on‐ required.
Sea ‐ 1,100 dwellings
Primary Homes in and around Great Clacton could be accommodated Expansion of utilising existing provision. Safe routes to Burrsville Infant and existing
Gt Clacton Junior would however need to be established (not included in cost below). Capacity to serve Holland‐on‐Sea is limited but a programme of replacing temporary classbases with permanent build would provide the additional long term capacity required.
Secondary As noted above, the proposal for a new Academy to serve Expansion of Clacton has been made cognisant of the need to retain some proposed new
flexibility to accommodate housing growth. Clacton academy
Clacton Early Years This level of growth throughout the town could be None required Town & Childcare accommodated without a need to expand provision. Clearly (unless other Centre – and Primary this would not be the case if additional urban capacity sites are development takes 750 identified and surplus capacity is taken by peripheral greenfield capacity) dwellings developments.
Secondary As noted above, the proposal for a new Academy to serve Expansion of Clacton has been made cognisant of the need to retain some proposed new
flexibility to accommodate housing growth. Clacton academy
Little Early Years Little Clacton and Weeley ward does not have a ‘day nursery’. New facility Clacton – & Childcare Although critical mass may not exist, establishing a new setting 200 should be considered. dwellings
Primary Engaines Primary would be the only appropriate school for a Expansion of development in this location and expansion to a minimum of existing
1.5 f.e would be required.
Secondary As noted above the proposal for a new Academy to serve Expansion of Clacton has been made cognisant of the need to retain some proposed new
flexibility to accommodate housing growth. Clacton academy
Walton – Early Years Additional provision likely to be required. Expansion of existing Expansion of 400 & Childcare verses new provision would require careful consideration at existing or new dwellings the appropriate time. facility
Primary Permanent accommodation for approximately half a form of Expansion of entry would need to be built to accommodate this level of existing
growth. Existing schools should have sufficient site area. Secondary Tendering Technology College would require limited expansion Expansion of to accommodate pupils from a development of this size. existing
Frinton – Early Years A development of this size would not generate critical mass to Expansion of 100 & Childcare establish a new EY&C facility. Expansion of an existing setting existing dwellings would need to be considered. Primary Frinton Primary would not have sufficient capacity to take the No solution found number of children generated by 100 dwellings without
displacing children living in areas that currently have a reasonable expectation of entry to the school. In order to maintain single age teaching groups it would be undesirable to expand the school. Rolls are falling in the area and places may be found at Kirby Primary. Secondary Tendering Technology College would require limited expansion Expansion of to accommodate pupils from a development of this size. existing
Kirby Cross Early Years A development of this size would likely require the New facility – 500 & Childcare establishment of on site bespoke provision. dwellings Primary Kirby Primary could accommodate under half the proposed Potential expansion development and does not have the site area to expand on or off‐site sufficiently to serve 500 additional dwellings. A development of this size would not justify a new school and therefore the only solution would be to either secure some adjoining land (recreation ground?) or move the school to a larger site on the new development. Secondary Tendering Technology College would require limited expansion Expansion of to accommodate pupils from a development of this size. existing Harwich – Early Years Additional provision would be required. Expansion of existing Expansion of 600 & Childcare verses new provision would require careful consideration at existing or new dwellings the appropriate time. facility Primary A development of this size would not be quite large enough to Expansion of justify a new primary school although coupled with demand existing
from urban infill this may be the only practical option. Expansion of existing provision would require careful consideration and the completion of a feasibility study. Secondary There is sufficient capacity at The Harwich School to None required accommodate the number of secondary age pupils that can be
anticipated from a development of this size. Dovercourt Early Years Harwich West Central ward does not have a ‘day nursery’. New facility – 250 & Childcare Although critical mass may not exist, establishing a new setting dwellings should be considered. Primary There should be sufficient capacity at Spring Meadow Primary None required to accommodate a development of this size.
Secondary There is sufficient capacity at The Harwich School to None required accommodate the number of secondary age pupils that can be
anticipated from a development of this size. Parkeston / Early Years A development of this scale would require a range of settings New facility Bathside – & Childcare to be established, creating i.r.o. 284 additional places. The 3,150 majority of the provision would need to be on site, including dwellings nurseries integrated into any new primary schools that are established. A full Childrens’ Centre may be needed to serve a
community of this size if existing ‘reach areas’ cannot be suitably adjusted. Primary A development of this size would require up to 4.5fe to serve New facilities it. Some local capacity exists that could be utilised but two
new 2fe primary schools may eventually need to be established each on a two hectare site within the development. Secondary In the absence of other development within its priority Expansion of admissions area, a little less than half of this number of homes existing or new
could be accommodated within existing capacity at The facility Harwich School. Expansion to 1,800 places may be possible given the school’s site area, but this would be tight and may still not quite accommodate the number of pupils that would require a place. Mistley – Early Years There is limited provision in this area and a development of this New facility 600 & Childcare size would likely require bespoke on site provision. dwellings
Primary The precise location of these homes would be key to finding a Expansion of solution to the lack of primary capacity in the area, as a single existing or new
development of 600 would not quite sustain a new school. facility Limited surplus capacity at Highfields and Lawford CE Primaries could be utilised and Mistley Norman could potentially be expanded. The ‘wrong’ number of homes in the priority admissions area of any one of the three schools could prove very disruptive to current admission patterns. Secondary Manningtree High could accommodate approximately half the Expansion of likely pupil product from 600 dwellings. The school appears to existing have sufficient site area to expand to accommodate the balance of pupils generated. An important consideration would be ensuring all new homes are accessible to the school by safe direct walking and cycling routes of no more than three miles. Brightlingse Early Years Current provision is close to fully subscribed. Expansion of Expansion of a Waterside & Childcare existing verses new provision would require careful existing or new Area – 400 consideration at the appropriate time. facility dwellings Primary This level of development could be accommodated by Expansion of Brightlingsea Infant and Junior Schools but temporary existing
accommodation would need to be replaced with permanent buildings. Secondary Colne Community School could accommodate approximately Expansion of half the likely pupil product from 400 dwellings. Minor existing
expansion would be necessary. Brightlingse Early Years A development of this size would be unlikely to generate Expansion of a urban & Childcare critical mass to establish a new EY&C facility. Expansion of an existing area – 200 existing setting would need to be considered. dwellings Primary This level of development could be accommodated by Expansion of Brightlingsea Infant and Junior Schools but at least one existing
temporary classbase at the Infant School would need to be replaced with permanent buildings. Secondary Colne Community School could accommodate pupils from this None required level of development. An important consideration should be
ensuring all new homes are accessible to the school by safe direct walking and cycling routes of no more than three miles. Colchester Early Years A development of this size would likely require the New facility Fringe‐ & Childcare establishment of on‐site bespoke provision. 1,000 dwellings Primary The level of growth anticipated for north Colchester dictates New facility that surplus places in this area cannot be ‘assigned’ to a
development in Tendering. A development of this size would generate up to 300 pupils requiring a 1.5fe school on a 1.6 hectare site. Secondary Colchester secondary provision is currently under review with Expansion of the likely outcome that surplus places in the south of the town existing or new
are reduced. There is only one secondary school north of the London to Ipswich railway line and any surplus, or expansion facility potential, will be required to accommodate know development plans. Colchester BC’s core strategy alludes to a potential new secondary school to serve their north west greenfield allocation. If this were progressed the necessary redistribution of priority admission areas and planned works could accommodate this development. In the absence of a new school a development in this location would be unsustainable will an estimated 200 pupils requiring transport to the existing priority admission area school, Manningtree High. The school would also need significant expansion, which would require further work to ascertain feasibility. Elmstead Early Years There are a few unfilled places in the area and a development Expansion of Market – & Childcare of this size would not generate critical mass to establish a new existing 200 EY&C facility. Expansion of an existing setting would need to dwellings be considered.
Primary Elmstead Primary is full and does not have site area to expand. No solution There are no alternative schools within safe walking distance.
Secondary There are no secondary schools within safe walking distance. None required* Pupils from this level of development could be accommodated
at Cone Community but school transport costs would need to be met. Alresford – Early Years There are unfilled places in the area but some additional places Expansion of 200 & Childcare would be required. existing or new dwellings facility Primary Alresford Primary has some surplus capacity and can be Expansion of expanded to serve this level of development in its priority existing
admissions area. Secondary There are no secondary schools within safe walking distance. None required* Pupils from this level of development could be accommodated
at Cone Community but school transport costs would need to be met. Great Early Years There is limited provision in the ward with only one surplus Expansion of Bentley – & Childcare place identified. Although critical mass may not exist, existing or new 200 establishing a new setting should be considered. facility dwellings Primary Great Bentley Primary is full and does not have site area to No solution expand. There are no alternative schools within safe walking
distance. Secondary There are no secondary schools within safe walking distance. None required* Pupils from this level of development could be accommodated
at Cone Community but school transport costs would need to be met. St. Osyth – Early Years Data on St. Osyth and Point Clear Ward was not available. In Expansion of 200 & Childcare common with other rural wards, provision may be patchy and existing or new dwellings new provision is likely to be necessary. facility
Primary St. Osyth CE Primary is forecast to have sufficient surplus None required places to accommodate this level of development. Secondary As noted above, the proposal for a new Academy to serve Expansion of Clacton has been made cognisant of the need to retain some proposed new
flexibility to accommodate housing growth. An important Clacton academy consideration should be ensuring all new homes are accessible by safe direct walking and cycling routes of no more than three miles. Failure to provide these would incur long term school transport costs, making the site unsustainable in these terms. Thorpe‐le‐ Early Years Beaumont and Thorpe ward has a range of provision but not Expansion of Soken – 200 & Childcare quite sufficient to accommodate this level of housing growth. existing dwellings Minor expansion of existing provision would be required. Primary Rolph CE Primary could, with an additional permanent Partial solution to classbase, accommodate around half this level of use existing
development. There are no alternative suitable schools within capacity walking distance to accommodate the balance. Secondary Tendering Technology College would require limited expansion Expansion of to accommodate pupils from a development of this size. existing
Source: ECC & RTP 1 These solutions are dependent on the dwelling numbers tested and each site has been considered in isolation * subject to school transport costs being met. The County Council is required to provide school transport to any child that would need to walk in excess of two miles up to the age of eight or three miles for older children, using a safe route. Unless balanced by better utilisation of existing school places, developments that do not meet these criteria should be avoided. ‘Tolerable’ walking distances may be lower than these thresholds and opposed on sustainability grounds.
APPENDIX 3
Transport Modelling Output
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB AM Peak.vao - Page 1
------
______A R C A D Y 6 ______
ASSESSMENT OF ROUNDABOUT CAPACITY AND DELAY
Analysis Program: Release 1.0 (MAR 2004)
(c) Copyright TRL Limited, 2004
Adapted from ARCADY/3 which is Crown Copyright by permission of the controller of HMSO ______
For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact:
TRL Limited Tel: +44 (0) 1344 770018 Crowthorne House Fax: +44 (0) 1344 770864 Nine Mile Ride Email: [email protected] Wokingham, Berks. Web: www.trlsoftware.co.uk RG40 3GA,UK
------THE USER OF THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE SOLUTION OF AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM IS IN NO WAY RELIEVED OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SOLUTION ------
Run with file:- "j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB AM Peak.vai" (drive-on-the-left ) at 16:38:05 on Monday, 27 April 2009
FILE PROPERTIES ***************
RUN TITLE: Crabtree Roundabout AM Peak LOCATION: Colchester DATE: 27 April 2009 CLIENT: ENUMERATOR: awilson [KNT-MOB-103] JOB NUMBER: STATUS: DESCRIPTION:
INPUT DATA ********** ARM A - A133 Colchester Road (south) ARM B - Colchester Road ARM C - A133 north
GEOMETRIC DATA ------
------I ARM I V (M) I E (M) I L (M) I R (M) I D (M) I PHI (DEG) I SLOPE I INTERCEPT (PCU/MIN) I ------I ARM A I 4.75 I 6.30 I 6.30 I 31.80 I 49.00 I 45.0 I 0.592 I 27.405 I I ARM B I 4.16 I 6.90 I 6.90 I 27.00 I 49.00 I 26.0 I 0.615 I 27.821 I I ARM C I 6.92 I 7.36 I 17.80 I 3.00 I 49.00 I 37.0 I 0.497 I 25.852 I ------
V = approach half-width L = effective flare length D = inscribed circle diameter E = entry width R = entry radius PHI = entry angle
TRAFFIC DEMAND DATA ------
(Only sets included in the current run are shown)
------I ARM I FLOW SCALE(%) I ------I A I 100 I I B I 100 I I C I 100 I ------
TIME PERIOD BEGINS 07.45 AND ENDS 09.15 LENGTH OF TIME PERIOD - 90 MINUTES. LENGTH OF TIME SEGMENT - 15 MINUTES.
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB AM Peak.vao - Page 2
------
DEMAND FLOW PROFILES ARE SYNTHESISED FROM TURNING COUNT DATA
DEMAND SET TITLE: Crabtree Roundabout AM Peak ------I I NUMBER OF MINUTES FROM START WHEN I RATE OF FLOW (VEH/MIN) I I ARM I FLOW STARTS I TOP OF PEAK I FLOW STOPS I BEFORE I AT TOP I AFTER I I I TO RISE I IS REACHED IFALLING I PEAK I OF PEAK I PEAK I ------I ARM A I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 19.25 I 28.88 I 19.25 I I ARM B I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 9.11 I 13.67 I 9.11 I I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 11.84 I 17.76 I 11.84 I ------
DEMAND SET TITLE: Crabtree Roundabout AM Peak ------I I TURNING PROPORTIONS I I I TURNING COUNTS (VEH/HR) I I I (PERCENTAGE OF H.V.S) I I ------I TIME I FROM/TO I ARM A I ARM B I ARM C I ------I 07.45 - 09.15 I I I I I I I ARM A I 0.000 I 0.270 I 0.730 I I I I 0.0 I 416.0 I 1124.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I ARM B I 0.568 I 0.000 I 0.432 I I I I 414.0 I 0.0 I 315.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I ARM C I 0.837 I 0.163 I 0.000 I I I I 793.0 I 154.0 I 0.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I ------
QUEUE AND DELAY INFORMATION FOR EACH 15 MIN TIME SEGMENT ------
------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 07.45-08.00 I I ARM A 19.25 26.27 0.733 0.0 2.6 36.7 0.14 I I ARM B 9.11 19.27 0.473 0.0 0.9 12.8 0.10 I I ARM C 11.84 23.29 0.508 0.0 1.0 14.7 0.09 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 08.00-08.15 I I ARM A 22.99 26.05 0.882 2.6 6.5 83.7 0.28 I I ARM B 10.88 17.63 0.617 0.9 1.6 22.4 0.15 I I ARM C 14.14 22.79 0.620 1.0 1.6 23.0 0.11 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 08.15-08.30 I I ARM A 28.15 25.75 1.093 6.5 47.3 418.7 1.23 I I ARM B 13.33 16.41 0.812 1.6 3.9 51.7 0.30 I I ARM C 17.31 22.13 0.782 1.6 3.4 46.4 0.20 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 08.30-08.45 I I ARM A 28.15 25.74 1.094 47.3 84.3 988.3 2.69 I I ARM B 13.33 16.30 0.818 3.9 4.2 61.4 0.33 I I ARM C 17.31 22.09 0.784 3.4 3.5 51.9 0.21 I I I ------
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB AM Peak.vao - Page 3
------
------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 08.45-09.00 I I ARM A 22.99 26.03 0.883 84.3 43.2 956.7 2.51 I I ARM B 10.88 16.28 0.668 4.2 2.1 33.8 0.19 I I ARM C 14.14 22.74 0.622 3.5 1.7 26.6 0.12 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 09.00-09.15 I I ARM A 19.25 26.26 0.733 43.2 2.9 172.0 0.40 I I ARM B 9.11 17.98 0.507 2.1 1.0 16.4 0.11 I I ARM C 11.84 23.26 0.509 1.7 1.0 16.3 0.09 I I I ------
QUEUE AT ARM A ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
08.00 2.6 *** 08.15 6.5 ****** 08.30 47.3 *********************************************** 08.45 84.3 ************************************************************************************ 09.00 43.2 ******************************************* 09.15 2.9 ***
QUEUE AT ARM B ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
08.00 0.9 * 08.15 1.6 ** 08.30 3.9 **** 08.45 4.2 **** 09.00 2.1 ** 09.15 1.0 *
QUEUE AT ARM C ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
08.00 1.0 * 08.15 1.6 ** 08.30 3.4 *** 08.45 3.5 **** 09.00 1.7 ** 09.15 1.0 *
QUEUEING DELAY INFORMATION OVER WHOLE PERIOD ------
------I ARM I TOTAL DEMAND I * QUEUEING * I * INCLUSIVE QUEUEING * I I I I * DELAY * I * DELAY * I I I------I I I (VEH) (VEH/H) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I ------I A I 2111.7 I 1407.8 I 2656.1 I 1.26 I 2656.2 I 1.26 I I B I 999.6 I 666.4 I 198.4 I 0.20 I 198.5 I 0.20 I I C I 1298.5 I 865.7 I 178.9 I 0.14 I 178.9 I 0.14 I ------I ALL I 4409.8 I 2939.9 I 3033.4 I 0.69 I 3033.6 I 0.69 I ------
* DELAY IS THAT OCCURRING ONLY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD. * INCLUSIVE DELAY INCLUDES DELAY SUFFERED BY VEHICLES WHICH ARE STILL QUEUEING AFTER THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD. * THESE WILL ONLY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IF THERE IS A LARGE QUEUE REMAINING AT THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD.
END OF JOB
======end of file ======
[Printed at 16:38:12 on 27/04/2009]
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB PM Peak.vao - Page 1
------
______A R C A D Y 6 ______
ASSESSMENT OF ROUNDABOUT CAPACITY AND DELAY
Analysis Program: Release 1.0 (MAR 2004)
(c) Copyright TRL Limited, 2004
Adapted from ARCADY/3 which is Crown Copyright by permission of the controller of HMSO ______
For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact:
TRL Limited Tel: +44 (0) 1344 770018 Crowthorne House Fax: +44 (0) 1344 770864 Nine Mile Ride Email: [email protected] Wokingham, Berks. Web: www.trlsoftware.co.uk RG40 3GA,UK
------THE USER OF THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE SOLUTION OF AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM IS IN NO WAY RELIEVED OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SOLUTION ------
Run with file:- "j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB PM Peak.vai" (drive-on-the-left ) at 16:39:29 on Monday, 27 April 2009
FILE PROPERTIES ***************
RUN TITLE: Crabtree Roundabout PM Peak LOCATION: Colchester DATE: 27 April 2009 CLIENT: ENUMERATOR: awilson [KNT-MOB-103] JOB NUMBER: STATUS: DESCRIPTION:
INPUT DATA ********** ARM A - A133 Colchester Road (south) ARM B - Colchester Road ARM C - A133 north
GEOMETRIC DATA ------
------I ARM I V (M) I E (M) I L (M) I R (M) I D (M) I PHI (DEG) I SLOPE I INTERCEPT (PCU/MIN) I ------I ARM A I 4.75 I 6.30 I 6.30 I 31.80 I 49.00 I 45.0 I 0.592 I 27.405 I I ARM B I 4.16 I 6.90 I 6.90 I 27.00 I 49.00 I 26.0 I 0.615 I 27.821 I I ARM C I 6.92 I 7.36 I 17.80 I 3.00 I 49.00 I 37.0 I 0.497 I 25.852 I ------
V = approach half-width L = effective flare length D = inscribed circle diameter E = entry width R = entry radius PHI = entry angle
TRAFFIC DEMAND DATA ------
(Only sets included in the current run are shown)
------I ARM I FLOW SCALE(%) I ------I A I 100 I I B I 100 I I C I 100 I ------
TIME PERIOD BEGINS 16.45 AND ENDS 18.15 LENGTH OF TIME PERIOD - 90 MINUTES. LENGTH OF TIME SEGMENT - 15 MINUTES.
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB PM Peak.vao - Page 2
------
DEMAND FLOW PROFILES ARE SYNTHESISED FROM TURNING COUNT DATA
DEMAND SET TITLE: Crabtree Roundabout PM Peak ------I I NUMBER OF MINUTES FROM START WHEN I RATE OF FLOW (VEH/MIN) I I ARM I FLOW STARTS I TOP OF PEAK I FLOW STOPS I BEFORE I AT TOP I AFTER I I I TO RISE I IS REACHED IFALLING I PEAK I OF PEAK I PEAK I ------I ARM A I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 12.02 I 18.04 I 12.02 I I ARM B I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 7.10 I 10.65 I 7.10 I I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 15.40 I 23.10 I 15.40 I ------
DEMAND SET TITLE: Crabtree Roundabout PM Peak ------I I TURNING PROPORTIONS I I I TURNING COUNTS (VEH/HR) I I I (PERCENTAGE OF H.V.S) I I ------I TIME I FROM/TO I ARM A I ARM B I ARM C I ------I 16.45 - 18.15 I I I I I I I ARM A I 0.000 I 0.319 I 0.681 I I I I 0.0 I 307.0 I 655.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I ARM B I 0.697 I 0.000 I 0.303 I I I I 396.0 I 0.0 I 172.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I ARM C I 0.998 I 0.002 I 0.000 I I I I 1230.0 I 2.0 I 0.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I ------
QUEUE AND DELAY INFORMATION FOR EACH 15 MIN TIME SEGMENT ------
------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 16.45-17.00 I I ARM A 12.02 27.39 0.439 0.0 0.8 11.3 0.06 I I ARM B 7.10 22.81 0.311 0.0 0.4 6.6 0.06 I I ARM C 15.40 23.40 0.658 0.0 1.9 26.5 0.12 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 17.00-17.15 I I ARM A 14.36 27.39 0.524 0.8 1.1 15.9 0.08 I I ARM B 8.48 21.82 0.389 0.4 0.6 9.3 0.07 I I ARM C 18.39 22.92 0.802 1.9 3.8 51.8 0.21 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 17.15-17.30 I I ARM A 17.59 27.38 0.642 1.1 1.8 25.4 0.10 I I ARM B 10.38 20.48 0.507 0.6 1.0 14.7 0.10 I I ARM C 22.52 22.26 1.012 3.8 20.5 205.1 0.75 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 17.30-17.45 I I ARM A 17.59 27.38 0.642 1.8 1.8 26.6 0.10 I I ARM B 10.38 20.46 0.507 1.0 1.0 15.3 0.10 I I ARM C 22.52 22.25 1.012 20.5 30.2 383.0 1.31 I I I ------
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB PM Peak.vao - Page 3
------
------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 17.45-18.00 I I ARM A 14.36 27.39 0.524 1.8 1.1 17.2 0.08 I I ARM B 8.48 21.79 0.389 1.0 0.6 9.9 0.08 I I ARM C 18.39 22.90 0.803 30.2 4.5 157.8 0.52 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 18.00-18.15 I I ARM A 12.02 27.39 0.439 1.1 0.8 12.1 0.07 I I ARM B 7.10 22.78 0.312 0.6 0.5 7.0 0.06 I I ARM C 15.40 23.39 0.659 4.5 2.0 31.7 0.13 I I I ------
QUEUE AT ARM A ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
17.00 0.8 * 17.15 1.1 * 17.30 1.8 ** 17.45 1.8 ** 18.00 1.1 * 18.15 0.8 *
QUEUE AT ARM B ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
17.00 0.4 17.15 0.6 * 17.30 1.0 * 17.45 1.0 * 18.00 0.6 * 18.15 0.5
QUEUE AT ARM C ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
17.00 1.9 ** 17.15 3.8 **** 17.30 20.5 ******************** 17.45 30.2 ****************************** 18.00 4.5 **** 18.15 2.0 **
QUEUEING DELAY INFORMATION OVER WHOLE PERIOD ------
------I ARM I TOTAL DEMAND I * QUEUEING * I * INCLUSIVE QUEUEING * I I I I * DELAY * I * DELAY * I I I------I I I (VEH) (VEH/H) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I ------I A I 1319.1 I 879.4 I 108.5 I 0.08 I 108.6 I 0.08 I I B I 778.8 I 519.2 I 62.7 I 0.08 I 62.7 I 0.08 I I C I 1689.3 I 1126.2 I 855.8 I 0.51 I 855.9 I 0.51 I ------I ALL I 3787.3 I 2524.9 I 1027.1 I 0.27 I 1027.2 I 0.27 I ------
* DELAY IS THAT OCCURRING ONLY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD. * INCLUSIVE DELAY INCLUDES DELAY SUFFERED BY VEHICLES WHICH ARE STILL QUEUEING AFTER THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD. * THESE WILL ONLY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IF THERE IS A LARGE QUEUE REMAINING AT THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD.
END OF JOB
======end of file ======
[Printed at 16:39:34 on 27/04/2009]
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour AM Peak.vao - Page 1
------
______A R C A D Y 6 ______
ASSESSMENT OF ROUNDABOUT CAPACITY AND DELAY
Analysis Program: Release 1.0 (MAR 2004)
(c) Copyright TRL Limited, 2004
Adapted from ARCADY/3 which is Crown Copyright by permission of the controller of HMSO ______
For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact:
TRL Limited Tel: +44 (0) 1344 770018 Crowthorne House Fax: +44 (0) 1344 770864 Nine Mile Ride Email: [email protected] Wokingham, Berks. Web: www.trlsoftware.co.uk RG40 3GA,UK
------THE USER OF THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE SOLUTION OF AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM IS IN NO WAY RELIEVED OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SOLUTION ------
Run with file:- "j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour AM Peak.vai" (drive-on-the-left ) at 16:40:44 on Monday, 27 April 2009
FILE PROPERTIES ***************
RUN TITLE: Green lane Roundabout AM Peak LOCATION: Colchester DATE: 27 April 2009 CLIENT: ENUMERATOR: awilson [KNT-MOB-103] JOB NUMBER: 22376 STATUS: DESCRIPTION:
INPUT DATA ********** ARM A - A133 Colchester Road north ARM B - B1033 ARM C - Services ARM D - A133
GEOMETRIC DATA ------
------I ARM I V (M) I E (M) I L (M) I R (M) I D (M) I PHI (DEG) I SLOPE I INTERCEPT (PCU/MIN) I ------I ARM A I 6.82 I 9.27 I 9.80 I 41.60 I 79.90 I 43.0 I 0.575 I 40.500 I I ARM B I 4.10 I 8.91 I 3.90 I 18.80 I 79.90 I 40.0 I 0.432 I 24.647 I I ARM C I 3.86 I 6.75 I 5.20 I 17.30 I 79.90 I 33.0 I 0.433 I 24.299 I I ARM D I 3.00 I 8.88 I 18.00 I 21.30 I 79.90 I 29.0 I 0.487 I 29.859 I ------
V = approach half-width L = effective flare length D = inscribed circle diameter E = entry width R = entry radius PHI = entry angle
TRAFFIC DEMAND DATA ------
(Only sets included in the current run are shown)
------I ARM I FLOW SCALE(%) I ------I A I 100 I I B I 100 I I C I 100 I I D I 100 I ------
TIME PERIOD BEGINS 07.45 AND ENDS 09.15 LENGTH OF TIME PERIOD - 90 MINUTES. LENGTH OF TIME SEGMENT - 15 MINUTES.
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour AM Peak.vao - Page 2
------
DEMAND FLOW PROFILES ARE SYNTHESISED FROM TURNING COUNT DATA
DEMAND SET TITLE: Green lane Roundabout AM Peak ------I I NUMBER OF MINUTES FROM START WHEN I RATE OF FLOW (VEH/MIN) I I ARM I FLOW STARTS I TOP OF PEAK I FLOW STOPS I BEFORE I AT TOP I AFTER I I I TO RISE I IS REACHED IFALLING I PEAK I OF PEAK I PEAK I ------I ARM A I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 14.66 I 21.99 I 14.66 I I ARM B I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 9.68 I 14.51 I 9.68 I I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 3.28 I 4.91 I 3.28 I I ARM D I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 12.93 I 19.39 I 12.93 I ------
DEMAND SET TITLE: Green lane Roundabout AM Peak ------I I TURNING PROPORTIONS I I I TURNING COUNTS (VEH/HR) I I I (PERCENTAGE OF H.V.S) I I ------I TIME I FROM/TO I ARM A I ARM B I ARM C I ARM D I ------I 07.45 - 09.15 I I I I I I I I ARM A I 0.000 I 0.280 I 0.107 I 0.613 I I I I 0.0 I 329.0 I 125.0 I 719.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I I ARM B I 0.795 I 0.000 I 0.079 I 0.127 I I I I 615.0 I 0.0 I 61.0 I 98.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I I ARM C I 0.397 I 0.439 I 0.000 I 0.164 I I I I 104.0 I 115.0 I 0.0 I 43.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I I ARM D I 0.817 I 0.078 I 0.104 I 0.000 I I I I 845.0 I 81.0 I 108.0 I 0.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I ------
QUEUE AND DELAY INFORMATION FOR EACH 15 MIN TIME SEGMENT ------
------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 07.45-08.00 I I ARM A 14.66 38.33 0.383 0.0 0.6 9.1 0.04 I I ARM B 9.68 19.53 0.495 0.0 1.0 13.9 0.10 I I ARM C 3.28 16.59 0.197 0.0 0.2 3.6 0.07 I I ARM D 12.93 24.81 0.521 0.0 1.1 15.5 0.08 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 08.00-08.15 I I ARM A 17.51 37.90 0.462 0.6 0.9 12.6 0.05 I I ARM B 11.55 18.52 0.624 1.0 1.6 23.1 0.14 I I ARM C 3.91 15.07 0.260 0.2 0.3 5.1 0.09 I I ARM D 15.43 23.81 0.648 1.1 1.8 25.8 0.12 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 08.15-08.30 I I ARM A 21.44 37.33 0.574 0.9 1.3 19.5 0.06 I I ARM B 14.15 17.16 0.825 1.6 4.2 55.4 0.30 I I ARM C 4.79 13.05 0.367 0.3 0.6 8.3 0.12 I I ARM D 18.90 22.50 0.840 1.8 4.8 62.6 0.25 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 08.30-08.45 I I ARM A 21.44 37.31 0.575 1.3 1.3 20.1 0.06 I I ARM B 14.15 17.14 0.826 4.2 4.5 65.5 0.33 I I ARM C 4.79 12.98 0.369 0.6 0.6 8.7 0.12 I I ARM D 18.90 22.44 0.842 4.8 5.0 73.9 0.28 I I I ------
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour AM Peak.vao - Page 3
------
------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 08.45-09.00 I I ARM A 17.51 37.86 0.462 1.3 0.9 13.3 0.05 I I ARM B 11.55 18.50 0.625 4.5 1.7 27.8 0.15 I I ARM C 3.91 14.97 0.261 0.6 0.4 5.5 0.09 I I ARM D 15.43 23.72 0.651 5.0 1.9 30.9 0.13 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 09.00-09.15 I I ARM A 14.66 38.31 0.383 0.9 0.6 9.5 0.04 I I ARM B 9.68 19.50 0.496 1.7 1.0 15.5 0.10 I I ARM C 3.28 16.53 0.198 0.4 0.2 3.8 0.08 I I ARM D 12.93 24.76 0.522 1.9 1.1 17.2 0.09 I I I ------
QUEUE AT ARM A ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
08.00 0.6 * 08.15 0.9 * 08.30 1.3 * 08.45 1.3 * 09.00 0.9 * 09.15 0.6 *
QUEUE AT ARM B ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
08.00 1.0 * 08.15 1.6 ** 08.30 4.2 **** 08.45 4.5 **** 09.00 1.7 ** 09.15 1.0 *
QUEUE AT ARM C ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
08.00 0.2 08.15 0.3 08.30 0.6 * 08.45 0.6 * 09.00 0.4 09.15 0.2
QUEUE AT ARM D ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
08.00 1.1 * 08.15 1.8 ** 08.30 4.8 ***** 08.45 5.0 ***** 09.00 1.9 ** 09.15 1.1 *
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour AM Peak.vao - Page 4
------
QUEUEING DELAY INFORMATION OVER WHOLE PERIOD ------
------I ARM I TOTAL DEMAND I * QUEUEING * I * INCLUSIVE QUEUEING * I I I I * DELAY * I * DELAY * I I I------I I I (VEH) (VEH/H) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I ------I A I 1608.4 I 1072.3 I 84.1 I 0.05 I 84.1 I 0.05 I I B I 1061.3 I 707.5 I 201.3 I 0.19 I 201.4 I 0.19 I I C I 359.3 I 239.5 I 35.0 I 0.10 I 35.0 I 0.10 I I D I 1417.8 I 945.2 I 226.0 I 0.16 I 226.0 I 0.16 I ------I ALL I 4446.8 I 2964.6 I 546.3 I 0.12 I 546.4 I 0.12 I ------
* DELAY IS THAT OCCURRING ONLY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD. * INCLUSIVE DELAY INCLUDES DELAY SUFFERED BY VEHICLES WHICH ARE STILL QUEUEING AFTER THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD. * THESE WILL ONLY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IF THERE IS A LARGE QUEUE REMAINING AT THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD.
END OF JOB
======end of file ======
[Printed at 16:40:50 on 27/04/2009]
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour PM Peak.vao - Page 1
------
______A R C A D Y 6 ______
ASSESSMENT OF ROUNDABOUT CAPACITY AND DELAY
Analysis Program: Release 1.0 (MAR 2004)
(c) Copyright TRL Limited, 2004
Adapted from ARCADY/3 which is Crown Copyright by permission of the controller of HMSO ______
For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact:
TRL Limited Tel: +44 (0) 1344 770018 Crowthorne House Fax: +44 (0) 1344 770864 Nine Mile Ride Email: [email protected] Wokingham, Berks. Web: www.trlsoftware.co.uk RG40 3GA,UK
------THE USER OF THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE SOLUTION OF AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM IS IN NO WAY RELIEVED OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SOLUTION ------
Run with file:- "j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour PM Peak.vai" (drive-on-the-left ) at 16:41:49 on Monday, 27 April 2009
FILE PROPERTIES ***************
RUN TITLE: Green lane Roundabout AM Peak LOCATION: Colchester DATE: 27 April 2009 CLIENT: ENUMERATOR: awilson [KNT-MOB-103] JOB NUMBER: 22376 STATUS: DESCRIPTION:
INPUT DATA ********** ARM A - A133 Colchester Road north ARM B - B1033 ARM C - Services ARM D - A133
GEOMETRIC DATA ------
------I ARM I V (M) I E (M) I L (M) I R (M) I D (M) I PHI (DEG) I SLOPE I INTERCEPT (PCU/MIN) I ------I ARM A I 6.82 I 9.27 I 9.80 I 41.60 I 79.90 I 43.0 I 0.575 I 40.500 I I ARM B I 4.10 I 8.91 I 3.90 I 18.80 I 79.90 I 40.0 I 0.432 I 24.647 I I ARM C I 3.86 I 6.75 I 5.20 I 17.30 I 79.90 I 33.0 I 0.433 I 24.299 I I ARM D I 3.00 I 8.88 I 18.00 I 21.30 I 79.90 I 29.0 I 0.487 I 29.859 I ------
V = approach half-width L = effective flare length D = inscribed circle diameter E = entry width R = entry radius PHI = entry angle
TRAFFIC DEMAND DATA ------
(Only sets included in the current run are shown)
------I ARM I FLOW SCALE(%) I ------I A I 100 I I B I 100 I I C I 100 I I D I 100 I ------
TIME PERIOD BEGINS 16.45 AND ENDS 18.15 LENGTH OF TIME PERIOD - 90 MINUTES. LENGTH OF TIME SEGMENT - 15 MINUTES.
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour PM Peak.vao - Page 2
------
DEMAND FLOW PROFILES ARE SYNTHESISED FROM TURNING COUNT DATA
DEMAND SET TITLE: Green lane Roundabout PM Peak ------I I NUMBER OF MINUTES FROM START WHEN I RATE OF FLOW (VEH/MIN) I I ARM I FLOW STARTS I TOP OF PEAK I FLOW STOPS I BEFORE I AT TOP I AFTER I I I TO RISE I IS REACHED IFALLING I PEAK I OF PEAK I PEAK I ------I ARM A I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 21.74 I 32.61 I 21.74 I I ARM B I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 6.36 I 9.54 I 6.36 I I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 2.54 I 3.81 I 2.54 I I ARM D I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 10.79 I 16.18 I 10.79 I ------
DEMAND SET TITLE: Green lane Roundabout PM Peak ------I I TURNING PROPORTIONS I I I TURNING COUNTS (VEH/HR) I I I (PERCENTAGE OF H.V.S) I I ------I TIME I FROM/TO I ARM A I ARM B I ARM C I ARM D I ------I 16.45 - 18.15 I I I I I I I I ARM A I 0.000 I 0.310 I 0.063 I 0.627 I I I I 0.0 I 539.0 I 110.0 I 1090.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I I ARM B I 0.701 I 0.000 I 0.114 I 0.185 I I I I 357.0 I 0.0 I 58.0 I 94.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I I ARM C I 0.374 I 0.365 I 0.000 I 0.261 I I I I 76.0 I 74.0 I 0.0 I 53.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I I ARM D I 0.826 I 0.100 I 0.074 I 0.000 I I I I 713.0 I 86.0 I 64.0 I 0.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I ------
QUEUE AND DELAY INFORMATION FOR EACH 15 MIN TIME SEGMENT ------
------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 16.45-17.00 I I ARM A 21.74 38.90 0.559 0.0 1.3 18.3 0.06 I I ARM B 6.36 17.86 0.356 0.0 0.5 8.0 0.09 I I ARM C 2.54 16.00 0.159 0.0 0.2 2.7 0.07 I I ARM D 10.79 26.79 0.403 0.0 0.7 9.8 0.06 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 17.00-17.15 I I ARM A 25.96 38.58 0.673 1.3 2.0 29.3 0.08 I I ARM B 7.60 16.52 0.460 0.5 0.8 12.2 0.11 I I ARM C 3.03 14.36 0.211 0.2 0.3 3.9 0.09 I I ARM D 12.88 26.18 0.492 0.7 1.0 14.0 0.07 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 17.15-17.30 I I ARM A 31.79 38.15 0.833 2.0 4.7 64.5 0.15 I I ARM B 9.30 14.73 0.632 0.8 1.7 23.4 0.18 I I ARM C 3.71 12.18 0.305 0.3 0.4 6.3 0.12 I I ARM D 15.78 25.37 0.622 1.0 1.6 23.3 0.10 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 17.30-17.45 I I ARM A 31.79 38.14 0.833 4.7 4.9 72.0 0.16 I I ARM B 9.30 14.68 0.634 1.7 1.7 25.3 0.19 I I ARM C 3.71 12.11 0.306 0.4 0.4 6.6 0.12 I I ARM D 15.78 25.34 0.622 1.6 1.6 24.4 0.10 I I I ------
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour PM Peak.vao - Page 3
------
------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 17.45-18.00 I I ARM A 25.96 38.57 0.673 4.9 2.1 33.1 0.08 I I ARM B 7.60 16.45 0.462 1.7 0.9 13.6 0.11 I I ARM C 3.03 14.27 0.212 0.4 0.3 4.2 0.09 I I ARM D 12.88 26.15 0.493 1.6 1.0 15.2 0.08 I I I ------I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 18.00-18.15 I I ARM A 21.74 38.89 0.559 2.1 1.3 19.7 0.06 I I ARM B 6.36 17.81 0.357 0.9 0.6 8.6 0.09 I I ARM C 2.54 15.94 0.159 0.3 0.2 2.9 0.07 I I ARM D 10.79 26.76 0.403 1.0 0.7 10.4 0.06 I I I ------
QUEUE AT ARM A ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
17.00 1.3 * 17.15 2.0 ** 17.30 4.7 ***** 17.45 4.9 ***** 18.00 2.1 ** 18.15 1.3 *
QUEUE AT ARM B ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
17.00 0.5 * 17.15 0.8 * 17.30 1.7 ** 17.45 1.7 ** 18.00 0.9 * 18.15 0.6 *
QUEUE AT ARM C ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
17.00 0.2 17.15 0.3 17.30 0.4 17.45 0.4 18.00 0.3 18.15 0.2
QUEUE AT ARM D ------
TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE
17.00 0.7 * 17.15 1.0 * 17.30 1.6 ** 17.45 1.6 ** 18.00 1.0 * 18.15 0.7 *
------
TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour PM Peak.vao - Page 4
------
QUEUEING DELAY INFORMATION OVER WHOLE PERIOD ------
------I ARM I TOTAL DEMAND I * QUEUEING * I * INCLUSIVE QUEUEING * I I I I * DELAY * I * DELAY * I I I------I I I (VEH) (VEH/H) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I ------I A I 2384.5 I 1589.7 I 236.8 I 0.10 I 236.8 I 0.10 I I B I 697.9 I 465.3 I 91.1 I 0.13 I 91.1 I 0.13 I I C I 278.4 I 185.6 I 26.6 I 0.10 I 26.6 I 0.10 I I D I 1183.4 I 788.9 I 97.1 I 0.08 I 97.1 I 0.08 I ------I ALL I 4544.2 I 3029.5 I 451.5 I 0.10 I 451.6 I 0.10 I ------
* DELAY IS THAT OCCURRING ONLY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD. * INCLUSIVE DELAY INCLUDES DELAY SUFFERED BY VEHICLES WHICH ARE STILL QUEUEING AFTER THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD. * THESE WILL ONLY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IF THERE IS A LARGE QUEUE REMAINING AT THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD.
END OF JOB
======end of file ======
[Printed at 16:41:54 on 27/04/2009]
APPENDIX 4
Funding for transport infrastructure schemes
Funding for transport infrastructure schemes
The sources of funding for transport infrastructure schemes are:
- Regional Funding Allocation - Transport Innovation Fund - Growth Fund - Community Infrastructure Fund - European funds - Road safety grant to local authorities - Local councils, financed through borrowing - PFI schemes - Highways Agency routes of strategic national importance - Highways Agency small schemes under £5m - Network Rail investment, including small schemes under £5m - DfT rail through the High Level Output Specification - Investment by private transport providers eg bus companies, train operating companies - Developer contributions ( section 106/278) - Community Infrastructure Levy
LTP and Regional Funding Allocation (RFA)
Who Leads the Bid? For LTP funding the local Council writes the bid document and DfT decide the money. For RFA funding Dft decide the amount for region and the Regional Transport Board decide on its allocation, but DfT have to give final approval for funding.
Explanation/Process RFA is the main source of grant funding for transport infrastructure schemes. There three ways in which the RFA is used to finance the capital cost of schemes which appear in an area’s Local Transport Plan. These are: - Major scheme allocation for an individual transport schemes over £5million - Integrated Transport Allocation which funds all non-maintenance capital transport schemes costing less than £5m eg small road projects, bus priority schemes, walking and cycling schemes and transport information projects - Maintenance Allocation which is used to fund all structural local road maintenance such as re-surfacing.
The Regional Transport Board decides on the priority within its region of schemes to receive monies from the regions allocation of money from the DfT in its RFA. The RFA will fund 90% of the capital cost of prioritised schemes and part of the preparation costs. The boards are now prioritising schemes for delivery upto 2018/19. The final decision on whether a scheme represents value for money and should receive funding rests with the DfT
For Essex the Integrated Transport Allocation is around £15.3 million in 2011/12 rising to £17.5 million in 2018/19. The Maintenance Allocation is £21.5 million in 2011.12 rising to £24.7 million in 2018/19.
For Thurrock the Integrated Transport Allocation is around £1.6 million in 2011/12 rising to £1.9 million in 2018/19. The Maintenance Allocation is £1.9 million in 2011.12 rising to £2.2 million in 2018/19.
For major schemes, Essex and Thurrock are competing for limited funds against schemes throughout the East of England area.
Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) is for the capital funding of schemes which are part of a package of measures which includes a congestion charge. Only a few local authorities are still developing bids from this fund.
Regional Infrastructure Funding (RIF)
Who Leads the Bid? The Regional Transport Board. This funding is essentially just forward funding mechanism for schemes that will get RFA
Explanation/Process This is a newer source of funding coming forward and its applicability is currently unknown.
Growth Fund (GAF and GPF)
Who Leads the Bid? The funding is decided by Communities and Local Government (CLG) but Home and Communities Agency (HCA) will be involved.
Explanation/Process This fund was administered by the Department of Communities and Local Government to support the delivery of infrastructure in the three newer Growth Areas and the Growth Points ( see map attached). It is part of the money that the CLG is spending on the Growth Areas, Thames Gateway, Growth Points and eco-towns. The funding runs until 2011 and is now fully allocated (see spreadsheet for allocation of funds to areas). The money is an unringfenced grant, although it is divided into a capital and revenue element. This means that the local authorities and local partnerships receiving the grant decide how it is spent. It will not all be available for transport projects.
Community Infrastructure Fund.
Who Leads the Bid? CIF actually doesn’t exist anymore. No plans for further CIF funding.
Explanation/Process This was a fund for specific transport projects which helped to deliver housing. All the money has now been allocated to schemes. Like the Growth Fund, these monies were available under the current Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR07). The next CSR will take place after the next election. It may provide additional funds for the growth and community infrastructure fund, or may provide funds for new schemes, consolidate all funding under the RFA process or do something entirely different.
European Funds. In the past it has been possible to obtain European Union Funds for schemes such as new roads and public transport in the most deprived areas of Europe. Other funds appear from time to time, for example European money was used to help finance Fastrack in Kent Thameside.
Road safety grant to local authorities. There is only a small sum available annually for local road safety schemes.from the Road Safety Partnership grant administered by the DfT.
Local Councils may decide to borrow money or raise Council Tax ( as in the case of Manchester) in order to finance transport schemes.
PFI schemes. For these schemes a private company is set up to deliver a scheme and associated maintenance and operation for a fixed period of time. Central government allocates the necessary funds each year needed to meet the payments due to the private company. These are known as PFI credits. To date PFI has been mainly used by the Highways Agency and Transport for London. DfT PFI credits are usually given to highway maintenance and street lighting schemes.
Highways Agency has funds for schemes of national importance and a small discretionary fund for schemes under £5m. Many road schemes are funded through the Regional Funding Allocation.
Rail schemes. The DfT decides what rail schemes it wishes to fund under the High Level Output Specification. Network Rail also sets out its plans in the Route Utilisation Strategy for each area. Network Rail also has a small discretionary fund fro schemes under £5m.
Developer contributions. These are subject to the ability of local planers to negotiate settlements. There are competing demands from other sectors such as health and education. The current economic climate means that these sums are likely to be lower than expected in the immediate future. They are extremely valuable as a source of the 10% local contribution to schemes required by RFA grants.
Community Infrastructure Levy. After April 2010 local authorities can choose to exercise the power to make a standard charge on new development ( akin to a tariff) calculated by multiplying the amount of development by the standard local rate for each land use type. The monies raised will be used towards the cost of infrastructure in the area.
APPENDIX 5
Previous Developer Contribution Levels
TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPEN SPACE/PLAY HARWICH LOSS OF TOTAL AFFORDABLE SITE NO OF UNITS OPEN SPACE ‐ LAND PUBLIC REALM HIGHWAYS EDUCATION CONTRIBUTION ‐ UNITS ‐ CONTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT MASTERPLAN EMPLOYMENT CONTRIBUTION HOUSING (%) (per unit) Thorpe Road Clacton 5 £40,000 £40,000 £8,000 0% Thorpe Road Kirby 49 10 £20,000 £248,303 £268,303 £5,476 20% Cross Lees School Clacton 39 £80,000 £80,000 £2,051 0%
Highlands Clacton 120 £774,500 £774,500 £6,454 0%
Low Road Dovercourt 162 5 4 parcels of land on site £18,564 £18,564 £115 3% Capital House, Small play area 93 28 £228,000 £115,000 £343,000 £3,688 30% Dovercourt equipped Sydney St. Brightlingsea Up to 37 units £0 £0 0% (Outline) Byng Crescent Thorpe 12 12 £0 £0 100%
Royal Hotel Clacton 46 £360,000 £360,000 £7,826 0%
Windsor School Clacton 24 0.81 hectare £100,000 £100,000 £4,167 0% Former Factory 34 £61,694 £129,200 £190,894 £5,615 0% Harwich Woolner Road Clacton 30 £82,269 £82,269 £2,742 0%
St Marys Gt Bentley 12 12 £0 £0 100%
Jackson House Clacton 32 12 £44,219 £10,025 £54,244 £1,695 38%
Pallister Road Clacton 10 £18,026 £18,026 £1,803 0%
Harwich Primary 39 £62,530 £62,530 £1,603 0%
High St Dovercourt 10 £13,520 £13,520 £1,352 0%
Waterside Brightlingsea 99 £720,000 £34,400 £78,486 £840,159 £8,486 0%
Lighthouse Clacton 14 £18,590 £20,000 £38,590 £2,756 0% Plot 3 Stanton Euro, 81 30 £138,000 £60,000 £198,000 £2,444 37% Dovercourt 948 109 £1,854,500 ‐ £843,143 £20,000 £129,200 £10,025 £209,400 £409,058 £3,482,599 £3,674 11%
APPENDIX 6
Developer Contribution Analysis Assumptions
Our assumptions
1.1 Set out below are the key assumptions set out in Section 11 of the main report:
Variable Urban Extension Category Town Centre Category Site size (gross) 25 1 Development Density 35dph 100dph Net/Gross Site Ratio 60% 70% Development Mix 90% houses/10% flats 10% houses/90% flats Sales Value £1,884 - £2,422psm (houses) £2,072 - £2,664psm (houses) Affordable Housing 40% of residential units 40% of residential units (78% socially rented / 22% (78% socially rented / 22% intermediate) intermediate) Affordable Housing £0 per unit £0 per unit Grant Funding Land Acquisition Cost £0.5m per ha £1.0m per ha Build Costs Apartments: £1,184psm Apartments: £1,342psm Houses: £766psm Houses: £766psm Sustainability Costs Code Level 3 assumed Code Level 3 assumed (Code for Sustainable (+ 5% build costs) (+ 5% build costs) Homes) Site Specific / Abnormal £0.5m per ha £0.5m per ha Costs Secondary £0.25m per ha £0.25m per ha Infrastructure Costs External Works 13% of build costs 13% of build costs Fees & Other Costs 10% of build costs 10% of build costs Sales Rates 100 units pa 50 units pa Average Unit Sizes Apartments: 65 sq m Apartments: 65 sq m (Private) Houses: 85 sq m Houses: 85 sq m Average Unit Sizes Apartments: 70 sq m Apartments: 70 sq m (Affordable) Houses: 90 sq m Houses: 90 sq m Developer’s Required 17%pa 17%pa Rate of Return
1.2 We now set out more information on the above assumptions in this appendix. Sales value assumptions 1.3 The key variable in relation to the level of developer contributions that could be secured is sales value, in this case housing prices on a £ per square metre (£ psm) basis. We have adopted a low, medium and high approach for each of the notional development sites, using information in the Fordhams Affordable Housing Site Viability Study (2006). 1.4 The Fordhams study identifies four broad categories, from lower priced sites in less attractive areas such as Dovercourt, Jaywick and some parts of Clacton, where prices were estimated to be below £190 per sq ft (£2,045 psm) to high priced localities such as Frinton and Mistley, where prices were estimated to be £240 per sq ft (£2,583 psm) and upwards. 1.5 We assumed apartments will sell for approximately 10% more on a per sq m basis than houses, and we assumed values in town centre locations would be 10% higher than in urban extensions. On this basis, we used the following indicative value categories:
Assumed “peak” sales values by category (per sq m) houses / apartments NOTIONAL URBAN EXTENSION NOTIONAL TOWN CENTRE SITE LOW MEDIUM HIGH LOW MEDIUM HIGH VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE
Apartments £2,072 £2,368 £2,664 £2,280 £2,605 £2,931
Houses £1,884 £2,153 £2,422 £2,072 £2,368 £2,664
Source: RTP; Fordhams
Our approach to affordable housing 1.6 The two main approaches to using new development to provide affordable housing is either through requiring a developer to provide a set percentage of units as affordable to a Registered Social Landlord (RSL), or provide a set percentage of its land for an RSL. 1.7 We understand from stakeholders that most LPAs usually take the first approach – that is, to apply percentage affordable housing targets to the overall proposed dwelling numbers on the site. 1.8 Following discussions with the Council, we have adopted a requirement for 40% affordable housing. We have used a 78:22 split between socially rented and intermediate affordable housing units. Factors affecting affordable housing values 1.9 An RSL will pay the developer less for the affordable housing in a development than private buyers pay for private units. This is taken into account in our model. 1.10 Assuming an RSL acquires the units rather than the land for affordable housing, the value a developer will receive from the RSL will largely depend on the following three key factors: . The tenure type (i.e. whether the units are for socially rented or intermediate affordable housing)
. “Open market” values (i.e. what “private” units are sold for)
. The level of grant funding available
1.11 Our approach to these variables is as follows.
Accounting for tenure type: more value is achieved from intermediate affordable housing 1.12 A developer will receive more for intermediate affordable housing units from an RSL than for socially rented units. This reflects the respective value of such affordable housing to the RSL. 1.13 Often a developer will receive less than half the “open market” (or private) value for socially rented units where no grant funding is available. In contrast, where there is grant funding available, a developer can receive almost full market value from an RSL for intermediate affordable units. Accounting for open market values: we have assessed the value of affordable housing as a percentage of market value 1.14 Higher “open market” (or private) residential values usually correspond to a developer receiving more from an RSL for the affordable housing units. 1.15 We have made assumptions on “open market” residential values for the different development categories (see above). Our approach is therefore to apply a percentage of these “open market” values to the affordable housing element in our notional developments. Accounting for grant levels: affordable housing grant is changing 1.16 A developer will receive more from an RSL where grant funding is made available by the Homes and Communities Agency (previously the Housing Corporation). 1.17 The Housing Corporation’s (HC) previous national policy on grant funding was none would be available, unless the need for public subsidy could be demonstrated. Importantly, the HC wished to ensure it did not subsidise land values i.e. help maintain high land prices to the benefit of land owners. We understand from meetings with its successor, the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), that it is still following the principle that developer contributions in the first instance should bring forward affordable housing in accordance with the overall percentages, mix of tenure and house type as set out in the local authorities SPD for affordable housing. We have assumed nil grant funding 1.18 The need for grant funding needs to be justified on an individual site or need basis. It is therefore difficult to apply assumptions of likely grant funding to particular “categories” of development (such as urban extension or urban sites). 1.19 We have therefore adopted a nil based grant position for National Affordable Housing Programme (NAHP) grant as our base assumption, although this has been varied within the sensitivity analysis. We have combined the above factors to make some affordable housing value assumptions 1.20 We have set out below the assumptions in our analysis model regarding how much the RSL pays the developer for the affordable housing units to allow sensitivity analysis to this variable. It should be noted we have assumed that the grant level per unit will not be applied equally to the socially rented and intermediate affordable housing; the latter will normally be allocated less due to its higher value to an RSL. We have based this high level assessment on our general experience elsewhere. 1.21 These assumptions can be changed or tested in the analysis model in the second stage of the study. We recommend they are reviewed in due course through consultation with local RSLs. Affordable housing value assumptions (% of market value) Social Rented Intermediate Assumed Assumed Value Value Grant Level (% of market value) (% of market value)
No Grant 45% 75%
£10,000 per unit 50% 80%
£20,000 per unit 55% 85%
£30,000 per unit 60% 90%
Source: RTP 1.22 As the above table shows, we have assumed that the developer receives a higher percentage of market value for intermediate affordable units. Indeed, close to full market value (i.e. 100%) is achieved on intermediate housing with a £30,000 per unit HCA grant funding. In contrast, on socially rented affordable units where no HCA grant funding is assumed, the amount received by the developer is assumed to be less than half of that achieved on private units. Build cost assumptions Build cost increases are levelling off 1.23 Average build costs have risen by around 25% since the end of 2003 although the rate of increase is now levelling off. DCLG’s Cost Analysis of The Code for Sustainable Homes (July 2008) assumes build costs (i.e. excluding site preparation, external works etc which are separately set out below) of £766 per sq m and £1,342 per sq m for houses and apartments respectively. This is broadly consistent with our own knowledge of build costs. We have used £766 per sq m and £1,184 per sq m on the notional urban extension site, and the higher apartment cost of £1,342 per sq m on the notional town centre site to reflect the higher density and potentially higher quality required. Code for Sustainable Homes standards will drive build costs up in future 1.24 The introduction of the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) Standards will significantly add to costs when they are introduced (DCLG have not announced any plan to delay this). Unfortunately, there are relatively few houses built to these standards to use as comparables to assess the increased costs above “base” build costs. 1.25 We have used an average of the estimated percentage build cost increases for varying CSH standards in our analysis model from DCLG’s Cost Analysis of The Code for Sustainable Homes. These are as follows: . Code Level 3 – cost increase of 5%
. Code Level 4 – cost increase of 11%
. Code Level 5 – cost increase of 21%
. Code Level 6 – cost increase of 37% 1.26 Unfortunately, there are still relatively few houses built to these standards, so we would recommend these figures are reviewed in the future. Pre-development and secondary infrastructure cost assumptions
1.27 We have assumed £250,000 per gross ha for pre-development and secondary infrastructure costs (site preparation including drainage, distributor roads and utilities). Although this is at the lower end of such costs, we have made a general allowance for site specific or abnormal costs (see below). We have also allowed 13% of build costs for external works (such as landscaping and public open space) using published case studies and our experience of costs elsewhere, and 10% of build costs for professional fees and other minor costs. 1.28 As with many of the variables, it is not possible to be site specific as each development will have unique costs in this respect, but these general levels are based on experience elsewhere. Site specific, or “abnormal” development cost assumptions
1.29 There are likely to be additional development costs specific to individual developments which reflect their individual characteristics. These are usually described as “abnormal” costs. For example, one site may require off site infrastructure works such as a stretch of access road or additional utilities, a second remediation/decontamination and a third acquisition of existing buildings or land (with associated demolition costs). For example, a report for English Partnerships in 2005 suggested that a typical budget for cleaning up an industrial site in an area with a low water risk was around £75k - £175k per ha1, although it is relatively common for greater sums to be expended on additional groundworks and substructure on sites that are sloping, wet or unstable. 1.30 It is not possible to assess all these site specific (or additional) development costs for each site. Indeed, they may not be known at this stage. We have therefore assumed costs of £500,000 per ha for both the notional urban extension and town centre sites. However, if there are town centre sites that have particularly difficult issues such as acute contamination, flood protection and ground conditions, abnormal costs could be higher than those assumed. Sales rate assumptions Sales rates are key to the cashflow of a development 1.31 Cashflow is critical to a developer. The quicker residential units are sold, the quicker a developer can pay off loans, or achieve a higher rate of return on its own capital employed and reinvest these funds elsewhere. Conversely, a slow sale of residential units means costs already incurred, including land acquisition costs and site preparation costs, will continue to accumulate finance costs until sales income can pay off outstanding balances, or reduce the return on capital employed. There has been a big slow-down in build and sales rates 1.32 DDCLG data suggests that market housing starts in June 2008 were 27 per cent lower than the June 2007.2 In contrast housing starts by Registered Social Landlords were at their highest quarterly level in eleven years. In September the NHBC estimated a
1 English Partnerships Best Practice Note 27 'Contaminated Land Remediation Costs' July 2005 2http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/housingmarket/ quarterly fall of 50% compared with the previous year. Perusal of the interim reports from housebuilders which are mostly released in July and August shows comparably steep falls in completions during the half year. Some of these will be on committed schemes which points to the possibility of further decline, a conclusion backed by anecdotal evidence suggesting that the rate of new private sector starts will be markedly lower still during the coming year. We have made sales rates assumptions 1.33 A developer is only likely to construct units at a rate it is able to sell units within a reasonable period. In other words, it will not build all private units at one time if this will “flood” the market and mean many are left unsold for a significant length of time. 1.34 We have therefore assumed a sales rate of 25 private (as opposed to affordable) residential units per quarter on the notional urban extension and 7.5 units per quarter on the assumed smaller notional town centre, based on our general market knowledge and information in the Fordhams study where some of the smaller sites are only assumed to have a ceiling level of completions of 4-10 units per quarter. 1.35 Exact sales rates will depend on the strength of the market, demand for the particular development and its size (e.g. a large development site may have more than one developer constructing residential units at one time, which offers a greater diversity of product and is likely to increase sales rates). In our analysis model, for the “urban extension” category at 40% affordable housing, equates to a total of 315 private units in the generic site of 25ha. At a sales rate of 25 units per quarter, the development takes approximately13 quarters (or just over 4 years) for all the units to be sold. 1.36 As with sales values, these reflect closer to rates experienced at the “peak” of the market rather than now; although we have reflected slower build rates in the overall phasing of development, we have utilised this base case for the purposes of analysing theoretical development surpluses. Developer’s profit 1.37 We have developed a hybrid residual / discounted cash flow analysis to estimate theoretical development surplus arising from residential development to help fund new infrastructure requirements resulting from growth. This can be regarded as a type of “development appraisal” model. 1.38 We have assumed a developer profit based on a discount rate of 17%pa in this analysis model. Although this may be lower than current market profit rates, we are assuming a reasonable profit under normal market conditions for the purposes of this study. Development mix assumptions 1.39 Through discussions with the Council, and our general development knowledge from other areas, we have assumed the following development mix at this stage: . Assumed “urban extension” development sites: 90% houses / 10% apartments
. Assumed “town centre” development sites: 10% houses / 90% apartments
Average unit size assumptions 1.40 We have used the following average unit sizes based on our general development knowledge: Table 0.1 Average unit size assumptions
Apartment House
Private Residential 65 sq m 85 sq m Units
Affordable Units 70 sq m 90 sq m
Source: RTP
Developer contribution payment timing assumptions 1.41 Finally, we have assumed developer contributions are spread over the life of the development. 1.42 In terms of Sec.106 payments/contributions, the timing of these will be specific to the individual development. For larger developments, these aren’t usually “front loaded” (i.e. are not at the start of the development as this adversely effects a developers cashflow as it may already have other significant site preparation/infrastructure costs in this respect), and are therefore phased or “back ended”. 1.43 Where tariffs are used, these are usually based on a set payment structure that ensures some monies are paid upfront. For example, the Milton Keynes tariff is structured as follows: . 10% upon implementable consent
. 15% before start on site
. 75% on a quarterly basis after the first completion is sold or rented. The payment size relating to the proportion of dwellings sold or rented.
1.44 The latest CIL guidance envisages the levy is paid by “instalments”, but that these will not be individually negotiated as a Sec.106 is. As the client group has not committed to a CIL or a tariff at this stage, we have therefore adopted a simple timing structure that follows the sale of units i.e. developer contributions are spread over the sales period.