East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy
Final Report
August 2010 East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 2
Contents Page
Section 1: Introduction & Growth Context ...... 3
1. Introduction ...... 4
2. Housing Projections ...... 8
3. Housing Mix and Tenure ...... 15
4. Population Forecasts ...... 19
5. Employment Assumptions ...... 28
Section 2: Infrastructure Requirements ...... 30
6. Social Infrastructure: Education ...... 31
7. Social Infrastructure: Healthcare ...... 68
8. Social Infrastructure: Emergency Services ...... 82
9. Social Infrastructure: Community Facilities ...... 92
10. Social Infrastructure: Sports Space and Facilities ...... 107
11. Social Infrastructure: Open Space, and Green Infrastructure ...... 119
12. Transport Infrastructure ...... 137
13. Utilities ...... 158
14. Infrastructure Overview ...... 183
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 3
Section 1: Introduction & Growth Context
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 4
1. Introduction
East Cambridgeshire is a predominantly rural district located to the north-east of Cambridge. The district contains three market towns, Ely, Soham and Littleport, and 50 other villages and hamlets varying in size, including the fringe areas of Newmarket.
The East of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) 2008 indicates that a minimum of 8,600 houses will need to be provided in East Cambridgeshire between 2001 and 2021. In accordance with PPS3, the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009 will need to plan up to 2025 in order to ensure a 15 year housing supply.
The RSS indicates that for the period post-2021 the Council should plan at an annual rate of 430 dwellings per year. Therefore a minimum supply of 10,320 dwellings will need to come forward in East Cambridgeshire between 2001 and 2025.
To ensure that growth occurs in a sustainable manner the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and Regional Economic Strategy (RES) both seek a better alignment or balance between the proposed number of homes and jobs. The current RSS establishes targets for Cambridgeshire of 75,000 new jobs between 2001 and 2025. East Cambridgeshire’s recently revised Employment Land and Labour Market Study (2008) estimated that the District should plan to cater for 6,200 extra jobs between 2006 and 2025.
Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12) requires Core Strategies to include a Delivery Strategy for achieving the plan's strategic objectives. This requires more than simply setting out the future spatial direction of an area as the Strategy must also consider how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. The timely provision of requisite infrastructure is necessary to ensure that development occurs in a truly sustainable manner. For example: Transport infrastructure and services play a key role in creating sustainable travel patterns to, from, and within development areas. Appropriate water, energy and green infrastructure are all necessary to achieving development which is sustainable. Social infrastructure must be provided to meet the emerging demand from new communities and anticipated changes in the existing population.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 5
Strong partnership working with public and private infrastructure service providers, the development industry, and regional and local delivery agencies can be used to demonstrate that the Core Strategy has considered the implications of growth and how service delivery, funding streams and partnership arrangements have been aligned in order to facilitate implementation. A crucial element of the Strategy will be exploring the potential role of a variety of delivery mechanisms at the regional, sub-regional, district and site- specific levels. Partnerships with EEDA, Cambridgeshire Horizons, LSP, and service providers will be vital to delivery, as will existing delivery mechanisms such as Public-Private Partnerships, Joint Venture arrangements and others – such as the Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT), Company concept in building primary care facility provision and the Building Schools for the Future programmes.
In order to produce a Delivery Strategy, the true implications of the infrastructure requirements necessary to deliver growth set out in the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy needs to be understood. East Cambridgeshire District Council therefore has commissioned AECOM, in partnership with Drivers Jonas and Gardiner and Theobald, to develop this Infrastructure Investment Strategy This strategy assesses the infrastructure delivery and funding requirements arising from the housing growth.
Growth Scenarios
In addition to testing the infrastructure requirements of growth set out in the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy, two alternative scenarios will also be tested. A medium growth scenario based on additional housing windfall sites not included in the Core Strategy and a higher growth scenario based on potentially higher housing targets that may come out of the review of the RSS. The three growth scenarios to be tested are:
LDF Scenario: 10,639 homes Medium Growth Scenario: 11,693 homes High Growth Scenario: 13,606 homes
REPORT CONTENT AND STRUCTURE
This report identifies the infrastructure requirements associated with the delivery of the three growth scenarios, the cost of delivering that infrastructure and the potential implications for delivery over time. It also includes an assessment of the potential to raise developer contributions across the district. The assessment of infrastructure requirements is set within a national and local policy context and has involved consultation with local stakeholders and delivery providers.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 6
The infrastructure requirements identified in this report are those associated with:
Social Infrastructure, including: Education Healthcare Emergency services Community facilities Sports and recreation facilities Open Space and green infrastructure
Transport Utilities
The infrastructure requirements are assessed for each growth location however district wide requirements are identified as appropriate. Any strategic / sub-regional infrastructure requirements (such as sub-regional transport requirements or strategic green infrastructure requirements) will be assessed as part of the Integrated Development Programme being undertaken for the whole of Cambridgeshire by Cambridgeshire Horizons. The remainder of this report is based on the following chapters:
An overview of the housing projections under each growth option
A detailed summary of the housing size and tenure mix assumptions which underpin the study
The population impacts associated with the proposed growth scenarios
A detailed summary of the employment assumptions which underpin the study
A review of the social infrastructure requirements under each of the categories identified above
A review of the transport infrastructure necessary to support growth under each of the scenarios
A review of the utilities infrastructure necessary to support growth under each of the scenarios
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 7
Note:
1. This is a high level strategic study – as individual sites come forward they will be assessed on their own merits by East Cambridgeshire District Council and be subject to transportation and environmental assessments as required which will determine the requirements in terms of mitigations and contributions as part of the planning process.
2. All highways costs produced in this report are “indicative” as appropriate for this strategic document.
3. This assessment assumes that development is possible in a way that is environmentally acceptable. It is recognised that further assessments are likely to be required for individual sites within the scenarios set out.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 8
2. Housing Projections
GROWTH AREAS
Growth within the three scenarios will be distributed based on the spatial strategy set out in the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy. The three market towns of Ely, Soham and Littleport will be the focus of the majority of development activity, with a particular focus on Ely as the main centre in the district.
The villages of Bottisham, Burwell, Haddenham and Sutton are designated as ‘Key Service Centres’ in the settlement hierarchy, and are identified as suitable for accommodating modest growth. The fringes of Newmarket which lie within East Cambridgeshire are also designated as a Key Service Centre identified for modest growth.
In the wider countryside a limited amount of development is identified, although for the purposes of the growth scenarios this is identified as ‘Other Areas’.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 9
Figure 2-1: East Cambridgeshire Growth Locations (2001-25)
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 10
GROWTH SCENARIOS
Table 2-1 sets out the distribution of growth within the identified areas of East Cambridgeshire for the three scenarios. These housing figures are built up from:
Outstanding commitments on larger sites Windfalls (including commitments on small sites) Large potential sites within the settlement boundary Potential housing opportunities outside the settlement boundary
The variation between the three growth scenarios reflects:
Additional windfall developments included in the medium and higher growth scenarios Further potential housing development opportunities identified outside the settlement boundary of the three market towns in the Higher Growth Scenario.
Table 2-1: Distribution of the growth scenario (2001/02- 2024/25) Medium Higher LDF Scenario Scenario Scenario
Market Towns 7,416 7,688 9,601
Ely 3,618 3,6994,782
Soham 2,170 2,2682,845
Littleport 1,628 1,721 1,974
Key Service Centres 1,500 1,660 1,660
Bottisham 218 240 240
Burwell 509 559 559
Haddenham 172 196 196
Newmarket Fringe 118 120 120
Sutton 483 545 545
Other Areas 1,723 2,345 2,345
Total 10,639 11,693 13,606 Source: East Cambridgeshire District Council 2009
Between 2001/02 and 2008/09, there were 5,108 completions across East Cambridgeshire. These were predominantly in Ely
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 11
(with 2,078 completions) however completions occurred in all of the areas identified above.
Once accounting for these completions, the outstanding housing requirement is reduced to a range of 5,531 dwellings under the LDF Scenario to 8,498 under the higher Scenario. The precise impact on each growth location is identified in the table below and it is this outstanding housing growth requirement under each scenario which will be used to inform the recommendations for infrastructure requirements.
Table 2-2: Outstanding Housing Growth Requirements (2009/10-2024/25) Completions LDF Medium Higher Scenario Scenario Scenario
Market Towns 3,370 4,046 4,318 6,231
Ely 2,078 1,540 1,621 2,704
Soham 726 1,444 1,542 2,119
Littleport 566 1,062 1,155 1,408 Key Service Centres 826 674 834 834
Bottisham 66 152 174 174
Burwell 271 238 288 288
Haddenham 97 75 99 99 Newmarket Fringe 73 45 47 47
Sutton 319 164 226 226
Other Areas 912 811 1,433 1,433
Total 5,108 5,531 6,585 8,498 Source: East Cambridgeshire District Council 2009
Further information has been provided by East Cambridgeshire District Council in relation to the ‘Other Areas’ and it has been possible to group development outside the market towns and growth locations into the following four categories:
Elsewhere: North of the District Elsewhere: South of the District Countryside (including general windfall and affordable rural developments).
The areas designated ‘North’ and ‘South of the District’ are consistent with the definitions provided in the Core Strategy Submission Development Plan (May 2008), and are as follows:
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 12
South of the District: the parishes of Ashley, Bottisham, Brinkley, Burrough Green, Burwell, Chippenham, Cheveley, Dullingham, Fordham, Kennett, Kirtling, Reach, Snailwell, Swaffham Bulbeck, Swaffham Prior, Westley Waterless and Woodditton North of the District: Coveney, Haddenham, Isleham, Mepal, Little Downham, Littleport, Little Thetford, Soham, Stretham, Sutton, Wentworth, Wicken, Witcham, Wilburton, Witchford, and Ely City.
The housing projections for these ‘Other Areas’ of East Cambridgeshire under each scenario are set out in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3: Housing Trajectory for ‘Other Areas’ Other Areas Completions LDF Medium Higher Scenario Scenario Scenario Countryside (Affordable) 230 421 421 Countryside (Other) 115 305 305 912 Elsewhere (North) 285 461 461 Elsewhere (South) 181 246 246 Source: East Cambridgeshire District Council 2009
Figure 2-2 below illustrates the housing trajectory of the three growth scenarios up to 2025.
In many cases infrastructure requirements will be triggered when a given number of dwellings or associated population threshold is exceeded. In these cases, accurate forecasting of the housing trajectory is essential for infrastructure projects to be phased appropriately.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 13
Figure 2-2: East Cambridgeshire Housing Trajectories for the Three Growth Scenarios
Housing Growth Scenarios 1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
Completions LDF Scenario Medium Scenario High Scenario Annualised RSS Rate
Source: AECOM Design and Planning / East Cambridgeshire District Council, 2009
As Figure 2-2 shows, there are 5,108 completions between 2001 and 2008. From 2009/10 the housing growth under the LDF scenario remains consistently below the other housing scenarios. Housing growth under this scenario peaks in 2011/12 at 6587 units and again 2016/17, where annual housing completions are expected to reach 704 units across the district. After this point, the average annual rate of completions reduces significantly and 175 units are expected to come forward each year from 2019/20 until the end of the period. The medium and higher scenarios both take account of windfall housing growth that may come forward across the district, but cannot be included in the first ten years of the LDF allocation. Consequently, housing growth under the medium scenario exceeds the LDF level of growth for each year until 2019/20, peaking at 843 units in 2016/17. After 2019/20 projected housing growth under the LDF and medium scenarios is consistent.
In addition to windfall development within the next ten years, the higher growth scenario assumes a higher rate of development towards the end of the plan period. The purpose of this scenario is to test the requirements that would be associated with a higher housing growth target for East Cambridgeshire following the East of England Plan Review to 2031. This additional growth is accommodated as further growth within the three market towns post 2016/17, and is illustrated through the variation between the medium and higher scenarios in the final nine years of the plan.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 14
A further 1,913 new homes are modelled as coming forward within urban extensions to the three market towns under the higher scenario and the rate of development peaks at 1,056 dwellings in 2015/16.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 15
3. Housing Mix and Tenure
Housing Tenure Social infrastructure requirements are generally driven by changes in the local population base and so it is necessary to assess the population change that is likely to be associated with the housing growth set out in the previous chapter.
The general characteristics of a household, including Average Household Size (AHS) and Child Yield, will vary by unit size and tenure, and this section sets out the assumptions that will be used as part of this study. Where possible, the assumptions are aligned with local housing policy.
HOUSING TENURE
There are two affordable housing targets identified in the Core Strategy, reflecting the differing requirement in the north and south of the district. In the north of the district the Core Strategy states that 30% of dwellings on sites with more than three units should be affordable. In the south of the district this figure rises to 40%.
For simplicity, the 30% and 40% thresholds will be applied to all developments, besides ‘Development within the Countryside’ where separate projections have been provided by ECDC for affordable and private housing. The precise figures for affordable and private ‘Development within the Countryside’ are presented in Table 2-3 and equate to an affordable housing threshold of 67% under the LDF scenario and 58% under the medium and higher scenarios.
Across the whole district, the affordable housing requirement is assumed to include 70% social rented properties and 30% intermediate properties.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 16
Table 3-1: Tenure Mix Proportion of Total North of District Private Housing 70% Social Housing 30%
South of District Private Housing 60% Social Housing 40%
Affordable Housing (North and South) Affordable Housing : Social Rented 70% Affordable Housing: Intermediate 30% Source: East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy2009
HOUSING SIZE MIX
The preferred mix of future housing development is influenced by a number of factors. Affordable housing is particularly influenced by:
The household size and needs of applicants on the Common Housing Register and Intermediate tenure waiting list; The availability of homes of various sizes through re-lets of the current housing stock; The ambition to create sustainable balanced neighbourhoods and promote well-being for residents and communities.
This Infrastructure Investment Strategy deviates from the adopted Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for affordable housing size mix as it is considered by East Cambridgeshire District Council that this does not provide a sufficiently robust estimate of the required distribution of dwellings. It is important to ensure the housing size mix is as robust as possible as this will affect the parameters for average household size and average child yield, which are used to determine the requirements for social infrastructure.
It is the view of the Council that 1- bed dwellings experience a higher rate of turnover than larger units, as single occupants’ circumstances change. Conversely, 2- and 3- bed properties are more likely to contain families and may often be a home for life, and as families bring up children and remain in their home after children have left, therefore these homes may not become available for re-let so frequently. In addition, some homes in the District are subject to secure tenancies that can be passed once to a dependent relative; this transfer of tenancy is more likely to
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 17
occur in family houses rather than in single-person accommodation, which may also mean relatively fewer family homes become available for re-let. Due to the higher turnover of smaller properties, a fairly even balance of unit sizes in the district at present and the high proportion of recent refusals for 1-bed properties, the housing mix for all affordable provision (including both social rented and intermediate homes) should provide for a greater proportion of larger units than is currently shown in the SHMA. For the purposes of this study, the size mix should therefore be:
Table 3-2: Housing Size Mix: Affordable Housing 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 + bed Total Housing Size Mix 10% 45% 35% 10% 100% Source: East Cambridgeshire District Council, 2010
The following ranges for each unit size were provided by the Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group for private tenure mixes. The ranges take account of
Census data to calculate the population structure in terms of the number of bedrooms required by what proportion of the population Market behaviour data from new development surveys carried out by the Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group to show what size of property different sizes of household buy.
This analysis was undertaken for each district and the figures provided below are specific for East Cambridgeshire private housing. The analysis provides an upper and lower bound for each unit size, and this analysis has adopted the midpoint of each range as the appropriate housing mix for population modelling purposes.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 18
Table 3-3: Housing Size Mix: Private Housing Property size 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed Total Minimum % 3% 13% 22% 33% 71% Maximum % 5% 23% 39% 61% 128% Using a Mid Point 4% 18% 31% 47% 100% Source: Cambridgeshire Housing sub-Region Property Size Guide – Summary of Modelling for all Districts
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 19
4. Population Forecasts
INTRODUCTION
To accurately assess the infrastructure requirements associated with the proposed housing growth, it is necessary to model the likely impacts of the housing growth on the local population.
To inform this study, local population growth will be modelled on a development specific and district wide basis, where:
Development specific population growth refers to the number of people forecast to reside within the new dwellings.
District wide population growth which models the projected district wide demographic changes after taking account of the housing growth proposed under each growth scenario.
The development specific population growth is relevant when assessing the infrastructure requirements resulting from local population change; for example when social infrastructure must be provided within or alongside a development. Examples include community facilities and primary education.
The district wide population growth is relevant when assessing the requirements for infrastructure whose catchment area may extend across an area wider than the proposed developments or growth locations. Examples include secondary education and open space designated to serve the whole district. In these cases it is important to take account of any changes that are expected to occur within the existing population – such as population aging or declining household size.
The figures for district wide population growth have been provided to AECOM by the Cambridgeshire Research Group (part of Cambridgeshire County Council) and are based on the three housing scenarios identified in Chapter 2.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 20
DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC POPULATION GROWTH: METHODOLOGY Total Population
The development specific population change associated with the three growth scenarios are based on the Average Household Size (AHS) and average child yield per dwelling, adjusted for tenure and size mix. The ASH for private housing is taken from the 2001 Census which provides the average characteristics of households which recently moved into or within East Cambridgeshire in the previous 12 months. This approach recognises that the characteristics of households that have recently moved may differ from the characteristics of households in general.
While the Census data was undertaken in 2001, and is now several years old, it provides the most comprehensive review of recently moving households and is sensitive to the local conditions within East Cambridgeshire.
AHS information for affordable housing can be taken from the CORE data (Continuous Recording System) which provides up to date AHS information on recently constructed affordable homes. This system is used to record information on Registered Social Landlord (RSL) lettings across local authorities (including East Cambridgeshire) and provides a sound evidence base regarding the profile of new occupiers across a range of different affordable housing typologies. Where the total sample size is small for CORE data, it is possible to take an average of developments that have occurred in the past five years.
The following tables provide details of the assumptions made in relation to household characteristics, by tenure and dwelling type. All assumptions in this study are made at the district level.
Table 4-1: Average Household Size Affordable: Affordable: Private Intermediate Rented 1 bed 1.3 1.2 1.2 2 bed 1.5 2.3 2.3 3 bed 2.4 3.8 3.8 4 bed + 2.9 5.1 5.1 Source: Census 2001 / CORE data
Child Yield
To ensure that the provision of education meets local needs moving forward, it is also necessary to identify what impact the proposed levels of housing growth will have on the number of school aged children.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 21
The following multipliers, also derived from the Census 2001 and CORE data, are applied to the housing trajectories set out in Chapter 2 and the housing tenure and size mix identified in Chapter 3.
Table 4-2: Child Multiplier per Dwelling, by Tenure and Size Mix 0-3 4-10 11-15 16-17
1 bed 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00
2 bed 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01
Private 3 bed 0.21 0.20 0.11 0.02
4 bed + 0.30 0.42 0.19 0.05
1 bed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
2 bed 0.46 0.17 0.08 0.07
3 bed 0.49 0.97 0.53 0.16 Affordable 4 bed + 0.65 1.33 1.05 0.23 Source: Census 2001 / CORE data
Development Associated Population Forecasts
Using the assumptions on housing mix, size and tenure described previously it is possible to calculate the development specific population change associated with the three housing trajectories. As explained in Section 2, only infrastructure requirements associated with housing delivery post 2009 are considered as part of this report, therefore completions between 2001 and 2008 need to be discounted from the analysis. Table 4-3 below sets out the resulting total housing after discounting completions and the population associated with that growth.
Table 4-3: Population Forecasts Scenario Housing Population
LDF 5,531 14,376
Medium 6,585 17,186
High 8,498 22,127 Source: AECOM Design and Planning 2010
The phasing of this population growth and the corresponding increase in the under-18 population is presented in the following two figures below.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 22
Figure 4-1: Total Population Growth
Source: AECOM Design and Planning 2010
The development specific population change associated with the different scenarios will vary according to the level of housing growth identified in the housing trajectories.
Figure 4-2: Under-18 Population Growth
Source: AECOM Design and Planning 2010
The development specific population change for under-18s is consistent with the change projected for the total population. This reflects the stable child yield which has been applied across the project period. By 2025 it is expected that there will be 11,346 under-18 residents of the new homes, 13,941 under- 18s expected under the medium growth scenario and 16,349 under-18s expected under the high growth scenario.
The development specific population change associated with each growth location is presented in Table 4.4 below. This spatial distribution along with the relative phasing of growth over the scenarios will have different implications for infrastructure requirements across the district.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 23
4-4: Population Growth (2008-25), by Growth Location LDF Medium Higher
Market Towns 10,472 11,198 16,138
Ely 3,991 4,204 7,004
Soham 3,737 3,995 5,488
Littleport 2,744 2,999 3,646
Key Service Centres 1,730 2,154 2,154
Bottisham 393 453 453
Burwell 615 752 752
Haddenham 190 257 257
Newmarket Fringe 110 115 115
Sutton 422 578 578
Other Areas 2,174 3,835 3,835
Total 14,376 17,187 22,127 Source: AECOM Design and Planning 2010
DISTRICT WIDE POPULATION GROWTH
The development specific population growth is a useful measure for assessing the local increase in demand for infrastructure that is associated with specific development locations. However, when assessing district wide infrastructure requirements it is also important to take account of changes in the existing population base as:
- Population growth among the existing population (or growth of specific cohorts, such as young or older people) may further increase demand for infrastructure
- A decrease in the existing population base (or particular cohorts) may lead to capacity in existing facilities becoming available and this may be used to meet the projected demand associated with the development specific population growth,
The Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group is able to provide a range of demographic projections based on a variety of housing scenarios for East Cambridgeshire as a whole. They have provided the following scenarios to inform this study:
- Baseline Demographic Projections – population projections for the whole of East Cambridgeshire, assuming zero house building from this point forward. These projections vary from standard demographic projections which would assume a steady rate of housing growth, based on the recent level of completions.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 24
This projection provides a baseline level of population growth against which it is possible to assess the population impacts associated with projected housing growth.
- Scenario Led Population Projections – three separate demographic projections which take account of the three housing growth scenarios set out in the previous chapter.
The housing led population growth associated with the demographic projections is likely to be smaller than the population associated with the development specific population growth as some of the new homes will be filled by existing residents of East Cambridgeshire. For example, where there are newly forming households due to younger people leaving their parents’ houses or due to a separation of existing households.
The full methodology adopted by the Cambridgeshire County Research Group to develop the projections will be provided as an appendix to this report.
The baseline projections and the projections associated with the three housing scenarios are set out in the table and figures below. Overall the population of East Cambridgeshire is expected to decline by more than 8,200 by 20261 in the absence of house building. This can be attributed to a continued decrease in the size of the households within the district, and so a period of zero house building would be associated with increased out-migration from the district as households move elsewhere to find appropriate dwellings.
However, the level of housing growth under each of the three growth scenarios is sufficient to reverse this trend and population growth projections range from 4,300 under the LDF scenario to almost 11,700 under the higher scenario.
Table 4-5: District Wide Population Projections – Total Population Total Change 2001 2009 2015 2026 (2009 to 2026) No House Building 71,063 78,392 74,153 70,186 -8,206 LDF 71,063 79,746 81,697 84,070 4,324 Medium 71,063 79,746 82,603 86,792 7,046 Higher 71,063 79,746 84,080 91,416 11,670 Source: Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group, 2010
1 The Demographic Projections run to 2026, rather than 2025 as the demographic model used by the County Council operates on the bases of five tranches from 2001. This is explained in greater detail in the appendices.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 25
Source: Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group, 2010
As the following tables set out, the general pattern of population growth under the three scenarios is not uniform across all age cohorts. Overall, the population of East Cambridgeshire is expected to age significantly by 2026. The population aged over 65 is expected to grow far more quickly than that of the general population. In contrast the population of under-18s is expected to decline in all but the highest growth scenario.
These patterns of growth will have particular impacts on the recommendations for social infrastructure, particularly where population growth associated with a new development is set against a broader decline across the district. While the population of under-18s is expected to decline across the district and in such cases it will still be necessary to provide additional educational facilities within the market towns, as these areas are expected to see a significant increase in the number of young people associated with the proposed developments.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 26
Table 4-6: District Wide Population Projections – Under-18s Total Change 2001 2009 2015 2026 (2009 to 2026) No House Building 16,052 16,991 15,316 12,111 -4,880 LDF 16,052 17,269 17,126 15,901 -1,368 Medium 16,052 17,269 17,355 16,637 -632 Higher 16,052 17,269 17,703 17,860 591 Source: Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group, 2010
Demographic Projections: Under‐18 Population 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 Population 10,000 18
‐ 8,000 6,000 4,000 Under 2,000 0
LDF Medium Higher No Housebuilding
Source: Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 27
Table 4-7: District Wide Population Projections – Over-65s Total Change 2001 2009 2015 2026 (2009 to 2026) No House Building 11,525 13,659 16,309 20,562 6,903 LDF 11,525 13,729 16,756 21,918 8,189 Medium 11,525 13,729 16,805 22,142 8,413 Higher 11,525 13,729 16,884 22,513 8,784 Source: Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group, 2010
Demographic Projections: Over‐65 Population 25,000
20,000
15,000 Population
65 10,000 ‐
Over 5,000
0
LDF Medium Higher No Housebuilding
Source: Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 28
5. Employment Assumptions
The population growth associated with the housing trajectories will increase the requirement for jobs. The extent to which these jobs are provided within East Cambridgeshire will affect sub regional commuting patterns and the requirement for transport infrastructure. Concentrations of employment may also increase the requirement for utilities infrastructure.
As with the housing growth options, there are three growth options covering the period 2008/9 to 2025/6:
LDF Scenario 109.36 Ha of employment land Medium Scenario 121.36 Ha of employment land High Scenario 269.55 Ha of employment land
It should be noted that in some areas there is a net loss of employment land between 2006 and 2008. Recognition of this is important when identifying the supporting infrastructure requirements.
Conversely, when assessing the potential to raise developer contributions on employment land, it is important to understand the amount of new employment land that is projected to come forward.
The employment land is expected to be split equally between B1, B2, and B8 uses except at:
Lancaster Way, where the projected employment land is predominantly B2 Bottisham, where the projected employment land is predominantly B1
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 29
Table 5-1: Employment Land Growth Scenarios
LDF Employment Land Projections (2008/9 – 2025/26) Completions 2006-2008 LDF Growth Medium Growth High Growth Scenario Scenario Scenario
Ely 2.5 45.6 52.6 59.6
Soham -5.4 10.5 14.5 16.5
Littleport 7.4 9.3 10.3 11.3
Market Towns Towns Market Market Towns 4.5 65.4 77.4 87.4 Total
Bottisham 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Burwell -0.2 5.6 5.6 5.6
Haddenham 0.0 2.2 2.2 2.2
Newmarket Fringe -0.1 4.2 4.2 4.2
Sutton 0.5 20.6 20.6 20.6 Key Service Centres
Key Service 0.3 33.7 33.7 33.7 Centres Total
Fordham 0.6 6.6 6.6 6.6
Other LSCs 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6
Other Area 0.4 3.1 3.1 3.1 Other Areas Areas Other Other Areas Total 2.0 10.2 10.2 10.2
Grand Total 6.8 109.4 121.4 131.4
Source: East Cambridgeshire District Council 2009
These employment land projections are built up from:
Outstanding commitments (as of 31.03.08), excluding development under construction Large unallocated sites with capacity of 0.5ha or more Currently unused employment allocations - estimated suitable capacity Potential new areas for allocation
The variation between the three growth scenarios reflects variation in the quantum of land set aside as ‘potential new areas for allocation’.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 30
Section 2: Infrastructure Requirements
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 31
6. Social Infrastructure: Education
OVERVIEW
Statutory education services within East Cambridgeshire are provided by Cambridgeshire County Council, whose responsibilities include;
- Making sure that the number, size and age range of schools in the county are appropriate to meet the changing needs of Cambridgeshire’s communities - Monitoring the quality of education in the county - Implement strategies to support the continued improvement in educational standards across the county and when to intervene to address weaknesses in individual schools or areas of the curriculum; - Working with other partner organisations to develop community strategies, coordinate ’out- of-school’ and early years provision and contribute to the well-being of children and young people across the county.
This chapter provides an overview of the existing range of educational facilities in East Cambridgeshire and uses the population projections set out in Chapter 4 to assess the additional demand for educational facilities that is likely to arise from the proposed housing developments. These findings are used to inform recommendations on the additional level of educational infrastructure that is necessary to support the changing population, which were developed in partnership with Cambridgeshire County Council.
Given the local nature of provision, the demand for educational facilities is based on the Development Specific Population Growth set out in Chapter 4. However the Demographic Projections have informed the recommendations, particularly in terms of anticipating potential levels of capacity in areas where growth is insufficient to trigger a new facility.
POLICY CONTEXT
East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy Strategic Objectives highlight the need to provide a framework for the delivery of infrastructure and services (including health, education, community, transport, and recreation facilities) in tandem with new development. Policy CS7 identifies a requirement for the provision of two new primary schools in Ely, a new primary
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 32
school in Soham, a new primary school in Littleport, a new secondary school in either Ely or Littleport, and other enhancements to education provision across the district.
The Government’s Extended Schools policy, further promoted through the White Paper on Education2, aims to maximise the potential of schools and their community settings by providing a range of services and activities outside of the statutory school day to serve pupils, their families and the wider community; including the co-location of social infrastructure provision and incorporating flexibility for future expansion (or restructuring) to meet the changing needs of future populations.
In Cambridgeshire, The Education Planning in Cambridgeshire: School Organisation Plan Outlook for 2006-2011 document operates under 11 core principles which focus on safety, access, inclusion and the important role of family and community. The plan also discusses the importance of extended schools provision, a diverse provision of denominational schools, and the development of Children’s Centres. Key principles include:
- where possible, no child of primary school age to have to travel more than two miles (the statutory walking distance) to get to school - were possible, no child of secondary school age to have to travel more than three miles (the statutory walking distance) to get to school - where considered to be the appropriate pattern of provision by other providers, leisure and community education/lifelong learning can be co-located with secondary schools
Following publication of the School Organisation Plan, Cambridgeshire County Council have indicated that they will now allow primary schools that are up to three Forms of Entry (FE) or 630 places should this suit the context of the individual development. One Form of Entry equates to 30 pupils per class with one class per year.
The Childcare Act 2006 places in statute the guidance that emerged within the Government’s Ten Year Strategy for Childcare – Choice for parents, the best start for children. Central to this Act is the statutory duty to secure the provision of sufficient childcare for all families who require it. The duty re- enacts the duty for local authorities to secure a free minimum amount of early learning and care for all 3 and 4 year olds whose parents want it.
2 Higher Standards, Better Schools for All: More Choice for Parents and Pupils’ (DfES, October 2005)
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 33
EARLY YEARS FACILITIES Existing Provision
Cambridgeshire County Council defines early years’ provision as nurseries, pre-school playgroups and childminding. There are over 150 private childminders who provide childcare, ranging from 2 to 6 places each. Childcare provided through private childminders, however does not form part for this study as delivery would occur through independent providers on private premises.
Early years settings have therefore been defined as nurseries and pre- school playgroups for children aged up to five years.
Figure 6-1below illustrates that early years’ settings are clustered around the market towns and key service centres, however there is some provision within rural areas.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 34
Figure 6-1: Early Year Provision
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 35
Early Years Population Change
Chapter 4 indicates that across the whole of East Cambridgeshire the population aged 0-4 is expected to decline in all but the high growth scenario and this pattern of growth across the whole district due to a locally aging population. This is also set out in the table below.
However, this pattern of growth will not occur uniformly across the whole of the district and those areas where significant levels of housing growth are expected may see substantial increases in the overall size of the early years population.
Furthermore, early years facilities are generally provided locally and it is unlikely that capacity in one part of the district can be used to meet increasing demand elsewhere.
Figure 6-2: District Wide Population Growth (Demographic Projections) Early Years Population Demographic Projections: Early Years 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 Population
2,000 18 ‐ 1,500 1,000 Under 500 0
LDF Medium Higher No Housebuilding
Source: Cambridgeshire County Council, 2010
Given these issues, the assessment of early years facilities is based on the development specific population growth projections, which can be used to measure the need associated with the new dwellings and does not consider long term trends in the existing population.
It is important to recognise that the demographic projections suggest that the requirement for early years provision will decline in some parts of the district and the facility recommendations presented in this chapter may form part of a wider programme of reorganising early years provision within the district.
The table below provides details of the total early years population that would be directly associated with the new
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 36
dwellings that are projected to come forward within each location. These figures were derived by applying the appropriate child multipliers to the housing projections set out in Chapter 3. A more detailed explanation is provided in Chapter 4.
This population increase is concentrated in the three market towns under each scenario, and Burwell is the only other location where the total increase is expected to be greater than 50.
Table 6-1: Development Specific Early Years Population
Early Years Population (Cumulative) LDF Medium High 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025
Ely 95 438 103 461 103 768
Soham 187 410 200 438 200 602
Littleport 174 300 189 330 189 400
Bottisham 26 45 28 52 28 52
Burwell 22 70 29 87 29 87
Haddenham 7 21 9 28 9 28
Newmarket Fringe 10 12 8 13 8 13
Sutton 26 46 34 63 34 63
Countryside: Affordable 28 103 78 187 78 187
Countryside: Other - 25 25 66 25 66
Elsewhere (North) 41 81 64 131 64 131
Elsewhere (South) 31 54 36 75 36 75
Total 647 1,605 802 1,931 802 2,473
Infrastructure Requirements
In assessing the appropriate level of childcare provision, Cambridgeshire County Council discount the early years population as not all children aged 0-4 require early years services. The discount applied by Cambridgeshire County Council varies by district and is set out in the table below.
To ensure consistency with the County Council approach, it is assumed that 45.01% of the early years population identified above require early years services.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 37
Table 6-2 Percentage of Children Requiring Childcare Places Cambridge South Hunts East Fenland City Cambridgeshire Cambridgeshire % of population (0 - 4 years) requiring 53.15% 51.46% 52.02% 45.01% 35.66% childcare Source: Cambridgeshire County Council
The requirement for early years places, after applying the County Council’s discount, is set out in the table below.
Total Early Years Places (Cumulative) LDF Medium High 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025
Ely 43 197 46 208 46 346
Soham 84 184 90 197 90 271
Littleport 79 135 85 148 85 180
Bottisham 11 20 13 24 13 24
Burwell 10 32 13 39 13 39
Haddenham 3 9 4 13 4 13
Newmarket Fringe 5 6 4 6 4 6
Sutton 12 21 15 28 15 28
Countryside: Affordable 12 46 35 84 35 84
Countryside: Other - 11 11 30 11 30
Elsewhere (North) 19 36 29 59 29 59
Elsewhere (South) 14 24 16 34 16 34
Total 291 722 361 869 361 1,113
It is assumed that of this total requirement for places, 31.76% will be for nursery provision, 50.86% for pre-school provision and 17.38% will be for childminders. This is in line with the approach adopted by Cambridgeshire County Council (see Table 6-3).
Pre-school provision is required for all 3-4 year olds on a part time basis (15 hours per week) and the requirement for pre- school provision set out below is equivalent to all 3-4 year old using pre-school places on a part time basis.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 38
Table 6-3 Childcare Type Cambridge South Hunts East Fenland City Cambridgeshire Cambridgeshire
Day Nursery 52.9% 40.82% 45.07% 31.76% 20.35% (Full day care)
Pre-school 38.71% 46.58% 44.3% 50.86% 62.63% (inc Maintained Nursery Places)
Childminder 8.39% 12.61% 10.62% 17.38% 17.02% Source: Cambridgeshire County Council
Cambridgeshire County Council does not have a standard size for day nurseries and pre-school facilities, however they advise that 16 place (or less) day nurseries or pre-schools may prove difficult to sustain. Each pre-school facility usually provides 26 places and childminding places are usually provided on the basis of between 2 and 6 places. It is important to note that these sizes are indicative and Cambridgeshire County Council would discuss demand levels with the provider on a case by case basis and assess the needs of the community before making a decision on the size of any facility.
Table 6-4 Preferential Size of Early Years Facilities Childcare Type Standard Day Nursery (Full day care) Nurseries with at least 16 places
Pre-school 26 places per facility (inc Maintained Nursery Places)
Childminder 2 – 6 places per childminder Source: Cambridgeshire County Council
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 39
Early Years Demand
Pre-School
Table 6-5 sets out the number of pre-school places associated with the Development Specific Early Years Population set out in Table 6-1 for each of the three housing scenarios.
The figures are based on the County Council’s standards and assume that 45.01% of 0-4 year olds will require childcare provision and of these, 50.86% will require pre-school places.
Table 6-5 Cumulative Demand for Pre-School Places
Total Pre-School Places (Cumulative) LDF Medium High 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025
Ely 22 100 23 106 23 176
Soham 43 94 46 100 46 138
Littleport 40 69 43 75 43 92
Bottisham 6 10 6 12 6 12
Burwell 5 16 7 20 7 20
Haddenham 2 5 2 6 2 6
Newmarket Fringe 2 3 2 3 2 3
Sutton 6 10 8 14 8 14 Countryside: Affordable 6 24 18 43 18 43
Countryside: Other - 6 6 15 6 15
Elsewhere (North) 9 19 15 30 15 30
Elsewhere (South) 7 12 8 17 8 17
Total 148 367 184 442 184 566 Source: AEOCM 2009
Given the County Council policy that pre-school facilities provide 26 places, the pre-school places set out in the table above corresponds to the following recommendations for new facilities:
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 40
Table 6-6: Pre-School Facilities Recommendations LDF Medium Higher Ely 4 x pre-school Facilities 4 x pre-school Facilities 7 x pre-school Facilities
Soham 4 x pre-school Facilities 4 x pre-school Facilities 5 x pre-school Facilities
Littleport 3 x pre-school Facilities 3 x pre-school Facilities 4 x pre-school Facilities
Burwell 1 x pre-school Facility 1 x pre-school Facility 1 x pre-school Facility
Elsewhere Insufficient requirement Insufficient requirement Insufficient requirement
Source: AECOM 2010
Outside of the market towns the demand for additional pre- school places is insufficient to trigger the requirement for a new facility. While the demand for a new facility is met by growth occurring elsewhere in the north of the district, this requirement will be spread over a broad area and it is unlikely that a single facility would meet the required demand. Furthermore, in light of the district wide demographic projections presented in Chapter 4, it can be expected that capacity will arise in existing facilities across the district and these may be used to accommodate the additional demand associated with housing growth that is not met by the facilities described above.
Discussions with the County Council have indicated that it is necessary that parents are given choice and therefore a provision which is close to capacity may not be expanded if the need locally is significantly higher than vacancy levels or if the existing provision is of an inadequate quality. Therefore a new provider may be encouraged to give choice and improve the quality of provision in the area through new facilities, as shown in the recommendations above.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 41
Nursery Places
Table 6-7 sets out the demand for nursery places associated with the Development Specific Early Years Population set out in Table 6-1 for each of the three housing scenarios.
The requirements are based on the County Council’s standards and assume that 45.01% of 0-4 year olds will require childcare provision, and of these 31.76% will require nursery places.
Table 6-7 Cumulative Demand for Nursery Places
Total Nursery Place Requirement (Cumulative) LDF Medium High 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025
Ely 14 63 15 66 15 110
Soham 27 59 29 63 29 86
Littleport 25 43 27 47 27 57
Bottisham 4 6 4 7 4 7
Burwell 3 10 4 12 4 12
Haddenham 1 3 1 4 1 4
Newmarket Fringe 1 2 1 2 1 2
Sutton 4 7 5 9 5 9 Countryside: Affordable 4 15 11 27 11 27
Countryside: Other - 4 4 9 4 9
Elsewhere (North) 6 12 9 19 9 19
Elsewhere (South) 4 8 5 11 5 11
Total 93 229 115 276 115 353 Source: AEOCM 2010 In the absence of a preference from the County Council the standard provision of 50 place nurseries has been assumed, which translates into the following recommended nurseries:
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 42
Table 6-8: Nursery Facilities Recommendations LDF Medium Higher Ely 50 place nursery 50 place nursery 2 x 50 place nursery
Soham 50 place nursery 50 place nursery 2 x 50 place nursery
Littleport 50 place nursery 50 place nursery 50 place nursery (7surplus places - (3 surplus places) – but meeting district wide meet district wide requirement) requirement Elsewhere Insufficient Demand Insufficient Demand Insufficient Demand
AECOM 2010 As with the pre-school facilities, the demand outside of the market towns is sufficient to trigger the requirement for a new facility, but will be spread over a wide area and a single facility is unlikely to meet the required demand. It is anticipated that this demand could be met through a combination of some of the surplus places that are associated with the new facilities within the market towns, and the capacity arising from the decline in the early years population across the whole of the district.
These requirements reflect discussions between AECOM and Cambridgeshire County Council and provide an indication of how early years provision in East Cambridgeshire could be organised to adequately meet the demands associated with the proposed levels of growth. However, they are not intended to be final recommendations as the re-organisation or building of new facilities would be managed by Cambridgeshire County Council.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 43
Childminding The remaining requirement for early years places would be met through childminding. Table 6-9 sets out the demand for additional childminding associated with the proposed housing development under the three scenarios, after adopting the County Council standards.
Table 6-9 Cumulative Demand for Childminding Places
Total Child Minder Places (Cumulative) LDF Medium High 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025
Ely 7 34 8 36 8 60
Soham 15 32 16 34 16 47
Littleport 14 24 15 26 15 31
Bottisham 2 4 2 4 2 4
Burwell 2 5 2 7 2 7
Haddenham 1 2 1 2 1 2
Newmarket Fringe 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sutton 2 4 3 5 3 5 Countryside: Affordable 2 8 6 15 6 15
Countryside: Other - 2 2 5 2 5
Elsewhere (North) 3 6 5 10 5 10
Elsewhere (South) 2 4 3 6 3 6
Total 51 126 63 151 63 193 Source: AEOCM 2009
The increased requirement for childminding is not expected to result in any infrastructure requirements as this service would be provided within the childminder’s private homes.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 44
PRIMARY EDUCATION Existing Provision
There are a total of 26 primary schools located within East Cambridgeshire A further 4 schools are located outside of the district but provide places for children within East Cambridgeshire. Figure 6-3 sets out the location of these schools, and it is can be seen that there is a good spread of primary schools across urban and rural areas within East Cambridgeshire.
Of these schools, 22 have surplus places ranging from 1 to 97 places. There are 4 schools which are currently oversubscribed, although only by 1 or 2 places. Across the whole district a total of 637 surplus places are available, representing 6.3% of total primary school capacity. However the Department for Education (DfE) (formerly Department for Children, School and Families) recommends that 10% of educational capacity be held back to provide flexibility in managing the delivery of education and to allow for parental preference. As the level of available places is below this threshold, the existing capacity will not be discounted from the primary education requirements identified below.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 45
Figure 6-3: Existing Primary School Provision
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 46
Primary School Aged Population Change
The following figure presents the district wide demographic projections for the primary school aged population under each of the three housing scenarios and in the case of zero house building.
In the case of no house building, the primary school aged population is expected to decline in the order of 2,200. Under the LDF and Medium housing scenarios, this decline is expected to be far less significant (-575 and -275 people respectively) and under the Higher scenario the primary school aged population is expected to grow by 250 pupils across the whole district.
Figure 6-4: District Wide Population Growth (Demographic Projections) Primary School Aged Population Demographic Projections: Primary school 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 Population 4,000 18
‐ 3,000 2,000 Under 1,000 0
LDF Medium Higher No Housebuilding
Source: Cambridgeshire County Council, 2010
However, as has already been noted in relation to early years facilities, the pattern of primary school aged population change will not occur uniformly across the whole district. In particular, it can be assumed that the primary aged population will increase in areas associated with significant housing growth and decline in other areas.
Under the policy context, the requirement for primary education to be provided within two miles of a child’s dwelling suggests that there will be limited scope to utilise capacity arising in parts of the district to meet increasing demands elsewhere.
Consequently, the assessment of primary school requirements is based on the development specific population growth, which can be used to measure the need associated with the new dwellings and does not consider the long term trends in the existing population.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 47
As with the early years requirements, it is important to recognise that the demographic projections suggest that the requirement for primary school provision will decline in some parts of the district and the facility recommendations presented in this chapter may form part of a wider programme of reorganising the delivery of primary education across the district.
Infrastructure Requirements
Primary School Assumptions Cambridgeshire County Council has a preferred maximum size for primary schools of two forms of entry (2FE), which corresponds to 420 places. A primary school form of entry is equivalent to one class of 30 pupils in each school year and provides a total of 210 places.
The County’s preferences for primary schools are set out in the table below and where possible the infrastructure recommendations are aligned to these.
Table 6-10: Preferred Primary School Sizes Facility Type Standard Preferred Maximum Size Primary School 210 places per Form of Entry (1 FE) 2 Forms of Entry (2 FE)
This equals 7 classes with 30 places (2 x 210 places = 420 places) per class (1 class in each academic year) Source: Cambridgeshire County Council 2009
Primary School Demand The primary school aged population associated with the proposed housing growth is set out in the table below by growth location.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 48
Table 6-11: Primary School Requirements
Total Primary School Aged Population (Cumulative) LDF Medium High 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025
Ely 117 542 127 571 127 950
Soham 231 506 247 542 247 744
Littleport 215 371 233 408 233 494
Bottisham 31 54 35 64 35 64
Burwell 27 86 35 106 35 106
Haddenham 8 25 12 35 12 35
Newmarket Fringe 12 14 10 15 10 15
Sutton 33 57 41 77 41 77 Countryside: Affordable 34 127 96 230 96 230
Countryside: Other - 31 31 82 31 82
Elsewhere (North) 51 100 80 162 80 162
Elsewhere (South) 37 65 44 92 44 92
Total 797 1,978 990 2,383 990 3,050 Source: AECOM 2010
By 2025 there will be 1,978 primary school aged children associated with the new developments in the LDF scenario. This rises to 2,383 in the medium scenario and 3,050 in the high scenario. The largest requirement for primary school places is expected to be within Ely however there will be a need to provide additional primary schools in each of the market towns. The AECOM model recommendations are set out below. However, Cambridgeshire County Council has undertaken detailed analysis in partnership with East Cambridgeshire District Council of primary school provision based on LDF- related growth and these findings are shown in Table 6.12.
Outside of the market towns, the additional demand for primary school places is insufficient to trigger the requirement for new schools. The greatest requirement outside of the market towns is within Burwell (with a requirement for 106 places under the medium and higher scenarios) and it will be necessary to closely monitor the requirement for primary education in this key service centre as it may be necessary to expand provision here. However, it should be possible to manage the provision of primary education outside of the market towns by making use of existing facilities due to a combination of:
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 49
- The existing level of surplus places across much of the district - The district wide demographic projections which suggest that there will be decreasing demand for primary school places across much of the district.
Cambridgeshire County Council has undertaken analysis in partnership with East Cambridgeshire District Council over the past few years and the recommendations set out below are included in the current Site Allocations Options Paper (ECDC, July 2010) and Ely Area Action Plan Options Paper (ECC, July 2010)
Table 6-12: Primary School Recommendations LDF* Medium**** Higher** 2 x 2 FE Primary School 2 x 2 FE Primary School 2 x 2 FE Primary School (420 places each) (420 places each) (420 places each) 1 FE Primary School (210 Ely places) 1 FE or 2 FE Primary 1 FE or 2 FE Primary 2 FE Primary School (420 School (210/420 places)*** School (210/420 places)*** places) 1.5 FE Primary School (315 Soham places) 1 FE Primary School (210 1 FE Primary School (210 2 x1 FE Primary School places) places) (210 places each) Potential to Expand existing Littleport provision (80 places) * Source: Cambridgeshire County Council 2010 ** Source: AECOM 2010 *** For the purposes of this report a 2 FE school is recommended based on the demand identified in Table 6.11
In Ely there is a requirement for two primary schools under the LDF and medium scenarios. Under the higher scenario there is the requirement for an additional 1 form of entry, which can be met by providing a further 1FE facility.
In Soham, Cambridgeshire County Council identifies the need for a 1FE or 2FE primary school. For the purposes of this report a 2FE school is recommended in Soham based on the demand identified in Table 6.11. Furthermore, the County Council LDF recommendations have been used for the Medium growth scenario as additional demand for primary school places is negligible.
In Littleport, which expects the lowest level of housing growth of the three market towns, there is demand for an additional 1FE facility under the LDF scenario according to analysis by Cambridgeshire County Council. This demand has also been assumed under the medium scenario. Under the higher scenario this rises to two 1FE facilities plus expansion of an existing facility.
Given that the demographic projections for primary school aged children indicates that capacity is likely to come forward in
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 50
primary schools across the district, plus the low concentrations of growth outside of the market towns, it is not deemed necessary to expand existing or construct new facilities outside of the market towns. Furthermore, while the potential requirement to expanding facilities within the market towns has been identified in the table above, this decision should be based on local monitoring of school places and is not costed as part of this assessment.
SECONDARY SCHOOLS Existing Provision
There are four secondary schools located within East Cambridgeshire, each with a defined catchment area. Each secondary school also has surplus capacity ranging from 7 to 161 places and totalling 302 across the whole district or 6.1% of all places.
As with primary education, the DfE recommends that 10% of educational capacity be held back to provide flexibility in managing the delivery of education and to allow for parental preference. As the level of available places is below this threshold, the existing capacity will not be discounted from the secondary education requirements identified below.
The following maps identify the locations of the four secondary schools, and the catchment areas which are used to identify future demand for secondary provision in the various parts of the district.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 51
Figure 6-5: Existing Secondary School Provision
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 52
Figure 6-6: East Cambridgeshire Secondary School Catchment Areas
Source: Cambridgeshire County Council
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 53
INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS Secondary School Aged Population Change
The following figure presents the district wide demographic projections for the secondary school aged population under each of the three housing scenarios and in the case of zero house building.
In the case of no house building the secondary school aged population of East Cambridgeshire is expected to decrease by almost 1,200 between 2008 and 2026.
Under each growth scenario the population is expected to remain relatively constant (ranging from -140 in the LDF scenario to +330 under the higher scenario). However, this measures the net change in the number of secondary school aged children, however the graph below clearly indicates that under the three housing scenarios the number of secondary school aged children will peak in 2021, not the end of the programme period (2025).
The projected change in population between 2008 and 2021 is in the order of 335 under the LDF scenario, 435 under the medium scenario and 575 under the higher scenario.
Figure 6-7: District Wide Population Growth (Demographic Projections) Secondary School Aged Population Demographic Projections: Secondary School 6,000
5,000
4,000 Population 3,000 18 ‐ 2,000
Under 1,000
0
LDF Medium Higher No Housebuilding
Source: Cambridgeshire County Council, 2010
While the relatively stable secondary population over the whole of the district by 2026 suggests that secondary school requirements may be limited, the growth of the secondary school aged population prior to 2021 is likely to place medium term pressures on capacity. Furthermore, this pattern of growth will not occur uniformly across the whole of the district.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 54
Given the policy of providing secondary school places within three miles of a child’s residence where possible, and increasing demand district wide until 2021, the assessment in this section is based on the development specific population growth, which can be used to measure the need associated with the new dwellings and does not consider the long term trends in the existing population.
As with the early years and primary school aged requirements, it is important to recognise that the demographic projections suggest that the requirement for secondary education will decline in some parts of the district and the facility recommendations presented in this chapter may form part of a wider programme of reorganising the delivery of primary education across the district.
Secondary School Assumptions
Cambridgeshire County Council sets out its preferred minimum and maximum size for secondary schools based on secondary school forms of entry. Each form of entry represents a single class of 30 pupils in each year of secondary school and equates to 150 places.
Cambridgeshire County Council sets out that no secondary school should be smaller than 4FE (or 600 places) or larger than 11FE (or 1,650 places. The minimum size is to ensure that the school is able to offer a choice of subjects for its pupils.
Table 6-13 Secondary School Education Assumptions Facility Type Standard Preferred Size Secondary 150 places per Form of Entry (1 FE) Minimum size = 4 Forms of Entry Schools (4 FE) 5 x 30 place classes (4 x 150 places = 600 places) (5 class in each academic year) Maximum size = 11 Forms of Entry (11FE) (11 x 150 places = 1,650 places) Source: Cambridgeshire County Council 2009
Infrastructure Requirements
The requirement for secondary school places associated with the housing growth is set out in the table below. The total requirements range from between 1,046 places in the LDF scenario to 1,614 places in the higher scenario. The greatest requirement in each scenario is within the Ely and Littleport catchment area, however there is also a significant requirement within Soham.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 55
Secondary School Places by catchment area (Cumulative) LDF Medium High 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025 Bottisham, Burwell and Newmarket Fringe 38 83 43 99 43 99
Ely, Littleport 174 478 189 514 189 756
Soham 121 265 130 284 130 390
Sutton, Haddenham 21 43 27 58 27 58
Not Defined 67 177 137 310 137 310
Total 421 1,046 526 1,265 526 1,614
The number of additional places associated with the Development Specific Population Change in the LDF scenario equates to 7.0 forms of entry across the whole of the district. This rises to 8.4 forms of entry under the Medium scenario and 10.8 under the higher scenario.
As the above demand is distributed across the district, the location of the school would need to be strategically located and catchment areas may need to be adjusted to manage the supply and demand of secondary school provision across the district.
The County Council have undertaken a review and public consultation on secondary school provision across East Cambridgeshire, during which time presentations were given to the East Cambridgeshire External Partnerships Group and Local Strategic Partnership. Numerous local and county Council Members also attended various consultation evenings. The review highlighted the need for a 5-6 FE Secondary School in Littleport and the expansion of existing provision to provide a total of 7-10 FE across the District.
LDF Medium Higher
District wide 5 FE Secondary School in 6 FE Secondary School in 6 FE Secondary School in Requirement Littleport Littleport Littleport
2 FE Expansion of 2 FE Expansion of 4 FE Expansion of existing provision existing provision existing provision
These requirements identified provide an indication of how the educational system in East Cambridgeshire could be organised to adequately meet the demands associated with the proposed levels of growth. However, they are not intended to be final recommendations. Any reorganisation of existing provision would be managed by Cambridgeshire County Council after consultation with the affected schools and communities.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 56
Secondary School Aged Child Multipliers: Sensitivity Analysis The child multipliers presented in Chapter 4 vary by dwelling tenure and type to provide as accurate as possible view of the secondary education requirements that would be necessary to meet the demand arising from the proposed level of housing growth.
The mix of housing tenure size applied in this study is set out in Chapter 3 and is based on local policy (housing tenure) and county wide research (housing size). Adopting this approach ensures that the most likely infrastructure requirements are identified, however it is possible that a higher proportion of family units would increase the number of primary school aged children and consequently increase the demand for primary school places.
Below the ‘worst-case’ approach is adopted, which assumes that all houses constructed in East Cambridgeshire are family homes. This provides the upper bound of primary school requirements that could be necessary to meet the demand associated with the housing growth. They are provided for consistency with the County Council which adopt a ‘worst case’ approach to education planning until the precise housing mix of sites is determined from planning permissions.
For secondary education the County Council adopts a multiplier of 0.18 to 0.25 children aged between 11 and 15 for all dwellings. This is in the range of multipliers identified in Table 4-2 but makes no allowance for the proportion of 1 and 2 bed properties or the level of affordable housing.
The following table presents the requirements under each scenario associated with the higher child yield (0.25) to provide a worst-case analysis of the potential requirements for secondary school provision.
Secondary School Places (Worst-case) LDF Medium Higher Ely 385 405 676 Soham 361 386 530 Littleport 266 289 352 Bottisham 38 44 44 Burwell 60 72 72 Haddenham 19 25 25 Newmarket Fringe 11 12 12 Sutton 41 57 57 Other Areas 203 358 358 Total 1,383 1,646 2,125 Total (FE Equivalent) 9.2 11.0 14.2
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 57
These figures suggest that the requirement under the LDF scenario could be met through the provision of a 6FE secondary school in Littleport and a 3FE expansion to 1 or more existing schools.
The requirement under the medium scenario could be met through a 6FE secondary school in Littleport and a 5FE expansion to 1 or more existing schools, or the provision of a new 5FE secondary school.
Under the higher scenario, the provision in Littleport could be expanded to an 8FE secondary school to serve Ely and Littleport and a new 6FE in Soham, or any other combination that best meets the secondary education requirements outside of the market towns).
Post 16 Education
Post 16 Education is changing and there will soon be a requirement for compulsory education up to the age of 18. However, such compulsory education can be delivered in a number of ways, including through the sixth form A-Level route, at College or on a vocational basis. Some courses will be based within schools and colleges or similar facilities on a full-time basis, where as others may be through a day release scheme or through work-based learning.
Furthermore, as the choice of where post 16 education is taken up is down to individuals, catchment areas for education no longer apply.
Consequently, it will be difficult to predict in any precise way the requirements for 16-18 education, however it is possible to assess the potential impact of housing growth on the number of 16-18 year olds and assess whether this is likely to generate a requirements for additional facilities.
The following figure presents the demographic projections for the 16-18 age group to the end of the plan period. From 2008, the total number of 16-18 year olds is expected to decline by 360 people. This reduces to a decline of 40 16-18 year olds under the LDF scenario and growth of 25 and 116 16-18 year olds under the medium and higher scenarios respectively.
This level of growth is unlikely to generate sufficient demand for additional facilities (particularly given the part-time nature of many post-16 courses) under any of the growth scenarios.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 58
Figure 6-8: District Wide Population Growth (Demographic Projections) Population aged 16-18 Demographic Projections: 16‐18 2,500
2,000
1,500 Population
18
‐ 1,000
500 Under
0
LDF Medium Higher No Housebuilding
Source: Cambridgeshire County Council, 2010
The following table presents the requirements directly associated with housing growth (i.e. the development specific 16-18 population). While there is insufficient demand at the district level to trigger a new facility, there may be a concentration of demand within a particular growth location that does.
The greatest demand is within the market towns and in Ely ranges from 88 places under the LDF scenario to 155 under the higher. This is a significant requirement for a market town, but given that this provision is likely to be met through a variety of full and part-time training courses, it is unlikely to trigger a new facility.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 59
Table 6-14 Cumulative Post 16 Places
16-18 Places (Cumulative) LDF Medium High 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025
Ely 19 88 21 93 21 155
Soham 38 83 40 88 40 121
Littleport 35 61 38 67 38 81
Bottisham 5 9 6 11 6 11
Burwell 5 15 6 18 6 18
Haddenham 1 4 2 6 2 6
Newmarket Fringe 2 2 2 3 2 3
Sutton 5 9 7 13 7 13
Countryside: Affordable 7 26 19 46 19 46
Countryside: Other - 4 4 11 4 11
Elsewhere (North) 8 16 13 26 13 26
Elsewhere (South) 6 11 8 16 8 16
Total 133 329 165 397 165 506 Source: AECOM 2009
Looking at the overall shift to compulsory education for under- 18s, the Learning and Skills Council Strategic Review (2008) envisaged that new provision would be made in the new town of Northstowe and an expansion of some existing institutions in Cambridge City. The review concluded that subject to making specific provision in the major development to the East of Cambridge City (the Airport development) when that came forward, this approach would provide sufficient capacity to meet the projected demand for post-16 places.
Additional post-16 provision was not proposed in East Cambridgeshire as part of the LSC review. The review and its outcomes were endorsed by the Cambridge Area 14-19 Partnership.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 60
EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE OVERVIEW AND COSTS
Education Requirements Table 6-15 sets out an overview of education requirements for the three scenarios. The main variation between the three scenarios concerns the number of primary schools and the size of the secondary school. The main variation occurs between the medium and high scenario requirements.
Table 6-15 Overview of Education Requirements LDF Medium High
Early Years 12 x 26 place pre- 12 x 26 place pre- 17 x 26 place pre-school school facilities school facilities facilities 3 x 50 place nurseries 3 x 50 place nurseries 5 x 50 place nurseries
Primary Schools 3 x 2FE primary 3 x 2FE primary 3 x 2FE primary school school school 3 x 1FE primary school 1FE primary school 1FE primary school 1 x 1.5FE primary school
Secondary Schools 5FE secondary school 6FE secondary school 6FE secondary school
Post 16 Education No additional No additional No additional requirement requirement requirement Source: AECOM/ Cambridgeshire County Council, 2010
The tables on the following three pages provide more detail on the location, phasing, and costs of the projects identified above.
The assumptions set out in this chapter represent an early stage in the process of assessing education requirements and should be considered only as a preliminary response in respect of the strategic growth scenarios. The modelling only forecasts the scale of demand for education provision and it will be down to Cambridgeshire County Council to build on this work to identify the appropriate delivery solutions.
Cambridgeshire County Council Education is currently developing a plan for changes to secondary education and is embarking on a number of consultation stages. Further feasibility studies will need to be carried out to consider all possible solutions to providing the additional education provision required from any developments taken forward. Any school changes will then be subject to feasibility studies and in depth consultation with all parties involved.
Education Infrastructure Costs and Funding The total costs of providing education facilities to cater for the increase demand for education arising from the housing growth ranges from £70.4 million under the LDF scenario to £97.5 million under the higher growth scenario. The main variation is due to additional costs associated with a greater number of primary schools and pre-school facilities.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 61
At this stage it is not possible to identify potential funding sources as existing mainstream funding streams are provided to support investment in existing facilities. Cambridgeshire County Council identify that in recent years the most significant source of funding for new schools or expanding existing schools has been housing developers or S106 contributions.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 62
Table 6-16: Education Infrastructure Costs and Phasing (LDF Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Area Growth Completion Trigger / End Date Total Costs Total Funding Funding Category Location Date Source
LDF_ED1 Education 26-place Pre-School Growth Location Ely 2016 26Pre-School £410,000 £0 Facility Children LDF_ED2 Education 26-place Pre-School Growth Location Ely 2017 52Pre-School £410,000 £0 Facility Children LDF_ED3 Education 26-place Pre-School Growth Location Ely 2018 60Pre-School £410,000 £0 Facility Children LDF_ED4 Education 26-place Pre-School Growth Location Ely 2025 104Pre-School £410,000 £0 Facility Children LDF_ED5 Education 26-place Pre-School Growth Location Soham 2012 26Pre-School £410,000 £0 Facility Children LDF_ED6 Education 26-place Pre-School Growth Location Soham 2016 52Pre-School £410,000 £0 Facility Children LDF_ED7 Education 26-place Pre-School Growth Location Soham 2018 78Pre-School £410,000 £0 Facility Children LDF_ED8 Education 26-place Pre-School Growth Location Soham 2025 100Pre-School £410,000 £0 Facility Children LDF_ED9 Education 26-place Pre-School Growth Location Littleport 2013 26Pre-School £410,000 £0 Facility Children LDF_ED10 Education 26-place Pre-School Growth Location Littleport 2017 52Pre-School £410,000 £0 Facility Children LDF_ED11 Education 26-place Pre-School Growth Location Littleport 2025 75Pre-School £410,000 £0 Facility Children LDF_ED12 Education 26-place Pre-School Growth Location Burwell 2025 20Pre-School £410,000 £0 Facility Children LDF_ED13 Education 50 Place Nursery Growth Location Ely 2019 50Pre-School £500,000 £0 Children LDF_ED14 Education 50 Place Nursery Growth Location Soham 2019 50Pre-School £500,000 £0 Children LDF_ED15 Education 50 Place Nursery Growth Location Littleport 2019 40Pre-School £500,000 £0 Children LDF_ED16 Education 2 FE Primary School Growth Location Ely 2019 420Primary School £12,000,000 £0 Children LDF_ED17 Education 2 FE Primary School Growth Location Ely 2025 540Primary School £12,000,000 £0 Children
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 63
LDF_ED18 Education 2 FE Primary School Growth Location Soham 2019 420Primary School £12,000,000 £0 Children LDF_ED19 Education 1 FE Primary School Growth Location Littleport 2015 210Primary School £6,000,000 £0 Children LDF_ED20 Education 5 FE Secondary School East Cambridgeshire 2017 600Secondary £22,000,000 £0 School Children Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £70,420,000 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £70,420,000 Source: AECOM / Cambridgeshire County Council / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 64
Table 6-17: Education Infrastructure Costs and Phasing (Medium Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Growth Completion Trigger / End Date Total Costs Total Funding Source Category Area Location Date Funding
MED_ED1 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Ely 2016 26Pre-School Children £410,000 £0 School Facility Location MED_ED2 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Ely 2017 52Pre-School Children £410,000 £0 School Facility Location MED_ED3 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Ely 2018 60Pre-School Children £410,000 £0 School Facility Location MED_ED4 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Ely 2025 104Pre-School Children £410,000 £0 School Facility Location MED_ED5 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Soham 2012 26Pre-School Children £410,000 £0 School Facility Location MED_ED6 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Soham 2016 52Pre-School Children £410,000 £0 School Facility Location MED_ED7 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Soham 2018 78Pre-School Children £410,000 £0 School Facility Location MED_ED8 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Soham 2025 100Pre-School Children £410,000 £0 School Facility Location MED_ED9 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Littleport 2013 26Pre-School Children £410,000 £0 School Facility Location MED_ED10 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Littleport 2017 52Pre-School Children £410,000 £0 School Facility Location MED_ED11 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Littleport 2025 75Pre-School Children £410,000 £0 School Facility Location MED_ED12 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Burwell 2025 20Pre-School Children £410,000 £0 School Facility Location MED_ED13 Education 50 Place Nursery Growth Ely 2018 50Pre-School Children £500,000 £0 Location MED_ED14 Education 50 Place Nursery Growth Soham 2018 50Pre-School Children £500,000 £0 Location MED_ED15 Education 50 Place Nursery Growth Littleport 2022 45Pre-School Children £500,000 £0 Location MED_ED16 Education 2 FE Primary Growth Ely 2018 420Primary School Children £12,000,000 £0 School Location MED_ED17 Education 2 FE Primary Growth Ely 2025 560Primary School Children £12,000,000 £0 School Location
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 65
MED_ED18 Education 2 FE Primary Growth Soham 2018 420Primary School Children £12,000,000 £0 School Location MED_ED19 Education 1 FE Primary Growth Littleport 2015 210Primary School Children £6,000,000 £0 School Location MED_ED20 Education 6 FE Secondary East 2017 700Secondary School Children £25,000,000 £0 School Cambridgeshi re Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £73,420,000 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £73,420,000
Source: AECOM / Cambridgeshire County Council / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 66
Table 6-18: Education Infrastructure Costs and Phasing (Higher Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Growth Completion Trigger / End Date Total Costs Total Funding Category Area Location Date Funding Source
HIGH_ED1 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Ely 2016 26 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED2 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Ely 2017 52 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED3 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Ely 2018 78 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED4 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Ely 2019 104 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED5 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Ely 2021 130 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED6 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Ely 2024 156 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED7 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Ely 2025 175 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED8 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Soham 2012 26 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED9 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Soham 2016 52 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED10 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Soham 2018 78 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED11 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Soham 2018 85 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED12 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Soham 2024 130 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED13 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Littleport 2013 26 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED14 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Littleport 2017 52 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED15 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Littleport 2020 78 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED16 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Littleport 2025 90 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children HIGH_ED17 Education 26-place Pre- Growth Location Burwell 2025 20 Pre-School £410,000 £0 School Facility Children
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 67
HIGH_ED18 Education 50 Place Growth Location Ely 2018 50 Pre-School £500,000 £0 Nursery Children HIGH_ED19 Education 50 Place Growth Location Ely 2024 100 Pre-School £500,000 £0 Nursery Children HIGH_ED20 Education 50 Place Growth Location Soham 2018 50 Pre-School £500,000 £0 Nursery Children HIGH_ED21 Education 50 Place Growth Location Soham 2017 40 Pre-School £500,000 £0 Nursery Children HIGH_ED22 Education 50 Place Growth Location Littleport 2021 50 Pre-School £500,000 £0 Nursery Children HIGH_ED23 Education 2 FE Primary Growth Location Ely 2018 420 Primary School £12,000,000 £0 School Children HIGH_ED24 Education 2 FE Primary Growth Location Ely 2024 840 Primary School £12,000,000 £0 School Children HIGH_ED25 Education 1 FE Primary Growth Location Ely 2025 940 Primary School £6,000,000 £0 School Children HIGH_ED26 Education 2 FE Primary Growth Location Soham 2018 420 Primary School £12,000,000 £0 School Children HIGH_ED27 Education 1.5 FE Primary Growth Location Soham 2025 735 Primary School £9,000,000 £0 School Children HIGH_ED28 Education 1 FE Primary Growth Location Littleport 2015 210 Primary School £6,000,000 £0 School Children HIGH_ED29 Education 1 FE Primary Growth Location Littleport 2020 420 Primary School £6,000,000 £0 School Children HIGH_ED30 Education 6 FE East 2017 700 Secondary School £25,000,000 £0 Secondary Cambridgeshire Children School Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £97,470,000 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £97,470,000
Source: AECOM / Cambridgeshire County Council / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 68
7. Social Infrastructure: Healthcare
POLICY CONTEXT
Health and Social Care incorporates a broad range of social infrastructure, including GP surgeries, healthcare centres, dentists, pharmacies, optometrists, hospitals, care homes and day care centres.
Healthcare facilities can play a central role in creating social and economic regeneration – building healthy cohesive communities of the future and linking existing residents with new arrivals. It is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that adequate land is safeguarded for the provision of health and social care with the local healthcare authorities and Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) being responsible for bringing these sites into active use.
Health policy at a regional or Strategic Health Authority (SHA) level also promotes a significant expansion in the range of primary care and community facilities, as shown below:
Key Healthcare Development Principles:
1. The One Stop Primary Care Centre (OSPCC) is the core of the basic primary care model and incorporates core GP, specialist local health services and community outreach, potentially also incorporating activities such as dentistry and pharmacies.
2. Primary care and community facilities are also being promoted at the regional level through Primary Care Diagnostic and Treatment Centres (PCDTCs) which combine the above facilities with outpatient, clinical and diagnostic services, offering walk-in and minor treatment.
3. Similar to other social infrastructure providers, health policies promote the combining of health facilities with other community facilities where possible. For example, ‘healthy living centres’ combine educational, health and community services.
The Government’s Green Paper: Independence, Well-being and Choice (2005), promotes streamlining assessments between agencies and promoting a more flexible approach to
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 69
putting together core packages using the wider resources of the community. A Care Service Improvement Partnership has also been established to provide support in the consideration of how services can be redesigned and refocused to provide the outcomes identified.
The Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: A New Direction for Community Services White Paper (Department of Health, 2005) sets out a vision to provide people with good quality social care and NHS services in the communities where they live. This paper sets a new direction for the whole health and social care system and confirms the vision set out in the Green Paper: Independence, Well-being and Choice. The Paper promotes a radical and sustained shift in the way in which services are delivered, ensuring that they are more personalised, easy to access and community based.
Shaping the Future of Care Together (2009) sets out a vision for a new care and support system. The Green Paper highlights the challenges faced by the current system and the need for radical reform, to develop a National Care Service. Its key principles are to ensure there is support for people to stay independent for as long as possible, that everyone’s care and support needs assessed in the same way wherever they live, joined up service provision, services are based on your personal circumstances and above all the system is fair, simple and affordable for everyone.
The Annual Public Health Report 2009 clearly recognises the importance of social infrastructure and recommends that it be given consideration throughout new developments. The Primary Care Trust already works in conjunction with Cambridgeshire Horizons and the planning authorities in order to ensure the health considerations and infrastructure requirements of population growth and new developments are met. Additionally, the report calls for increased attention to social cohesion which will work to increase health and well-being in communities. The report also emphasises the positive role extended and free choice has had on the effectiveness of service delivery.
The 2008 Annual Public Health Report for Cambridgeshire sets out the role of Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs). JSNAs form the basis of a new duty to co-operate between the NHS and Local Authorities, and are the means by which Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and Local Authorities describe the future health, care and wellbeing needs of the local populations and the strategic direction of service delivery to meet those needs. The report sets out a number of priorities including ensuring the needs of the growing elderly population continue to be met which allows them to retain their independence, implementing the Child Health Promotion Programme and provide additional support those in socially deprived areas.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 70
The Cambridge Sub-Region Long Term Delivery Plan Final Report provides a number of challenges facing the area regarding healthcare. One challenge is the creation of delivery systems such as integrated health and social care, contract networks of services, joint ventures and new organisational types. Additionally, attention is paid to restructuring hospital services, protecting essential local services within a challenging financial framework, operating within the commissioning environment and direct providers and operating within the LAA and CAA environment with local authorities.
EXISTING PROVISION Overview of Provision
East Cambridgeshire has a relatively strong coverage of GPs and Dentists, with all of the market towns and key service centres providing some level of provision. Neither Sutton or Haddenham in the north west of the district contain dentist surgeries, however both are located relatively close to Ely, which has the greatest level of dental provision within the district.
In addition to GP and dentist surgeries each of the market towns contains a health centre or community hospital. These are:
Princess of Wales Hospital (Ely), which includes a Minor Treatments Centre, and a range of specialist out-patient services, in addition to an inpatient rehabilitation service.
Littleport Health Centre
Soham Health Centre
The following map presents an overview of the distribution of GP and Dental provision across the district. Further facilities include the Princess of Wales Hospital at Ely and Health Centres at Littleport and Soham.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 71
Figure 7-1: Existing GP and Dental Facilities
Changing Delivery Environment
Nationally the delivery of NHS care is shifting towards a more personalised, easy to access and community based approach which makes use of wider resources within the community.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 72
East Cambridgeshire is primarily served by Addenbrookes Hospital, which is located in south east Cambridge, however the district is well placed to adapt to a more locally based approach to delivering healthcare.
Discussions with NHS Cambridgeshire have identified that future provision of local services will be delivered by maintaining and building capacity within the market towns which would act as healthcare hubs. Those parts of the district with more limited access to these market towns may be able to access services delivered from the Addenbrookes and Newmarket Hospitals that are located across the district’s boundaries.
The main hub for services within the district would be Ely, which already delivers minor operations through the Princess of Wales Hospital. The potential to provide an additional small operating centre at Littleport, alongside the existing Health Centre, has also been identified.
Potential for Expansion
Focussing on the delivery of community based healthcare services within the market towns; NHS Cambridgeshire has highlighted the following key points.
Ely: The area is served by the Princess of Wales Hospital and the St Mary’s Practice, both of which are located close to the town centre.
The PCT have identified that the primary care facilities at the Princess of Wales Hospital are not of a high enough quality and instead of expanding these facilities it would be necessary to provide additional facilities on the same site.
Provision at St. Mary’s Practice is of a higher quality however it is currently operating at full capacity, with limited scope for expansion.
Soham: Served by relatively new premises with potential for expansion, however additional land would be required before this could be undertaken.
Soham is also served by a separate Health Centre which is not owned by the PCT. This facility has the potential for refurbishment, if necessary.
Littleport: Served by relatively new premises that offer scope for expansion (including the provision of a small operating centre)
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 73
INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND
Healthcare Approach
Healthcare Standards: Primary Care The demand for healthcare facilities will vary according to a range of local factors, including the age and overall health of the local population and accessibility issues in more rural areas. However, it is possible to use nationally recognised standards to estimate the potential demand for healthcare facilities associated with a given level of housing growth. These standards are based on the total population growth and would reflect the mix of housing by size and tenure.
Table 7-1: Primary Care Infrastructure Demand Assumptions Facility Type Standards GPs 1 GP per 1,800 people Dentist 1 Dentist per 2,000 people Source: National Health Service (GPs); Traffic light maps of Dentists distribution in England and Wales, 2004
These standards will be applied to the Development Specific Population Growth to forecast the demand for primary care facilities, as it is assumed that the provision of such services should be based on local and not district wide need.
Healthcare Standards: Acute Care Cambridgeshire PCT has moved away from measuring acute care according to the number of beds and instead focuses on planning for future capacity. This reflects a shift towards providing as much care as possible within community based settings and increasingly making better use of technology in the delivery of care and services.
Cambridgeshire PCT has stated that demand for acute care should be assessed at the County level, building on the findings of the Draft Strategic Plan (2010-15). This broadly sets out that Cambridgeshire PCT is not seeking an increase in bed numbers, but seeks to create more capacity by shifting more care into community settings and building on advancements in medicine and technology to reduce hospital based activity. It indicates that community based care could include nursing, therapies and social care.
Future investment will be required in better health infrastructure in the community in order to deliver the Strategic Plan and not in hospital infrastructure.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 74
Primary Care
Primary Care Demand The cumulative demand for GPs and dentists, based on the assumptions identified above and the housing trajectories set out in Chapter 2 are presented in the tables below.
Over the whole of East Cambridgeshire, the level of growth associated with the LDF scenario generates demand for 8 additional GPs and 7 additional dentists. Demand is concentrated within the market towns, with the growth in demand elsewhere being insufficient for an additional GP in any single growth location.
Under the medium scenario the demand for GPs and Dentists increases marginally within the market towns.
Under the high growth scenario, the requirements within the market towns is greater and the increase in demand is likely to be met through new healthcare facilities
Table 7-2: Cumulative GP Requirements GPs Cumulative LDF Medium High 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025
Ely 0.5 2.2 0.5 2.3 0.5 3.9
Soham 0.9 2.1 1.0 2.2 1.0 3.0
Littleport 0.9 1.5 1.0 1.7 1.0 2.0
Bottisham 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3
Burwell 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4
Haddenham 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
Newmarket Fringe 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
Sutton 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3
Countryside: Affordable 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.7
Countryside: Other - 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4
Elsewhere (North) 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.7
Elsewhere (South) 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4
Total 3.2 8.0 4.0 9.5 4.0 12.3
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 75
Table 7-3: Cumulative Dentist Requirements Dentists (Cumulative) LDF Medium High 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025 Ely 0.4 2.0 0.5 2.1 0.5 3.5 Soham 0.9 1.9 0.9 2.0 0.9 2.7 Littleport 0.8 1.4 0.9 1.5 0.9 1.8 Bottisham 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 Burwell 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 Haddenham 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Newmarket Fringe 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Sutton 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 Countryside: Affordable 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 Countryside: Other 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 Elsewhere (North) 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 Elsewhere (South) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 Total 2.9 7.2 3.6 8.6 3.6 11.1
Primary Care Facilities Requirements The following table sets out the investments in primary care facilities that would be necessary to meet the requirements associated with the housing growth under each of the three scenarios. These are based on indicative-only recommendations from Cambridgeshire PCT concerning the most appropriate way of meeting increased demand within the market towns.
LDF Medium Higher Provision of 3GP facility on site of Provision of 3GP facility on site of Provision of 4GP facility on Prince of Wales Hospital Prince of Wales Hospital site of Prince of Wales Hospital Expanded dental provision in town Expanded dental provision in town (2 dentists) (2 dentists) Expanded Primary Care facilities at St Mary’s Surgery (2 GPs)
Expanded dental provision in Ely town (4 dentists) Expanded Primary Care facilities Expanded Primary Care facilities New facility incorporating at Staploe Medical Centre(2 GPs) at Staploe Medical Centre(2 GPs) Primary Care (3 GPs), Dentistry (3 dentists), Expanded dental provision in town Expanded dental provision in town Pharmacy and Community Soham (2 dentists) (2 dentists) services. Expand existing Health Centre (1 Expand existing Health Centre (1 New facility incorporating GP) GP) Primary Care (2 GPs), Dentistry (2 dentists), Expanded dental provision in town Expanded dental provision in town Pharmacy and Community Littleport (1 dentist) (1 dentist) services.
Within Ely, the requirements associated with the LDF level of growth could be met through re-providing of the Primary Care facilities at Princess of Wales Hospital. This site is currently at
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 76
capacity and would need to be re-provided at a larger scale in order to provide capacity for existing and future residents. This would ideally occur on the hospital, site subject to feasibility, as the majority of planned growth will occur to the north of the hospital site. The PCT is currently considering the potential for redevelopment at the Princess of Wales site and therefore this new facility should be incorporate within any new design. The full costs for redevelopment of the hospital are included in Tables 7.5 – 7.7 as this is deemed related to the proposed level of housing growth.
The St Marys Surgery, is an alternative site located close to the town centre, however it is also at capacity. With much of the growth in Ely in recent years being to the West of the town, it is important that capacity is maintained and expanded in the town centre area in order to provide reasonable access to residents in all parts of the town. Options to expand the existing Surgery in its current location should be explored, however, if none of these are feasible then it may be necessary to relocate Primary Care facilities to another site in or close to the town centre. St Marys Surgery are in the process of obtaining additional premises for use by admin, dispensing and storage, which will create additional clinical capacity within the main surgery building.
No further requirements are associated with the Medium scenario, however under the Higher scenario it would be necessary to expand both the Princess of Wales and St Marys sites or to provide a new Health facility in or near the town centre, depending on location of additional growth. In such cases the PCT would consider co-location opportunities with other public and community services.
In Soham the current Staploe Medical Centre could be expanded, subject to land availability to meet the requirements associated with the LDF and Medium scenarios. The PCT indicate that it may be necessary to re-provide this facility, subject to future discussions with the County Council and Staploe Medical Centre, in which case the old Health Centre site has the potential for redevelopment.
Under the higher scenario the PCTs preference would be for all capacity to be provided in one new facility for the town, incorporating other services including dentistry, pharmacy and community services and offering the potential to co-locate with other public / community services. This option would incorporate services currently provided from the old Health Centre.
Within Littleport the current Health Centre was built with room for expansion of the existing building and the amount of growth planned under the LDF and medium scenarios would not warrant an additional facility. However, it would require an extension and some reconfiguration to the existing building.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 77
Under the higher scenario the PCT would seek for all capacity to be provided within a single facility, similar to the facility recommended for Soham.
Elsewhere in the district, under each of the scenarios, there will be varying levels of impact on other services and facilities and the PCT recognise that some increase in workforce and physical capacity may be required.
Acute Care
Acute Care Demand Given the shift in provision of NHS care towards a more personalised, easy to access and community based approach, the housing growth within East Cambridgeshire is not expected to generate the need for any additional bed space within the county’s hospitals.
There will be a need to provide improved health infrastructure within the community, however this investment is associated with the priorities of the Draft Strategic Plan and the move to community based care for all communities. It would not arise as a direct consequence of the proposed housing growth.
Cambridgeshire PCT have confirmed that it is not possible at this stage to determine the precise investments that would be required to serve the new communities that would develop within the market towns and key service centres. However, the need to provide such community based care should be considered as part of the design of community spaces and health facilities recommended elsewhere in this report.
Examples of appropriate space for community provision of acute care include the all-purpose facilities recommended for Soham and Littleport under the Higher growth scenario under Primary Care. Other facilities such as the Princess of Wales Hospital and may also provide appropriate facilities for such care.
HEALTHCARE INFRASTRUCTURE OVERVIEW AND COSTS
Healthcare Requirements Table 7-4 sets out an overview of healthcare requirements for the three housing growth scenarios. The requirements are almost the same under the LDF and Medium scenarios, with the exception of Littleport where demand is sufficient for a multipurpose facility containing GP and dental services alongside a pharmacy and community services.
Under the Higher scenario, the level of growth in Soham and Littleport is sufficient to provide multipurpose facilities that include GP and dental services alongside a pharmacy and community services.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 78
Table 7-4 Overview of Healthcare Requirements LDF Medium High
Primary Care Provision of 3GP Provision of 3GP Provision of 4GP facility facility on site of facility on site of on site of Prince of Prince of Wales Prince of Wales Wales Hospital Hospital Hospital Expanded dental Expanded Staploe Expanded Staploe provision in Ely (4 Medical Centre (2 Medical Centre (2 dentists) GPs) GPs) Expanded St Mary’s Expanded Littleport All purpose facility in Surgery (2 GP) Health Centre (1 GP) Littleport (incorporating 2 GPs, All purpose facility in Expanded Dental 1 Dentist, Pharmacy Soham (incorporating 3 Provision (5 dentists and Community GPs, 3 Dentists, across 3 facilities) services) Pharmacy and Community services) Expanded Littleport Health Centre (1 GP) All purpose facility in Littleport (incorporating Expanded Dental 2 GPs, 2 Dentists, Provision in Ely (2 Pharmacy, Community dentists), Soham (2 services) dentists) and Littleport (1 dentist)
Acute Care Redevelopment of Princess of Wales Hospital
Source: AECOM 2010
The assumptions set out in this chapter represent an early stage in the process of assessing healthcare requirements and should be considered only as a preliminary response in respect of the strategic growth scenarios.
As more detailed delivery models concerning community based care are developed the facility recommendations may change accordingly.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 79
Healthcare Costs The total cost of providing the necessary healthcare facilities ranges from £8 million under the LDF and Medium Scenario and increases to £8.66 million under the Higher scenario. The relatively small increase in costs under the higher scenario reflects the efficiencies that may be achieved by providing all services within a single facility, such as those recommended for Soham and Littleport.
Table 7-5: Healthcare Infrastructure Costs and Phasing (LDF Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Growth Completion Trigger / End Date Total Costs Total Funding Category Area Location Date Funding Source
LDF_HC1 Healthcare Provision of 3GP facility Growth Ely 2018 3000 People £3,150,000 £0 on site of Prince of Location Wales Hospital LDF_HC2 Healthcare Expansion of Existing Growth Ely 2019 3400 People £300,000 £0 Dentists (2 dentists) Location LDF_HC3 Healthcare Refurbishment of Growth Soham 2018 3000 People £850,000 £0 Soham Health Centre Location (2 GPs) LDF_HC4 Healthcare Expansion of Existing Growth Soham 2019 3400 People £300,000 £0 Dentists (2 dentists) Location LDF_HC5 Healthcare Refurbishment of Growth Littleport 2016 1800 People £2,450,000 £0 Littleport Health Centre Location (1 GPs) LDF_HC6 Healthcare Expansion of Existing Growth Littleport 2017 2000 People £150,000 £0 Dentists (1 dentists) Location Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £7,200,000 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £7,200,000
Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 80
Table 7-6: Healthcare Infrastructure Costs and Phasing (Medium Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Growth Completion Trigger / End Date Total Costs Total Funding Category Area Location Date Funding Source
MED_HC1 Healthcare Provision of 3GP facility Growth Ely 2018 3000 People £3,150,000 £0 on site of Prince of Location Wales Hospital MED_HC2 Healthcare Expansion of Existing Growth Ely 2019 3400 People £300,000 £0 Dentists (2 dentists) Location MED_HC3 Healthcare Refurbishment of Growth Soham 2018 3000 People £850,000 £0 Soham Health Centre Location (2 GPs) MED_HC4 Healthcare Expansion of Existing Growth Soham 2019 3400 People £300,000 £0 Dentists (2 dentists) Location MED_HC5 Healthcare Refurbishment of Growth Littleport 2016 1800 People £2,450,000 £0 Littleport Health Centre Location (1 GPs) MED_HC6 Healthcare Expansion of Existing Growth Littleport 2016 2000 People £150,000 £0 Dentists (1 dentists) Location Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £7,200,000 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £7,200,000
Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 81
Table 7-7: Healthcare Infrastructure Costs and Phasing (Higher Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Growth Completion Trigger / End Total Total Funding Category Area Location Date Date Costs Funding Source
HIGH_HC1 Healthcare Provision of 4GP facility on site Growth Ely 2018 3000 People £3,150,000 £0 of Prince of Wales Hospital Location HIGH_HC2 Healthcare Expansion of St Marys Medical Growth Ely 2023 6000 People £900,000 £0 Centre (2GP) Location HIGH_HC3 Healthcare Expansion of Existing Dentists Growth Ely 2023 6000 People £150,000 £0 (3 dentists) Location HIGH_HC4 Healthcare New facility incorporating Growth Soham 2018 3500 People £2,050,000 £0 Primary Care (3 GPs), Dentistry Location (3 dentists), Pharmacy and Community services. HIGH_HC5 Healthcare New facility incorporating Growth Littleport 2019 3000 People £1,450,000 £0 Primary Care (2 GPs), Dentistry Location (2 dentists), Pharmacy and Community services.
Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £7,700,000 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £7,700,000
Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 82
8. Social Infrastructure: Emergency Services
POLICY CONTEXT
The need to ensure that housing development promotes community cohesion and creates safe neighbourhoods and environments is a central consideration of a broad range of strategies and policies which are summarised below.
One of the key objectives of the Sustainable Community Strategy for Cambridgeshire 2007-2021 is ‘safer and stronger communities’. This includes, including citizens in service planning and improvement and ensuring communities enjoy good quality of life and health, with low crime, low unemployment, and free from discrimination and inequalities. It highlights that key challenges for East Cambridgeshire are domestic violence, alcohol misuse and anti social behaviour.
The Cambridgeshire Local Policing Plan for 2009– 2012 sets out the strategic vision for Cambridgeshire Police over the coming three years. The Force and Authority has agreed a broad range of performance measures for 2008/9, testing delivery in 6 key strategic areas of increasing public confidence, reducing crime including focusing on more serious violence, working in partnership to deliver a more effective, transparent and responsive Criminal Justice System, ensuring adequate capability and capacity exists to deliver effective policing to tackle serious and organised crime and, counter terrorism and violent extremism and making the best use of resources.
The East Cambridgeshire Sustainable Community Strategy 2008 highlights the key areas of concern are:
Anti social behaviour associated with alcohol misuse Vehicle and burglary crime Re-offending Domestic violence
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Service Annual Report 2008-09 sets out the Authority’s vision as for the Service to be a key contributor to community safety by proactively identifying risks and taking positive action to save lives, protect people and safeguard the environment. Its strategic aims are for operational excellence and community safety excellence. This is underpinned community focus and effective use of resources.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 83
East Cambridgeshire falls within the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust. EEAST was formed in July 2006 by the merger of the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk services. Outlined in the East of England Strategic Direction 2007- 2012, the EEAST’s vision is to be the recognised leader in out of hospital emergency and urgent care.
EEAST operate a varied service which is tailor-made for each community’s differing environmental and medical needs, from cycles to fast response cars, frontline ambulances, helicopters and emergency care practitioners. In 2007 / 2008 EEAST responded to approximately 543,000 emergency calls; this is approximately a call every minute. The focus is on responding to the demands of incidents, therefore the traditional model of a certain number of ambulances in a town station is not how the system is used today. Instead, vehicles and staff are sent out in response to predicted incident locations. The system is based on a quality-assured vehicles and preparation programme, designed to minimise cross infection and maximise patient safety.
EXISTING PROVISION
The map over the page shows the current location of police, fire and ambulance stations across the district.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 84
Figure 8-1: Location of Police, Fire and Ambulance Stations in East Cambridgeshire
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 85
Overview
Police There is one police station in East Cambridgeshire which is located in the main market town; Ely. There are currently 59 Police Officers and 44 Police Support Staff.
Fire Service There are six fire stations in East Cambridgeshire. These are distributed throughout the three market towns, a number of key service centres and in smaller settlements. The provision of the Fire Service is based on levels of risk. East Cambridgeshire is considered a low risk area. For low risk areas the following standards apply, although note that only Market Towns are relevant in the East Cambridgeshire context:
Market Towns: 20 minute response times and one appliance Larger towns: 8 minutes response time City: 5 minutes response time.
The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Service Annual Report 2008/09 sets out key performance targets for the last year. In 2008/09 there were 14.8 accidental fires and 4.4 deliberate fires per 10,000 residents across the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough area. In terms of accidental fires, this is an increase on last year but has been mainly attributed to an increase in fires in sheltered accommodation.
Ambulance Service There is one Ambulance Station in East Cambridgeshire which is located in Ely as well as strategic placed vehicles. As with fire service, response times are critical. The strategically location of ambulances mean that they are able to answer emergency calls within a specified period. The East of England Ambulance Service aims to respond to 75% of potentially life-threatening calls within 8 minutes and 95% within 19 minutes. For non-life threatening calls, 95% must be responded to within 19 minutes and for minor problems these are sometimes dealt with by giving telephone advice or by sending an ambulance under normal driving conditions.
EMERGENCY SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS
The following sections identify the infrastructure requirements for emergency services infrastructure requirement under each of the three growth options.
Police
The police requirements are based on early discussions with Cambridgeshire Police and provide an indication of the likely infrastructure requirements associated with the scenarios.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 86
Cambridgeshire Police aim to maintain policing services at the current ratio of police per population. Assumptions on the level of police services that should be applied to the growth scenarios are set out in Table 8.1 below.
Table 8-1: Police Service Assumptions Standard 1 police officer per 564 Police officers households 1 Police Support Staff Police Support Staff per 757 households 1 sq m per 370 Custody Accommodation households Source: Cambridgeshire Police 2009
Using the assumption identified in Table 8-1 it is possible to estimate the additional demand for police officers, support staff and custody areas associated with the housing growth projected under each growth scenario.
Table 8-2: Demand for Additional Officers in the Police Service Police officers (Cumulative) LDF Medium Higher 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025 Ely 0.6 2.7 0.6 2.9 0.6 4.8 Soham 1.2 2.6 1.2 2.7 1.2 3.8 Littleport 1.1 1.9 1.2 2.0 1.2 2.5 Other Areas 1.1 2.6 1.8 4.0 1.8 4.0 Total 4.0 9.8 4.9 11.7 4.9 15.1 Source: AECOM 2010
Table 8-3: Demand for Additional Police Support Staff Police Support Staff (Cumulative) LDF Medium Higher 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025 Ely 0.4 2.0 0.5 2.1 0.5 3.6 Soham 0.9 1.9 0.9 2.0 0.9 2.8 Littleport 0.8 1.4 0.9 1.5 0.9 1.9 Other Areas 0.8 2.0 1.3 3.0 1.3 3.0 Total 3.0 7.3 3.6 8.7 3.6 11.2 Source: AECOM 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 87
Table 8-4: Demand for Additional Police Support Staff Sq m of Non-Specialist Custody Accommodation (offices) (Cumulative) LDF Medium Higher 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025 Ely 0.9 4.2 1.0 4.4 1.0 7.3 Soham 1.8 3.9 1.9 4.2 1.9 5.7 Littleport 1.7 2.9 1.8 3.1 1.8 3.8 Other Areas 1.7 4.0 2.7 6.1 2.7 6.1 Total 6.1 14.9 7.4 17.8 7.4 23.0 Source: AECOM 2010
Discussions with Cambridgeshire Police confirm that it is more appropriate to describe infrastructure requirements at the district level rather than at settlement level. In the LDF scenario there is demand for 10 police officers, 8 support staff and 15 sqm of custody space. In the medium scenario there is demand for 12 police officers, 9 support staff and 18 sq m of custody space; and in the high scenario there is demand for 21 police officers, 16 support staff and 33 sqm of custody space.
For all three scenarios both the custody space and support staff can be accommodated by expanding existing space in the Police Station in Ely. Police officers could be located throughout the district in small neighbourhood teams either with dedicated space or co-located within other facilities such as retail premises.
Fire and Ambulance
There is no capital requirements for ambulance or fire provision associated with the three growth scenarios. However, while the magnitude of growth is not sufficient enough to trigger new fire and ambulance capital requirements, it is possible that the distribution of growth may require these services to reorganise their operations within the district to ensure that statutory response times are met.
In the case of the ambulance services, the level of proposed development is unlikely to require additional infrastructure, as individual ambulances are not permanently stationed in stations or depots. They may be located at strategic sites across the district to ensure that the appropriate response times are met.
In the case of the fire service, based on discussions with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Service it is envisaged that current provision at Ely, Soham and Littleport would not necessitate a change in fire cover for the LDF and medium scenarios. For the high scenario there may be a need for increasing staffing levels or the number of appliances.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 88
EMERGENCY SERVICES OVERVIEW AND COSTS
Emergency Services Requirements Table 8-5 sets out an overview of the emergency services requirements associated with the three housing growth scenarios. Under each scenario, the police service is the only emergency service that requires new facilities.
The additional policing requirement includes additional custody space and space for additional support staff within the existing Ely police station, plus space for additional officers located at appropriate locations across the district.
Table 8-5 Overview of Education Requirements LDF Medium High
Police 15sq m of custody 18 sq m of custody 23 sq m of custody space and 7 support space and 9 support space and 11 support staff staff staff
10 additional officers 12 additional officers 15 additional officers across district (low across district (low across district (low capital costs) capital costs) capital costs)
Fire Service No capital requirements anticipated
Ambulance No capital requirements anticipated
Source: AECOM 2009
The tables on the following three pages provide more detail on the location, phasing, and costs of the projects identified above.
The assumptions set out in this chapter represent an early stage in the process of assessing education requirements and should be considered only as a preliminary response in respect of the strategic growth scenarios.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 89
Emergency Services Costs All anticipated emergency services costs are associated with the expansion of local policing across the district, ranging from £320,000 under the LDF scenario to £500,000 under the Higher scenario.
Table 8-6: Emergency Services Infrastructure Costs and Phasing (LDF Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Growth Location Completion Trigger / End Total Total Funding Category Area Date Date Costs Funding Source
LDF_ES1 Emergency 15sq m of custody East 2018 4,000 Dwellings £220,000 £0 Services space and 7 support Cambridgeshire staff LDF_ES2 Emergency 10 additional officers East 2013 3,000 People £100,000 £0 Services across district (low Cambridgeshire capital costs) Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £320,000 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £320,000 Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 90
Table 8-7: Emergency Services Infrastructure Costs and Phasing (Medium Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Growth Location Completion Trigger / End Total Total Funding Category Area Date Date Costs Funding Source
MED_ES Emergency 18 sq m of custody East 2017 4000 Dwellings £275,000 £0 1 Services space and 9 support Cambridgeshire staff MED_ES Emergency 12 additional officers East 2012 3000 People £120,000 £0 2 Services across district (low Cambridgeshire capital costs) Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £395,000 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £395,000 Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 91
Table 8-8: Emergency Services Infrastructure Costs and Phasing (Higher Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Growth Completion Trigger / End Date Total Total Funding Category Area Location Date Costs Funding Source
HIGH_ES1 Emergency 23 sq m of custody East 2017 4000 Dwellings £350,000 £0 Services space and 11 support Cambridgeshire staff HIGH_ES2 Emergency 15 additional officers East 2012 3000 People £150,000 £0 Services across district (low Cambridgeshire capital costs) Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £500,000 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £500,000 Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 92
9. Social Infrastructure: Community Facilities
POLICY CONTEXT
A key objective of East Cambridgeshire’s Sustainable Community Strategy is to provide sustainable, quality community facilities. The strategy recognises the importance of community and cultural infrastructure in the development of sustainable communities. Given the out-commuting of the district’s work force there is a need to provide facilities locally to encourage community cohesion, a sense of local identity and participation in community life.
Community facilities can include a wide range of facilities and spaces which the public can use including libraries, village halls, community centres, provision of children’s pre-school services, venues for community and adult learning, performance and creative spaces, etc. For the purposes of forecasting potential infrastructure requirements, this study is examining the demand for Libraries, Community Centres, Arts Venues and Museums as these spaces provide for a variety of public needs.
At the county level, there is a Service Level Policy which specifies the type and standards of service to be provided from groups of similar libraries across the County. These range from the smallest village / community libraries at Level One, through to the wide-ranging and specialist services at Cambridge Central Library - Level 4. The service level of a library is formulated on the basis of:
the catchment population it serves the number of items (books, videos, etc) it issues the number of visitors it receives
Culture in terms of art and museums are also important elements of sustainable communities. Art activities create opportunities for community interaction and build a sense of place. They can inspire learning, support skills, and personal development as well as promote health and mental wellbeing.
As part of the Culture in Sustainable Communities, through the Living Places Partnership, a Culture and Sport Planning Toolkit has been developed to ensure that cultural provision is more firmly embedded into spatial planning, setting out national
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 93
benchmarks for the provision of arts and museums at a local level.
EXISTING PROVISION Overview
There are 24 community centres and villages halls in East Cambridgeshire. These are a relatively evenly distributed across the district throughout all the settlements.
There are 4 library service points and 3 library access points located within the 3 market towns, key service centres and smaller settlements.
Ely contains the majority of existing cultural facilities, including the Babylon Gallery, 2 private galleries, The Maltings which is a 260 seats conference centre and hall and is used as a part time cinema, 2 museums - Ely Museum and Oliver Cromwell House and Library.
There are discussions around redeveloping the Pavilion in Soham to provide a new village hall which will potentially accommodate space for performance arts.
In the smaller communities, there is a Country-Life Museum in Burwell, a commercial gallery in Haddenham and a Steam Museum in Prickwillow.
Figure 9-1 shows the location of community centres/ village halls, libraries, leisure centres, museums and galleries across East Cambridgeshire.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 94
Figure 9-1: Location of Community Centres/ Village Halls, Libraries, Museums and Galleries across East Cambridgeshire
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 95
COMMUNITY FACILTIES INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS
The following table provides an overview of the community facilities standards adopted within this study.
Table 9-1: Community Facilities Assumptions Population Facility Size Source Libraries Service Level 1 >4,000 180 sq m Cambridgeshire County 2 >7,000 350 sq m, including Council 2009 community meeting / activity space and facilities for partner services 3 >14,000 1,000 sq m of library operational space PLUS 200 sq m of staff space PLUS Additional requirement for partner services and community facilities 4 >50,000 4,000 sq m Community Space 1,000 111 sq m South Cambridgeshire District Council 2009 Museum 1,000 28sq m ACE & MLA 2009 (Arts Council England and Museum, Libraries and Achieve Council) Art 1,000 45 sq m (Arts Council England and Museum, Libraries and Achieve Council) Source: Cambridgeshire County Council /South Cambridgeshire District Council/ ACE and MLA / AECOM 2009 Community facilities should be provided where possible within and alongside communities and for this reason the recommendations for community facilities are based on the development specific population growth projections set out in Chapter 4. The total population change by each growth location is presented in the following table.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 96
Table 9-2: Development Specific Population Growth Projections LDF Medium Higher Ely 3,991 4,204 7,004 Soham 3,737 3,995 5,488 Littleport 2,744 2,999 3,646 Bottisham 393 453 453 Burwell 615 752 752 Haddenham 190 257 257 Newmarket Fringe 110 115 115 Sutton 422 578 578 Total 12,202 13,353 18,293 Total (incl. Other Areas) 14,376 17,188 22,128 AECOM Design and Planning 2010
Outside of the identified growth locations, the demand for community facilities is likely decrease as a consequence of the district wide demographic projections, which forecast a declining population across the district in the absence of housing growth.
Community Space
Within the market towns, the level of housing growth is sufficient to require additional community facilities under each growth scenario. For the purposes of facility recommendations the requirement has been rounded to the nearest 50 sqm as appropriate.
Outside of the market towns, the largest requirement is in Burwell, where the requirement of an additional 100 sqm arises under the medium and higher scenarios.
Feedback from local parish councils has identified that in some areas, such as Witcham, the need to improve local Village Hall facilities. This is necessary to overcome existing deficiencies in provision and not included as a requirement in this report. However, the distribution on windfall developments and growth outside of the market towns and key service centres should be closely monitored as it is possible that small levels of housing and / or population growth in these areas may trigger sufficient demand for improved facilities.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 97
Table 9-3: Requirement for Community Space (sqm) Community Space (sqm) (Cumulative) LDF Medium Higher 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025
Ely 96 443 104 467 104 777
Soham 190 415 202 443 202 609
Littleport 177 305 191 333 191 405 Other Areas 182 433 295 665 295 665
Total 645 1,596 792 1,908 792 2,456 AECOM Design and Planning 2010
Libraries
Growth in Ely and Soham under the medium scenario is sufficient to trigger additional library provision and in each case it is the smaller 180sqm facility that is required. Under the higher scenario the size facility required in Ely rises to 350sqm and would include community meeting and activity space, as well as facilities for partner services.
Table 9-4: Requirement for Library Space, by Growth Location Library Space (sqm) (Cumulative) LDF Medium Higher 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025
Ely - - - 180 - 350
Soham - - - - - 180
Littleport ------
Other Areas ------
Total - - - 180 - 530 AECOM Design and Planning 2010
Only growth in Ely and Soham under the higher growth scenario is sufficient to trigger additional library provision within the towns and in each case it is only the smaller 180 sqm facility that is required.
While population growth in the other areas is insufficient to trigger the demand for new library facilities the cumulative impact of housing growth across the whole of East Cambridgeshire may be sufficient. However, in this case it would be necessary to assess the impact of the district-wide demographic projections, as population growth associated with new housing may be countered by population decline elsewhere.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 98
The following table presents the headline population change at 2015 and 20263. Across the whole district and after taking account of demographic changes, a requirement for a 180 sqm Library is triggered under the LDF scenario and the requirement for a 350 sqm library is triggered under the medium and higher scenarios.
Table 9-5: District Wide Demographic Projections Library Space (sqm) (Cumulative) LDF Medium Higher 2015 2026 2015 2026 2015 2026 East Cambridgeshire 1,951 4,324 2,857 7,046 4,334 11,670 AECOM Design and Planning 2009
These facilities could be provided across the district, however it is recommended that under they are provided at Ely as this is where housing growth is most concentrated. Furthermore, under the higher growth scenario, it may be most appropriate to provide two smaller libraries (as identified in Table 9-4) as these would better serve the communities at Ely and Soham.
Art Facilities
Table 9-6 sets out the additional requirements for arts facilities across East Cambridgeshire. Arts facilities can include galleries, multi-use art centres, theatres and art production space. The standard sets out in Table 9-1 for art provision can include the provision of one of these facilities within the 45 sq m standard or a combination of a number of facilities. It should be noted however that these standards are for the provision of culture at the local level due to local population growth. Regional provision falls outside the scope of this study and would need to be assessed separately within other planning policies.
Table 9-6 Requirement for Art Facilities Arts Space (sqm) (Cumulative) LDF Medium Higher 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025
Ely 39 180 42 189 42 315
Soham 77 168 82 180 82 247
Littleport 72 124 77 135 77 164 Other Areas 74 176 120 270 120 270
Total 261 647 321 773 321 996
3 The demographic projections work in five year cycles, starting in 2001. However, this can be used as a close approximation of the 2025 figure.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 99
Source: AECOM Design and Planning 2010
There is only sufficient demand for arts space within the three market towns. The appropriate facility type would need to be decided within each area in response to local issues. However, the space identified in the table above provides an indication of the space of space that could be supported.
Museum
Table 9-7 sets out the additional requirement for Museum space as a result of the growth scenario. As with art facilities only the market towns generate sufficient demand for additional space and this is only reached towards the end of the period.
Table 9-7 Requirement for Museum Space Museum Space (sqm) (Cumulative) LDF Medium Higher 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025
Ely 24 112 26 118 26 196
Soham 48 105 51 112 51 154
Littleport 45 77 48 84 48 102 Other Areas 46 109 75 168 75 168
Total 163 403 200 481 200 620 Source: AECOM Design and Planning 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 100
COMMUNITY FACILITIES OVERVIEW AND COSTS
The following table provides a summary overview of the community facilities requirements required under each of the growth scenarios. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 50 sqm for clarity. A more detailed table providing details of costs and phasing is provided at the end of this section.
For many of these facility types, there is the opportunity to co- locate some of various uses to provide larger and more flexible facilities and to reduce construction costs. There may also be the opportunity to explore links with other forms of infrastructure, such as delivering healthcare alongside or from community facilities and libraries – as well as potential capital savings such models may also enhance the visibility of the facility and promote its use by a larger proportion of the local community.
The assumptions set out in this chapter represent an early stage in the process of assessing community facility requirements and should be considered only as a preliminary response in respect of the strategic growth scenarios
Table 9-8: Overview of Community Facility Requirements LDF Medium Higher Ely 450 sq m community 450 sq m community 800 sq m community space space space
180 sq m Library 350 sq m Library 350 sq m Library serving district 190 sq m arts space 320 sq m arts space 180 sq m arts space 115 sq m museum space 200 sq m museum 115 sq m museum space space Soham 400 sq m community 450 sq m community 600 sq m community space space space
170sq m arts space 180 sq m arts space 180 sq m library
100 sq m museum 115 sq m museum space 250 sq m arts space space 150sq m museum space Littleport 300 sq m community 350 sq m community 400 sq m community space space space
120sq m arts space 140sq m arts space 160 sq m arts space
75 sq m museum 75 sq m museum space 100 sq m museum space space Source: AECOM Design and Planning 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 101
Community Facilities Costs The total cost of providing the necessary community facilities ranges from £3.8 million to £6.2 million under the higher scenario.
Table 9-9: Community Facility Infrastructure Costs and Phasing (LDF Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Area Growth Completion Trigger / End Total Total Funding Category Location Date Date Costs Funding Source
LDF_CF1 Community 180 sqm Library Growth Location Ely 2025 2025 Year £540,000 £0 Facilities Space LDF_CF2 Community 450 sq m community Growth Location Ely 2024 3800 People £740,000 £0 Facilities space LDF_CF3 Community 180 sq m arts space Growth Location Ely 2019 3500 People £225,000 £0 Facilities LDF_CF4 Community 115 sq m museum Growth Location Ely 2018 3000 People £250,000 £0 Facilities space LDF_CF5 Community 400 sq m community Growth Location Soham 2019 3500 People £740,000 £0 Facilities space LDF_CF6 Community 170 sq m arts space Growth Location Soham 2018 3000 People £260,000 £0 Facilities LDF_CF7 Community 100 sq m museum Growth Location Soham 2018 3000 People £250,000 £0 Facilities space LDF_CF8 Community 300 sq m community Growth Location Littleport 2019 2400 People £550,000 £0 Facilities space LDF_CF9 Community 120 sq m arts space Growth Location Littleport 2015 1500 People £200,000 £0 Facilities LDF_CF10 Community 75 sq m museum Growth Location Littleport 2019 2400 People £190,000 £0 Facilities space Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £3,945,000 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £3,945,000
Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 102
Table 9-10: Community Facility Infrastructure Costs and Phasing (Medium Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Area Growth Completion Trigger / End Total Total Funding Category Location Date Date Costs Funding Source
MED_CF1 Community 350 sqm Library Growth Location Ely 2024 4000 People £3,600,000 £0 Facilities Space MED_CF2 Community 450 sq m community Growth Location Ely 2024 4000 People £740,000 £0 Facilities space MED_CF3 Community 190 sq m arts space Growth Location Ely 2019 3500 People £225,000 £0 Facilities MED_CF4 Community 115 sq m museum Growth Location Ely 2018 3000 People £250,000 £0 Facilities space MED_CF5 Community 450 sq m community Growth Location Soham 2020 3800 People £740,000 £0 Facilities space MED_CF6 Community 180 sq m arts space Growth Location Soham 2019 3500 People £225,000 £0 Facilities MED_CF7 Community 115 sq m museum Growth Location Soham 2018 3000 People £250,000 £0 Facilities space MED_CF8 Community 350 sq m community Growth Location Littleport 2020 2800 People £550,000 £0 Facilities space MED_CF9 Community 140 sq m arts space Growth Location Littleport 2020 2800 People £225,000 £0 Facilities MED_CF10 Community 75 sq m museum Growth Location Littleport 2018 2400 People £190,000 £0 Facilities space Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £6,995,000 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £6,995,000
Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 103
Table 9-11: Community Infrastructure Costs and Phasing (Higher Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Area Growth Completion Trigger / End Total Total Funding Category Location Date Date Costs Funding Source
HIGH_CF1 Community 350 sqm Library Growth Location Ely 2025 7000 People £3,600,000 £0 Facilities Space HIGH_CF2 Community 800 sq m community Growth Location Ely 2019 4000 People £1,400,000 £0 Facilities space HIGH_CF3 Community 320 sq m arts space Growth Location Ely 2018 3500 People £500,000 £0 Facilities HIGH_CF4 Community 200 sq m museum Growth Location Ely 2018 3500 People £500,000 £0 Facilities space HIGH_CF5 Community 600 sq m community Growth Location Soham 2018 3500 People £1,150,000 £0 Facilities space HIGH_CF6 Community 180 sq m Library Growth Location Soham 2019 4000 People £540,000 £0 Facilities Space HIGH_CF7 Community 250 sq m arts space Growth Location Soham 2018 3500 People £370,000 £0 Facilities HIGH_CF8 Community 150 sq m museum Growth Location Soham 2018 3000 People £375,000 £0 Facilities space HIGH_CF9 Community 400 sq m community Growth Location Littleport 2024 3500 People £740,000 £0 Facilities space HIGH_CF10 Community 160 sq m arts space Growth Location Littleport 2019 2800 People £240,000 £0 Facilities HIGH_CF11 Community 100 sq m museum Growth Location Littleport 2016 1800 People £250,000 £0 Facilities space Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £9,665,000 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £9,665,000
Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 104
COMMUNITY FACILITIES POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
In the preceding tables it has not been possible to identify any funding sources that can support cultural provision across East Cambridgeshire. However, there are a number of funding potential funding streams that may be investigated once proposals for cultural provision within the district are identified. In some cases it may be possible to use these potential revenue streams to fund part of the capital cost of infrastructure, however they may also make a contribution to the ongoing revenue costs of such venues.
Ticket income This assumes that cultural space is presenting work that can be ticketed: currently cinema and live events are ticketed, public galleries tend not to be ticketed. Modelling would be based very much on a market analysis to assess what the available catchment can support.
Ancillary sales (bar, food, etc) Sales generated through the footfall in relation to the core offer. Again there are industry expectations enabling this stream to be modelled.
This approach can clearly work, as demonstrated in the commercial entertainment sector, however it is a high risk industry and from a local authority perspective, there will be issues beyond the market capacity, around long term sustainability, access, programme diversity, etc. that would need to be considered.
Directly earned income should form a part of the revenue stream for any arts facility, with its significance dependant on local circumstances. For example, a dedicated facility in Ely is likely to operate on a higher percentage of directly earned income than a shared community and arts facility which would have a different expectation.
Footprint Income This approach has not traditionally been used in the UK to support arts facilities, but there are good examples elsewhere (such as Harbourfront Centre, Toronto). This is the direct capture of some of the ancillary monetary value of the footfall generated by the arts / cultural activity. This could be rental income from restaurants, cafes, or other culturally related businesses that are attracted to operate next to the facility or parking receipts.
The tradition UK model tends to separate out the arts facility and its associated economy, with the local authority collecting receipts from that economy at some level (at minimum through business rates, but also through car park income, rental income, etc.) and then providing public subsidy to the facility. In the UK
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 105
is uncommon for that link or the value of the link to be monitored.
Footprint income is most likely to be relevant to a full time facility, as they will have the critical mass to attract a wider economy, and there is the potential to explore whether direct income plus footprint income could support such a venue in its entirety.
Co-location Although this is not specifically a revenue stream, it has an impact on both the potential to generate income, and to make cost savings, so it is worth considering here.
Co-location is not just about costs: there could be other policy reasons for co-location, primarily around access to and use of services. However, there would be both capital and revenue saving associated with co-location.
Again the nature of the co-location would be dependent on specific circumstances: a full time facility where footprint income is also a factor could potentially be co-located with a swimming pool (such as the Dolphin Centre in Darlington): both need to be easily accessible, and peak demand for the two services is likely to be complementary. In smaller communities, co-location can mean shared use of a single facility: arts and community provision have the potential to work well together.
The on-costs of running part time arts programme can be reduced through working more effectively: a programme currently operated at ADeC (Arts Development in East Cambridgeshire) provides back office support (including programming, contracting and marketing), to voluntary promoters using the village hall network to present high quality professional arts performances in village locations. This achieves savings on artist fees through offering multiple dates, printing etc, as well as providing very low cost access to a professional programmer, and could easily be adapted to incorporate more regular programming into venues in Littleport and Soham.
Public Subsidy In the current economic climate public subsidy specifically for local arts activities in their own right is very limited, and it would not be sensible to build models that required significant public subsidy simply to operate an arts facility. However, facilities can be contracted to deliver programmes in relation to wider corporate and social objectives, which is a cost effective use of public funding, support objectives around community cohesion, positive activities for young people, and maintaining the independence of older people .
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 106
Arts Council England does provide funding for individual arts projects, but their current investment model focuses on larger professional arts organisations, and would be unlikely to provide a long term revenue stream to a local facility.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 107
10. Social Infrastructure: Sports Space and Facilities
POLICY REVIEW National Policy Guidance
Sport and recreation is an important part of local community life with clearly recognised benefits across other social infrastructure themes, such as improving general health and well-being. The Rural White Paper Our Countryside: the Future – A Fair Deal for Rural England highlights that access to cultural and sporting activity helps to provide an increased quality of life for rural communities and encourages all local authorities to develop local cultural strategies which are based on a partnership approach and encompass sport, countryside, parks and tourism as well as arts, cultural heritage and libraries.
Sports and recreation facilities can assist in creating sustainable communities by making an important contribution to the physical infrastructure of communities. They can provide a social focus and positively influence people’s perception of their neighbourhood.
Planning Policy Guidance 17: Sports and Recreation (PPG17; ODPM, 2002) outlines the use of planning obligations to secure sports and recreation facilities to meet the requirements of new residential communities. The Government recognises the importance of sports and recreation facilities in meeting objectives through the contribution of sports related open space to the quality of the urban environment and though:
Promoting social inclusion and community cohesion: Well planned and maintained open spaces and good quality sports and recreational facilities can play a major part in improving peoples’ sense of well being in the place they live. As a focal point for community activities, they can bring together members of deprived communities and provide opportunities for social interaction Improving health and well being: Open spaces, sports and recreational facilities have a vital role to play in promoting healthy living and preventing illness. They aid the social development of children of all ages through play, sporting activities and interaction with others
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 108
Promoting more sustainable development: By ensuring that open space, sports and recreational facilities (particularly in urban areas) are easily accessible by walking and cycling. More heavily used or intensive sports and recreational facilities should be planned for locations well-served by public transport.
Further priorities established by Sport England for the future provision of sport include:
Preventing the loss of facilities or natural resources or replacing equivalently, or better, in a suitable location Maintaining current and future demand for local, quality playing fields (i.e. no loss in supply or quality should occur because of development) Promoting shared use sites to increase provision in appropriate locations Utilise the urban fringe for sporting opportunities requiring larger areas such as golf courses and pitches and for built facilities which helps to maintain the identity of this resource Promoting floodlit synthetic turf pitches and hard-surfaced multi-use games areas as an integral part of community sports provision
Local Policy
The Sports Facilities and Play Area Assessment Report (2005) illustrated the current supply and demand analysis for East Cambridgeshire, based on a national model which identified the recommended provision for the current population and identified the district’s sports requirements to 2021.
Discussions with ECDC officers have identified that the standards and requirements set out in the Sports Facilities and Play Area Assessment Report are in need of revision in light of the development that has occurred across East Cambridgeshire since 2005. However, in the absence of more recent information the standards and recommendations set out in that report will form the basis of our approach to identifying sports facility requirements.
The Leisure Needs Assessment (2007) examines demand for the procurement and development of leisure facilities in Ely. This study applies the methodology and sources set out in this report to identify the predicted demand for sports and leisure in Ely.
EXISTING PROVISION Overview of Provision
Figure 10-1 provides details of the existing sport facilities within East Cambridgeshire.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 109
According to the 2009 East Cambridgeshire Place Survey only 34% of local residents made use of local sports or leisure facilities at least once a month and only 40% were satisfied with local levels of provision. This is the lowest level of satisfaction across Cambridgeshire.
Built Facilities The Sports Facilities and Play Area Assessment Report (2005) identified the following issues concerning the built leisure facilities within the district: The assessment identified a requirement for sports courts within the district. It suggests that this could be delivered through expansion of the Paradise Centre and provision of a new facility at Ely, both of which must be easily accessible by public transport. Further provision of sports halls could be delivered by opening up existing school halls in Ely and Witchford for formal community uses. The provision of future swimming pools will be subject to a more detailed feasibility study however the preferred option is for a maximum six lane facility within Ely. Future provision of Synthetic Turf Pitches (STPs) should be focused within the larger settlements, notably Ely and Littleport.
The assessment provides standards for the future provision of open space and built leisure facilities, which are presented in the following section.
The following map plots the distribution of the larger leisure facilities and centres within the district. There are two facilities located within Ely and the remaining six are located in the market towns or key service centres.
Sport and Recreational Spaces The Sports Facilities and Play Area Assessment Report (2005) identified that in 2005 there were 99 pitches in secured community use in East Cambridgeshire, occupying 95.7 ha of land (or 1.33 ha per 1,000 people). This was above the NPFA minimum standard of 1.28 ha per 1,000 people. It identified that overall the quality of pitches and ancillary facilities (including changing rooms) is fair, however improvements are required in some areas to ensure that all pitches are capable of two matches per week and that facilities are suitable for all users.
Other key issues identified by the assessment included: There may be a need to reorganise and rationalise football pitch provision within the district as some pitches are not in the appropriate locations A central venue for netball (potentially King’s School, Ely) should be investigated
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 110
Figure 10-1: Existing Leisure Centres
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 111
INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND Sports Facilities Approach
As identified above, standards from the East Cambridgeshire Sports Facilities and Play Area Assessment 2005 have been used to determine the appropriate level of sports facilities that should be provide to ensure that housing growth scenarios does not place additional pressure on existing facilities. These are set out in the following table and are applied to the development specific population growth projections set out in Chapter 4.
Table 10-1: Minimum Sports Provision Facility Standard Pitches 1.33 ha/1000 people Tennis 0.03 ha/1000 people Bowls 0.044 ha/1000 people Netball 0.014 ha/1000 people Floodlit Multi Games Areas 0.038 ha/1000 people Sports halls 0.26 courts/1000 people Swimming pools 9.29 m2/1000 people STPs Synthetic turf pitches 0.03 pitches/1000 people Source: East Cambridgeshire Sports Facilities and Play Areas Assessment 2005
There may be opportunities for linking the provision of playing pitches with the open space requirements described in the next chapter to encourage the use of both pieces of infrastructure. Such co-location may also be associated with cost savings however opportunities may be constrained by competing priorities, such as the promotion of habitats and bio-diversity associated with informal open space. Such opportunities would require careful consideration on a site by site basis.
Leisure proposals in Ely are based on the 2007 Leisure Needs Assessment which identifies a current under-provision of swimming pool space of 378m2. Future demand for swimming pool space is then calculated using the Sports Facility Calculator and then increased with an assumption of 10% increase in participation, as recommended by the 2007 study.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 112
Sports Facilities Infrastructure Demand
LDF Growth Scenario Sports Facilities Demand The following table identifies the sports facilities requirements associated with the LDF housing growth scenarios. They are based on the requirements per 1,000 people presented above and set out in the Sports Facilities and Play Areas Assessment (2005).
Table 10-2: LDF Sport and Recreation Requirements Pitches (ha) (ha) Pitches Tennis (ha) Bowls (ha) Netball (ha) (ha) Games Areas Floodlit Multi- (Courts)* Sports Halls (m2) Swimming Pools (Pitches) Pitches Synthetic Turf
Ely 5.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.0 37.1 0.1
Soham 5.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.0 34.7 0.1
Littleport 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.7 25.5 0.1
Bottisham 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.6 0.0
Burwell 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.7 0.0
Haddenham 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0
Newmarket Fringe 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
Sutton 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.9 0.0
Countryside 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 9.0 0.0
Elsewhere (North) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.8 0.0
Elsewhere (South) 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.4 0.0
Total 19.1 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.5 3.7 133.6 0.4 Source: AECOM 2010 * Calculation does not include existing under-provision and 10% increase in supply. This is factored into the recommended facilities in line with the 2007 Leisure Needs Assessment
Under the LDF growth scenario, there is sufficient demand for playing pitches (assuming an average size of 1.3 ha per pitch) within each of the market towns. There is also sufficient demand for tennis courts, bowling greens and FMGAs within the market towns.
Outside of the market towns, there is an aggregate demand for additional playing pitches and other sports facilities, however the demographic projections set out in Chapter 4 suggest that changes within the existing population should mitigate the need for additional facilities outside of the market towns. However, this situation will require monitoring particularly in areas where clusters of development occur.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 113
Medium Growth Scenario Sports Facilities Demand Under the medium growth scenario the requirements are very similar to those identified under the LDF scenario. A higher level of pitches is required in the market towns plus an additional netball court in Ely and Bowling Green in Soham.
Table 10-3: Medium Growth Scenario Sport and Recreation Requirements (ha) Pitches Tennis (ha) Bowls (ha) Netball (ha) (ha) Games Areas Floodlit Multi- (Courts)* Sports Halls (m2) Swimming Pools (Pitches) Pitches Synthetic Turf
Ely 5.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.1 39.1 0.1
Soham 5.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.0 37.1 0.1
Littleport 4.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.8 27.9 0.1
Bottisham 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.2 0.0
Burwell 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 7.0 0.0
Haddenham 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.4 0.0
Newmarket Fringe 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0
Sutton 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.4 0.0
Countryside 2.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 18.5 0.1
Elsewhere (North) 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 11.1 0.0
Elsewhere (South) 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.0 0.0
Total 22.9 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.7 4.5 159.7 0.5 Source: AECOM 2010 * Calculation does not include existing under-provision and 10% increase in supply. This is factored into the recommended facilities in line with the 2007 Leisure Needs Assessment
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 114
Higher Growth Scenario Sports Facilities Demand The higher growth scenario is associated with a greater number of sports courts and other facilities that are directly linked to growth within the market towns. Like the other two scenarios, the demand outside of the market towns is not deemed sufficient to justify additional provision outside of the market towns, particularly in light of the district wide demographic projections under each scenario.
Table 10-4: Higher Growth Scenario Sports and Recreation Requirements Pitches (ha) (ha) Pitches Tennis (ha) Bowls (ha) Netball (ha) (ha) Games Areas Floodlit Multi- (Courts)* Sports Halls (m2) Swimming Pools (Pitches) Pitches Synthetic Turf
Ely 9.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 1.8 65.1 0.2
Soham 7.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.4 51.0 0.2
Littleport 4.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 33.9 0.1
Bottisham 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.2 0.0
Burwell 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 7.0 0.0
Haddenham 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.4 0.0
Newmarket Fringe 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0
Sutton 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.4 0.0
Countryside 2.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 18.5 0.1
Elsewhere (North) 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 11.1 0.0
Elsewhere (South) 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.0 0.0
Total 29.4 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.8 5.8 205.6 0.7 Source: AECOM 2010 * Calculation does not include existing under-provision and 10% increase in supply. This is factored into the recommended facilities in line with the 2007 Leisure Needs Assessment
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 115
SPORTS AND RECREATION OVERVIEW AND COSTS
Sports and Recreation Requirements Table 10-5 sets out an overview of open requirements for the three housing growth scenarios, based on the demand identified in the previous section.
Table 10-5 Overview of Sports and Recreation Requirements LDF Medium Higher Ely 5.3 ha playing pitches 5.6 ha playing pitches 9.3 ha playing pitches 1 tennis court 1 tennis court 2 tennis courts 1 bowling green 1 bowling green 1 bowling green 2 FMGA 1 netball court 1 netball court 1 netball court 2 FMGA 3 FMGA 1 leisure centre (incl. 8- 1 leisure centre (incl. 8- 1 leisure centre (incl. 8- lane swimming pool, 6 lane swimming pool, 6 lane swimming pool, 6 court sports hall and court sports hall and 80- court sports hall and 80- 80-100 fitness stations) 100 fitness stations) 100 fitness stations) Soham 5.0 ha playing pitches 5.3 ha playing pitches 7.3 ha playing pitches 1 tennis court 1 tennis court 2 tennis courts 1 FMGA 1 bowling green 1 bowling green 1 bowling green 2 FMGA 1 netball court 1 netball court 1 netball court 2 FMGA
Littleport 3.7 ha playing pitches 4.0 ha playing pitches 4.8 ha playing pitches 1 tennis court 1 tennis court 1 tennis court 1 FMGA 1 FMGA 1 bowling green 1 netball court 1 FMGA District wide No requirement – based on demographic projections
Source: AECOM 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 116
Sports and Recreation Space Costs The total cost of providing the necessary level of sports and recreation ranges from £3.2 million under the LDF and Medium Scenario and increases to £8.66 million under the Higher scenario.
Table 10-6: Sports and Recreation Costs and Phasing (LDF Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Area Growth Completion Trigger / End Total Costs Total Funding Category Location Date Date Funding Source LDF_SR1 Sport and Recreation Playing Pitches (5.3 ha) Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £980,500 £0 LDF_SR2 Sport and Recreation 1 tennis court Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 LDF_SR3 Sport and Recreation 1 bowling green Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £80,000 £0 LDF_SR4 Sport and Recreation 1 Netball Court Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £100,000 £0 LDF_SR5 Sport and Recreation 2 FMGA Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £240,000 £0 LDF_SR6 Sport and Recreation 1 leisure centre (incl. 8- Growth Location Ely 2013 2013 Year £11,521,440 £0 lane swimming pool, 6 court sports hall and 80- 100 fitness stations) LDF_SR7 Sport and Recreation Playing Pitches (5.0 ha) Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £925,000 £0 LDF_SR8 Sport and Recreation 1 tennis court Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 LDF_SR9 Sport and Recreation 1 Bowling Green Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £80,000 £0 LDF_SR10 Sport and Recreation 1 Netball Court Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £100,000 £0 LDF_SR11 Sport and Recreation 1 FMGA Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £120,000 £0 LDF_SR12 Sport and Recreation Playing Pitches (3.7 ha) Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £684,500 £0 LDF_SR13 Sport and Recreation 1 tennis court Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 LDF_SR14 Sport and Recreation 1 FMGA Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £120,000 £0 Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £15,401,440 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £15,401,440
Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 117
Table 10-7: Sports and Recreation Costs and Phasing (Medium Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Area Growth Completion Trigger / Total Costs Total Funding Category Location Date End Date Funding Source
MED_SR1 Sport and Recreation Playing Pitches (5.6 ha) Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £1,036,000 £0 MED_SR2 Sport and Recreation 1 tennis court Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 MED_SR3 Sport and Recreation 1 bowling green Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0£80,000 £0 MED_SR4 Sport and Recreation 1 Netball Court Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £100,000 £0 MED_SR5 Sport and Recreation 2 FMGA Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £240,000 £0 MED_SR6 Sport and Recreation 1 leisure centre (incl. 8-lane Growth Location Ely 2013 2013 Year £11,521,440 £0 swimming pool, 6 court sports hall and 80-100 fitness stations) MED_SR7 Sport and Recreation Playing Pitches (5.3 ha) Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £980,500 £0 MED_SR8 Sport and Recreation 1 tennis court Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 MED_SR9 Sport and Recreation 1 Bowling Green Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £80,000 £0 MED_SR10 Sport and Recreation 1 Netball Court Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £100,000 £0 MED_SR11 Sport and Recreation 2 FMGA Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £240,000 £0 MED_SR12 Sport and Recreation Playing Pitches (4.0 ha) Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £740,000 £0 MED_SR13 Sport and Recreation 1 tennis court Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 MED_SR14 Sport and Recreation 1 FMGA Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £80,000 £0 Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £15,647,940 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £15,647,940
Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 118
Table 10-8: Sports and Recreation Costs and Phasing (Higher Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Area Growth Completion Trigger / Total Costs Total Funding Category Location Date End Date Funding Source
HIGH_SR1 Sport and Recreation Playing Pitches (9.3 ha) Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £1,720,500 £0 HIGH_SR2 Sport and Recreation 2 tennis court Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £300,000 £0 HIGH_SR3 Sport and Recreation 1 bowling green Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £80,000 £0 HIGH_SR4 Sport and Recreation 1 Netball Court Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0£100,000 £0 HIGH_SR5 Sport and Recreation 3 FMGA Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £360,000 £0 HIGH_SR6 Sport and Recreation 1 leisure centre (incl. 8- Growth Location Ely 2013 201 Year £11,521,440 £0 lane swimming pool, 6 3 court sports hall and 80- 100 fitness stations) HIGH_SR7 Sport and Recreation Playing Pitches (7.3 ha) Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £1,350,500 £0 HIGH_SR8 Sport and Recreation 2 tennis courts Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £300,000 £0 HIGH_SR10 Sport and Recreation 1 Bowling Green Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £80,000 £0 HIGH_SR11 Sport and Recreation 1 Netball Court Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £100,000 £0 HIGH_SR11 Sport and Recreation 2 FMGA Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £240,000 £0 HIGH_SR12 Sport and Recreation Playing Pitches (4.8 ha) Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £888,000 £0 HIGH_SR13 Sport and Recreation 1 tennis court Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 HIGH_SR13 Sport and Recreation 1 Bowling Green Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £80,000 £0 HIGH_SR11 Sport and Recreation 1 Netball Court Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £100,000 £0 HIGH_SR14 Sport and Recreation 1 FMGA Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £120,000 £0 Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £17,490,440 Total Assumed Funding £0 Total Assumed Funding Gap £17,490,440
Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 119
11. Social Infrastructure: Open Space, and Green Infrastructure
POLICY REVIEW National Policy Guidance
The importance of open space is recognised by national government. In addition to creating desirable places to live, the appropriate provision of open space supports a broad range of policy objectives. Like sports facilities, the Rural White Paper Our Countryside: the Future – A Fair Deal for Rural England identifies the role of open space in improving quality of life for local communities.
Through Planning Policy Guidance 17: Sports and Recreation (PPG17; ODPM, 2002) the Government recognises the importance of open space in:
Supporting an urban renaissance: Local networks of high quality and well managed and maintained open spaces, sports and recreational facilities help create urban environments that are attractive, clean and safe. Green spaces in urban areas perform vital functions as areas for nature conservation and biodiversity and by acting as 'green lungs' can assist in meeting objectives to improve air quality Promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion: Well planned and maintained open spaces and good quality sports and recreational facilities can play a major part in improving peoples’ sense of well being in the place they live. As a focal point for community activities, they can bring together members of deprived communities and provide opportunities for social interaction Health and well being: Open spaces, sports and recreational facilities have a vital role to play in promoting healthy living and preventing illness. They aid the social development of children of all ages through play, sporting activities and interaction with others Promoting more sustainable development: By ensuring that open space, sports and recreational facilities (particularly in urban areas) are easily accessible by walking and cycling. More heavily used or intensive sports
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 120
and recreational facilities should be planned for locations well-served by public transport.
Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning defines Green Infrastructure as a network of multi-functional green space, including new and existing space in urban and rural locations, which supports the natural and ecological processes and is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities. It identifies that Core Strategies should be supported by evidence of what green infrastructure is required to support the proposed level of development.
The Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1: Tomorrow’s Climate, Today’s Challenge recognises the contribution of green infrastructure and general open space to urban cooling, sustainable drainage systems, and conserving and enhancing biodiversity.
English Nature proposed their own standards for Accessible Natural Greenspace (ANGSt) in towns and cities, recommending that provision should be made for at least 2ha of accessible natural greenspace per 1,000 people. However, it recognises the different uses and scales appropriate to open space and proposes that the 2ha of accessible natural greenspace should be provided according to the following hierarchy:
no person should live more than 300m from their nearest area of natural greenspace there should be at least one accessible 20ha site within 2km from home there should be one accessible 100ha site within 5km there should be one accessible 500ha site within 10km.
English Nature suggest that this model should be viewed as a point of reference against which to assess the natural greenspace resource and from which local targets for continual improvement can be develop. These requirements are intended to outline a general approach to the use of the model and to present options as to how this might be tailored to suit available resources and the local context.
Nationally it is recognised that greater levels of investment are required in green infrastructure. A recent CABE Space report Grey to Green (2009) identified that ‘green’ expenditure appears to constitute a very small proportion of overall spend at local and national level.
While this chapter provides overall recommendations for informal open space, the manner in which this is delivered will be subject to the sorts of guidelines identified above. Some of the requirement will be required within the developments
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 121
whereas the remainder may be provided at strategic locations elsewhere in the district or associated with improving the accessibility and uses of existing areas of open space.
Local Policy
Within East Cambridgeshire, the Sports Facilities and Play Area Assessment Report (2005) illustrated the current supply and demand analysis for East Cambridgeshire, based on a national model which identified the recommended provision for the current population and identified the district’s play area requirements to 2021.
Discussions with ECDC officers have identified that the standards and requirements set out in the Sports Facilities and Play Area Assessment Report are in need of revision in light of the development that has occurred across East Cambridgeshire since 2005. However, in the absence of more recent information the standards and recommendations set out in that report will form the basis of our approach to identifying play facility requirements.
Further standards for informal open space are set out in the East Cambridgeshire Informal Open Space Assessment, which identifies a minimum standard of 2.5ha per 1000 people for casual play and informal recreation.
Green Infrastructure requirements are assessed at the strategic countywide level and the requirements of the whole county are set out in Cambridgeshire Horizons’ Green Infrastructure Strategy. This strategy lists 6 strategic objectives that underpin the countywide approach to delivering green infrastructure, which are:
connectivity of habitats multi-functionality extended access landscape enhancement biodiversity enhancement landmark projects
The strategy also identifies four tiers of scale which link closely to the standards identified in the English Nature ANGSt model, with the addition of a neighbourhood scale site:
Sub-regional provision: Sites or habitats over 500ha City scale provision: Sites or habitats over 100ha District scale provision: Sites or habitats over 20ha Neighbourhood scale sites = Sites or habitats over 2ha
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 122
The Strategy also identifies a number of key projects that relate to East Cambridgeshire. Within this chapter the relationship between these projects and the growth scenarios is identified.
The Cambridgeshire Horizons Green Infrastructure Strategy Review (March 2010) will also identify potential sites for development, key habitat areas, and highlight how to link Green Infrastructure creation or enhancements with the proposed development of Ely, Soham and Littleport.
Similarly the East Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy Review (available April 2010) will provide additional indications of what open space / GI is needed in the District and at a strategic level and it may be necessary to revise the findings in this report once that information becomes available.
The East Cambridgeshire Adopted Core Strategy 2009 identifies the provision of a Country Park in Ely, plus other improvements in open space provision across the district.
OPEN SPACE Overview of Existing Provision
In relation to Open Space, the Sports Facilities and Play Area Assessment Report (2005) identified that there are deficiencies in play provision across much of the district, however these are most pronounced in the larger settlements (Ely, Soham, Littleport, Burwell, and Sutton).
In Soham the Commons provide informal open space on the edge of the city, however these are currently underutilised and there is the potential to improve these areas so that local residents can make better use of them. In Soham and elsewhere the quality of local provision is an essential consideration when planning additional open space, particularly if improvements to existing provision would provide greater benefit to new and existing residents.
Parish Councils have also been asked to determine the local infrastructure requirements that would be triggered by small levels of housing growth in their areas. Youth provision was one of the main areas identified in deficit, and the provision of formal open space could significantly enhance the youth offer in these areas.
Furthermore, the rural nature of the District could be used as a basis for open space provision with the development of additional Rights of Way, Country Parks and long distance walks leading to destinations being a way of meeting a number of needs simultaneously.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 123
Demand for Open Space
Open space standards were set out in the East Cambridgeshire Informal Open Space Study 2005 and play space standards in the East Cambridgeshire Sports Facilities and Play Areas Assessment 2005.
Table 11-1: Open Space Requirements Open Space Standard Informal open space 2.5ha per 1,000 people Toddler Outdoor Play Space 0.02ha per 1,000 people Junior Outdoor Play Space 0.08ha per 1,000 people Youth Outdoor Play Space 0.1ha per 1,000 people Sports Facilities and Play Areas Assessment 2005
As identified above, discussions with ECDC officers have identified that the standards and requirements set out in the Sports Facilities and Play Area Assessment Report are in need of revision in light of the development that has occurred across East Cambridgeshire since 2005. However, in the absence of more recent information the standards and recommendations set out in that report will form the basis of our approach to identifying sports facility requirements.
These requirements for exceed the 2 ha standard set by English Nature in its ANGSt model.
Informal space would be expected to come forward in a variety of ways, with some informal space being provided as part of and alongside developments and the remainder being provided at strategically accessible locations across the district.
The requirements identified in this chapter are those that are directly linked to housing growth. In areas where local deficiencies are identified, it may also be necessary to increase provision beyond the level set out here.
When delivering these open space requirements, there may be opportunities for linking the provision of playing pitches and open space to encourage the use of both pieces of infrastructure. Such co-location may also be associated with cost savings however opportunities may be constrained by competing priorities, such as the promotion of habitats and bio- diversity associated with informal open space. Such opportunities would require careful consideration on a site by site basis.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 124
LDF Growth Scenario Open Space Demand By applying the standards set out in Table 11-1 to the development specific population set out in Chapter 4 it is possible to project the open space requirements associated with each housing growth scenario.
The requirements associated with the LDF scenario are set out in the table below.
The requirements will be phased alongside development and phasing will depend on the nature of the housing trajectories for each area. However, more detail on phasing is provided in the appendices.
Over the whole district there is a requirement for 39 ha of open space. Over 28 ha are required within the three market towns, and almost 5 ha are required within the key service centres. This represents additional open space however, in the case of Soham, East Cambridgeshire District Council indicate that some of this requirement may be met by improving the access to and quality of Soham Common.
Informal Open Space will form the majority of new GI developments with smaller provision made for juniors, young people, and toddlers. Informal open space may include country parks, city rivers, riverside open spaces, countryside access, rights of way, and nature reserves.
Table 11-2: LDF Scenario Open Space Requirements (Ha) Toddler Junior Youth Informal Outdoor Outdoor Outdoor Total Open Play Play Play Open Space Space Space Space Space
Ely 10.0 0.08 0.32 0.40 10.78
Soham 9.3 0.07 0.30 0.37 10.09
Littleport 6.9 0.05 0.22 0.27 7.41
Bottisham 1.0 0.01 0.03 0.04 1.06
Burwell 1.5 0.01 0.05 0.06 1.66
Haddenham 0.5 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.51
Newmarket Fringe 0.3 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.30
Sutton 1.1 0.01 0.03 0.04 1.14
Countryside 2.4 0.02 0.08 0.10 2.62
Elsewhere (North) 1.8 0.01 0.06 0.07 1.99
Elsewhere (South) 1.2 0.01 0.04 0.05 1.27
District Total 35.9 0.29 1.15 1.44 38.82 Source: AECOM 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 125
Medium and Higher Growth Scenarios Open Space Demand The open space requirements associated with the medium and higher level growth scenarios are provided below.
Reflecting the marginal increase in housing provision in the medium scenario, the requirements are broadly in line with the LDF growth scenario. A total of 46 ha of open space is required across the district by 2025.
Table 11-3: Medium Scenario Open Space Requirements (Ha) Toddler Junior Youth Informal Outdoor Outdoor Outdoor Total Open Play Play Play Open Space Space Space Space Space
Ely 10.5 0.08 0.34 0.42 11.35
Soham 10.0 0.08 0.32 0.40 10.79
Littleport 7.5 0.06 0.24 0.30 8.10
Bottisham 1.1 0.01 0.04 0.05 1.22
Burwell 1.9 0.02 0.06 0.08 2.03
Haddenham 0.6 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.69
Newmarket Fringe 0.3 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.31
Sutton 1.4 0.01 0.05 0.06 1.56
Countryside 5.0 0.04 0.16 0.20 5.38
Elsewhere (North) 3.0 0.02 0.10 0.12 3.22
Elsewhere (South) 1.6 0.01 0.05 0.06 1.74
Total 43.0 0.34 1.37 1.72 46.40 Source: AECOM 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 126
The greater level of development within the market towns under the high scenarios generates a greater demand for open space in these areas and across the whole district almost 60 ha is required under the higher growth scenario.
Table 11-4: Higher Scenario Open Space Requirements (Ha) Toddler Junior Youth Informal Outdoor Outdoor Outdoor Total Open Play Play Play Open Space Space Space Space Space
Ely 17.5 0.14 0.56 0.70 18.91
Soham 13.7 0.11 0.44 0.55 14.82
Littleport 9.1 0.07 0.29 0.36 9.84
Bottisham 1.1 0.01 0.04 0.05 1.22
Burwell 1.9 0.02 0.06 0.08 2.03
Haddenham 0.6 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.69
Newmarket Fringe 0.3 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.31
Sutton 1.4 0.01 0.05 0.06 1.56
Countryside 5.0 0.04 0.16 0.20 5.38
Elsewhere (North) 3.0 0.02 0.10 0.12 3.22
Elsewhere (South) 1.6 0.01 0.05 0.06 1.74
Total 55.3 0.44 1.77 2.21 59.74 Source: AECOM 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 127
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Overview of Existing Provision
The existing and potential provision of Green Infrastructure is identified in the Cambridgeshire Horizons’ Green Infrastructure Strategy (2005). This identifies that while Cambridgeshire does not include any statutorily designated landscapes, (National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), it contains many distinctive landscapes.
The study identifies the Fenlands and Chalklands context for much of the East Cambridgeshire district and the links between green infrastructure and waterways – which is a central consideration for East Cambridgeshire, particularly around Ely.
The Adopted Core Strategy identifies that East Cambridgeshire has an attractive and built environment which adds to the quality of people’s lives and supports a thriving tourism industry. Particular features which contribute to the quality of East Cambridgeshire include a number of internationally important sites for biodiversity and conservation resources, an extensive network of rivers and wetlands, and part of the Cambridge Green belt.
The Core Strategy also identifies that the district contains significant areas of land which is below or just above current sea levels and is at risk of flooding.
Green Infrastructure Requirements
AECOM have worked with worked with East Cambridgeshire to identify the green infrastructure requirements that will be provided alongside the housing growth. The major green infrastructure scheme identified for the district is the Ely Country Park which is relevant to each of the growth scenarios.
The Ely Country Park Development Plan outlined a three-phase approach to the delivery of the County Park, which will seek to meet the strategic objectives of:
- Conservation and biodiversity improvement - Improved circulation and sustainable movement - The provision of facilities to encourage community engagement with the site and use it more frequently.
Phase 1 (July 2009-January 2011) Phase 1 of the project aims to develop the majority of the built infrastructure proposed for the Country Park. This includes the development of a play space, visitor’s centre, car park, new footpaths and cycle routes. Phase 1 will also aim to improve the ecological capacity of the site with additional landscaping to enhance the current nature of the Pocket Park and Ely Common areas of the site.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 128
It is proposed that this new / improved infrastructure be located in areas of least ecological sensitivity and consequently the site is projected to improve the quality of the landscape without causing any negative impacts on the surrounding area’s ecological capacity or social function.
Phase 2 (January 2011-onwards) Phase 2 of the Country Park development aims to develop further the circulation of people throughout the site and within Ely with further enhancements of footpaths and cycleways. In parallel to this, additional habitat creation and active conservation of the sites most sensitive areas will be promoted strongly in Phase 2.
Phase 3 (2012 onwards) Phase 3 outlined a number of aspirational visions for Ely Country Park including new engineering work to link the County Wildlife Site (CWS) on the south of the Great River Ouse to the Country Park and further access improvements to the south of the site.
Ely and a number of other Parishes in East Cambridgeshire suffer from a deficiency of open space (formal and informal) and green infrastructure. The size of the Ely Country Park development will go some way to redressing the open space deficit identified in Ely and other East Cambridgeshire parishes. The provision of a multi-functional location that provides facilities for formal and informal use the site will provide a much-needed location that has the capacity to allow a high number of simultaneous visits.
Although the site will be able to accommodate a high number of users simultaneously it will still only partially meet the ANGSt standards. Most residents within the city will be within a 2 kilometre walk but some residents in the western and northern areas of Ely may not. Therefore although the Country Park will provide a location that meets the accessible 20 ha site within two kilometres for most Ely residents this will not be the case for all.
Ely Country Park is however a strategic project that acknowledges the potential development projected for Ely (especially Ely North). Its size and location have therefore been identified as a way of meeting some of the future open space/green infrastructure needs. However, with an increased population further developments will be needed locally to provide a network of spaces that function on the street of community level. The Country Park adds an infrastructure for the City but should not be seen as a way of meeting all the deficiency targets.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 129
The development of additional open space / green infrastructure therefore needs to assess each location/parishes individually to meet their deficiencies in the first instance. Physical Links and wider lineages between locations, people, and the landscape can subsequently be developed after the immediate needs for facilities and spaces are met at a localised level.
In addition to the County Park, the following projects have been identified as strategically important pieces of green infrastructure, as set out in the Cambridge Sub Region Green Infrastructure Strategy 2006. These are included for reference only, as their requirement extends beyond the East Cambridgeshire boundary and they should be considered as part of the county wide strategic assessment of infrastructure currently being undertaken by Cambridge Horizons.
Cam Valley Project from Cambridge to Ely as part of promoting existing river corridors as focal features for biodiversity and access enhancement and creation
Wicken Fen Vision as part of promoting the extension and creation of traditional fen habitats including wetland, meadow and wet woodland with seasonal flooding
River Cam Crossing at Upware to aid east – west connections from Wicken, to Denny Abbey & west as part of promoting the provision of River bridging points in key parts of the Rights of Way network
River Ouse Enhancements
River Lark Enhancement
Soham-River Lark Green Corridor Development
Extensions to Cycle Route 11
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 130
OPEN SPACE AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE OVERVIEW AND COSTS
Open Space and Green Infrastructure Requirements Table 11-5 sets out an overview of open space and green infrastructure requirements for the three housing growth scenarios. The green infrastructure requirements are consistent under the three scenarios, however the total provision of open space is directly linked to the total number of dwellings.
Table 11-5 Overview of open space Requirements LDF Medium High
Open Space 35.9 ha Informal Open 43.0 ha Informal Open 55.3 ha Informal Open Space Space Space
0.3 ha Toddler 0.3 ha Toddler 0.4 ha Toddler Outdoor Outdoor Play Space Outdoor Play Space Play Space
1.2 ha Junior Outdoor 1.4 ha Junior Outdoor 1.8 ha Junior Outdoor Play Space Play Space Play Space
1.4 ha Youth Outdoor 1.7 ha Youth Outdoor 2.2 ha Youth Outdoor Play Space Play Space Play Space
Green Ely Country Park Infrastructure Source: AECOM 2010
Open Space and Green Infrastructure Costs The following tables present the total costs and funding associated with the open space and green infrastructure requirements associated with the three housing growth scenarios.
The total costs range from £8.4 million to £12.4 million across the three scenarios. Under each £850,000 is available from a number of sources to fund the Ely County Park.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 131
Table 11-6: Open Space Costs and Phasing (LDF Scenario)
Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Growth Completion Trigger / End Total Total Funding Source Category Area Locati Date Date Costs Funding on LDF_OS1 Open Space Informal Open Space Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £2,000,000 £0 (10.0 ha) LDF_OS2 Open Space Toddler Outdoor Play Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £65,000 £0 Space (0.1 ha) LDF_OS3 Open Space Junior Outdoor Play Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 Space (0.3 ha) LDF_OS4 Open Space Youth Outdoor Play Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £200,000 £0 Space (0.4 ha) LDF_OS5 Open Space Informal Open Space Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £1,860,000 £0 (9.3 ha) LDF_OS6 Open Space Toddler Outdoor Play Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £65,000 £0 Space (0.1 ha) LDF_OS7 Open Space Junior Outdoor Play Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 Space (0.3 ha) LDF_OS8 Open Space Youth Outdoor Play Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £200,000 £0 Space (0.4 ha) LDF_OS9 Open Space Informal Open Space Growth Location Littlepo 2025 0 0 £1,380,000 £0 (6.9 ha) rt LDF_OS10 Open Space Toddler Outdoor Play Growth Location Littlepo 2025 0 0 £65,000 £0 Space (0.1 ha) rt LDF_OS11 Open Space Junior Outdoor Play Growth Location Littlepo 2025 0 0 £100,000 £0 Space (0.2 ha) rt LDF_OS12 Open Space Youth Outdoor Play Growth Location Littlepo 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 Space (0.3 ha) rt LDF_OS13 Open Space Informal Open Space Non-Market 0 2025 0 0 £1,960,000 £0 (9.8 ha) Town LDF_OS14 Open Space Toddler Outdoor Play Non-Market 0 2025 0 0 £65,000 £0 Space (0.1 ha) Town
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 132
LDF_OS15 Open Space Junior Outdoor Play Non-Market 0 2025 0 0 £250,000 £0 Space (0.3 ha) Town LDF_OS16 Open Space Youth Outdoor Play Non-Market 0 2025 0 0 £200,000 £0 Space (0.4 ha) Town LDF_OS17 Open Space Ely Country Park East 0 2015 2015 Year £850,000 £850,000 Developer contributions Cambridgeshire from existing commitments Growth Area Funding LPSA Pathfinder Play Other Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £9,710,000 Total Assumed Funding £850,000 Total Assumed Funding Gap £8,860,000
Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 133
Table 11-7: Open Space Costs and Phasing (Medium Scenario) Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Growth Completio Trigger / End Total Total Funding Source Category Area Location n Date Date Costs Funding
MED_OS1 Open Space Informal Open Space Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £2,100,000 £0 (10.5 ha) MED_OS2 Open Space Toddler Outdoor Play Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £65,000 £0 Space (0.1 ha) MED_OS3 Open Space Junior Outdoor Play Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 Space (0.3 ha) MED_OS4 Open Space Youth Outdoor Play Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £200,000 £0 Space (0.4 ha) MED_OS5 Open Space Informal Open Space Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £2,000,000 £0 (10.0 ha) MED_OS6 Open Space Toddler Outdoor Play Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £65,000 £0 Space (0.1 ha) MED_OS7 Open Space Junior Outdoor Play Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 Space (0.3 ha) MED_OS8 Open Space Youth Outdoor Play Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £200,000 £0 Space (0.4 ha) MED_OS9 Open Space Informal Open Space Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £1,500,000 £0 (7.5 ha) MED_OS10 Open Space Toddler Outdoor Play Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £65,000 £0 Space (0.1 ha) MED_OS11 Open Space Junior Outdoor Play Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £100,000 £0 Space (0.2 ha) MED_OS12 Open Space Youth Outdoor Play Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 Space (0.3 ha) MED_OS13 Open Space Informal Open Space Non-Market 0 2025 0 0 £2,980,000 £0 (14.9 ha) Town MED_OS14 Open Space Toddler Outdoor Play Non-Market 0 2025 0 0 £65,000 £0 Space (0.1 ha) Town MED_OS15 Open Space Junior Outdoor Play Non-Market 0 2025 0 0 £250,000 £0 Space (0.5 ha) Town
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 134
MED_OS16 Open Space Youth Outdoor Play Non-Market 0 2025 0 0 £300,000 £0 Space (0.6 ha) Town MED_OS17 Open Space Ely Country Park East 0 2015 2015 Year £850,000 £850,000 Developer Cambridgeshire contributions from existing commitments Growth Area Funding LPSA Pathfinder Play Other Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £11,190,000 Total Assumed Funding £850,000 Total Assumed Funding Gap £10,340,000
Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 135
Table 11-8: Open Space Costs and Phasing (Higher Scenario)
Code Infrastructure Name Catchment Growth Completion Trigger / End Total Total Funding Source Category Area Location Date Date Costs Funding
HIGH_OS1 Open Space Informal Open Space Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £3,500,000 £0 (17.5 ha) HIGH_OS2 Open Space Toddler Outdoor Play Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £65,000 £0 Space (0.1 ha) HIGH_OS3 Open Space Junior Outdoor Play Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £300,000 £0 Space (0.6 ha) HIGH_OS4 Open Space Youth Outdoor Play Growth Location Ely 2025 0 0 £350,000 £0 Space (0.7 ha) HIGH_OS5 Open Space Informal Open Space Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £2,740,000 £0 (13.7 ha) HIGH_OS6 Open Space Toddler Outdoor Play Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £65,000 £0 Space (0.1 ha) HIGH_OS7 Open Space Junior Outdoor Play Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £200,000 £0 Space (0.4 ha) HIGH_OS8 Open Space Youth Outdoor Play Growth Location Soham 2025 0 0 £300,000 £0 Space (0.6 ha) HIGH_OS9 Open Space Informal Open Space Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £1,820,000 £0 (9.1 ha) HIGH_OS10 Open Space Toddler Outdoor Play Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £65,000 £0 Space (0.1 ha) HIGH_OS11 Open Space Junior Outdoor Play Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £150,000 £0 Space (0.3 ha) HIGH_OS12 Open Space Youth Outdoor Play Growth Location Littleport 2025 0 0 £200,000 £0 Space (0.4 ha) HIGH_OS13 Open Space Informal Open Space Non-Market 0 2025 0 0 £2,980,000 £0 (14.9 ha) Town HIGH_OS14 Open Space Toddler Outdoor Play Non-Market 0 2025 0 0 £65,000 £0 Space (0.1 ha) Town
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 136
HIGH_OS15 Open Space Junior Outdoor Play Non-Market 0 2025 0 0 £250,000 £0 Space (0.5 ha) Town HIGH_OS16 Open Space Youth Outdoor Play Non-Market 0 2025 0 0 £300,000 £0 Space (0.6 ha) Town HIGH_OS17 Open Space Ely Country Park East 0 2015 2015 Year £850,000 £0 Developer contributions Cambridgeshire from existing commitments Growth Area Funding LPSA Pathfinder Play Other Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £14,200,000 Total Assumed Funding £850,000 Total Assumed Funding Gap £13,350,000
Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald, 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 137
12. Transport Infrastructure
INTRODUCTION
AECOM Transportation are considering the potential transport infrastructure requirements based on the three sets of residential and employment growth projections identified by ECDC.
As identified in Chapter 2 growth is to be focussed on the three main settlements of Ely, Soham and Littleport in line with the district spatial strategy. In line with its status as the principal settlement in East Cambridgeshire with the strongest transport links, the identified residential growth for Ely is approximately equal to the combined level of growth for Soham and Littleport for each scenario.
This study provides a high level review of the key infrastructure requirements given the growth projections for East Cambridgeshire. This has been based upon a review of the policy and strategy documents relevant to the area, discussions with key stakeholders and an appreciation of the major transportation issues facing the district. Detailed modelling work has not been undertaken as part of this study. Modelling work undertaken to inform the Ely Masterplan has however been reviewed and the infrastructural requirements for this city have been considered against the results of the modelling.
While a significant amount of work has been undertaken by the District and County Councils to consider future growth scenarios and impacts on the transport network there is a need to undertake further transportation work to further inform the transport evidence that is currently available and inform consideration of the detailed infrastructure and costs required to cater for growth.
The further impact on the strategic network for the medium and high growth scenarios is not overly significant when compared to the LDF Growth Scenario. Further work is required to identify the infrastructure and services need and their phasing, especially in relation to the different growth scenarios, whilst a need for further infrastructure improvements, not identified at this stage, may become apparent from this work, it is the phasing of the improvements already identified that needs to be considered further in relation to the growth scenarios.
BACKGROUND AND KEY TRANSPORT ISSUES
East Cambridgeshire is predominantly a rural district with three main settlements; Ely, Soham and Littleport. To the south-west of the district boundary lies the City of Cambridge, an important
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 138
centre within the region which exerts a significant influence over East Cambridgeshire. While the number of residents has significantly increased, this has not been matched by employment growth within the district. The lower house prices within East Cambridgeshire, combined with strong strategic transport connections has resulted in significant levels of out- commuting in the district, a trend particularly apparent for new residents within Ely.
Following a review of the main policy and strategy documents and discussions with stakeholders, a range of broad transport issues have been identified. The majority of these are current issues, however it is also believed that if not addressed, these will present significant barriers to delivering the projected levels of development for the region. These main issues are listed below. While they are categorised based upon the mode of transport for which they directly refer, a number of the issues are related across the modes.
Highways
The operation of the A142 between Angel Drove and Stuntney Causeway Congestion on the A10 corridor between Ely and Cambridge The operation of the A14 junctions with the A10, the A142 and the B1047 Junction capacity within the main settlements
Rail Concerns relating to the capacity of existing passenger services Future impact on the level crossing of additional use of the rail line through Ely by freight The need to redevelop the rail station to provide an attractive multi-modal interchange facility
Bus Services A lack of buses serving rural areas A need for additional services along key corridors Poor connectivity within urban areas to key destinations, particularly Ely rail station Lack of bus priority and park and ride sites to encourage use of the bus on a congested highway network
Walking & Cycling A general lack of quality facilities Poor connectivity to key destinations
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 139
Increasing severance of the highway network as a result of increased traffic flows.
These issues are generally reflective of the key transport characteristics of East Cambridgeshire, with the rural nature of the district combined with the relative lack of local employment opportunities resulting in high levels of commuter trips, particularly by car, putting pressure on the strategic transport networks. There are also concerns relating to the coverage and quality of the public transport, walking and cycling networks, which also contribute to the high car use.
A number of potential infrastructure improvements have been identified to address these issues and provide a foundation for the future growth for the region. A common theme throughout these issues is the high level of vehicle trips and the lack of suitable alternatives. The spatial strategy acknowledges that there is a need for balanced, sustainable development within the district. This requires development to be appropriately located, with a mix of uses, and strong sustainable transport links between the growth areas and to other key destinations.
There will also be a need to encourage more sustainable transport options, both as part of a strategy to reduce the environmental impact of travel and the costs associated with congested highway networks. This may include improving the general connectivity within and between settlements and rural areas through improved interchange facilities, bus services and new cycling and walking routes, demand management techniques to control car use such as car parking strategies, or county wide schemes, such as area wide travel plans, encouraging car sharing or implementing improved passenger information systems.
The transport trends for the area reflect unbalanced growth and in order to deliver the levels of development that have been identified for the district there will need to be significant mode shift to prevent further worsening of the operation of the highway network.
The location, design and infrastructure associated with new development would be expected to reduce the need to travel and encourage walking, cycling and public transport over individual private car use. As part of this approach, new developments would generally be expected to have a relevant travel plan which may include a package of measures such as new cycling facilities, car clubs, car sharing and shuttle buses, while there would also be expected to be a degree of parking constraint based upon Cambridgeshire’s maximum standards.
IDENTIFIED TRANSPORT IMPROVEMENTS
The Adopted Core Strategy includes a preliminary list of transport measures that have been identified by Cambridgeshire
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 140
County Council as potentially required to support future growth in East Cambridgeshire. This list has been used, in combination with other schemes identified in the draft Ely Masterplan, Ely Market Town Transport Strategy and during discussions with stakeholders, as the basis for this study’s review of the required transport infrastructure. The full, detailed list is contained on the attached spreadsheet.
Both the draft masterplan and the transport strategy set out the potential phasing of infrastructure projects. Following discussions with Cambridgeshire CC, it is understood that the programme / phasing identified within the transport strategy is no longer correct and delivery of these projects is subject to funding constraints. The draft masterplan, which identifies whether projects will need to be delivered in the short, medium or longer term, has been developed with reference to the transport strategy and following stakeholder consultation. The requirement and delivery of the schemes in the draft masterplan are also informed by strategic transport modelling undertaken in 2009 on behalf of the county council. As identified later in this study, the growth assumptions that were considered as part of that work do not directly correlate to those outlined for this study. Given this, there is a very limited evidence base to provide an accurate and detailed schedule of the transport infrastructure required to deliver the alternative growth scenarios and further assessment will be required to confirm the broad transport assessments that have been made as part of this study, based upon the analysis in the following section.
REVIEW OF REQUIRED TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
One of the major transport issues identified in Ely is the operation of the A142 between Angel Drove and Stuntney Causeway. Ely railway station is located in this area and the A142 currently passes underneath the railway line via a low bridge with over height vehicles using a level crossing to the east. Given the high number of over height vehicles that use this road, the A142 severs the station and surrounding area from the rest of the city, while overheight vehicles queuing back from the level crossing can block through traffic. There is also an issue with vehicles striking the railway bridge in attempting to avoid the level crossing, which leads to further delays on both the A142 and on the railway.
Currently the level crossing is closed for around 29 minutes in every hour. This closure would be expected to be extended given an increase in the number and length of passenger trains and the level of freight that uses this rail line travelling between Harwich and Nuneaton, the result of a desire to reroute freight away from London and to increase the amount of freight taken by rail. Whilst modelling undertaken for the Ely Draft Masterplan assumed that this could result in the level crossing being closed to traffic for 30 minutes per hour, with a sensitivity test assuming
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 141
that this could go up to 50 minutes per hour, it is understood that this has yet to be confirmed by the rail companies. It has also not been established how this closure would change depending on the time of day.
The sensitivity test, based upon an assumed closure of 50 minutes during the peak hours, indicated that the increased crossing closure would either significantly increase queuing and journey times in this area, or lead to re-routeing of vehicles to avoid this section of road. This would be expected to result in additional pressure being put on the A1123, which also has an at-grade crossing of the railway, to the south of Ely and its junctions with the A142 and the A10.
The potential impact of the crossing has been identified as an issue regardless of the projected growth for the region with the first stage of the Ely modelling work concluding that the AM peak pressure associated with the level crossing is not strongly driven by development pressure.
It should be noted however that the modelling that was undertaken was based on a different set of growth assumptions to those relevant to this study. A comparison of the trip generation associated with the growth projections used for this study and those used in the modelling indicates that the modelled base level of traffic growth, to 2031, is significantly greater than all bar this study’s high growth scenario in the AM peak and greater than all this study’s growth scenarios in the PM peak. In addition, the modelling carried out has only looked at a development year of 2031, with no reference to the phasing of growth up to this point. This is the case both for the assessment of the different development options considered for Ely within the modelling and for the crossing sensitivity test. It has therefore not been possible to use this modelling to confirm the requirement or phasing of the transport infrastructure.
A scheme has previously been identified to provide a link road between the A10 and A142 to the south of the station to relieve some of the pressure around the railway station. The Ely Southern Bypass was identified in the 2006-2011 LTP as one of three major priority schemes with a bid to be submitted to Government for funding. An original bid submitted in 2004 was not approved and whilst a subsequent bid was considered to have met the Government’s requirements, other schemes in the East of England were identified as more pressing priorities. The Ely Market Town Transport Strategy notes that while the County Council remains committed to the scheme, it is not deliverable through the strategy nor is it considered to be a significant enough priority at the moment to qualify for RFA money.
The Ely modelling study identified that the link road would provide an attractive alternative route to the level crossing route on the A142 and would reduce pressure on junctions within
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 142
heart of Ely. It would also reduce the level of traffic using the A10 to the west of the city. While the growth assumptions within the Ely modelling work are significantly different to the projections being used for this study, it would still be anticipated that these would be subject to additional traffic flows linked to the growth projections for the area, particularly for the A10 given the potential for large scale residential growth to the north of Ely and employment growth on Lancaster Road Business Estate to the south west. There would also be growth associated on the A142 generated by development at the Angel Drove Industrial Estate. There may however be a need to improve the A10 junction and also to consider whether improvements to Queen Adelaide Way are required.
The junctions between the A10 and A14 at Angel Drove and Witchford Road have both been identified as requiring future improvements, in part driven by the future development of the Lancaster Way Business Park and residential expansion to the north of Ely. While it is considered that these junctions are both likely to come under additional pressure as a result of the growth aspirations to 2025, the extent and phasing of any improvements will need to be analysed in the context of additional modelling work based upon this study’s growth assumptions and other potential infrastructural improvements. Similarly, the Ely modelling work identified the potential benefits of dualling the A10 between these two roundabouts, based upon testing of the worst case growth scenario. Additional modelling would therefore need to consider the benefits of the different schemes and the need for improvement measures at other junctions on the A142 and A10 within the city.
The need to relieve the pressure on the A142 and improve the connectivity to the station is considered critical to helping to deliver future development in the area and encouraging more sustainable forms of travel. There is however concern as to whether a new link road could be delivered. Such a project would be expensive given the requirement to cross both the River Ouse and the railway. There are also issues relating to its funding, with it not considered a significant enough priority to qualify for the RFA. Discussions with Network Rail and operator companies have indicated that, while transport issues in the area are linked to the use of the level crossing, they do not believe that a link road should be funded by the rail companies / authority. In considering the most recent bid for funding, it was suggested that alternative ways of relieving the issues of the A142 are investigated.
While the LTP refers to the provision of the southern bypass, the core strategy talks about the provision of major improvements to the A142. The results of the sensitivity testing conducted as part of the Ely Masterplan Modelling indicate that a solution will be needed to this issue in the long term regardless of the level of development given the increase in the amount of time the
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 143
level crossing may be closed. This suggests a scheme is essential to the future development of the district, however, the form of any improvements to the A142 requires further analysis.
Three further junctions along the A142 have been identified for improvement; the Fen Common junction to the east of Soham, the Barway junction between Ely and Soham and the Witcham Toll junction to the east of Sutton. Given the concentration of growth in Ely and Soham and the proposed level of employment growth in Sutton, traffic flows at each of these junctions are anticipated to increase over the LDF period. Further assessment will be required to confirm the extent and phasing of the improvements, potentially as part of transport assessment in support of applications for individual developments.
In the event that it is decided to take the southern link road forward or an alternative highways scheme is identified, further work will need to be carried out to confirm the required phasing of the new road. While the existing Ely Saturn Model may provide a suitable base for this analysis, it would need to be updated to reflect the different growth scenarios associated with this study. There would be a requirement to consider the operation at least in 2016 and 2026, although intermediate runs for 2011 and 2021 may provide a more accurate basis for assessment. This will also need to how the growth in freight and passenger rail movements will affect the level crossing over this time period or whether a permanent closure of the crossing is the optimal approach.
The Ely modelling work also identified a number of highways schemes to the north of Ely, as part of a potential future link road between the A10 and Prickwillow Road. New highways infrastructure will be required for access in the event that significant residential growth occurs in this area and the scale and phasing of this infrastructure will be linked to the delivery of the growth in this area.
While the schemes identified above focus on increases in highway capacity within East Cambridgeshire, there is a requirement for additional investment in sustainable transport links in order to minimise the impact of and maximise the potential for growth. “Smarter Choices” will also manage travel demand. Smarter choices are techniques for influencing people's travel behaviour towards more sustainable options such as encouraging school, workplace and individualised travel planning. They also seek to improve public transport and marketing services such as travel awareness campaigns, setting up websites for car share schemes, supporting car clubs and encouraging teleworking. Green travel planning should be provided as part of any new development.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 144
The Highways Agency has identified concerns relating to the current operation of Junctions 32, 33 and 37 of the A14, with the B1047, A10 and A142 respectively, which are all understood to be operating at capacity. Recent development around these junctions has been required to show a “nil-detriment” impact on the junctions while the HA have expressed concern as to the potential increases in traffic at these junctions as a result of the growth projections for the district.
While the Highways Agency is about to embark on a significant improvements programme for the A14 in this area, including the widening of the A14 to at least three lanes in each direction between Fen Ditton and Fen Drayton, there are currently no proposals for improving the operation of these junctions. It is understood that notable increases in the capacity of the junction are unlikely to be achieved without significant changes to their geometry and layout. Given this, while improvements to these junctions may be desirable, there is an increased onus on achieving considerable modal shift for current transport movements and new development which promotes highly sustainable transport behaviour
The key highway routes from the district into Cambridge are already understood to be operating either close to or at capacity, with significant queuing on the A10 and the B1049 southbound in the morning peak. This has implications not only for car trips into Cambridge but also the use of bus services that use the A10 between Ely and Cambridge. Improvements to this may include the provision of bus priority along the A10 or the provision of a park and ride site near Ely. There is not currently enough evidence to confirm the requirement for either of these schemes and further assessment would be required to identify their potential feasibility and impact. The impact of either of these schemes will need to be better understood in order to confirm whether there is the potential requirement for further capacity improvements on the A10 between Ely and Cambridge.
The railway station at Ely has also been identified as a major focal point for potential improvement. Given the levels of out- commuting from the district and congestion on the strategic highway network, the increased use of the railway would therefore be considered to be important to provide an alternative to car travel, particularly given the projected increases in residential development in Ely.
However, there is also anticipated to be a need for additional local improvements to encourage use of the station. As identified above, the rail station is severed from the rest of the city by the A142. Bus services to the station have previously been identified as poor while the cycling network within Ely requires significant improvement to connect the station to the other areas of the city. This is a particular issue for any residential expansion to the north of Ely, on the opposite side of
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 145
the city to the rail station. The provision of additional bus services and the completion of the Ely cycling network to connect the new growth areas would be expected to contribute to encouraging more sustainable travel behaviour.
A lack of parking spaces at the station has also been identified although previous proposals to increase this have been rejected. An increase in parking may make the station a more viable park and ride point and the LTP notes that a study is needed to investigate better facilities for modal interchanges. The potential for delivering a better interchange facility and public realm improvements are likely to be affected by the proposals for the A142 around the station, particularly its impact on local traffic flows, as well as the potential redevelopment of the neighbouring supermarket.
The development of a station travel plan has also been identified as a potential way forward. This would be linked to improved interchange facilities, including identifying the feasibility of providing a quality bus corridor around the city to connect the station or a dedicated shuttle bus service with operation linked to train services, and the provision of better transport information.
The core strategy identifies that land should be protected for the future re-provision of a railway station in Soham. Proposals are at a very preliminary stage and there has yet to be confirmation that analysis will be undertaken to investigate the feasibility of providing this station. It is understood that there are significant issues that would need to be addressed in order to deliver the station, including its potential location on a section of single track and the inability to provide direct services to Cambridge.
In response to significant peak hour capacity issues over the previous few years, some services which have previously started / terminated at Cambridge have been extended to Ely. It is understood that this could continue if demand required. Services on West Anglia routes between London and Cambridge are to be lengthened from 2011, which, if services are extended to Ely, would contribute to an increase in capacity. The 2007 Route Utilisation Strategy produced by Network Rail also identifies the potential for increasing the frequency of services between Norwich and Cambridge, which stop at Ely. This is however dependent on improvements to the Ely North Junction and has therefore been identified as a potential improvement for the period 2014 - 2019.
Rail may be more attractive / convenient in the event following the construction of the proposed rail station at Chesterton in Cambridge. Identified as part of the county’s bid for funding from the Transport Innovation Fund, the station would provide access to the Science Park and key employment sites in the north east of Cambridge from the Cambridge to Ely rail line. It
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 146
will also provide an interchange facility with the Cambridge Guided Busway, which will operate between Trumpington in the South of Cambridge and Huntingdon to the north-west of the county. While the station would not be located within East Cambridgeshire, it has the potential to impact on the travel patterns within the district, and this impact would need to be considered in more detailed assessments.
The current level of bus services within the district is generally perceived as poor. While there are some frequent services operating between Cambridge and Ely, there is a lack of routes which serve the rural areas in East Cambridgeshire outside of market day. Patronage is noted to be low, with poor connectivity between key destinations. Additional public bus services have been identified as a potential solution for each of the main settlements; demand responsive public transport services would improve connectivity in rural areas. Real time public transport information on bus routes 9, 9a and X9, as well as bus stop infrastructure improvements and low floor busses have been identified to increase the attractiveness of bus use across the rural areas.
The provision of development specific shuttle bus services, secured through individual travel plans, may also be of benefit. It will be important that these are delivered as early as possible within the phasing of developments, to ensure provision is in place when developments are on-line and to provide a sustainable transport choice before people’s travel patterns become established. Development specific bus services should not, however be considered as an alternative to an integrated Ely Town Service.
The Ely modelling study investigated the potential impact of providing a bus only route along New Barnes Avenue with a bus gate on Brays Lane. This closure to through traffic, while providing a beneficial effect to bus services between Ely rail station / town centre to the north of the city and Littleport, would also lead to the rerouting of normal vehicular traffic and need to be assessed as part of any revised modelling.
There will be a similar requirement for cycling and pedestrian links. New routes to provide a comprehensive cycling network within Ely are identified within the Ely Market Town Transport Strategy. This includes the provision of a new cycle bridge over the A10 to the south west of Ely in order to connect the city to the expanding Lancaster Way Business Park. A scheme to pedestrianise the town centre was also identified. The core strategy acknowledges that improved cycle and pedestrian links are also required within Soham and Littleport and a series of cycle and footway improvements are identified for the rest of the district. This includes the Connect2 project to provide a 12 mile Green Route between Cambridge and Wicken Fen. This is intended to provide an almost traffic free route, potentially to be
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 147
completed in 2010, that would fill the gap in the NCN Route 11 and provide a faster, more sustainable route between Ely and Cambridge, while also connecting a number of villages along the route.
A car park management strategy has also been proposed for Ely. While this would not be expected to reduce the number of spaces within the town centre, it would look at the concentration of car parking space around the new pedestrianised areas with a better allocation of space.
A further review of on and offsite car parking is taking place, a reduction in car parking spaces in the city centre would be a constraint on traffic and could help the greater pedestrianisation of the city centre
These measures may provide potential and significant benefits in terms of encouraging mode shift and sustainable travel behaviour. These have not been quantified for this study, however a realistic allowance for the impact of such schemes on mode shift should however be considered in any future modelling work.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 148
Infrastructure Need/Requirement Identification Notes 1. Highways Highways Improvements associated with the expansion of Ely to the Ely Modelling Report (See No 1 - Delivered as part of the development of the Northern north including: Figure 3.2) Expansion Area - will require additional assessment as part Fourth arm at the B1382 Ely Road / Prickwillow Road / Kings of updated Ely Saturn Model Avenue roundabout New Access Road from B1382 Ely Road / Prickwillow Road / Modelling assumes 1,000 dwelling capacity at present Kings Avenue roundabout to the A10 North New signalised junction between New A10 Access Road and Lynn Road New Access Road leading to Cam Drive with a new roundabout on the A10 Improvements to the A142 between Angel Drove and Stuntney Ely Modelling Report (See No 2) + Improvements to the A142 are seen as vital given additional Causeway (Possible Southern Link Road Scheme) Policy & Strategy Documentation traffic growth and potential increases in the closure of the level crossing given increased rail freight, and to deliver improvements to the railway station. There are serious concerns about the feasibility of this scheme at this time because of a lack of funding. Alternative options need to be investigated.
The requirements for this project is not due to growth, however a scheme to relieve the area around the crossing will be required to facilitate growth. The project is included in the schedules, but the cost of £30,000,000 has been excluded as it is not appropriate to raise funding through developer contributions). Dualling of the A10 between A142 Witchford Road and A142 Angel Ely Modelling Report (See No 3 - Identified to relieve traffic pressure associated with the Drove Figure 3.2) development of Lancaster Way. Will require additional assessment as part of updated Ely Saturn Model Improvements to Queen Adelaide Way, with junction improvements Ely Modelling Report (See No 3 - To relieve pressure associated with the growth around the with the A142 and a new link with Prickwillow Road Figure 3.2) north-east of the city. Will require additional assessment as part of updated Ely Saturn Model
Modelling assumes 1,000 dwelling capacity at present
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 149
Infrastructure Need/Requirement Identification Notes Junction improvements along the A10 in Ely Core Strategy Will require additional assessment as part of updated Ely Saturn Model Improvements to the A142 East Fen Common Junction Core Strategy Subject to additional individual assessment Improvements to the Witcham Toll Junction Core Strategy Subject to additional individual assessment Improvements to the A142 Barway Junction Core Strategy Subject to additional individual assessment Improvements to the A142 James Black Junction Core Strategy Will require additional assessment as part of updated Ely Saturn Model Capacity Improvements to A10 between Ely and Cambridge Ely Masterplan Requires further assessment and will be subject to impact of public transport improvements on this corridor.
Addition of an extra lane on the A14 between Fen Ditton and Fen www.highways.gov.uk Committed Highways Agency Scheme Drayton This scheme is fully funded but could be a block on growth prior to implementation. It is noted that the higher growth projections are identified to accelerate after implementation of this scheme. Improvements to the A14 / A10 Junction (Milton Interchange) Discussions with HA Identified by the HA as a serious concern. Significant capacity improvements are unlikely. East Cambridgeshire development to be sustainable to minimise impact at junction
This scheme is not wholly down to ECDC growth, however HA may have concerns over further impact from development especially in the higher growth projections. Scheme costs of £5,000,000 discounted by 50% in infrastructure cost calculations to reflect this. Improvements to the A14 / A142 Junction (Exton Interchange) Discussions with HA Identified by the HA as a serious concern. Significant capacity improvements are unlikely. East Cambridgeshire development to be sustainable to minimise impact at junction
This scheme is not wholly down to ECDC growth, however
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 150
Infrastructure Need/Requirement Identification Notes HA may have concerns over further impact from development especially in the higher growth projections. Scheme costs of £5,000,000 discounted by 50% in infrastructure cost calculations to reflect this.
Improvements to the A14 / B1049 (Histon Interchange) Discussions with HA Identified by the HA as a serious concern. Significant capacity improvements are unlikely. East Cambridgeshire development to be sustainable to minimise impact at junction
This scheme is not wholly down to ECDC growth, however HA may have concerns over further impact from development especially in the higher growth projections. Scheme costs of £5,000,000 discounted by 50% in infrastructure cost calculations to reflect this. 2. Railways
New Chesterton Railway Station http://www.cambridge- Included as part of bid for TIF funding. Second stage for news.co.uk/cn_news_home/Display remaining funding for £500m transport improvements in
Article.asp?ID=452586 2010 Enhanced Passenger Rail Services with improvements to London to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/44 Network Rail West Anglia Route Plan. While these apply
Cambridge Services 51.aspx directly to services between London and Cambridge, they may be extended to begin / end at Ely. Increase in frequency on Norwich to Cambridge services to half hourly http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse Greater Anglia RUS 2007 established that this would not (currently hourly) %20documents/rus%20documents/ offer value for money until the completion of work at Ely route%20utilisation%20strategies/gr North Junction - currently scheduled for the 2014 - 2019 eater%20anglia/great%20anglia%20 period. rus.pdf Increased car parking and improved interchange facility at Ely Rail Discussions with Rail Companies Current issues with connectivity of station. In conjunction Station with possible Tesco development and improved PT interchange but tied to A142 improvements scheme New Station at Soham Discussions with Rail Companies At a very preliminary stage. Concerns relating to feasibility of such scheme and feasibility work yet to be carried out
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 151
Infrastructure Need/Requirement Identification Notes 3. Road-Based Public Transport Bus enhancement measures in Ely town centre including the closure of Ely Modelling Report (See No 3 - In connection with new shuttle bus service between New Barnes Avenue to through traffic to provide less congested bus Figure 3.2) Littleport and Ely Rail Station / Tesco route, bus gate on Brays Lane and signal control at the junction of Kings Avenue / Lynn Road Improvements to bus interchange facilities, particularly Ely City Centre, Core Strategy / Ely Market Town Ely Railway Station, Soham Town Centre Transport Strategy Provision of real-time bus information and improvements to bus Core Strategy / Ely Market Town Ely Market Town Transport Strategy indicates a cost of infrastructure - including new shelters, low floor build ups, better Transport Strategy circa £100 - £150K to upgrade the bus stops on the 9, 9A signage, information and marketing and X9 routes between Ely and Littleport Introduction of bus priority measures on the A10 - to encourage mode- Core Strategy / Draft Ely Masterplan shift on key Ely to Cambridge corridor Demand responsive transport schemes within rural areas to facilitate Core Strategy / LTP access to urban areas - e.g. Dial a ride Enhancement of existing bus frequencies and support for additional Core Strategy services within all main settlements, including new services between Littleport and Ely and serving Ely rail station New Park & Ride Site off the A10 near Ely Ely Masterplan Transport and Will require assessment as part of any future work looking Access Statement / LTP at capacity on the A10 corridor.
Not wholly attributable to development, so infrastructure costs discounted by 50% in cost calculations. 4. Walking and Cycling Pedestrian area streetscape enhancements in Ely and Soham centre Draft Ely Masterplan New cycle bridge over the A10 with upgraded bridle link to Lancaster Ely Modelling Report (See No 3 - Way Figure 3.2) Provision of additional cycle routes within Ely to improve connectivity, Draft Ely Masterplan / Ely Market particularly to the centre and railway station Town Transport Strategy A10 Stretham to Little Thetford Core Strategy
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 152
Infrastructure Need/Requirement Identification Notes A142 Sutton to Witchford Core Strategy B1102 Lode to Stow-cum-Quy Core Strategy Burwell Village Network and link to Exning Core Strategy Soham Town Network Core Strategy Water beach to Wicken Fen, including Upware Bridge Core Strategy Connect2 cycle route between Cambridge and Wicken Fen Core Strategy General Improvements to cycling infrastructure in Soham and Littleport Core Strategy 5. Other Schemes Development and Instigation of Workplace and Residential Travel All new development should be supported by a travel plan Plans promoting sustainable modes of transport Station Travel Plan Discussions with Rail Companies Development of Car Parking Strategy for Ely Draft Ely Masterplan Promotion of Camshare LTP
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 153
Infrastructure Catchment Growth Location Completion Total Total Code Category Name Area Primary Secondary Date Trigger / End Date Costs Funding Highways: Ely Transport Improvements: Fourth arm at the B1382 Ely Road / Prickwillow Growth LDF_TR01 Transport Road / Kings Avenue roundabout Location Ely 0 2018 1000 Dwellings £500,000 £0 Highways: Ely Transport Improvements: New Access Road from B1382 Ely Road / Prickwillow Road / Kings Avenue roundabout Growth LDF_TR02 Transport to the A10 North Location Ely 0 2018 1000 Dwellings £1,750,000 £0 Highways: Ely Transport Improvements: New signalised junction between New A10 Access Growth LDF_TR03 Transport Road and Lynn Road Location Ely 0 2018 1000 Dwellings £450,000 £0 Highways: New Access Road leading to Cam Drive with a new Growth LDF_TR04 Transport roundabout on the A10 Location Ely 0 2018 1000 Dwellings £2,000,000 £0 Highways: Improvements to the A142 between Angel Drove and Stuntney Causeway (Possible Growth LDF_TR05 Transport Southern Link Road Scheme) Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £0 £0 Highways: Dualling of the A10 between A142 Witchford Road and Growth LDF_TR06 Transport A142 Angel Drove Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £2,000,000 £0 Highways: Improvements to Queen Adelaide Way, with junction improvements with the A142 and a Growth LDF_TR07 Transport new link with Prickwillow Road Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £3,525,000 £0 Highways: Junction improvements Growth LDF_TR08 Transport along the A10 in Ely Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £1,500,000 £0 Highways: Improvements to the Growth LDF_TR09 Transport A142 East Fen Common Junction Location Soham 0 2020 2020 Year £500,000 £0 Highways: Improvements to the Growth LDF_TR10 Transport Witcham Toll Junction Location Sutton Sutton 2020 2020 Year £500,000 £0 Highways: Improvements to the Growth LDF_TR11 Transport A142 Barway Junction Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £500,000 £0
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 154
Infrastructure Catchment Growth Location Completion Total Total Code Category Name Area Primary Secondary Date Trigger / End Date Costs Funding Highways: Improvements to the Growth LDF_TR12 Transport A142 James Black Junction Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £500,000 £0 Highways: Capacity Improvements to A10 between Ely and Growth £17,375,00 LDF_TR13 Transport Cambridge Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year 0 £0 Highways: Addition of an extra lane on the A14 between Fenn East £1,300,000 £1,300,00 LDF_TR14 Transport Ditton and Fenn Drayton Cambridgeshire 0 0 2020 2020 Year ,000 0,000 Highways: Improvements to the A14 / A10 Junction (Milton East LDF_TR15 Transport Interchange) Cambridgeshire 0 0 2020 2020 Year £2,500,000 £0 Highways: Improvements to the A14 / A142 Junction (Exning East LDF_TR16 Transport Interchange) Cambridgeshire 0 0 2020 2020 Year £3,500,000 £0 Highways: Improvements to the East LDF_TR17 Transport A14 / B1049 (Histon Interchange) Cambridgeshire 0 0 2020 2020 Year £4,000,000 £0 Rail-Based Public Transport: New Growth £20,000,00 £20,000,0 LDF_TR18 Transport Chesterton Railway Station Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year 0 00 Rail-Based Public Transport: Enhanced Passenger Rail Services with improvements to Growth LDF_TR19 Transport London to Cambridge Services Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £0 £0 Rail-Based Public Transport: Increase in frequency on Norwich to Cambridge services to half Growth LDF_TR20 Transport hourly (currently hourly) Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £0 £0 Rail-Based Public Transport: Increased car parking and improved interchange facility at Ely Growth LDF_TR21 Transport Rail Station Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £4,000,000 £0 Rail-Based Public Transport: New Growth £35,000,00 LDF_TR22 Transport Station at Soham Location Soham 0 2020 2020 Year 0 £0 Road Based Public Transport: Bus enhancement measures in Ely town centre: closure of New Growth LDF_TR23 Transport Barnes Avenue to through traffic Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £666,667 £0
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 155
Infrastructure Catchment Growth Location Completion Total Total Code Category Name Area Primary Secondary Date Trigger / End Date Costs Funding Road Based Public Transport: Bus enhancement measures in Ely town centre: bus gate on Brays Growth LDF_TR24 Transport Lane Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £666,667 £0 Road Based Public Transport: Bus enhancement measures in Ely town centre: signal control at the junction of Kings Avenue / Lynn Growth LDF_TR25 Transport Road Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £666,667 £0 Road Based Public Transport: Improvements to bus interchange facilities, particularly Ely City Centre, Ely Railway Station, Growth LDF_TR26 Transport Soham Town Centre Location Ely Soham 2020 2020 Year £1,000,000 £0 Road Based Public Transport: Provision of real-time bus information and improvements to bus infrastructure - including new shelters, low floor build ups, better signage, information and East LDF_TR27 Transport marketing Cambridgeshire 0 0 2020 2020 Year £1,250,000 £0 Road Based Public Transport: Introduction of bus priortiy measures on the A10 - to encourage mode-shift on key Ely Growth LDF_TR28 Transport to Cambridge corridor Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £6,000,000 £0 Road Based Public Transport: Demand responsive transport schemes within rural areas to facilitate access to urban areas - East LDF_TR29 Transport e.g. Dial a ride Cambridgeshire 0 0 2020 2020 Year £4,000,000 £0 Road Based Public Transport: Enhancement of existing bus frequencies and support for additional services within all main settlements, including new Growth LDF_TR30 Transport services between Littleport and Ely Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £0 £0
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 156
Infrastructure Catchment Growth Location Completion Total Total Code Category Name Area Primary Secondary Date Trigger / End Date Costs Funding and serving Ely rail station Road Based Public Transport: New Park & Ride Site off the A10 Growth LDF_TR31 Transport near Ely Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £1,050,000 £0 Walking and Cycling: Pedestrian area streetscape enhancements in Growth LDF_TR32 Transport Ely and Soham centre Location Ely Soham 2020 2020 Year £1,000,000 £0 Walking and Cycling: New cycle bridge over the A10 with upgraded Growth LDF_TR33 Transport bridle link to Lancaster Way Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £500,000 £0 Walking and Cycling: Provision of additional cycle routes within Ely to improve connectivity, particularly to Growth LDF_TR34 Transport the centre and railway station Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £400,000 £0 Walking and Cycling: A10 East LDF_TR35 Transport Stretham to Little Thetford Cambridgeshire 0 0 2020 2020 Year £900,000 £0 Walking and Cycling: A142 Sutton Growth LDF_TR36 Transport to Witchford Location Sutton 0 2020 2020 Year £1,500,000 £0 Walking and Cycling: B1102 Lode East LDF_TR37 Transport to Stow-cum-Quy Cambridgeshire 0 0 2020 2020 Year £900,000 £0 Walking and Cycling: Burwell Growth LDF_TR38 Transport Village Network and link to Exning Location Burwell 0 2020 2020 Year £1,050,000 £0 Walking and Cycling: Soham Town Growth LDF_TR39 Transport Network Location Soham 0 2020 2020 Year £0 £0 Walking and Cycling: Connect2 cycle route between Cambridge East LDF_TR40 Transport and Wicken Fen Cambridgeshire 0 0 2020 2020 Year £5,700,000 £0 Walking and Cycling: General Improvements to cycling infrastructure in Soham and Growth LDF_TR41 Transport Littleport Location Soham 0 2020 2020 Year £0 £0 Demand Management and Travel Planning: Development and Instigation of Workplace and East LDF_TR42 Transport Residential Travel Plans Cambridgeshire 0 0 2020 2020 Year £0 £0 LDF_TR43 Transport Demand Management and Travel Growth Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £0 £0
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 157
Infrastructure Catchment Growth Location Completion Total Total Code Category Name Area Primary Secondary Date Trigger / End Date Costs Funding Planning: Station Travel Plan Location Demand Management and Travel Planning: Development of Car Growth LDF_TR44 Transport Parking Strategy for Ely Location Ely 0 2020 2020 Year £0 £0 Demand Management and Travel East LDF_TR45 Transport Planning: Promotion of Camshare Cambridgeshire 0 0 2020 2020 Year £0 £0 Total Assumed Infrastructure Costs £1,427,350,000 Total Assumed Funding £1,320,000,000 Total Assumed Funding Gap £107,350,000
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 158
13. Utilities
INTRODUCTION
This Utilities Assessment is intended to identify the major services infrastructure requirements to accommodate the latest East Cambridgeshire development proposals. Where possible, the Assessment identifies tipping points in the provision of utilities infrastructure to enable a staged programme of works to be established. It also seeks to gain budget estimates from the Statutory Undertakers for any likely reinforcement works. While it is likely that services diversions will be necessary as a result of the proposed developments, the plans are not sufficiently progressed to allow any likely diversions to be identified. Therefore, costings associated with diversion works are omitted from this report.
UTILITIES SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
AECOM was given the following brief with regard to this Utilities Assessment:
liaise with Statutory Undertakers in the East Cambridgeshire area to establish the likely reinforcement works required to accommodate each of the development proposal options
seek to obtain budget cost estimates from utility companies for reinforcement works for provision of mains services to the proposed development areas. Where possible, the costing should be staged in line with the likely timings of the works.
Methodology
Development Proposals The utilities assessment (including the dialogue with utilities providers) was originally based on the housing trajectories set out in the Key Assumptions Paper (AECOM, August 2009). The Key Assumptions Paper still incorporated three housing growth scenarios, however there were some differences with the trajectories set out in Chapter 2 of this report. Most significantly the level of growth anticipated in the three market towns under the higher growth scenario was revised downwards after completion of the key assumptions paper.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 159
The original scenarios were compiled in liaison with East Cambridgeshire District Council (ECDC) and include figures for housing and employment growth for the period 2008/9 to 2025/26. A summary of these earlier figures which are used in this assessment is provided as Utilities Assessment: Appendix A.
Since the preparation of the “Key Assumptions Paper” in August 2009, the housing trajectories have been further refined, with updated figures being provided in October 2009 and January 2010. Copies of the latest housing trajectories from January 2010 are provided as Utilities Assessment: Appendix B for information. These housing projections also take account of another year of completions.
Based on the high level nature of the responses received from the utility companies, it is considered that the information received to date provides a sufficiently robust estimate of the implications of the proposals on the utility infrastructure. As such, these latest housing trajectories have not been forwarded to the utility companies for additional feedback.
Considering the three Growth Scenarios detailed above, the variation in the figures comes entirely from the growth assumptions in the Market Towns of Ely, Soham and Littleport. The housing and employment figures for the “Key Service Centres” and elsewhere in the district remain the same across all three options.
Based on the growth scenarios provided in Appendix A, the likely utility demand loading was established for each location in the periods 2008-2013, 2014-2018, 2019-2023 and 2024-2026. This is to enable the Statutory Undertakers to identify tipping points in their current infrastructure provision and the timing of any likely reinforcement works. The loading calculations were carried out using a services demand spreadsheet that has been created based on industry standards, current guidance on energy use and also through experience of utility assessments and liaison with the utility companies. The following assumptions were made in establishing the demand loading figures:
an average occupancy of residential dwellings of 2.5 has been used; the total area of each employment development has been split equally between B1, B2 and B8 land uses, except in the case of Ely, for which 38ha has been indentified for B2 use and Bottisham which has been identified for only B1 use; a 20% development density has been used for B1 land use, while 40% has been used for B2/B8;
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 160
It should be noted that the loading calculations are based solely on the housing and employment figures provided in the “Key Assumptions Paper” of August 2009. No details were available at that time regarding any new social buildings, e.g. schools, healthcare facilities, sports facilities and community buildings, which would also create a demand for services. As such, it was not possible to include the likely loading for any such facilities in this study.
Summaries of the loading calculations are provided in Utilities Assessment: Appendix A.
Gas and Electricity Based on the three development proposal options detailed above, new enquiries were sent to the electricity and gas utility companies, EDF Energy and National Grid respectively. Copies of the correspondence are provided in Utilities Assessment: Appendices C and D.
Water and Wastewater Anglian Water Services (AWS) is appointed as the water and sewerage undertaker for the Anglian Region, which covers the East Cambridgeshire District.
A Water Cycle Study (WCS) Scoping Report has been prepared by Entec and was published in September 2009. This report also covers the scoping of a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. The WCS Scoping Report establishes the key principles for the WCS and identifies the key issues that will require further investigation in the subsequent phases of the WCS. Ultimately, the WCS will identify constraints and solutions to meeting the proposed growth, which AWS will take into consideration when deciding on the most appropriate way to serve the new developments in the District.
In addition, Anglian Water has produced a Draft Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP), dated April 2008. The production of such a document is now a statutory process and aims to detail how the Water Authority, in this case Anglian Water, will balance the supply and demand for potable water in their region to 2035.
Contact has also been made with AWS specifically regarding their wastewater infrastructure and in particular the likely outfall wastewater treatment works (WwTW) for each of the growth areas. Copies of correspondence with AWS are provided in Utilities Assessment: Appendix E.
It is important to note that AWS has stated that it is not possible to accurately identify the infrastructure requirements or the phasing of any improvements until the further details are known about specific sites. This information should then be
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 161
incorporated into the WCS which is the key document used by AWS when considering future requirements.
At this stage, the WCS only considers the LDF Growth Scenario, as detailed above. Any higher growth scenarios are not currently being considered. If these are to be included in the next stage of the WCS, this would have to be via an instruction from the WCS Steering Group, of which East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire Horizons are key members.
General Utilities In addition to contacting the utility companies, the proposed development sites were input into the www.linesearch.org website to identify any strategic services infrastructure that could be affected by the developments. This was done site-by-site and the results are given in the following section.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 162
LINESEARCH RESULTS
The website www.linesearch.org is a free enquiry system, operated by Fisher German, which can be used for initial enquiries relating to the apparatus owned and/or operated by its Members. The system now includes around 24,000km of pipeline and fibre optic cable ducts. As only the apparatus of its Members is included it is not a definitive record of services, and does not include distribution apparatus, but it does highlight the presence of the majority of significant services infrastructure throughout Britain.
The system allows the user to centre on a site and search in a specified radius around that point, up to 5km. While this method provides a simple way of identifying potential services issues with developing sites, the use of a centre and radius means that the system often searches outside the red-line boundary of a site and can pick up services that would not be affected by the development. Any apparatus that falls within the “Zone of Interest” should be investigated further when more details are known about the development proposals.
A search was carried out on each of the Market Towns and Key Services Centres. Full details from the www.linesearch.org system are provided in Utilities Assessment: Appendix E but are summarised in Table 13-1below.
Maps showing the routes of the National Grid Transmission apparatus are provided in Utilities Assessment: Appendix F. The enquiries that were carried out for the purposes of this study are valid for only 28 days, but as a number of the sites have significant services within the “Zone of Interest”, it is recommended that further searches are carried out as the proposals are being developed to ensure that any cost implications are considered at an early stage.
It should be noted that even the sites are found to contain some of this significant apparatus, it may be possible to design the layout of the developments around the existing infrastructure, thereby incurring no costs. This is something that should be investigated as the developments are progressed.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 163
Table 13-1: Summary of Linesearch results for Proposed Development Sites Development Location Operator and Apparatus within “Zone of Interest” Ely None
Soham National Grid Electricity Transmission – overhead line Littleport National Grid Electricity Transmission – overhead line Bottisham None
Burwell National Grid Gas – National Transmission System Haddenham None
Newmarket Fringe None
Sutton None
Source: www.linesearch.org,
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 164
ELECTRICITY PROVISION
Introduction
An enquiry letter was forwarded to EDF Energy Networks on 5 October 2009, a copy of which is included in Utilities Assessment: Appendix C. This letter enclosed details of the likely electricity loadings for the latest development proposals. A series of email responses were received from EDF Energy giving details of the likely infrastructure requirements and the timescales. These are also included in Utilities Assessment: Appendix C.
A formal response is expected from EDF Energy giving additional information, but this had not been received at the time of writing this report. It is understood that this will be provided within the 90-day time limit.
Existing Situation in East Cambridgeshire
The electricity network in East Cambridgeshire is currently fed from Grid substations at Burwell and March. Primary substations are then situated throughout the region, notably in Ely, Soham, Littleport, Aldreth, Exning and Newmarket. The locations of these key electricity assets are shown in Figure 2.
It is known that improvements to the electrical infrastructure are already proposed for the East Cambridgeshire district, although details have not been provided by EDF Energy. However, the information that has been supplied regarding the likely reinforcement requirements assumes that this work takes place as planned.
Future Requirements in East Cambridgeshire
EDF Energy has provided an indication of which Primary substations will be affected by each proposed development area. These are shown in Table 13-2.
Table 13-2: Likely Power Supply Sources Development Area Feeder Primary Substation Ely Ely Soham Soham Littleport Littleport Bottisham Fulbourn Burwell Burwell Haddenham Aldreth Newmarket Fringe Exning / Newmarket Sutton Aldreth Source: AECOM 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 165
Based on the three growth options, EDF Energy has made a high level assessment of the substations where reinforcements are likely to be required, when reinforcement should take place and generated cost estimates. The electricity network requirements are similar for all three options.
Ely The proposed development at Ely will require the upgrade of the Ely Primary substation in the period 2014-2018. Prior to that, the existing network should have sufficient capacity. The initial cost estimate for this work is £500,000.
Soham The growth at Soham will necessitate reinforcement at the Soham Primary substation. This would be required before any development takes place in Soham as the existing network does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the demand from the first phase. The estimated cost is £1.35M.
Littleport Littleport Primary substation would require reinforcement in the period 2014-2018 to accommodate the proposed growth. The initial cost estimate for this work is £2.45M.
Bottisham The proposed growth at Bottisham would be fed from the Primary substation at Fulbourn, to the east of Cambridge. At this stage, it is considered that there is sufficient capacity at this Primary to accommodate the additional demand generated by the development at Bottisham.
Burwell The proposed growth at Burwell is close to Burwell Grid substation. It is not thought that any network upgrades would be required to accommodate this development.
Haddenham The proposed development at Haddenham would be fed from the Primary substation at Aldreth. This Primary feeds a number of small villages in the west of the District, including Sutton (below) and would require a new 11kV Board to accommodate the additional demand. This upgrade would be needed in the period 2014-2018 and the cost has been estimated at £1.7M.
Newmarket Fringe The proposed growth to the south-east of Newmarket would be fed from the either Newmarket or Exning Primary substations. For the purposes of this assessment, EDF Energy has assumed that the development would be fed from Exning primary, which would require reinforcement in the period 2014-2018. The initial cost estimate for this work is £2.45M.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 166
Sutton Any growth at Sutton would be fed from Aldreth Primary substation. The combined increase in demand from Sutton and Haddenham would result in need to upgrade Aldreth Primary in the period 2014-2018. The cost estimate for this work is detailed in the section above concerning Haddenham.
It should be noted that the cost estimates provided by EDF Energy come with the following caveats:
all costs are based on today’s prices and result from a very high level assessment; a formal connection enquiry should be made for each development, at which stage a detailed cost estimate would be prepared. This could be significantly different from the cost estimates quoted above; based on the growth data presently available, the assessment indicates that no circuits would require reinforcement. If the detailed development proposals do necessitate circuit reinforcement, the costs could increase significantly; it has been assumed that any planned maintenance and upgrading works will go ahead; the additional demand may trigger the need for upgrading works at the Grid substations, but this has not yet been assessed by EDF Energy; and, it is not possible at this stage to consider the likely sources of funding for the reinforcement works or whether cost apportionment would apply to these developments.
Summary of Electricity Requirements
Table 13-3 summarises the electricity infrastructure requirements for the proposed growth in East Cambridgeshire. These requirements are similar for all three growth options, and at this level of detail, the estimated costs are the same.
Based on the timing information from EDF Energy, the cost profile is shown in Table 13-4.
The information provided by EDF Energy to date has not included information about likely sources of funding for the necessary reinforcement works. The way in which costs are split between the statutory undertaker and developers is based on connection charging policy which is agreed with Ofgem. This is currently being reviewed. EDF Energy’s formal response may include further detail on this which will be added when it becomes available.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 167
Table 13-3: Summary of Electricity Infrastructure Requirements Development Area Feeder Primary Substation Reinforcement required? Cost Estimate Period Ely Ely Yes £500,000 2014 – 2018 Soham Soham Yes £1,350,000 2009 – 2013 Littleport Littleport Yes £2,450,000 2014 – 2018 Bottisham Fulbourn No - - Burwell Burwell No - - Haddenham Aldreth Yes £1,700,000 2014 – 2018 Newmarket Fr Exning Yes £2,450,000 2014 – 2018 Sutton Aldreth Yes See Haddenham See Haddenham Source: AECOM 2010
Table 13-4: Potential Cost Profile for Electricity Infrastructure Development Feeder Primary Cost incurred before period: Total Cost Area Substation 2009-2013 2014-2018 2019-2023 2024-2026
Ely Ely 0 £500,000 0 0 £500,000 Soham Soham £1,350,000 0 0 0 £1,350,000 Littleport Littleport 0 £2,450,000 0 0 £2,450,000 Bottisham Fulbourn 0 0 0 0 - Burwell Burwell 0 0 0 0 - Haddenham & Aldreth 0 £1,700,000 0 0 £1,700,000 Sutton Newmarket Fr Exning 0 £2,450,000 0 0 £2,450,000 TOTAL £1,350,000 £7,100,000 0 0 £8,450,000 Source: AECOM 2010
Funding Options
EDF Energy would not want to commit to any infrastructure costs for potential demand that may not materialise. In addition, they could be faced with the situation where they provide significant up-front infrastructure that could then be used by another supplier. As such, developments would need to have detailed planning permission to provide some surety that the predicted additional demand will become a reality.
Strategic infrastructure improvements are intended to satisfy expected growth within realistic timescales to meet the requirements of the regulator Ofgem. Any additional development beyond this baseline may need to be delayed or scaled down to allow for the necessary reinforcement to be provided.
Reinforcement works associated with standard, developer-led developments would be programmed in following receipt of planning permission. However for larger scale developments, this programme may not be not possible. For example, a new grid connection could take 5-10 years to implement, while a new primary sub-station could take 3-5 years. As planning permission is only valid for a period of 3 years, it would not be possible to carry out these significant infrastructure improvements within the timescales provided. Additionally, as the onus would be on the developer to fund the necessary
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 168
infrastructure, many developers may not be willing to be the first to apply for planning permission.
There are mechanisms that can be used to fund new infrastructure in the absence of a lead developer who was willing to make the first planning application. One option is through a site-specific infrastructure capacity charge, which would need to be specifically agreed with Ofgem for a particular project. In this case, EDF Energy would fund the upfront infrastructure and each subsequent planning application in the area would be subject to a capacity charge, allowing EDF Energy to claw back some of the initial outlay.
A further point to note is that the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) has recently commissioned a “Power Infrastructure Study” which is to look specifically at the electricity infrastructure in the East of England with regard to:
pinch points in the existing infrastructure that could potentially restrict growth in the area; methods of providing the necessary power infrastructure in a cost effective and timely manner; methods of accommodating renewable generation in the existing network; and, potential new or amended methods of funding reinforcement works to the power infrastructure.
It is understood that a draft version of this report has recently been issued, with the final report expected to follow shortly.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 169
GAS PROVISION Introduction
An enquiry letter was forwarded to National Grid’s Land and Development Policy Manager on 6 October 2009. A copy of this correspondence is included as Utilities Assessment: Appendix D.
This letter was followed up with a phone call and email with an existing contact within National Grid. The email responses provide details of National Grid’s position. These are also included in Utilities Assessment: Appendix D.
The responses indicate that the smaller loads, such as those in the Key Service Centres, should be absorbed on a local level and should not present any problems requiring reinforcement.
The demand generated by growth in the Market Towns of Ely, Soham and Littleport will be added to National Grid’s data for future planning. It is anticipated, however, that the customer (e.g. developer) is unlikely to be required to contribute to any higher pressure reinforcement costs. More localised reinforcements to the lower pressure network are likely to be required however, and it is likely that these would attract some developer contributions.
At this time, it is not possible for National Grid to provide any further detail about the likely requirements for the gas infrastructure. The network planning is carried out on a reactive rather than proactive basis due to the heavy regulation of the infrastructure budgets by Ofgem. In order for more detailed gas infrastructure information to be provided, further details should be submitted to National Grid regarding locations of proposed developments and the likely demand.
Funding Options
As with EDF Energy, National Grid Gas is regulated by Ofgem. National Grid is required to put in place strategic improvements to the network that will satisfy expected growth in demand in a realistic timescale. This Asset Management Plan (AMP) is prepared in advance of each period, so the expected growth should be sufficiently committed to allow the additional demand to be included. Any network improvements included in the AMP are funded from the company’s revenue and National Grid commits to a range of improvements over a 5 or 10 year period.
Strategic improvements to the gas network that can be funded in this way cover reinforcement works to High Pressure (HP) and IP mains. This is, however, dependent on the proposals being sufficiently developed within the required timescale. Growth in demand is notoriously difficult to predict, so the
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 170
detailed development proposals for the East Cambridgeshire area should be identified as early as possible to allow them to be taken into account.
In cases where the actual demand from a development exceeds the existing capacity or that predicted for the AMP, the shortfall in provision will be partially funded by the developer. The exact level of developer funding is calculated by offsetting the capital expenditure against the likely long- term revenue to National Grid. It should be noted, however, that the initial feedback from National Grid indicates that this is not likely to be an issue in East Cambridgeshire.
Improvements to other, non-strategic mains cannot be included in the AMP. As such, these improvements are expected to be funded by the developer, albeit at a level offset against potential revenue to National Grid.
At this stage, it is not possible for National Grid to identify diversion works associated with the proposed growth as the development locations are not sufficiently advanced. However, the cost of any diversion works will be borne by the developer, with the works undertaken by National Grid, a UIP or IGT. If the new demand is resulting from a number of different developments, the cost is distributed proportionally to each developer.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 171
POTABLE WATER SUPPLY Introduction
The proposed growth in the East Cambridgeshire area will inevitably result in a significant increase in demand for potable water. This has been considered as part of the Water Cycle Study and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Scoping Report, prepared by Entec, dated October 2009. The Scoping Report is the first stage in the Water Cycle Study (WCS) process and sets out the initial key issues that will be investigated further in the subsequent stages.
This Utilities Assessment draws the relevant data from the Scoping Report with regard to the supply of potable water.
Existing Situation in East Cambridgeshire
AWS is the main supplier of water in the area and, as part of their statutory requirements under the Water Act 2003. They have prepared a Draft Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) which considers how they will balance the supply and demand for potable water in their region to 2035.
The region is subdivided into Water Resource Zones (WRZs) which allows the needs of each local area to be considered in detail. For each WRZ, the water company must produce a plan for a worst case “dry year” scenario and identify solutions where a shortfall in supply has been highlighted.
The East Cambridgeshire area is supplied wholly from the Cambridgeshire and West Suffolk WRZ. The source for this WRZ is a chalk aquifer which was shown in 2006/2007 to have a surplus of 11.63Ml/day.
Within the WRZ, there are nine Planning Zones (PZs). There are existing strategic networks linking the main planning zones of Ely, Newmarket, Bury St Edmunds and Thetford to the sourceworks, but there are currently no links between these PZs. It is noted that the current demand from Ely is amongst the highest in the WRZ.
Future Situation in East Cambridgeshire
It is forecast that there will continue to be a surplus of available headroom against target headroom in this WRZ until the middle of the planning period (approximately 2021). However, by the end of the planning period (2035/6), it is predicted that seven of the nine PZs will have a headroom deficit. Three of these, namely Ely, Cheveley and Newmarket, fall within the East Cambridgeshire area and as a result this could indicate that the existing water supply infrastructure could present a local constraint to growth.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 172
The Environment Agency has assessed that this area is under serious water stress as the demand for water is high compared to the level of annual rainfall. The EA also indicates that increasing water abstraction in some of these areas to meet demand may not be a sustainable option, so water efficiency measures should be put in place to try to reduce demand. It is proposed that local supply / demand balance issues are investigated further as part of the next stage of the WCS.
Based on the information in the Water Cycle Study and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Scoping Report and the Draft WRMP, it is not possible to estimate the necessary infrastructure required to supply the potential development sites with potable water. Further work will be carried out as part of the WCS and by Anglian Water to identify the infrastructure requirements taking into account the proposed water management options for the East Cambridgeshire area.
Funding Options
The WCS document is intended, amongst other things, to provide evidence for the water companies to present to their regulators, the Office for Water Services (Ofwat). This will be used to support their investment plans. If the development proposals are sufficiently developed, there is the potential for many of the necessary improvements to be included in future Asset Management Plans (AMPs). This will be investigated in the next stage of the WCS.
As with electricity infrastructure, the water companies are not able to provide significant infrastructure in advance of any development, as they have a duty to maintain and improve services for their existing customers.
The subsequent stages of the WCS will investigate in further detail the funding and programming options available. This will be carried out in liaison with AWS and the Local Authority. A number of funding sources are possible, including the option of roof tariffs. A system will be developed as part of the next stage of the WCS that divides the costs in a justified and rational method.
It is understood that there is the potential for AWS to obtain developer funding towards some of the strategic network improvements required to provide potable water to these new developments. However, such funding is unlikely for key assets such as treatment works and pumping stations. This will be investigated further as part of the WCS.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 173
FOUL WATER DRAINAGE AND TREATMENT
Introduction
AWS is responsible for foul water drainage and treatment in the East Cambridgeshire area. Contact was made with AWS to obtain information about the existing foul water network and wastewater treatment works (WwTW). Copies of this correspondence are provided as Utilities Assessment: Appendix E.
In addition, the Water Cycle Study and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Scoping Report, prepared by Entec, provides an overview of the wastewater network in East Cambridgeshire.
Existing Wastewater Network
The foul drainage from the proposed development sites would be treated at WwTW operated by AWS. The WwTW in the East Cambridgeshire area that are likely to be affected by the development proposals are listed in Table 7.1 below and shown in Figure 3.
Table 13-5: WwTW in East Cambridgeshire WwTW Receiving Watercourse Ely (New) Ely Ouse Ely (Old) Ely Ouse Soham Soham Lode Littleport Mare Fen Drain Haddenham Aldreth Canal Burwell Burwell Lode Bottisham Confluence Swaffham/Bulbeck Lode Witcham Witcham Catchwater, River Ouse Source: AECOM 2010
In addition to these WwTW, Newmarket WwTW lies outside East Cambridgeshire but receives flows from within the District. The WCS considers the likely effect on water quality from these WwTW as the load is increased through development, and also deals with the impact of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Where the increase in load through the WwTW is likely to exceed the current discharge consent, the Environment Agency (EA) will require an overall standstill to ensure that the quality of the receiving watercourse is not adversely affected.
The existing sewer network in East Cambridgeshire has also been considered as part of the WCS and is to be investigated further as part of the next Phase of the study. It is noted that the capacity of the sewer network is closely linked to the performance of the Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), which allow overspill from the sewer network during periods of heavy rainfall. AWS has already developed sewer network models for some of the growth centres, but there is currently no model for Soham and the model for Ely requires updating. The creation of
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 174
these models is important in determining the infrastructure requirements for the proposed growth.
Potential Wastewater Infrastructure Options
The development proposals were provided to AWS in advance of the release of the WCS to obtain information on the likely drainage of each development area. Copies of the relevant correspondence are provided in Utilities Assessment: Appendix E. AWS’ response, detailed in Table 13-6, gives an overview of the wastewater drainage issues for each potential development area.
Table 13-6: Anglian Water Wastewater Capacity Comments Development Housing Population WwTW Current Load WwTW Capacity Network Area Projection Equivalent at WwTW (PE) Comments Comments Ely 3,598 (LDF) 7,556 (LDF) Ely (Old) 8,840 Capacity for part of No comments 3,791 (Med) 7,961 (Med) proposed development 6,791 (High) 14,261 (High) Ely (New) 10,872 No capacity (flow & sanitary) No comments Soham 2,016 (LDF) 4,234 (LDF) Soham 12,414 No capacity (flow & sanitary) Network issues to 2,209 (Med) 4,639 (Med) south of catchment 3,809 (High) 7,999 (High) Littleport 1,685 (LDF) 3,539 (LDF) Littleport 6,647 No capacity (flow & sanitary) Network issues 1,782 (Med) 3,742 (Med) throughout 2,482 (High) 5,212 (High) catchment Bottisham 265 557 Bottisham 3,468 No capacity (flow consent) Network issues to south of catchment Burwell 489 1,027 Burwell 5,634 No capacity (flow consent) No comments Haddenham 134 281 Haddenham 2,860 No capacity (flow & sanitary) No comments Newmarket Fr 69 145 Newmarket 25,017 Capacity available No comments Sutton 462 970 Witcham 4,039 No capacity (flow consent) General issues
The feedback from AWS indicates that there significant issues at the majority of the WwTW in the East Cambridgeshire area that would need to be resolved before the development proposals could be implemented. In addition, limitations have been highlighted in the existing foul water sewer networks in Soham, Littleport, Bottisham and Sutton.
The WCS states that AWS is intending to negotiate higher discharge consents with the EA for a number of WwTW in the East Cambridgeshire area. It is understood from AWS that several of the WwTW have now had their flow consent reconsented. These are:
Soham; Littleport; Haddenham; Burwell; Botisham; and, Witcham.
However, these amendments to the consented DWF take no account of the proposed growth in the District. They have been
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 175
implemented to reflect the existing flows at the works and take account of water quality. AWS has confirmed that there is no available capacity at these works. Indicative figures for potential consent provided in the WCS do suggest otherwise but it is understood that the WCS was prepared using the data available at the time. Updated consent information will be fed into the next stage of the WCS, due to begin in January 2010.
Funding Options
The WCS document is intended, amongst other things, to provide evidence for AWS to present to their regulators, the Office for Water Services (Ofwat). This will be used to support AWS’ investment plans. If the development proposals are sufficiently developed, there is the potential for many of the necessary improvements to be included in future Asset Management Plans (AMPs). Improvements to and/or the construction of new WwTW must be carried out by AWS as part of the AMP process. It is likely that this will be investigated in the next stage of the WCS. However, AMP5, which covers the period 2010-2015, has now been completed so there is no opportunity to include any additional schemes in this cycle. Any new schemes associated with the proposed growth outlined in this report could potentially be included in AMP6, which will begin in 2015.
As with electricity infrastructure, the water companies are not able to provide significant infrastructure in advance of any development, as they have a duty to maintain and improve services for their existing customers.
As the WCS progresses, it will investigate in further detail the funding and programming options available. This will be carried out in liaison with AWS and the Local Authority. A number of funding sources are possible, including the option of roof tariffs. The AMP cycle could potentially pose problems for the early development of all sites, possibly with the exception of the proposed development at Ely and Newmarket Fringe. Where improvements to the wastewater infrastructure are required in advance of the next AMP period, there is the option for developers to forward fund improvements to bring a specific site forward. This should be investigated at the next stage of the WCS.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 176
SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES Water Consumption
The Code for Sustainable Homes has set the requirement that post-2016, all new dwellings should achieve Code Level 5 or 6. Water consumption forms part of the assessment criteria and at Code Levels 5 and 6, water consumption has been set at 80 litres/person/day, which is just over half of the current UK average of 150 litres/person/day.
If this reduction in mains water demand is to be achieved, a non- potable water supply will need to be incorporated into each household, potentially including wastewater or greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting. As the majority of water used in the home does not need to be drinking water quality, this could have a significant impact on household potable water demand. Other smaller measures could be employed to reduce water usage generally, such as low-flush toilets, low-flow showers or aerating taps.
Table 13-7 is an extract from the Government’s water strategy for England, “Future Water”. It clearly shows that the requirements could only be achieved by water reuse.
Greywater Recycling Greywater recycling refers to the reuse of wastewater as a non- potable water supply. This wastewater is from showers, baths, hand basins and washing machines. Wastewater from kitchen sinks and dishwashers is often considered too contaminated for reuse.
Greywater recycling is particularly advantageous in areas where water supplies are limited and the demand is high. It reduces the demand for potable water, which subsequently leads to costs savings on water charges, particularly where the supply is metered. In addition, the wastewater volumes are less, reducing the load at WwTW, potentially resulting in a saving in sewerage charges.
Greywater recycling requires a separate drainage system from the standard foul system which collects the greywater and conveys it to a settling tank before it is treated and made available for reuse. Part H of the Building Regulations stipulates that pipework for greywater reuse should be clearly marked as such.
Once treated, the recycled water can either be stored in a storage tank before being pumped back into the system, or pumped to a header tank from which it could gravitate into a separate supply system. The recycled water can only be used for toilet flushing, gardens use, cleaning and other non-potable uses.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 177
Bacterial growth can be a problem if warm greywater is stored for an extended period. Therefore, some form of disinfection or periodical emptying of the tank is required to minimise this risk.
Table 13-7: Water Use – Standard and Sustainable Homes (Source: Future Water) Standard new built house House meeting Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5 (80 l/p/d) (150 l/p/d) (Source: BRE) (Source: CSH) Appliance/ Fitting Specification Contribution to Specification Water Reuse (litres) Contribution to daily use (litres) daily use (litres) WC 6 litre single 28.8 4/2.6 litre dual flush 14.69 14.69 flush (6.33 + 8.36) Wash Basin Taps 4 litres/min 14.11 6 litres/min 15.87 Shower 10 litres/min 30 7.75 litres/min 23.25 Bath 180 litres/min 28.8 120 litre 19.2 Sink Taps 8 litres/min 28.22 7 litres/min 18.52 Washing Machine 49 litre 16.66 40 litre 13.6 13.6 Dishwasher 13 litre 3.9 10 litre 3 Water Reuse - 0 100sqm roof, 0.6m annual Collected 32.88 28.29 System rainfall, 0.6 efficient, 3 persons. WC and washing Water butts could also machine use = 28.29 meet a significant proportion of garden Max benefit = 28.29 watering demand TOTAL 150.49 79.84
Two main options are available for providing greywater recycling systems:
Systems for individual properties – each property is fitted with its own system, which automatically switches to mains supply if there is insufficient treated greywater. This option may not be cost effective and would require maintenance from individual homeowners; and,
Communal/multi-dwelling systems – these systems collect greywater from a number of properties before treating it and pumping the recycled water to the point of application or to the header tanks of individual dwellings or commercial buildings. A central control unit is provided that monitors the process. Energy costs are relatively low and maintenance is required annually. This system could also be combined with a rainwater harvesting system.
Rainwater Harvesting Rainwater harvesting involves the collection of rainwater from property roofs for reuse in non-potable applications, such as toilet flushing, washing machines, car washing and garden watering.
These systems can be expensive and there have been health and safety concerns regarding the recycled water. Financial benefits are greater in larger buildings, due to the larger roof areas and potentially greater demand for non-potable water.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 178
They are now commonly used on large commercial schemes, such as supermarkets.
Rainwater systems filter the rainwater to remove debris, such as leaves and twigs, before storing the water in a holding tank. In this tank, fine particles are allowed to settle, further cleaning the water. Water is then pumped from the holding tank to the header tank or directly to the point of application. During dry periods, the systems allow for top-up from the mains water supply.
There are two main options for rainwater harvesting:
Systems for individual properties – this method is widely used in Europe and is expected to become more common in the UK. As well as providing a source for non-potable water, this method also provides some storm water attenuation, which can reduce the risk of flooding. When the development sites are progressed, storm water runoff limits will need to be agreed with the EA in line with PPS25, which stipulates that developments should not increase flood rick downstream. Therefore, the inclusion of rainwater harvesting systems can provide an important source control feature; and,
Communal/multi dwelling systems – these systems are the same as the single dwelling systems but on a larger scale. The benefits of this option are increased where it is combined with a greywater recycling system.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)
The issue SUDS will be considered in detail as part of the next Phase of the WCS but this section provides an overview of the options available and the benefits.
The objectives of SUDS are as follows:
“Surface water drainage systems developed in line with the ideals of sustainable development are collectively referred to as Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS). At a particular site, these systems are designed both to manage the environmental risks resulting from urban runoff and to contribute wherever possible to environmental enhancement. SUDS objectives are, therefore, to minimise the impacts from the development on the quantity and quality of the runoff, and maximise amenity and biodiversity opportunities.” (CIRIA C697, 2007).
These objectives are achieved through the use of the SUDS Management Train. This uses a hierarchy of drainage techniques to incrementally reduce pollution, flow rates and volumes of stormwater from a site, as follows:
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 179
Prevention – the use of good site design and housekeeping measures to prevent runoff and pollution. This can include rainwater harvesting. Source controls – control of runoff at source or as close to source as possible. These measures can include the use of soakaways, green roofs and pervious pavements. Site control – management of water in a local area. This can include below ground storage/ attenuation, detention basins and large infiltration devices. Regional control – management of water from a site or various sites and can include wetlands and balancing ponds.
The SUDS Management Train is intended to manage and attenuate surface water from new developments such that flood risk is not increased downstream. This is in line with the requirements of PPS25: Development and Flood Risk.
The use of SUDS techniques within a particular site will depend on the characteristics of that site and will require consultation and agreement with the EA. These characteristics include the intended land use, the slope of the site and suitability of the ground for infiltration, the characteristics of the catchment as a whole and also aesthetic, environmental and amenity considerations.
There is the opportunity to combine SUDS features with other desirable infrastructure, such as green space and biodiversity infrastructure. This should be considered on a site-by-site basis and also for the District as a whole.
A SUDS Strategy should be developed for each site and as each is progressed, this strategy will provide guidance to developers as to the SUDS requirements. A Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Assessment will then be required to confirm the proposed measures for each site and gain agreement from the EA and AWS.
Renewable Energy
It is recommended that a “Sustainable Energy Study” is carried out for the East Cambridgeshire area to inform on how the developments can achieve low to zero carbon (LZC) standards. This study would consider the feasibility of a range of energy supply strategies and determine what proportion of the additional energy demand could be met be renewable energy sources. Potential strategies could include:
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant run on biomass material or waste; Photovoltaics and solar water heating; and
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 180
Wind turbines.
However, as part of this Utilities Assessment, a worst case has been assumed that all energy for the proposed developments is taken from the grid. This will enable realistic costings to be determined that can then be refined once the development proposals are progressed and a “Sustainable Energy Study” report has been finalised.
There is the potential that renewable sources could provide a significant proportion of the new energy requirements, but that the Grid needs to have sufficient capacity to provide back-up power when required. In addition, the option also exists for excess renewable energy to be put back into the grid. In this case, there could be significant infrastructure costs to allow electricity to flow back into the grid at substations and grid stations.
These options should be considered further as part of a “Sustainable Energy Study”.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 181
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Linesearch Summary
The Linesearch enquiry system was used to identify any sites that could affect existing major utilities infrastructure. Three of the growth locations have apparatus within the “Zone of Interest”, as follows:
Soham – National Grid Electricity Transmission OH line; Littleport – National Grid Electricity Transmission OH line; Burwell – National Grid Gas National Transmission System.
This existing infrastructure should be taken into account as the development proposals progress.
Electricity Summary
EDF Energy has provided details of the likely reinforcement works required to accommodate the development proposals. A summary of the requirements is as follows:
reinforcement works would be required at five existing Primary substations; the upgrading works at Soham Primary substation would be required before any development can take place in Soham; the upgrading works at the other four Primary substations would be required in the period 2014-2018; and new lengths of 132kV and 33kV underground cables will be required to feed the new developments, the laying of which will have the usual impacts on traffic and local residents.
Indicative costings have been provided for the proposed works and these are given in Table 13-8below with the likely funding profile shown in Table 13-9.
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 182
Table 13-8: Summary of Electricity Infrastructure Requirements Development Feeder Primary Reinforcement Cost Estimate Period Area Substation required? Ely Ely Yes £500,000 2014 – 2018 Soham Soham Yes £1,350,000 2009 – 2013 Littleport Littleport Yes £2,450,000 2014 – 2018 Bottisham Fulbourn No - - Burwell Burwell No - - Haddenham Aldreth Yes £1,700,000 2014 – 2018 Newmarket Fr Exning Yes £2,450,000 2014 – 2018 Sutton Aldreth Yes See Haddenham See Haddenham Source: AECOM 2010
Table 13-9: Potential Cost Profile for Electricity Infrastructure Development Feeder Primary Cost incurred before period: Total Cost Area Substation 2009-2013 2014-2018 2019-2023 2024-2026
Ely Ely 0 £500,000 0 0 £500,000 Soham Soham £1,350,000 0 0 0 £1,350,000 Littleport Littleport 0 £2,450,000 0 0 £2,450,000 Bottisham Fulbourn 0 0 0 0 - Burwell Burwell 0 0 0 0 - Haddenham & Aldreth 0 £1,700,000 0 0 £1,700,000 Sutton Newmarket Fr Exning 0 £2,450,000 0 0 £2,450,000 TOTAL £1,350,000 £7,100,000 0 0 £8,450,000 Source: AECOM 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 183
14. Infrastructure Overview
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS AND FUNDING
The following tables set out the headline costs and funding associated with the infrastructure requirements identified in Section 2. The figures are presented for each infrastructure category and for each five year phase. The costs exclude any funding arising from developer contributions (i.e. funding raised through charging a tariff for residential and / or commercial developments).
The total infrastructure costs range from £1,485 million under the LDF scenario to £1,511 million under the higher scenario. While the total costs of infrastructure increases with housing growth across the three scenarios, the unit cost of infrastructure is lower in the medium and higher scenarios, as the total cost of infrastructure does not rise in line with the number of dwellings.
Identified or committed funding is limited under each of the scenarios, reflecting the limited availability of mainstream funding sources for infrastructure to support housing growth. It also reflects the difficulties in identifying funding sources for schemes at such an early stage of their planning or development. Once firm proposals for the schemes set out in this document are developed, it may be easier to identify potential funding sources.
In light of the limited funding, all types of infrastructure besides utilities are associated with a funding gap. It is assumed that utilities infrastructure would be funding through the provider’s Asset Management Plans and funding has been identified for Ely County Park (under Open Space), reflecting existing commitments to its delivery. Chapter 9 also sets out some of the potential funding sources associated with cultural provision and further cost savings may be achieved by co-locating or integrating some of the facilities identified in this report.
Table 14-1: Infrastructure Cost and Funding, per Dwelling LDF Medium Higher TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS £278,893 £235,434 £186,209
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING £240,692 £202,167 £156,629
PRE-DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION £38,201 £33,268 £29,581 FUNDING GAP Source: AECOM 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 184
Infrastructure Costs and Funding: LDF Scenario
Table 14-2: Infrastructure Costs and Funding by Infrastructure Category – LDF Project Infrastructure Costs Project Funding Funding Gap Education £70,420,000 0 70,420,000 Healthcare £7,200,000 1,967,700 5,232,300 Emergency Services £82,656 0 82,656 Community Facilities £3,945,000 0 3,945,000 Open Space £9,710,000 850,000 8,860,000 Sport and Recreation £15,401,440 0 15,401,440 Transport £1,427,350,000 1,320,000,000 107,350,000 Utilities £8,450,000 8,450,000 0 Total £1,542,559,096 1,331,267,700 211,291,396 Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald 2010
Table 14-3: Infrastructure Costs and Funding by Phase – LDF Phase Ending 2010-14 2015-20 2021-25 Total
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS Education £6,820,000 £49,960,000 £13,640,000 £70,420,000 Healthcare £1,225,000 £5,975,000 £0 £7,200,000 Emergency Services £0 £82,656 £0 £82,656 Community Facilities £200,000 £2,465,000 £1,280,000 £3,945,000 Open Space £3,918,892 £4,432,802 £1,358,306 £9,710,000 Sport and Recreation £12,844,919 £2,254,140 £302,381 £15,401,440 Transport £713,205,000 £714,145,000 £0 £1,427,350,000 Utilities £4,475,000 £3,975,000 £0 £8,450,000 TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS £742,688,811 £783,289,598 £16,580,687 £1,542,559,096
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING £665,183,333 £666,084,367 £0 £1,331,267,700 PRE-DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FUNDING GAP £77,505,478 £117,205,231 £16,580,687 £211,291,396 Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 185
Infrastructure Costs and Funding: Medium Growth Scenario
Table 14-4: Infrastructure Costs and Funding by Infrastructure Category – Medium Scenario Infrastructure Project Project Costs Funding Funding Gap
Education £73,420,000 £0 £73,420,000 Healthcare £7,200,000 £1,967,700 £5,232,300 Emergency Services £82,656 £0 £82,656 Community Facilities £6,995,000 £0 £6,995,000 Open Space £11,190,000 £850,000 £10,340,000 Sport and Recreation £15,647,940 £0 £15,647,940 Transport £1,427,350,000 £1,320,000,000 £107,350,000 Utilities £8,450,000 £8,450,000 £0 Total £1,550,335,596 £1,331,267,700 £219,067,896 Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald 2010
Table 14-5: Infrastructure Costs and Funding by Phase – Medium Growth Scenario Phase Ending 2010-14 2015-20 2021-25 Total
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS Education £6,820,000 £52,460,000 £14,140,000 £73,420,000 Healthcare £1,300,000 £5,900,000 £0 £7,200,000 Emergency Services £0 £82,656 £0 £82,656 Community Facilities £0 £2,655,000 £4,340,000 £6,995,000 Open Space £12,912,277 £2,436,060 £299,604 £15,647,940 Sport and Recreation £4,413,847 £5,463,612 £1,312,541 £11,190,000 Transport £713,205,000 £714,145,000 £0 £1,427,350,000 Utilities £4,475,000 £3,975,000 £0 £8,450,000 TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS £743,126,123 £787,117,328 £20,092,145 £1,550,335,596
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING £665,183,333 £666,084,367 £0 £1,331,267,700 PRE-DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FUNDING GAP £77,942,790 £121,032,962 £20,092,145 £219,067,896 Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING East Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy: East Cambridgeshire District Council | 186
Infrastructure Costs and Funding: High Growth Scenario
Table 14-6: Infrastructure Costs and Funding by Infrastructure Category – High Growth Scenario Infrastructure Project Project Costs Funding Funding Gap
Education £97,470,000 £0 £97,470,000 Healthcare £7,700,000 £1,732,500 £5,967,500 Emergency Services £82,656 £0 £82,656 Community Facilities £9,665,000 £0 £9,665,000 Open Space £14,200,000 £850,000 £13,350,000 Sport and Recreation £17,490,440 £0 £17,490,440 Transport £1,427,350,000 £1,320,000,000 £107,350,000 Utilities £8,450,000 £8,450,000 £0 Total £1,582,408,096 £1,331,032,500 £251,375,596 Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald 2010
Table 14-7: Infrastructure Costs and Funding by Phase – High Growth Scenario Phase Ending 2010-14 2015-20 2021-25 Total
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS Education £6,820,000 £61,100,000 £29,550,000 £97,470,000 Healthcare £0 £6,650,000 £1,050,000 £7,700,000 Emergency Services £0 £82,656 £0 £82,656 Community Facilities £0 £5,325,000 £4,340,000 £9,665,000 Open Space £12,940,888 £3,237,972 £1,311,580 £17,490,440 Sport and Recreation £4,420,640 £6,806,753 £2,972,606 £14,200,000 Transport £714,145,000 £713,205,000 £0 £1,427,350,000 Utilities £4,475,000 £3,975,000 £0 £8,450,000 TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS £742,801,529 £800,382,381 £39,224,186 £1,582,408,096
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING £665,183,333 £665,849,167 £0 £1,331,032,500 PRE-DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FUNDING GAP £77,618,195 £134,533,215 £39,224,186 £251,375,596 Source: AECOM / Gardiner & Theobald 2010
AECOM DESIGN AND PLANNING