Infrastructure Delivery Plan (March 2014)

Home , Charlton Hayes, Harry Stoke, Latteridge, South Gloucestershire, Yate railway station

South Gloucestershire Infrastructure Delivery Plan

March 2014 Infrastructure Delivery Statement – Supporting Explanation

Planning for infrastructure to meet existing deficiencies and future growth is a high priority for the Council. It therefore continues to work closely with its development partners, the West of England Partnership (4UAs) and other statutory and non-statutory organisations to identify and bring forward new and improve existing infrastructure. The information shown in the following matrix reflects the current position at the time of writing [March 2014] based on information available to the Council. The IDP is thus subject to continual update and review as new information becomes available. It is proposed therefore that it is a 'living document'. The IDP matrix should be read in conjunction with the supporting Evidence Appendices.

The following tables give a broad indication of the planned provision, cost and need for infrastructure in South Gloucestershire (to 2027). It sets out planned infrastructure to meet existing deficiencies where information is available, plus that required to meet growth as set out in the South Gloucestershire Local Plan 2006 & Core Strategy (Dec 2013). It thereby indicates requirements for additional infrastructure which would not have been necessary but for the implementation of the proposed development.

Where available, items contained within existing S106 agreements for major development sites (or agreements in advanced states of negotiation) have been reflected. For clarity these major sites are Emersons Green Science Park, Charlton Hayes, Harry Stoke, Emersons Green East, Park Farm –Thornbury, North Yate New Neighbourhood & University of the West of England. These sites may from time to time, be subject to change due to negotiation and viability testing instigated by the respective developers. For other sites (Land East of Coldharbour Lane and the New Neighbourhoods at East of Harry Stoke &Cribbs Patchway) infrastructure requirements reflect current SGC requirements and negotiations that may be at a less advanced stage of agreement and therefore are subject to change. These sites are subject to ongoing master planning and viability testing. There will therefore be updates to the infrastructure requirements as discussions with respective development partners, statutory bodies and other service providers progress. Costs of infrastructure are predominantly approximations in advance of detailed negotiations between the Council, developers and infrastructure providers.

The Council intends to bring forward a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Until such time as a CIL Charging Schedule is adopted by the Council, all sites including ‘windfalls’ will thereby continue to be subject to planning obligations tests set out under Part 11 of the CIL Regulations 2010. It is generally not possible to determine the split in terms of cost between S106 and CIL contributions in advance of the adoption of the CIL and agreement of S106 agreements for the principal strategic development sites.

Lead Agencies are those organisations that are predominantly responsible for delivery of the item. SGC - South Gloucestershire Council, BCC - Bristol City Council, WEP - West of England Partnership, WoE – West of England HCA - Housing & Communities Agency, RSL - Registered Social Landlord, PCT - Primary Care Trust, EA - Environment Agency, ESCO - Energy Supply Company, UWE - University of the West of England. LEP – Local Enterprise Partnership

Phasing is indicated in the expected year(s) as can best be anticipated from Asset Management & Capital Programmes and projected build rates / housing completions.

Funding Sources are indicated where known. Unless otherwise indicated it is anticipated that Developer Funding will be the primary source of finance, however in many instances this is yet to be confirmed and will be subject to negotiation and viability of schemes. CSR – Comprehensive Spending Review S106 - Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, CIL - Community Infrastructure Levy, , DfT - Department of Transport, LTP - Local Transport Plan, JLTP - Joint Local Transport Plan, DCFS - Dept of Children & Family Services, LSVT - Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (funding from the sale of Council houses to Merlin Housing Association), BSF - Building Schools of the Future, NAHP - National Affordable Housing Programme, PFI - Private Finance Initiative, DEFRA - Dept of Environment Food & Rural Affairs AHPs – Affordable Housing Providers DIIP – Delivery Infrastructure Investment Plan OFWAT - The Water Services Regulation Authority NHB – New Homes Bonus CRD - City Region Deal (EDF) SIF – Sustainable Infrastructure Fund

Where the primary source of funding does not become available or only partially available, the Council will work with its partners to continue to review need, tailor schemes to the available funding and improve the efficiency of existing assets. In some circumstances it may however be decided that proposed development should not go ahead without critical infrastructure.

Contents District-Wide Strategic Infrastructure...... 1 Avonmouth/Severnside ...... 9 North Fringe Development Sites ...... 11 Charlton Hayes...... 11 Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood ...... 13 East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood ...... 20 Harry Stoke...... 24 Land East of Coldharbour Lane...... 26 University of the West of England (UWE) Regeneration Project...... 28 East Fringe Development Sites...... 30 Emersons Green East New Neighbourhood...... 30 Emersons Green Science Park...... 33 Frenchay Hospital Residential Development ...... 34 Yate and Chipping Sodbury ...... 36 North Yate New Neighbourhood...... 36 Peg Hill Site (part of North Yate New Neighbourhood) ...... 43 North Thornbury ...... 45 Park Farm Housing Site...... 45

District-Wide Strategic Infrastructure

Proposed form Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) North Fringe - MetroBus (Rapid Transit) SGC Design 102 High 2012-2017 0 0 DfT £51.1m. 0 Hengrove North Fringe - Hengrove, SGC local Package Inc spur to Emersons contributions Green & Stoke Gifford BCC £20.2m Transport Link (grant local funding, and BCC contribution. contribution) Electrification of Electrification of the Network Rail Delivery 5bn Med Completion 0 0 Department for 0 the Great Great Western Main Line, by 2016. Transport, Western Main Paddington – Bristol – Network Rail. Line Cardiff; re-instatement of Filton Bank and Filton Junction to remove capacity constraints & new depot at Stoke Gifford. Integrated LTP Schemes (small and SGC Delivery 2m pa High Annual 0 0 DfT grant 13/14 0 Transport medium sized transport = £1.466m. improvements to address DfT grant 14/15 safety and sustainable = £2.061m. transport issues). Local Provision of infrastructure BCC Delivery 25 High Project 0 0 £25m between 0 Sustainable to support sustainable closes 4UAs. SGC Transport Fund travel - such as signage March 2015 component of walking and cycling approx £9m. routes, lighting of cycle

Page 1 Proposed form Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) routes, provision of cycle parking at schools and key employment sites. Primary focus is around the north fringe, but not exclusively. Highway Highway backlog SGC Delivery 3m pa High Annual 0 0 SGC Revenue, 0 Maintenance & maintenance & street LSVT, Streetcare lighting supported borrowing, LTP MetroWest MetroWest Phase 1 NSC Business Case 55.3 Med 2019 1 0 DfT Devolved 8.3 Phase 1 Portishead, - Feasibility (SGC Unsec Local Major (WOE) Bath, share ured Transport Severn Beach less than Scheme funding 5%) identified. S106 to be secured. MetroWest MetroWest Phase 2 - SGC Business Case 43.1 Med 2021 2.3 0 Devolved Local 4.5 Phase 2 Including Henbury line - Feasibility (SGC CPNN Major Transport (WOE) reopening, enhanced 1/2- share Unse Scheme hourly service at Yate 75%) cured Funding identified £36.5m. Cycle Trunk South Gloucestershire SGC Feasibility 8.4 low 2013-2026 Contri Tbc Contributions to 8.4 Route - Trunk Cycle Route: bution this from CPNN Emersons Cribbs Causeway to s and EoHS are Green To Emersons Green includ subject to Cribbs including Hatchet Road ed in negotiations. Causeway Bridge CPNN

Page 2 Proposed form Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) packa ge. Ring Road A4174 from M32 Jct 1 - SGC Feasibility 35 Low Beyond tbc tbc tbc 35 Scheme Dramway Roundabout 2020. (Pucklechurch) Public P&R facility at Nibley SGC Feasibility 1.5 Low 2022+ tbc tbc tbc 1.5 Transport (Park Road , Yate & Ride) Walking & Cycle Path (Yate - SGC Feasibility 0.5 Low 2022+ tbc tbc tbc 0.5 Cycling Coalpit Heath - Downend) Strategic Extension of the A38 SGC Feasibility 3 Low 2022+ tbc tbc tbc 3 Transportation Showcase bus corridor to & Highway Thornbury Infrastructure Public Provision of Real Time SGC / Feasibility tbc low 2022+ tbc tbc tbc tbc Transport (bus) Info at Strategic bus Appointed Bus stops & Revenue Support Operators for Community Transport, Demand Responsive Transport, Car Clubs and other Sustainable Transport. Walking & Extension of Cycling City SGC Feasibility 1 Low 2022+ tbc tbc tbc 1 Cycling route along A38 from Aztec West to Thornbury. Strategic Extension of the A38 SGC Feasibility 3 Low 2022+ tbc tbc tbc 3

Page 3 Proposed form Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Transportation Showcase bus corridor to & Highway Thornbury and Park & Infrastructure Share facilities at Aust, Falfield and Tormarton. Public Provision of Real Time SGC Feasibility 0.2 Low 2022+ tbc tbc tbc 0.2 Transport (bus) Info at Strategic bus stops in the Rural Area & Revenue Support for Community Transport, Demand Responsive Transport, Car Clubs and other Sustainable Transport. Public Safeguard land for SGC Feasibility 8 Low 2022+ tbc tbc tbc 8 Transport (rail) passenger rail station, parking and bus interchange facility at Charfield Station. Walking & Cycle Ambition Fund BCC Delivery 1.9 high 2013-2015 0.1 0 DfT CAF grant = 0 Cycling (Hambrook phase of Secur £1.64m cycle trunk route) ed DfT LSTF grant = £0.14m £0.01m local contribution Utilities Frome Valley Relief Wessex Water Wessex Water 27.5 Low 2017-2026 0 0 Connection 27.5 Sewer (Phase 3) from Business Plan Charges / Cog Mill Farm to Bradley 2015-2020 tbc OFWAT / Stoke Developer

Page 4 Proposed form Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) contribution from North Yate New Neighbourhood Superfast Provision of support for WoE Partners Business Case 5.20 Low 2014- 2017 0 0 tbc 5.2 Broadband new businesses to (Sustainable connect to broadband in Infrastructure Enterprise Areas Fund (SIF) funding bid) Community 3 EMI Day Care Centres SGC Delivery 16 Low 2010-2020 0 0 LSVT, Capital 16 Care & modernisation to receipts, Elderly Peoples Homes Revenue, grant. plus disabled adaptations to private sector and RSL homes Extra Care Sites identified across SGC Feasibility Unknown n/a 2010-2016 Yes(d 0 10m Capital tbc Housing District in Core Strategy (Extra Care (review for evelop programme and in Extra Care programme period to er plus, HCA Programme. Extra Care identifies 2026) lead NAHP 2011-15, programme identifies funded schem HCA, DoH funded schemes and bids schemes and es) funding, RSLs, made. Provision on bids made. developer and specific sites identified Various stages other separately. feasibility/ investments. planning approval/devel opment.) Police Police - New Police Police & Crime Delivery Unknown n/a 2010-2015 0 0 Private Finance 0 Station & Custody Suite Commissioner Initiative (PFI),

Page 5 Proposed form Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) at Patchway (access off for Avon & Police Authority A38) (construction to be Somerset Funding complete April 2014).

Conversion of Staple Hill Station into vulnerable witness / victim suite and neighbourhood policing base Cultural Centre Theatre & cultural centre Yate Town Feasibility 2.5 Low 2015+ Yes(la 0 Town Council 2.5 at Yate Town centre - Council nd) to former Seastores site be secure d Leisure Centres Leisure centres Gym SGC / Leisure Design / 9.6 Low 2010-2020 0 0 Prudential 0 Facilities at Bradley Trust Delivery Borrowing, Stoke and Longwell LSVT, Green Solar Farms Ground mounted Solar SGC Funding 4.30 Low 2014-16 0 0 Prudential 4.3 on a number of council allocated in Borrowing owned sites to both capital reduce carbon emissions programme and provided financial return Primary Primary School SGC Delivery 43 Med 2014-2017 Yes 0 Primary Capital 0 Schools (refurbishment / rebuild) Programme Capital Programme. (DCFS), Priorities: unearmarked

Page 6 Proposed form Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Wick CE&VC, Filton, capital. Hambrook, Mangotsfield, Christchurch, Barley Close, Bradley Stoke, Tynings, Beacon Rise, Kingsoak, Stoke Lodge Secondary Yate International SGC Delivery 36.3 Low Yate EGE 0Yate & 0 Schools Academy rebuild. International S106 Winterbourne Winterbourne Academy via central International Academy. start 2011. government New 6FE Secondary Winterbourn funding. BSF School at Emersons e IA start programme Green East (EGE). 2013. EGE (DCFS) Building Schools of the beyond Future / refurbishment / 2016. rebuild priorities: Patchway, Kingsfield & Chipping Sodbury. Energy Localised energy centres SGC Research and Tbc n/a 2014-2016 Tbc Tbc Tbc tbc with heat networks to Development serve high density development Energy Solar neighbourhood SGC/WOE Pilot project Pilot - high 2015-2017 Tbc Tbc SEP/EUSIF plus Tbc project with potential for Solar/Develop included in £400k new finance local storage and er SEP model for locally distribution networks(pilot owned energy project agreed at Charlton Hayes)

Page 7 Proposed form Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Energy Local heat and energy SGC /West Research and Tbc n/a tbc Tbc Tbc Tbc Tbc distribution network London development linked with SITA energy Waste/Low from waste plant Carbon SW Energy Increased grid capacity Western Insert new text Tbc n/a tbc Tbc Tbc Tbc Tbc required Power here Sewage Strategic sewer Wessex Water Options Tbc n/a tbc Tbc Tbc Tbc Tbc improvements required appraisal with short term interim solutions for the SKANSKA and Persimmon sites Energy Solar Noise Barrier SGC/Taylor Viability £200K Mediu 2014-15 Tbc Tbc Community Tbc (enhancement of Wimpy/WOE assessment m share offer proposed noise barrier Solar with use of solar arrays)

Page 8 Avonmouth/Severnside

Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Flood Provision of both tidal Master Feasibility 60 Low 2014-2030 tbc tbc 60 mitigation and fluvial protection Developer / (Stage 1 (option to SGC / BCC options be currently at agreed) public consultation stage. Moving to Stage 2 option selection and design). Ecology Environmental mitigation Master Feasibility 5 Low 2016 - 2030 tbc tbc 5 & protection Developer / (Currently SGC / BCC being worked up as part of the A/Sside Enterprise Area project. Survey work scope for ecology to be agreed for 6 mitigation sites) M49 Junction Intermediate junction on HA Feasibility 25 Low 2016-18 tbc HA as part of its 25

Page 9 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) M49 and approach roads Route Based Strategy Programme - submitted in March 2014 Local Highway A403 extension to Developers Feasibility (In 3 Low 2015-18 tbc tbc Developer 3 Improvements connect the spine road to part linked to delivered on site M49 Junction the above. and RBS as Some S106 above commitment is in place to ensure construction.)

Page 10 North Fringe Development Sites

Charlton Hayes (2,200 houses plus employment land and supporting infrastructure) Under Construction

Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) Affordable 84.5:15.5% Social rent: Developer, Delivery 3.89 High Committed Yes 0 Kickstart (3.8m), 0 Housing Shared Ownership. Total SGC, HCA, (Funding NAHP subsidy for Secur NAHP (3.89m). 25% (at nil public RPs secured- funding & 2010/11 & ed Subsidy subsidy) up to 33% developer develope 11/12. required for dependant on availability subsidy. r subsidy Developer delivery outside of subsidy. Master- calculate funded developer planned for d 2012-2022 funded provision AH) annually - via Registered Providers detailed separately Affordable Provision of affordable SGC/ Delivery 18 Low 2012-2022 Yes 0 RPs, HCA, 18 Housing housing Target units Developer/ (Current HCA Secur SGC, other (Subsidy for outside of developer HCA/RPs programmes ed investment Target Units) subsidised delivery do not allow for funding) Extra Care 54 ECH and 64 care Master Feasibility Unknown n/a 2015-2020 Yes 00 0 Housing beds scheme currently Developer / (Application Secur proposed Private submitted) ed Provider / RP Health, Community Building Master Delivery 2.85 High 2012-2020 2.85 0 0 0

Page 11 Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) Community & Space in Patchway local Developer / (Funding Secur Culture centre, Health facility, PCT / SGC secured) ed public art financial contribution for Library Public Open Inc Offsite Contribution to Master Delivery 7.7 High 2013-2020 7.7 00 0 Space improve Local Parks Developer / (Funding Secur SGC / secured) ed Management Company Schools 1 x 2FE Primary School Master Design 4.3 High 2015-2020 4.3 00 0 & Nursery Facility Developer or (Funding Secur SGC / Private secured) ed Provider (nursery)

Page 12 Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (5,700 houses plus employment and supporting infrastructure) Core Strategy Allocation

Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) Affordable 35% requirement, mix Developers, Concept Unknow n/a 2015-2026 tbc- 0 Developer 0 Housing and tenure tbc RPs, SGC (On-going Pre- n develo app per Discussions subsid part y site/application calcul part site) ated on compl etion Health, 1 x 8 GP Health Centre Developer Feasibility 2.5 Low by 2017/18 2.5 00 0 Community & (Subject to Not Culture Planning secure Applications) d Health, Libraries Developer Design 1.5 Low 2014-26 1.5 00 0 Community & (Subject to Not Culture Planning Secur Applications) ed Health, Dedicated Community Developer Design 4.41 Low 2014-26 4.41 00 0 Community & Centre (CDC) inc (Subject to Not Culture additional space for Planning Secur Youth Provision Applications) ed Health, 1 x Sports & Activity Developer Design tbc n/a 2014-26 Yes 0 0 0

Page 13 Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) Community & Centre (Subject to Not Culture Planning secure Applications) d Health, Public Art Developer Feasibility tbc n/a 2014-26 Yes 00 0 Community & (Subject to Not Culture Planning Secur Applications) ed Waste Waste transfer & SORT SGC / SITA / Feasibility 5.5 Med 2014-26 1.17 tbc Waste 2.55 Management IT facility Developer (Subject to Not Management Planning Secur Client Budget Applications) ed (£1.78m) SGC Capital Receipts (tbc) Extra Care Extra care housing Developer Concept (On- Unknown n/a 2014-2026 Yes 00 0 Housing schemes going Pre-app To be Discussions secure part d site/application part site) Emergency Ambulance 'stand-by- Police & Crime Feasibility 0.5 Med 2014-26 Yes to 00 0.5 Services point' tbc. Commissioner (Subject to be Police post(s), 2 funded for Avon & Planning secure PCSO pposts and PCSO Somerset Applications) d vehicle. 6 ANPR cameras around and in the development Emergency Station for Air Ambulance Great Western Feasibility tbc n/a 2014-26 Tbc 0tbc tbc

Page 14 Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) Services and Police Helicopter Ambulance (Subject to Authority. Planning To be Avon & Applications) secur Somerset ed Constabulary. Public Open Informal recreational Developer Delivery 8.02 Low 2014-26 8.02 00 0 Space space including payment (Subject to To be in kind (land) & financial Planning secure contribution for Applications) d maintenance Public Open Natural & Semi-natural Developer Delivery 4.84 Low 2014-26 4.84 00 0 Space recreational space (Subject to To be including payment in kind Planning secure (land) & financial Applications) d contribution for maintenance Public Open Formal recreational Developer Delivery 3.13 Low 2014-26 3.13 00 0 Space space for sports including (Subject to To be payment in kind (land) & Planning secure financial contribution for Applications) d maintenance Public Open Informal recreational Developer Delivery 5.7 Low 2014-26 5.7 To 00 0 Space space for children (play (Subject to be areas) including payment Planning secure in kind (land) & financial Applications) d contribution for maintenance

Page 15 Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) Public Open Allotments Developer Delivery 0.31 Low 2014-26 0.31 00 0 Space (Subject to To be Planning secure Applications) d Schools 1 x 7FE Secondary SGC, Delivery 19.5 Low 2014-2026 19.5 00 0 School Developer (Subject to To be Planning secure Applications) d Schools 5 x 2FE Primary Schools SGC, Delivery 25.9 Low 2014-2026 25.9 00 0 Developer (Subject to To be Planning secure Applications) d Schools 5 x Nursery Facilities (72 SGC, Delivery 2.1 Low 2014-2026 2.1 00 0 place each) inc additional Developer (Subject to To be space for childrens Planning secure services provision Applications) d North Fringe - Financial contribution SGC Design 0.6 High 2012-2017 0.6 00 0 Hengrove towards North Fringe - Not Package Hengrove MetroBus secure (Rapid Transit). d Walking & New & improved strategic SGC Feasibility 8.4 Med 2014-2026 8.4 00 0 Cycling foot & cycle links. Developer on To be Extension of the Cycle site secure City network to key d destinations inc Filton College & Southmead Hospital plus Cribbs

Page 16 Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) Causeway to Emersons Green Trunk Route. Inc. subway. M5 Jn 16 Local and strategic SGC Design 2.4 High 2014-2016 0.36 0 Pinch Point 0 Improvements highway improvements at secure Funding M5 Junction 16 d M5 Jn 17 Local and strategic SGC Design 2 High 2014-2016 0.3 0 Pinch Point 0 Improvements highway improvements at Funding M5 Junction 17 secure d PT Infrastructure North-South Bus Link Master Feasibility 0 Med 2018-2026 0 0 On-site build 0 improvements - (San Andreas Rbt - Developer cost North South Bus Charlton Rd) Link PT Infrastructure Bus priority A38 Corridor SGC Concept 1.25 Low 2014-2016 1.25 00 0 improvements (undefined) Not secure d PT Infrastructure Bus priority A4018 BCC Concept 1.25 Low 2014-2016 1.25 00 0 improvements Corridor (undefined) Not secure d Local Highway Site access to A4018 Master Design 0 Low 2016-2022 0 0 On-site build 0 Improvements Developer cost Not secured Local Highway East-West Spine Road Master Design 0 Low 2021-2026 0 0 On-site build 0 Improvements including PT priority, Developer cost

Page 17 Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) cycle & Ped provision Not secured Local Highway Improvements to A4018 SGC Feasibility 0.3 Med 2015-2026 0.3 00 0 Improvements Cribbs Not Causeway/Lysander Rd secure Rbt d Local Highway Improvements to Crow BCC Feasibility 2 Low 2014-2016 2 00 0 Improvements Lane Rbt Not secure d Local Highway Improvements to Aztec SGC Feasibility 2.3 Med 2015-2023 tbc 0 0 2.3 Improvements West Rbt Local Highway Improvements to Filton SGC Delivery 2.4 Med 2014-2015 2.4 0 RIF funded 0 Improvements Rbt (A38/A4174) subjec needs to be t to repaid from S106 s106/CIL/City negoti Deal ations Local Highway Widening of left-turn lane SGC Delivery 0.75 Med 2014-2015 0.75 0 RIF funded 0 Improvements from Gipsy Patch Lane to subjec needs to be A38 south t to repaid from S106 s106/CIL negoti ations Cribbs Off-site section of SGC Feasibility 35 Low 2021-2026 Yes 0 tbc tbc Causeway Metro MetroBus (Rapid Transit) Not subjec bus Extension Extension from Cribbs secure t to Causeway to Parkway d S106

Page 18 Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) including bridge at Gipsy negoti Patch Lane. ations and other fundin g sourc es

General PT Public transport SGC Feasibility 2.5 Low 2014-2026 2.5 0 0 0 Infrastructure Infrastructure Not improvements improvements including secure passenger information d systems Local rail Enhancement of SGC Concept 0.2 Low 2014-2026 0.2 00 improvements Patchway station To be secure d MetroWest major Contribution to SGC Feasibility / 2.3 Med 2021-2026 2.3 00 0 transport scheme MetroWest Phase 2 plus Design To be land for new stations at secure North Filton and Henbury d (including access, parking etc).

Page 19 East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood (2,000 houses plus supporting infrastructure) Core Strategy Allocation

Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) Affordable 35% requirement, mix Developer / Feasibility tbc 0 2015-2026 Yes 0 Developer 0 Housing and tenure tbc RPs / SGC To be secure d Health, youth provision (approx Developer Feasibility 0.12 Med 2015-2026 0.12 00 0 Community & 150 teenagers x £79 x triggers to be To be Culture 10yr build out) agreed secure within sec d 106 Health, 1 x 4 GP surgery & 1x 3 Developer/NH Feasibility 2 Med 2015-2026 2 0 NHS England 0 Community & dentist surgery co located S England To be and GPs & Culture secure Dentist d businesses Health, Library Contribution - Developer Feasibility 0.51 Low 2015-2026 0.51 00 0 Community & either on site as part of To be Culture multi-purpose community secure centre or off site d Health, community centre on site Developer Feasibility 1.5 Med 2015 - 2026 1.5 00 0 Community & provision To be Culture secure d Health, Community development Developer Feasibility 0.2 Low 2015 -2026 0.2 00 0 Community & worker To be

Page 20 Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) Culture secure d Health, Public Art Developer Feasibility 0.1 low 2015 - 2026 0.1 00 0 Community & To be Culture secure d Extra Care Onsite scheme required Master Feasibility tbc n/a unknown Yes 0 Capital tbc housing as part of new Developer / To be programme, neighbourhood Private secure HCA DoH, RP Provider/ SGC d and developer investment. Public Open Informal recreational Developer Feasibility tbc n/a 2015-2026 Yes 00 0 Space space including payment To be in kind (land) & financial secure contribution for d maintenance 5.52ha Public Open Natural & Semi-natural Developer Feasibility tbc n/a 2015-2026 Yes 00 0 Space recreational space including payment in kind To be (land) & financial secure contribution for d maintenance 7.2 ha Public Open Outdoor sports including Developer Feasibility tbc n/a 2015 - 2026 Yes 00 0 Space payment in kind (land) & To be financial contribution for secure maintenance 7.62 ha d Public Open Informal recreational Developer Feasibility tbc n/a 2015 - 2026 Yes 0 0 0

Page 21 Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) Space space for children (play To be areas) including payment secure in kind (land) & financial d contribution for maintenance 1.2 ha Public Open Allotments 0.96 ha Developer Feasibility tbc n/a 2015 – 2026 Yes 00 0 Space To be secure d Emergency Police to require as a Police & Crime Feasibility 5k per Low 2015-2026 Yes 00 0 Services minimum, one or both of Commissioner ANPR Automatic Number Plate for Avon & To be Recognition (ANPR) or Somerset secure CCTV cameras located d on appropriate access roads Emergency New Police Post Police & Crime Feasibility 0.15 Med 2015-2026 Yes 00 0 Services incorporated within new Commissioner development, ideally in for Avon & To be local centre and 2 ANPR Somerset secure cameras placed on the d Stoke Gifford link road. PCSO post. Secondary 1 x 2.4FE (300-360 Developer Feasibility 7.1 Med 2015-2026 7.1 0 pooled 0 Schools place) and 6th Form (72 triggers to be To be contributions place) Secondary School agreed secure from several with potential contribution within sec d S106 towards transport 106 agreements

Page 22 Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) Primary Schools 1 x 3FE Primary School Developer Feasibility 8.1 Med 2015-2026 8.1 To 00 0 possibly on two sites Discussions triggers to be be agreed secure within sec d 106 Nursery 1 x 30 place & 1 x 60 Master Feasibility 0.9 Low 2015-2026 0.9 00 0 provision place full-day nursery Developer triggers to be To be SGC / Private agreed secure Provider within sec d (nursery) 106 North Fringe - Financial contribution SGC Feasibility 2.73 High 2012-2017 2.73 00 0 Hengrove towards North Fringe - To be Package Hengrove MetroBus secure (Rapid Transit). d Public Transport Provision of MetroBus SGC Feasibility on-site Med 2015-2026 Yes 0 On-site build 0 - EoHS stops on SGTL plus cost contributions to financial contribution To be MetroBus stops towards local bus secure on SGTL services & revenue d support for community transport, demand responsive transport, car clubs and other sustainable transport. Walking & Provision of cycling and SGC Feasibility on-site Med 2015-2026 Yes 00 0 Cycling links pedestrian links to from EoHS to strategic destinations To be strategic (UWE, Parkway and secure

Page 23 Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Proposed form Lead Scheme Funding Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other of Infrastructure Agencies Status Gap (£m) £m / Reliability (£m) destinations and Cycling City d Trunk Route Infrastructure) and to wider area (Hambrook & Winterbourne) plus Cribbs Causeway to Emersons Green Trunk Route. Waste Financial contribution SGC Feasibility tbc 2016-2026 Yes 00 0 Management towards waste transfer To be and SORT IT centre in secure the North Fringe (See d CPNN) Undergrounding Undergrounding of Developer Feasibility 20 low 2015 - 2027 0 0 tbc. Homes and tbc overhead pylon overhead pylon lines, /Western Communities lines including Harry Stoke 1 Power Agency (HCA). Distribution

Harry Stoke (1,200 houses plus supporting infrastructure) Under Construction

Proposed form Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) 33.3% Affordable Developer / Design Develope Med 2012-2020 Yes 0 Subsidy Affordable Housing of which 25% RPs / SGC /Delivery r subsidy Secur required for Housing developer-funded. identified ed delivery outside Remainder dependent on annually developer

Page 24 Proposed form Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) public subsidy. funded provision 77.25:22.75% Social via RPs/HCA. Rent: Shared Ownership. GBB allocation Total 15% of 1st 400, from HCA 28% of 2nd 400, 33.3% (shown of 3rd 400 dwellings. separately) Affordable Provision of affordable SGC/ Feasibility 11 Low 2012-2020 Yes 0 RPs, HCA, 11 Housing housing Target units Developer Secur SGC, other (Subsidy for outside of developer /RPs/HCA ed investment Target Units) subsidised delivery Public Open Cat 1 Open Space and Developer / Design / tbc n/a 2011-2020 Yes 00 0 Space pavilion (Football and Management Delivery Secur cricket pitch) to be Company ed provided offsite (Lot 4). Cat 2 & 3 onsite. Health, On site community SGC Feasibility 0.58 High 2014-2020 0.58 00 0 Community & centre. Financial Secur Culture contribution towards ed expansion of Winterbourne and Bradley Stoke libraries and extension of Stoke Gifford GP practice. Onsite Public Art. Schools 1 x 1.5FE Primary school Master Design 3.2 High 2012-2020 3.2 00 & Nursery Facility Developer / Secur SGC / Private ed Provider

Page 25 Proposed form Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) (Nursery) Local Highway Financial contribution to SGC Feasibility 1.63 High 2012-2017 1.63 00 0 Improvements offsite highway works. Secur associated with ed Harry Stoke North Fringe - Financial contribution SGC Design 1.63 High 2012-2017 1.63 00 0 Hengrove towards North Fringe - Secur Package Hengrove MetroBus ed (Rapid Transit). Walking & Financial contribution SGC Design 0.03 High 2012-2017 0.03 00 0 Cycling - PROW towards PROW footpath /Delivery Secur improvements improvements in local ed and offsite area and offsite measures at pedestrian & cyclist Harry Stoke facilities within 2km of site. Undergrounding Undergrounding of Developer/We Feasibility 10 low 2015-2027 0 0 tbc. Homes and tbc overhead pylon overhead pylon lines, stern Power (Under Communities lines including East of Harry Distribution negotiation) Agency (HCA). Stoke New Not secured Neighbourhood

Land East of Coldharbour Lane (up to 500 dwellings and extra care facility) South Gloucestershire Local Plan Allocation

Page 26 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Schools Financial contribution for Developer / Feasibility 2 Low 2012-2026 Yes to 00 0 180 primary places SGC / Private be towards extension of Provider secure local schools. Financial (Nursery) d contribution for 90 Secondary School Places (may include contributions towards new EGE SS). Land for private nursery facility onsite. Health, tbc - assumed offsite SGC / PCT Feasibility 1.4 Low 2012-2017 Yes to 0 00 Community & financial contributions be Culture towards Community secure Meeting Space, GP d Practice, Library and Youth & Children's Facilities. Options under consideration inc: securing access to UWE facilities for community use and onsite provision until permanent offsite solutions become available. Public Open In Kind & Financial Master Feasibility tbc n/a 2015-2020 Yes to 00 0 Space Contribution towards Developer / be

Page 27 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) maintenance SGC secure d Extra Care Mixed tenure Extra Care Master Feasibility tbc Low 2015-2020 Yes to 0 1.92 SGC tbc Housing village onsite – details tbc Developer / be Capital SGC / Extra secure programme, Care d HCA, DoH, BCC Charitable and and Trust Developer investment. North Fringe - Financial contribution SGC Design 0.6 High 2012-2017 Yes 00 0 Hengrove towards North Fringe - Subject To be Package Hengrove Package to secure MetroBus (Rapid negotiatio d Transit). n Walking & Financial Contribution SGC Feasibility tbc 0 2012-2017 Yes to 00 0 Cycling off site towards offsite be at LECL improvements of local scured cycle and footpaths Waste Financial contribution SGC Feasibility tbc n/a 2012-2017 Yes to 00 0 Management towards waste transfer be and SORT IT centre in secure the North Fringe. d

University of the West of England (UWE) Regeneration Project (Including 1,080 student beds and new accommodation and open space) Under Construction

Page 28 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) North Fringe - In Kind contribution SGC Design Unknown High 2012-2017 Yes 00 0 Hengrove towards North Fringe - Not Package Hengrove MetroBus secure (Rapid Transit) and route d through site (new interchange) and link to Cheswick Bus Link Energy Centre Combined Heat & Power UWE / ESCO Feasibility tbc n/a tbc 0 0 tbc 0 and Heat Station (biomass tbc) and Distribution Heat Distribution Network Network

Page 29 East Fringe Development Sites Emersons Green East New Neighbourhood (2,350 houses plus employment land and supporting infrastructure) Under Construction

Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Extra Care 50 Unit Scheme on site Master Feasibility Unknow n/a 2015-2020 Yes 00 0 Housing Developer / (Outline n Secur Private planning ed Provider / RSL approval. Awaiting Rm application and scheme proposals) Affordable 80:20% Social rent: Developer, Feasibility develope Med Developer Yes 0 Subsidy 0 Housing Shared Ownership. Total SGC, HCA, (Funding r subsidy funded Secur required for 25% (at nil public RPs secured - calculate 2012-2022 ed delivery outside subsidy) up to 33% developer d developer dependant on availability subsidy) annually funded provision of subsidy. - via Registered Providers detailed separately Affordable Provision of affordable SGC Feasibility 18 Low 2012-2026 Yes 0 RPs, HCA, Approx Housing housing Target units /Developer (Outline Secur SGC, other £18m (Subsidy for outside of developer /HCA planning ed investment Target Units) subsidised delivery approval. AH master

Page 30 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) planned) Public Open Developer Feasibility 6.8 Low 2012-2026 Yes 00 0 Space Cat 1 Open Space as Secur football pitches with ed outdoor changing and cricket pitch with pavilion, plus dual use Cat 1 in secondary school. Cat 2 & 3 and informal also provided onsite. Financial contribution for maintenance Secondary Site for secondary school Developer/SG 5.48 High TBC Yes 00 TBC school and contribution towards C Secur secondary school places ed Primary 2 x Primary Schools to Developer/SG Feasibility/Desi 7 High TBC Yes 00 0 Schools provide 4FE, C gn Secur ed Nursery 60 place nursery facility Developer 0.5 High TBC Yes 00 0 Secur ed North Fringe - Secured financial SGC Design 3.3 High 2012-2017 3.3 00 0 Hengrove contribution towards Secur Package North Fringe - Hengrove ed MetroBus (Rapid Transit). Strategic Improvements SGC Design tbc tbc 2012-2016 Yes 0 0 0

Page 31 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Transport & construction of A4174 /Delivery Secur Highway Rosary Roundabout ed Infrastructure Motorway Improvements & diverge SGC Feasibility 0.75 Low 2012-2016 0.75 00 0 network lane at J1 of M32. Secur ed Local Highway Contribution for traffic SGC Feasibility 0.63 Low 2012-2016 0.63 00 0 Improvements signals Secur ed Local Highway Cost of Toucan SGC Feasibility 0.9 Low 2012-2016 0.3 00 0.6 Improvements Secur ed Public Revenue support for local SGC Feasibility 2.4 Low 2012-2020 2.4 00 0 Transport bus services, car club, Secur car share scheme & ed Travel Plan, 240 space Multi-Modal Interchange (Onsite). Walking & Financial Contribution to SGC Feasibility 2.4m low 2012-2020 0.95 0 tbc 1.45 Cycling footbridge (to link EGE Secur centre with EG West over ed A4174). Community Financial Contribution SGC 0.035 high 2018-19 0.035 00 0 Forest towards the Community Secur Forest ed Emerson Contribution to extend SGC Delivery 0.25 high 0.25 00 0 Green Library existing library Secur

Page 32 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) ed Health, Community hall, Health Developer / Feasibility/Desi 2.3 high 2015 + Yes 00 0 Community & care space, contribution SGC gn Secur Culture towards Public Art ed throughout the development

Emersons Green Science Park Under Construction

Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Health, Provision of Public Art Developer / Feasibility 0.01 High 2010-2015 0.01 00 0 Community & throughout the SGC Secur Culture development and ed contribution towards local environmental / countryside projects Other A range of measures to Master Feasibility 2.75 High 2017 2.75 00 0 measures to facilitate the delivery of Developer / Secur facilitate Emersons Green SGC ed delivery including M4 Acoustic Fence, Land Drainage Pond and Access Road Public Bus Shelters (inc RTI) in SGC Delivery 0.5 High 2010-2015 0.5 00 0 Transport SPark Square, temporary Secur

Page 33 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) shuttle bus to UWE ed (Frenchay Campus) for 1 year, re-route of service 686 through the site, provision of car club vehicle onsite & implementation of a Travel plan & appointment of Travel Plan Co-ordinator Walking & New Bridleway (onsite) to Developer Feasibility 0.9 low 2016 0.9 00 0 Cycling replace existing Public Secur Right of Way ed Multi-modal Multi-modal interchange Master Design 3 High by 2016 3 00 0 Interchange (and green road access) Developer Secur ed

Frenchay Hospital Residential Development (Up to 490 houses and supporting infrastructure) Planning Permission granted subject to S106

Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Affordable 35% Affordable Housing Developer / Feasibility Unknow n/a 2015 – 2026 s106 0 RPs/Developer 0 Housing of which 25% developer- RPs / SGC n to be funded, remainder secure dependent on public d

Page 34 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) subsidy (shown separately). 80:20% Social Rent: Shared Ownership. Affordable Provision of affordable SGC Delivery tbc 0 2012-2026 Yes 0 RPs, HCA, tbc once Housing housing Target units /Developer SGC, other s106 (Subsidy for outside of developer /HCA To be investment negotiatio Target Units) subsidised delivery secure ns d conclude d Health, Library Contribution SGC Feasibility 0.045 Low 2014-2020 0.045 00 0 Community & (offsite). New community Culture centre onsite to serve To be development and wider secure area or financial d contribution towards Frenchay Village Hall. (Includes Frenchay Museum) Extra Care Scheme being Master Concept Unknow n/a 2014-2020 Yes 0 HCA DoH, RP 0 Housing considered onsite in Developer / n To be and developer addition to Health & SGC secure investment Social care provision d Highway Junction and highway SGC Concept 0.175 low Yes 0BCC 0.175 Improvements improvements To be contribution 0.05 secure to be secured d

Page 35 Yate and Chipping Sodbury

North Yate New Neighbourhood (3,000 houses, plus employment land and supporting infrastructure) Planning Permission granted subject to S106

Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Smarter £375 green travel Developer Design 375 per High 2013-2020 Yes 0 0 0 choices allocated to each /Delivery dwelling measures household. Affordable 35% affordable housing Developer / Feasibility tbc 0 2016-2026 Heads 00 Housing to be delivered with RPs Subject to of developer subsidy - 106 trigger Terms 80:20% social rent (HOT) shared ownership agree d S106 to be signed

Health, Contribution to central SGC Feasibility 0.63 Low 2015-2026 0.63 00 0 Community & library (including Peg Hill HOT Culture and Taylor Wimpey land) agree d, s106 to be signed Health, 4-5 GP Surgery Developer Feasibility 1.12 Low 2015-2026 1.12 0 0 0

Page 36 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Community & (including Taylor Wimpey Culture land) HOT agree d, s106 to be signed

Health, Community Centre Developer/NH Feasibility 2.2 Low 2015-2026 2.2 00 0 Community & (including (Peg Hill and S England Culture Taylor Wimpey land) HOT agree d, s106 to be signed

Waste Financial contribution SGC Feasibility 0.3 Med 2016-2026 0.3 00 0 Management towards remodelling of HOT Yate Transfer & Sort IT agree facility and / or new north d, fringe facility (including s106 Taylor Wimpey land) to be signed Extra Care ECH scheme required on Master Feasibility tbc n/a 2016-2026 Yes 00 0 housing site Developer / HOT Private agree Provider d,

Page 37 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) s106 to be signed Public Open Financial Contribution to Master Feasibility 2.4 Med 2016-2026 2.4 00 0 Space off-site facilities (capital Developer / HOT and maintenance) SGC agree d, s106 to be signed

Emergency New Police Post Police & Crime Feasibility ANPR Med 2016-2026 0.06 00 0 Services incorporated within new Commissioner £12,000 HOT development, ideally in for Avon & Police agree local centre and 3 ANPR Somerset Point d, cameras placed on the 3 £47,000 s106 new access roads. to be signed Schools 2 x Primary Schools to Contract to Feasibility 5.4 Low 2015-2026 5.4 00 0 provide 5FE, one nursery commission HOT facility (cost inclusive of led contract. agree 1st contribution only) d, s106 to be signed

Local Highway Improvement to SGC Feasibility 5.5 Med by 2016 5.5 00 0 Improvements roundabouts: HOT

Page 38 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Ͳ Randolph Ave/Green agree Goose Way d, Ͳ Stover rd/Yate Rd/ s106 Iron Acton Way to be Ͳ Station Rd/Goose signed Green Way Signals at: Broad Lane/Greenways Rd/Goose Green Way North Road/Goose Green Way Wotton Rd/ Yate Rd Latteridge Rd/Yate Rd Traffic calming on Leechpool Way and Randolph Avenue Ͳ Public Inc: revenue support and SGC / Feasibility 2.9 Med 2016-2026 2.9 00 0 Transport bus stop improvements Appointed Subject to HOT (inc RTI) for half hourly Operator 106 trigger agree service from Yate North d, Yate-Winterbourne- s106 Bristol City Centre, a to be Yate Town bus service signed and revenue Support for Community Transport, Demand Responsive Transport, Car Clubs and other Sustainable

Page 39 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Transport. Rail Improvements to Yate SGC / Feasibility 0.25 Med 2016-2026 0.25 00 0 Infrastructure Station Appointed Subject to HOT Operator 106 trigger agree d, s106 to be signed

Walking & Linkages to strategic SGC Feasibility 0.9 Med 2016-2026 0.9 00 0 Cycling destinations in Yate & Subject to HOT Chipping Sodbury, and 106 trigger agree signage. d, s106 to be signed Smarter Providing a package of SGC / Master Feasibility 0.08 Med 2016-2026 0.08 00 0 choices smarter choices to Developer Subject to HOT measures support development. 106 trigger agree d, s106 to be signed Utilities Financial contribution Master Feasibility 4.5 Low 2016-2020 4.5 0 0 0 towards Frome Valley Developer / (Wessex Water Relief Sewer or provision Wessex Water Business Plan

Page 40 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) of strategic sewer from / Yate Town 2015-2020 HOT the site to Phase II of Council (WiFi) awaiting agree FVRS at Bradley Stoke. OFWAT d, Provision of WiFi network approval) s106 to provide free to be connection to support signed domestic & business use.

Offsite Public In Kind & Financial SGC Delivery 0.6 High 2102-2016 0.6 00 0 Open Space Contribution for Maintenance HOT agree d, s106 to be signed

Health, Contributions to public art Developer Feasibility 0.1 High 2102-2016 0.1 00 0 Community & Culture HOT agree d, s106 to be signed

Page 41 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m)

Page 42 Peg Hill Site (part of North Yate New Neighbourhood) (250 houses) Planning Permission granted

Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Affordable 35% affordable housing Developer / Feasibility Develope Med 2014-2026 Yes 00 Housing to be delivered with RPs r subsidy Secur developer subsidy, will be ed 80:20% social rent: calculate shared ownership d annually Public Open In kind and financial Master Feasibility 0.01 Low 2014-2020 0.01 00 0 Space contribution for Developer / Secur maintenance SGC / Parish ed & Town Councils Schools Financial contribution to Developer / Feasibility 2.38 Low 2015 - 2026 2.38 00 provide 210 primary SGC / Private subject to Secur school places and 1.2ha Provider 106 triggers ed of land . Nursery facility (Nursery) on site Walking & New & improved strategic SGC / BCC Feasibility 1.38 Med 2015 - 2026 1.38 00 0 Cycling foot & cycle links. subject to Secur Extension of the Cycle 106 triggers ed City network to key destinations inc Filton College & Southmead Hospital

Page 43 Proposed Estimated total Potential Funding Sources Lead Scheme Funding form of Description capital cost Programme S106 / CIL / Other Agencies Status Gap (£m) Infrastructure £m / Reliability (£m) Local Highway Local highway SGC Feasibility 1.5 Med 2015 - 2026 1.5 00 0 Improvements improvements subject to Secur 106 triggers ed Waste Financial contribution SGC Feasibility 0.03 Med 2012-2017 0.03 00 0 Management towards waste transfer Secur and SORT IT facilities. ed 10 Walking & Funding 0 Pedestrians signage SGC 0.01 High 2102-2016 secure 0n/a Cycling Secured d Off-site highway 0.21 Local Highway Funding 0 Improvements - this is SGC 0.21 High 2102-2016 secure 0n/a Improvements Secured linked with lines 185 - 191 d Develo 0 per to fund Local Highway Funding and Off-site signals?? Developer/SGC 0.65 High 2102-2016 0n/a Improvements Secured constru ct secure d Contributions to public 0.27 Funding 0 Public Transport transport infrastructure and SGC 0.27 High 2102-2016 secure 0n/a Secured services d Providing a package of 0.12 Smarter choices Funding 0 smarter choices to support SGC 0.12 High 2102-2016 secure 0n/a measures Secured development. d

Page 44 North Thornbury

Park Farm Housing Site (500 houses) Planning Permission granted

Estimated Potential Funding Proposed total capital Funding Scheme Sources form of Description Lead Agencies cost Programme Gap Status S106 / CIL / Other Infrastructure £m / (£m) (£m) Reliability Affordable 35% affordable Developer/RSL/SGC Design/Delivery tbc n/a 2013-2020 Yes 0 Developer 0 Housing housing delivered with Secured developer subsidy, 80% social rent: 20% shared ownership Health, Financial contribution SGC / PCT / Design/Delivery 0.2 High 2013-2020 0.2 00 0 Community & towards Meeting Thornbury Town Secured Culture Space/cultural facility. Council Health, Contribution to public Developer to Design/Delivery 0.02 High 2013-2020 0.02 00 0 Community & art commission Secured Culture Health, Contribution towards SGC Design/Delivery 0.1 High 2013-2020 0.1 00 0 Community & extension of library Secured Culture services. Public Open Provision of 1 x Developer Design/Delivery 0.05 High 2013-2020 0.05 00 0 Space common sports pitch Secured Public Open Provision of equipped Developer Design/Delivery Unknown n/a 2013-2020 Yes 00 0 Space play areas, natural Secured

Page 45 Estimated Potential Funding Proposed total capital Funding Scheme Sources form of Description Lead Agencies cost Programme Gap Status S106 / CIL / Other Infrastructure £m / (£m) (£m) Reliability open space and informal play areas Public Open Provision of allotments Developer Design/Delivery tbc n/a 2013-2020 Yes 00 0 Space Secured Public Open Creation of community Master Developer / Design/Delivery tbc n/a 2013-2020 Yes 00 0 Space trust to manage on-site SGC / Thornbury Secured facilities. Town Council Schools Contribution to SGC Design/Delivery 1 High 2013-2020 1 00 0 additional secondary Secured school places. Local Highway Improvements to: Developer Delivery On site n/a 2013-2020 Yes 00 0 Improvements Ͳ Butt Lane / constructing Secured Gloucester Road Ͳ Oldbury Lane / Morton Street ; and Ͳ Grovesend Road /A38 junctions

And provision of site access. Public Revenue Support for SGC Design/Delivery 0.49 High 2013-2020 0.49 00 0 Transport bus services (the 309 Secured support and 310)

Page 46 South Gloucestershire Local Development Framework

Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part II Supporting Appendices

March 2014 Introduction

‘Local Plans should plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area to meet the objectives, principles & policies of this framework’ (National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012, para 157).

The following text therefore comprises a series of documents that explain how provisions within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan have been arrived at. Using available information, they explain the statutory and policy basis for why and how infrastructure is funded and delivered, the current position within South Gloucestershire (at the time of writing) and requirements to support growth as proposed in the Core Strategy (Dec 13). In order the documents cover:

1. Transport Infrastructure 2. Children & Young Peoples Services 3. Health Services 4. Library Services 5. Community Centres & Village Halls 6. Waste Management 7. Extra Care Housing 8. Public Open Space, Outdoor Sport & Recreation 9. Police Services 10.Utilities (Electricity, Gas, Water, Sewerage)

The Council continues to work with its partners to identify infrastructure needs and welcomes information from external organisations to add to the above information where appropriate. IDP Transport Evidence Base

SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY

INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN

EVIDENCE BASE

Transport Infrastructure (South Gloucestershire Transport Policy Team)

February 2014

Page 1 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

1. Introduction 1.1. The shared vision for South Gloucestershire is set out in the Sustainable Communities Strategy and the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy 2006-2027, which was adopted in December 2013 ,sets out how this vision will be delivered. These documents have managing future development, promoting safer and stronger communities and modernising health and community care services as priorities.

1.2. The Core Strategy sets out the spatial expression of these priorities and is key to the creation of sustainable communities that are well designed and planned, provide access to a full range of community facilities, formal and informal open spaces and which are well integrated with existing communities.

1.3. The Joint Local Transport Plan 2011-26 [JLTP3] sets out the transport strategy for South Gloucestershire and its neighbouring authorities in the West of England.

1.4. This paper describes the transport infrastructure requirements to support the future growth proposed in the Adopted Core Strategy. Any variation in the overall scale or location of the future growth will clearly alter these requirements. The document also aims to set out the principles upon which the requirements are based.

2. Transport Provision 2.1. At present, responsibility for the provision of transport in England is fragmented; the division of these responsibilities is as follows:

x The Strategic Road Network [SRN] (motorways and trunk roads) is managed and maintained by the Highways Agency. This is an executive agency of the Department for Transport [DfT], which funds the Highways Agency; in South Gloucestershire, the SRN consists of the M4, M5, M32, M48, M49 and the A46 south of the M4; x All other public highways are managed and maintained by South Gloucestershire Council, using capital funding provided by the DfT (namely, annual ‘Integrated Transport’ and ‘Maintenance’ block grant, bespoke major transport scheme bid funding and project specific grants), the Council’s own resources and third party funding such as developer contributions; x Railway infrastructure is managed and maintained by Network Rail, a ‘not for profit’ company funded by income received from Train Operating Companies [TOCs] and from the DfT; x Train services are run by TOCs. Passenger services are run on a franchise basis, with the DfT specifying the terms of the franchise (including minimum service levels); in South Gloucestershire, local

Page 2 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

services and those to/from London and South Wales are currently run by First Great Western, whilst north-south cross-country services are run by Cross Country Trains; x Local bus services are provided on a commercial and non-commercial basis. The main commercial operator is First Somerset & Avon, with a number of smaller companies also operating services within South Gloucestershire; non-commercial services are operated under tender to South Gloucestershire Council and typically consist of routes between smaller, often rural, communities and during evenings and Sundays; x Express inter-city coach services are run mostly by National Express; x Community transport services are widely provided on a voluntary basis and often with financial support from South Gloucestershire Council; x Air transport is regulated by the government and run by commercial organisations. The nearest commercial airport to South Gloucestershire is Bristol Airport. x Avonmouth is the nearest port serving the South Gloucestershire area, and is owned and operated by the Port of Bristol.

2.2. The status of the Highways Agency and Central Government’s funding procedures are currently under review and may be subject to change in the near future.

3. Policy Framework 3.1. The JLTP provides the statutory basis for South Gloucestershire Council’s transport policies. The currently approved JLTP [JLTP3] runs from 2011 to 2026. The JLTP3 can be found in full at:

http://travelplus.org.uk/our-vision/joint-local-transport-plan-3

3.2. The JLTP3 Vision is for a transport system that strengthens the local economy, improves access, ensures alternatives to the car are a realistic first choice being affordable, safe, secure, reliable, simple to use and available to all. There are five goals in the JLTP3:

x Reduce carbon emissions; x Support economic growth; x Promote accessibility; x Contribute to better safety, security and health; x Improve quality of life and a healthy natural environment.

4. Targets and Links with National and Local Targets 4.1. Targets and indicators play a key role in the JLTP3; they are designed to measure and monitor progress towards meeting the JLTP3’s objectives. They are also important for delivering wider policy objectives identified in

Page 3 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

the Adopted Core Strategy, the Sustainable Community Strategies and Corporate Plans.

4.2 The Government has replaced the National Indicators introduced in 2008 and the previous mandatory LTP indicators with a ‘Single List’ of local government data requirements as from April 2011. In view of the changed requirements for monitoring, the JLTP3 will now measure our top 5 targets and 4 supporting indicators. These are:

x Road Safety

x CO2 Emissions

x Cycling

x Bus Passengers

x Rail

And supporting indicators, which will not have targets, are:

x Maintenance – principal and non principal roads; Congestion, Air Quality; and Bus Punctuality.

4.2. In addition to the JLTP3 targets and indicators, there are also local targets used in the Council Plan (Implementation Annex) to monitor progress towards the Council’s transport aims, namely:

x Increase in community transport patronage; x Number of extended community transport schemes; x % take up of Diamond Travel card usage; x Completion of approved (capital) programme; x % increase in cycle training for elderly people (over 65); x % GBBN project elements implemented; x RFA2 programme established and milestones achieved on time; x Employer satisfaction with transport; x Number of employer travel plans introduced; x % existing schools with operational travel plans; x % of service changes (timetables and routes) notified to SGC by bus operators for consultation at least three months in advance of changes taking effect; x Public satisfaction with bus services (all residents); x Achieve milestones in (bus) Performance Improvement Plan; x Increase bus patronage from young people; x Parkway station action plan - achieve milestones.

Page 4 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

4.3. JLTP3 targets will usually be for 5-years, with interim trajectories and milestones and provision for full mid-term reviews after 3 years; this reflects the current uncertainty in funding for transport and other factors that influence their performance, such as the state of the economy and the pace of development and regeneration. Council Plan targets are for 3 years.

4.4. There is an evidence base for our approach, which includes:

x The transport studies undertaken to support the development of Core Strategy and its transport polices; x The CPNN SPD and its supporting transport studies including those described in the Transport Study Report (December 2013); x The JLTP and background documents, including: x Technical studies such as the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (Atkins, 2006), West of England (Delivering a Sustainable Transport System) Network Performance Assessment (Atkins, 2010); x JLTP Progress Reports; x JLTP Congestion Delivery Plan; x Major scheme transport bids to the DfT (e.g. for the North Fringe Hengrove Package) and their supporting analyses; x See http://www.travelplus.org for the above; x Transport statistics (e.g. traffic counts, public transport patronage surveys, road condition surveys, road accident records) x National (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/); x Local (http://www.southglos.gov.uk/TransportAndRoads); x Census (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/access_results.asp); x Local authority air quality monitoring (http://www.southglos.gov.uk/NR/exeres/296f13d9-b743-410c-a9d2- c317f1a92def).

5. Spatial Issues and Requirements 5.1. South Gloucestershire has seen significant development, particularly in the Bristol North and East Fringes; however, the supporting transport infrastructure has not kept pace with the demands put on it by this and by an increase in car use in the population as a whole. Particular problems include:

x The Adopted Core Strategy contains significant proposals of additional development in the North Fringe, Yate and Thornbury, which must be supported by additional transport provision if it is not to have an unacceptable impact on existing local communities; x Significant traffic congestion exists, in particular in much of the North and East Fringes (see Figure 1 below);

Page 5 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

x The adverse impact of traffic congestion on the local economy, bus service reliability, community severance and people’s health (e.g. poor air quality); x Limited access to major employment areas in the North and East Fringes by public transport, cycling and walking; x Poor access to facilities and services by public transport, cycling and walking; x Lack of satisfactory public transport services linking rural communities with jobs, services and facilities, which leads to increased reliance on the private car.

Page 6 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

A N y Wa hns Jo St Area of Search Chipping Sodbury CHIPPING SODBURY

Road ar l ickw l 060 W d B4 Hi a o g y R n i l a y e w l o p 0 yW a 6 B d 0 e W 4 0 n 6 n 5 B e 6 0 4 4 K 4 B 2 B 3

4 Rat running on country lanes A to and from M4 J18 at Tormarton at J18 M4 from and to Scott Way Park d

o Brimsham R Rat running on countrylanes

to and from M4 J18 at Tormarton at J18 M4 from and to h t l

y e

Green

Centre a s Goose W

Yate

W d

o r

o h

Yate Shopping i n

YATE o This is an INTERNAL DOCUMENT only. It MUST NOT be given to Public. the of Members represent NOT DO and INDICATIVE are alignments All endorsementany of route, alignmentorscheme. Copyright South Gloucestershire Council 2008. All rights reserved. Thismap is reproduced from Ordnance Surveythe withpermission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction civil or prosecution to lead may and Copyright Crown infringes proceedings 100023410,2008.

Sh a

Area of Search

d o

a t a

c o

A R h

i d

n oa

n n R

e o

Yate Outdoor s

l b

Sports Centre o A

o r

r i

d e

I t a

a h

g i

t e

9 r

Yate s

S e

0 Station 6 Yate localisedcongestion 4 4

2 B 4 Westerleigh

3 B

A Common Westerleigh North Road d Westerleigh Roa

ad o R r Industrial Estates ve and Business Parks Business and to Engine S Common 9 5 0 4

B Parkfield

Pucklechurch d a o

a d

R o e

a n

n o o t

s i t o S t

o w

W t

8 r

0 o

4 Rail Head B h

Oil Terminal S Westerleigh Road

5 d

a 6

o 4

R 4

n B

n i

4 A 4

M Heath Rat running on country lanes

Coalpit d a East o R ld between Yate and Emersons Green Emersons and Yate between ie f Shortwood Iron Acton en

H Green Emerson’s

d d a

a 4

o 7 1 R

l R

d A4 o

t h oa

9 s i c R

r r

5 r o B o

0 u m

4 h s 8 e

B C e

5 B

Shortwood B

74 Search of Area 1 l 4 il A Centre District Park H Emerson’s Green y Emerald e

Latteridge r Green h

Kendleshire p

Emerson’s 2

3 m

n 4

L A d k o r

Cotterell P a P

Frampton

o 5

R 6

h 4

i 4

End e B l

Watley’s

W r

i in

d R

a Road Ring the on congestion m

o d

a Mangotsfield R B Blackhorse

t avoid to running rat Winterbourne

i 2

p 3

in 4

rr A

e 8

P 5 0

4 B Winterbourne congestion Winterbourne and side roads

Staple Hill

Heath t

t e r Bromley

n N

a 1

L 0 A4

n Downend

w d

h t

S H y

m o

o r

9 0 4 R

5 A A4174 Ring Road congestionbetween 0 d

4 n hire B e rs Abbey Wood and TheRosary Roundabouts te

n uces

w Glo

e o uth

n o oa

D S

19 4

a R y

L 2 it 7

er C

t l t 3 o

t 1 ist

es r

o 4 4 B

c A o A

h l

t G

Hambrook

r Winterbourne

a l E O

’ Hospital

t Frenchay 4427 n B

u Frenchay a G

a d L 27 oa 44 R k B ter o es o uc r Glo b ld m e O a n H a L h

c 1 n re T West of M32 of West Area of Search

North Fringe North d

a 4

o 7

5 4 R 1 4 M 7 d

M e Hotel 5 A n a 0 r o 4 u R B o

b Harry n Stoke r Bristol Rat running on country lanes o t e l t i n

y Housing i F

a Road Ring the and Stoke Bradley Stoke Gifford congestion between between Yate, Aztec West and the Business Park

W W congestion on the Ring Road e development

ok Broomhill t e

Harry

S Stoke

y Hambrook Lane rat running avoidto m d

le o a

d r

ra F

B Stoke R

Bradley l

Stoke v o

Gifford t

s R

20 Park r

Stoke AXA B y

Housing

a 8 UWE 5

B&Q

development W 0 d 4 Hewlett

n Packard B

a l s e

v Little

w A Stoke

o n o 2

B yd

Bristol Parkway 3 y ra School

a B e M Bradley Stoke

District Centre District n W a Filton High

k L Sainsbury’s 15 o ke o to

r S roads side and

4 d B le

Almondsbury t t 7 a i

Business Park Business L 1 o

4 4 Cheswick R

M A r Lockleaze

Park

e Retail t s

Gypsy Patch Lane

e Patchway Station

o l

e u

B4057 u n 8 MOD

n A4174 Ring Road congestion between e

3 Ground e d

School

v A

A R

a y

o A

r Lockleaze

t s

e AbbeyWood andThe Rosary Roundabouts Combination e c

u n o

l G n 8 3 n

A o o Rolls t i

l m

Royce i

F at o t R

Filton e

College e

v d

Park A

Retail n

o a t l 16 i F o

Filton Abbey R Wood Station Wood e Almondsbury z d a e R l

Mail k Aztec West Aztec

Royal o

t c

d n o

a o L o r

o R

T Airbus

d o

Horfield

o Hayes d

w Charlton a

Employment e development

Patchway h / Systems BAE v

R g

i A

a k e r

m e

r h P i t

h s

Filton

o ’

s d d

y r o S k

R R

n r

e t t

o s

Filton and Aztec West Aztec and Filton 5

0 an

l i u e M o

A38 congestion between 4 r

o G

B t

o 8

i D u

n l

v G

AztecWest, M5 J16 and A

y t

l l

l l So

Bradley Stoke Northcongestion e

Cribbs Causeway Cribbs a K

M d 6

a 4

e o Hospital 4 R B h Filton Airfield rk Southmead T a P en

e d

u R n

e r v e

Southmead t

A s e

e a n

k c a

o n

L t o

The Venue The y D l

o r

d 6 5

a 4 o B

R Brentry

e Lysander Road i

f oad t

17 R age s s a

Crow Lane Roundabout congestion s

8 Pa

Area of Search A401 E

Cribbs Causeway d a

Westbury-on-Trym u

t s

a W

1 0

4 e

A s

Landmark development or employment area sites development Allocated Core Strategy Areas of Search Bus-onlyBus-only link link Track Cycle Road Ring Avon u

i r

and over the Christmas period Christmas the over and n a 8

5 d

The Mall congestion at weekends at congestion Mall The 7

4 5 a w

A 5 o o

0 South Gloucestershire Council Core Strategy South Gloucestershire Issues Existing Traffic M

r 0 R

4 4

0 miles0 0km ½ mile mile 1 1km 1½ miles 2km 2 miles 3km C y B B ur b n e H

Page 7 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

5.2. Issues associated with the individual areas are described in more detail below.

Communities of the North Fringe 5.3. The North Fringe comprises Cribbs Causeway, Filton, Patchway, Bradley Stoke, Stoke Gifford, Frenchay and Harry Stoke. It has seen large scale residential, employment, retail and education development, which results in large volumes of generated trips, much of which is by the private car.

5.4. The North Fringe is bounded on three sides by the M5, M4 and M32 motorways; on its southern boundary, by the A4174 Ring Road and the freight railway to Avonmouth. These are significant barriers to movement to/from the North Fringe, both in terms of the number of crossing points and the congestion at these crossings and junctions.

5.5. The Great Western Mainline railway line bisects the area and is a very significant barrier to north-south and east-west movements; there are few local roads that cross the railway and these are very congested during weekday peak periods.

5.6. All of the motorway junctions suffer from regular peak period congestion:

x M5 Junction 17 (A4018) is particularly congested during peak shopping periods at weekends and around Christmas; continuing intensification of retail development at Cribbs Causeway would increase traffic levels and congestion. This a particular concern as an Air Quality Management Area has been declared at Junction 17;

x M5 Junction 16 (A38) is very congested with commuter traffic, particularly that generated by nearby business parks at Aztec West and Woodlands Lane and by trips to/from aerospace industries in Filton;

x M5 Junction 15 / M4 Junction 20 (Almondsbury Interchange) does not have a junction with local roads, but queues generated at M5 Junction 16 can block-back to this junction in the AM peak; when commuter traffic combines with holiday traffic on Friday afternoons, congested conditions are the norm;

x M4 Junction 19 (M32) is congested during commuter peak periods, queues that form on the off-slips often block-back onto the M4 running lanes;

x M32 Junction 1 (A4174 Ring Road) is also congested during commuter peak periods, queuing traffic blocks-back along the Ring Road to Coldharbour Lane (UWE) and B4058 at Hambrook.

Page 8 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

5.7. The Highways Agency, which operates these motorways, is concerned about the adverse impact of local traffic generation. To mitigate this, several capacity improvement schemes have been implemented in the last decade; however, the scope for further improvement is now limited by physical constraints (and consequent cost). Therefore, the Agency has developed and implemented a scheme to manage the M4/M5 around Bristol; the Smart Motorway scheme uses variable speed controls and hard-shoulder running to smooth traffic flow and increase throughput.

5.8. The main local roads are the A4018, A38, A4174 Ring Road, B4057 and B4427, linked by various distributor roads. The main junctions include:

x A38/Bradley Stoke Way/Aztec West; x A38/B4057 Gipsy Patch Lane; x A38/A4174/B4056 (Air Balloon or Filton Roundabout); x A4174/Filton Avenue; x A4174/Great Stoke Way/MoD (Abbey Wood Roundabout); x A4174/Coldharbour Lane; x A4174/B4058 at Hambrook; x B4057/B4427 at Stoke Gifford; x Lysander Rd/Merlin Rd (Cribbs Causeway).

All these main roads and their junctions are congested to varying degrees and have little spare capacity to cope with recurrent or exceptional traffic conditions in extended AM and PM peak periods.

5.9. The North Fringe is well-served by rail, as illustrated by the following table.

Availability of Hourly (or better) Direct Day-time Services from:- Station: Filton Parkway Abbey Patchway Services to/from: Wood London Paddington Yes Exeter & South West Yes Cardiff & Newport Yes Yes Swansea (& main stations) Yes Severn Tunnel Junction Yes Yes Midlands & North Yes Bristol TM Yes Yes Yes Bath & Westbury Yes Yes Southampton & Portsmouth Yes Taunton, W-s-M Yes Yes Yes Yate, Gloucester Yes Yes

Page 9 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

5.10. Bristol Parkway is the main railway station serving the North Fringe and features: a new 700 space multi-story car park (open in April 2014); numerous inter-city and local services, giving direct access to a wide range of destinations; and a network of local bus services (with MetroBus to come). Filton Abbey Wood station is relatively new and is well-served by regional and local train services. Patchway station is somewhat isolated and is served by an hourly train service; its facilities and access are in need of enhancement.

5.11. The Great Western Main Line will be electrified by 2017, with new inter- city trains giving reduced journey times and a new timetable increasing the frequency of services. As part of this project, a 4th platform will be opened at Bristol Parkway and the reinstatement of four tracks on Filton Bank is expected to be confirmed.

5.12. Bus services in the North Fringe are predominantly radial urban services to/from the city centre, supplemented by orbital services and ‘country’ bus services (e.g. to Thornbury); there is also a network of bus services aimed primarily at UWE students (Wessex Red). There are bus interchanges at UWE, Bristol Parkway and The Mall, Cribbs Causeway.

5.13. Historically bus services are adversely affected by the traffic congestion described above, this has been somewhat mitigated in some areas by bus priority measures recently implemented through the Greater Bristol Bus Network [GBBN] major transport scheme, namely:

x Corridor 1 (Bradley Stoke – Bristol via M32); x Corridor 2 (Cribbs Causeway – Bristol via A4018); x Corridor 4 (Cribbs Causeway - Bradley Stoke – Stoke Gifford - Bristol via A38); x Corridor 5 (Cribbs Causeway – Filton - UWE – Emersons Green via A4174 Ring Road).

5.14. The cycle and pedestrian networks generally follow the highways, but there are also bespoke cyclepaths throughout the area providing traffic- free links. The cycle routes have been improved by the Cycle City project, a Government-funded scheme with match-funding from Bristol and South Gloucestershire Councils that totalled £22.8m. This project and associated investment in improved cycling facilities has contributed to a 17% increase in cycling journeys in South Gloucestershire between 2008 and 2013. There are 13 schemes in the North Fringe that were completed in 2011, as shown on Figure 2. The project involved not only infrastructure improvements, but also cycle training, promotion and smarter choices.

Page 10 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

Figure 2 Cycle City

5.15. Recent development at several sites (allocated in the South Gloucestershire Local Plan) in the North Fringe, have provided additional transport infrastructure including:

x Charlton Hayes (formerly Filton Northfield), has provided a new link road between The Mall (San Andreas Roundabout) and the A38 Gloucester Road (Hayes Way which opened in 2010); x Cheswick Village provided a bus link between the MoD campus and UWE and a bus link to Lockleaze; x Harry Stoke will provide a local route to the A4174 between Coldharbour Lane and the M32.

5.16. The GBBN project, which was completed in Spring 2012, delivered several schemes aimed at improving bus journey reliability in the North Fringe, including at the A38/Bradley Stoke Way/Aztec West junction, A4174/Great Stoke Way/MoD junction, along the A4174 between Coldharbour Lane and the M32, and at M32 Junction 1.

Communities of the East Fringe

Page 11 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

5.17. The communities of the East Fringe comprise Downend, Emersons Green, Mangotsfield, Staple Hill, Soundwell, Kingswood, Warmley, Cadbury Heath, Oldland Common, Longwell Green and Hanham.

5.18. The primary highway access route is the A4174 Ring Road and a number of radial routes including the A432, B4465, A420, A4175 and A431. These main routes all suffer from significant traffic congestion in the peak periods, especially at junctions between the Ring Road and radial routes. There are traffic-induced Air Quality Management Areas in Staple Hill and Kingswood High Street.

5.19. Public transport provision is provided by urban and country bus services, most of which are on radial routes to/from the city centre; there are a few services on orbital routes to/from the North Fringe, but these require financial support from the Council. As in the North Fringe, services get caught in traffic congestion, so priority measures have been implemented, including:

x ‘Priority Lanes’ (or High Occupancy Lanes) for use by buses and vehicles with more than 2 occupants on the Ring Road approach to M32 Junction 1; x The JLTP-funded A420 bus showcase corridor; x GBBN schemes on Corridors 1 (Yate, Chipping Sodbury – Bristol via Ring Road and M32) and 5 (Yate, Chipping Sodbury – Bristol via A432).

5.20. The cycle and pedestrian networks generally follow the highways, but with sections of traffic-free routes, including the well-known Bristol-Bath cycle path that follows a disused railway. The development at Emersons Green has and will incorporate cycle and foot paths. Some of the cycle routes were improved by the aforementioned Cycle City project. Figure 2 shows the schemes, two of which link Emersons Green with the Bristol-Bath cycle path, while one provides a network in Warmley/Cadbury Heath.

5.21. The main ongoing development areas in the East Fringe comprise sites already allocated in the South Gloucestershire Local Plan at Emersons Green (i.e. Emerald Park, the Science Park and Emersons Green East). The development will add traffic onto already congested routes and, hence, is funding junction improvements along the Emersons Green section of the Ring Road and a Park and Ride at Emersons Green East. To encourage local journeys to be made by foot, on bike and by bus, improvements to such infrastructure will also include a new foot / cycle bridge across the A4174 serving Emersons Green East, and a Park and Ride site at Emersons Green East that will be served by the planned MetroBus network.

Yate and Chipping Sodbury

Page 12 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

5.22. Yate and Chipping Sodbury are adjoining settlements north-east of Bristol. Although they do have several employment areas, there is net out- commuting traffic to Bristol city centre, the North Fringe and beyond. This results in heavy traffic flows out of Yate in the morning towards the Ring Road and North Fringe via the A432, the B4058, B4059, B4427 and rural roads through Westerleigh, with similar flows returning in the evening. Traffic making these movements is likely to continue to increase with further employment development at the Science Park and Emersons Green East.

5.23. The main bus service in Yate provides four buses per hour between Bristol city centre and Yate; of these, two extend to Chipping Sodbury and these buses also provide part of the Yate town service. The net effect is to provide only an hourly service around the north of Yate, whilst south Yate has four buses per hour. Passengers boarding or alighting in Chipping Sodbury have to travel around Yate, which adds up to 20 minutes to a journey when compared with a more direct route

5.24. The reliability of Bristol bus services is often affected by congestion, especially in the East Fringe of Bristol; however, the JLTP and GBBN improvements on Corridors 1 and 5 described in the previous section have mitigated some of these problems.

5.25. There is an hourly rail service from Yate railway station to Bristol and north to Gloucester. Yate station has limited passenger facilities, comprising small bus-stop style shelters, information boards, cycle stands/lockers and a car park.

5.26. The cycle and pedestrian networks generally follow the highways, but there are bespoke links incorporated into recent developments, especially in Brimsham Park, north Yate.

5.27. There has also been development in Yate and Chipping Sodbury area. The Tesco store in Yate Shopping Centre has recently expanded its store. Other developments include redevelopment of the Highways Agency ‘Sea Stores’ depot (under construction) on Kennedy Way close to Yate Shopping Centre to provide 228 dwellings, and the Barnhill Quarry development in Chipping Sodbury that includes a Waitrose food store and 170 dwellings.

Thornbury 5.28. Thornbury is a market town north of Bristol, which saw substantial residential development up until the 1980’s. Hence, Thornbury has net out-commuting to Bristol city centre, the North Fringe and beyond. This results in heavy traffic flows out of the town in the morning towards Bristol via the A38 and B4427, with similar flows returning in the evening. There

Page 13 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

is congestion at the main junctions along the A38, especially on the approach to M5 Junction 16.

5.29. Highway access to Oldbury nuclear power station from the A38 passes along the northern fringe of the town. There are proposals to build another nuclear power station at Oldbury.

5.30. The main bus service in Thornbury provides two buses per hour to/from Bristol city centre via the A38 and Cribbs Causeway; these also provide intra-town services. There are also less frequent services to Yate, the North Fringe/Fishponds, surrounding villages and an intra-town service.

5.31. The cycle and pedestrian networks generally follow the highways, but there are traffic-free links in the south of town. Regional Cycle Network route 10 passes through the town.

Rural Areas 5.32. The Rural Areas cover the small settlements and countryside outside Bristol, Yate, Chipping Sodbury, Thornbury and Severnside. The main motorway network bisects the area, with local access junctions at M5 Junction 14 (A38, B4509, Falfield), M4 Junction 19 (A46, Tormarton) and M48 (A403, B4461, Aust).

5.33. The A46/A433 also runs from north to south across the eastern part of South Gloucestershire. A short section of the A46 between M4 Junction 18 and the Bath and North East Somerset boundary is part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and is under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency.

5.34. The main local highways are the A38, A432, A420, A431 and several B- class roads. Traffic flows on the roads are generally tidal towards Bristol in the AM peak period, returning in the PM peak period. There is peak period congestion at some junctions, for example:

x A38/B4061 at Alveston; x A38/B4427 at Rudgeway; x A38/Fernhill, Woodhouse Down; x A38/Hortham Lane, Woodhouse Down; x B4058/B4057, Winterbourne; x B4058/Church Road, Frampton Cotterell; x B4058/B4059, Iron Acton.

5.35. There is a network of rural bus services, with the best level of service on the radial routes between Bristol and Thornbury, Yate and Chipping Sodbury. Most of the other rural bus services are provided with financial support from the Council, providing vital links for people without access to a car.

Page 14 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

5.36. The cycle and pedestrian networks generally follow the highways. National Cycle Network route 41 runs north-south through Severn Vale; route 4 follows the Bristol-Bath cycle path and then passes through Bristol city centre heading North to Cribbs Causeway before crossing to South Wales via the old Severn Bridge. Regional Cycle Network routes 10 and 17 also serve the area.

Severnside 5.37. Severnside is the area between the Avonmouth and Severn Beach and consists of a coastal plain already partially developed for employment and with a historic consent for more.

5.38. It is bisected by the M49, but at present there is no junction in this area and so strategic road access to/from the area is via the M48 Junction 1 (A403, B4461) at Aust or via the M5 Junction 18 (A403) at Avonmouth. The main local highways are the A403 and B4055; however, the latter is not suitable for HGVs or commuter traffic and the A403 could not cope with traffic flows that would result if the whole site were to be developed without a new access onto the M49.

5.39. The Severn Beach branch line railway serves the area, with a relatively infrequent (every two hours) service into Bristol via Avonmouth. There is a local railway station at Pilning on the Great Western mainline, but this is served by a minimal service and is essentially maintained in case of problems at the Severn Tunnel. Rail freight access to Avonmouth is provided via the Hallen branch from the Great Western mainline at Parkway.

5.40. There are some bus services to Severn Beach and Easter Compton, provided with financial support from the Council, providing vital links for people without access to a car. The Council also funds a number of schools services.

5.41. The cycle and pedestrian networks generally follow the highways. National Cycle Network route 4 and 41 run through Severnside and Regional Cycle Network route 10 also serves the area.

6. Principles of Provision 6.1. The developments promoted by the Adopted South Gloucestershire Core Strategy (December 2013) provide opportunities to meet the JLTP3 challenges, not only within development sites, but also in their environs. The key to this will be to minimise dependence on the private car, such that car trip generation (from a site) is substantially less than has been the case in past decades.

Page 15 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

6.2. Integrated, mixed use development is one means of reducing the need to use the car, providing people with the opportunity to live, work and access services in close proximity. Providing public transport, walking and cycling services and facilities that are an alternative to the private car are essential. Notwithstanding this, new highway will also be required, both on- and off-site, to cater for residual car trips, as well as bus and emergency service access.

6.3. Ensuring the timely implementation of transport infrastructure improvements and additions to serve new developments and mitigate their impact is essential, such that new residents and businesses have appropriate access facilities when they move-in and existing communities are not overly penalised by increased demand on infrastructure and services.

7. Infrastructure Delivery Plan 7.1. This section provides rationale for the provisions set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Asset Management and Capital Programmes - District Wide 7.2. Funding for transport is central to securing the outcomes identified in the Council’s policy documents. Funding received by the Council from the Government is currently as follows:

x LTP Integrated Transport – grant funding from the DfT that is worth £2.061 million in 2014/15. This funding is intended to support improvements to the local transport network covering walking and cycling, public transport, road safety and network management schemes. From 2015/16, half of this funding stream will be distributed through the Local growth Fund managed by the Local Enterprise Partnership rather than by direct grant to local transport authorities.; x LTP Highway Maintenance – grant funding from the DfT that is worth £4.125 million in 2014/15. This funding is intended to support structural maintenance works on the local road and footpath network, including structures (bridges and culverts), streetlighting and highway drainage schemes. r; x Major Transport Scheme funding – the method of funding major local transport schemes (historically, these are schemes costing £5 million of more) is in a period of transition, with the management of such funding being devolved from the DfT to the Local Transport Body Board (locally, this is the West of England Partnership). Within South Gloucestershire, this provides the funding stream for the North Fringe to Hengrove Package, which is to be delivered by 2017 subject to the final funding approvals being secured and statutory processes completed, and for the MetroWest rail projects, which have been

Page 16 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

identified as priorities for delivery by 2022. These schemes are described in greater detail below; x Revolving Infrastructure Fund – a fund has been established by the West of England Partnership that provides resource to advance fund infrastructure schemes, with the investment being re-paid in future years from developer contributions. This funding stream may be used to deliver junction improvements required to facilitate development such as the CPNN; x City Region Deal – this arrangement between central government and the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership will provide funding to facilitate investment in strategic projects that will enable the delivery of growth. In this case, the LEP partners would advance fund infrastructure, through prudential borrowing, but the local authorities would be granted the powers to retain business rate income at a local level, thereby providing the revenue stream to enable the borrowing to be re-paid. This provides a mechanism to potentially fund major transport projects and advance delivery ahead of what could otherwise be achieved from other funding sources. x Grant Funding – several projects are currently being funded through bespoke grant funding from various Government departments. Such grants are generally related to a specific policy directive, and are only secured through successful bidding to the relevant department. Current projects being grant funded are the Local Sustainable Transport Fund project to promote sustainable travel (this runs to March 2015, with possible extension to March 2015 subject to a successful further bid), the Cycle Ambition Fund project to improve cycle facilities at key junctions within the North Fringe (2014/15 delivery), the Local Pinch Point project (delivering improvements at Junctions 16 and 17 on the M5 IN 2014/15), Better Bus Area funding for public transport infrastructure (2014-18), and the Rapid Charging Point project for the installation of electric vehicle charging points (also 2014/15). Collectively, these are worth over £6 million in 2014/15, representing a significant funding stream for transport investment; x Council Resources – the Council also, of course, can provide additional funding for transport schemes and initiatives from its own resources, covering routine and cyclical maintenance, the support of community and public transport services including concessionary travel, investment in improved and more sustainable streetlighting equipment, and funding for specific projects. x CIL / S106 Funding – local and central government sources of funding for transport will, where appropriate, be supplemented through the Community Infrastructure Levy (once an adopted scheme is in place) and through developer contributions and works delivered through Section 106 Agreements in relation to specific works and services necessary to mitigate the impact of a new development.

Page 17 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

7.3. From 2015/16, an increasing proportion of central government funding for local transport schemes will be devolved to Local Enterprise Partnerships in the form of the Local Growth Fund. The Strategic Economic Plan for each LEP area will set out the priorities for transport investment including a programme for delivering transport schemes. Funding levels for 2015/16 are currently unknown, pending Government decisions regarding the next Comprehensive Spending Review period. .

Major Transport Schemes 7.4. As well as the GBBN, the JLTP3 details three major schemes in South Gloucestershire, namely:

x The MetroBus Project including the North Fringe to Hengrove Package [NFHP], a £102m scheme (DfT grant of £51m) with Programme Entry (DfT approval in principle, subject to securing all requisite statutory powers and permissions) will be constructed 2015-2017, comprising: o Bus-based Rapid Transit [BRT] between Cribbs Causeway and South Bristol (Hengrove Park) via Patchway, Bradley Stoke, Stoke Gifford, Harry Stoke via the Stoke Gifford Transport Link [SGTL], UWE and Bristol city centre; o BRT between Emersons Green and South Bristol (Hengrove Park) via the Ring Road, UWE, Bristol city centre and South Bristol; x The Bristol Temple Meads to Emersons Green BRT via Fishponds and Mangotsfield, a bid for £74m towards a scheme constructed 2018- 2021; x The MetroWest project that seeks the introduction of a half-hourly or better rail services at local stations and the re-opening of the Henbury Line with two new stations. MetroWest Phase 1 and Phase 2 are the LTBB’s top priorities for devolved major scheme funding; Phase 2 includes the Henbury Line and Yate.

7.5. The South Gloucestershire local contribution to the NFHP is £31m (the other £21m is from Bristol City Council). The local contribution that would be required by DfT for the other two schemes is not known; however, it is likely to be significant, perhaps in the range of 20-40% of the scheme totals.

The Pinchpoint Initiatives 7.6. Successful bids to the various Pinchpoint Initiatives which have allowed the Highways Agency and the Council to fund enhancements at the A46 Cold Aston Roundabout and M5 Junctions 16 and 17.

RIF and City Region Deal Funding 7.7. A number of new funding sources have recently become available via the Local Enterprise Partnership [LEP]. They include the RIF and City Region Deal funds. South Gloucestershire Council have been successful in

Page 18 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

obtaining RIF funding to delivery highway enhancements at the A38 Filton Roundabout and Gipsy Patch Lane junctions. The total funding of £3.5m has been awarded to deliver these two junctions. This will need to be paid back by contributions form local developments.

7.8. The Council is also pursuing City Region Deal funding for an extension of the MetroBus route from The Mall to Bristol Parkway Station via the CPNN and to provide an intermediate junction on the M49 to provide direct access to the Severnside area.

The Local Sustainable Transport Fund 7.9. The Local Sustainable Transport Fund [LSTF] provides an opportunity for local transport authorities to bid for funds to bring forward packages of sustainable travel measures, with a primary focus of supporting economic growth and reducing carbon. Funding is broadly split 40:60 between capital and revenue.

7.10. The West of England authorities have been granted £5m for its Key Component bid, which focuses on key commuter routes; South Gloucestershire’s share is £1.75m. In June 2012 the DfT awarded a further grant of £24.035m to the West of England Authorities for a larger bid. South Gloucestershire’s share is £8.933m; known as ‘WEST’ (West of England Sustainable Travel), the larger programme includes 9 projects as set out below:

LSTF Theme Project Summary Area Travel Focusing in the North fringe and Severnside working Plans with employers to promote sustainable travel to work. This includes addressing barriers to sustainable travel as well as the provision of information to facilitate informed choices. Business This is a sub-regional project focusing on the Travel provision of electric vehicle charging points and exploring the potential roll out the GO-LOW project. Key Focusing on public transport through the pump- Commuter priming of developer funded services, addressing Routes punctuality hot spots, and building on the Low Carbon Commuting achievements of promoting the x27 by undertaking large scale promotion of public transport. Vibrant Seek to work with the 6 priority neighbourhoods to Streets identify barriers to sustainable travel and to address these. Key Centres For South Gloucestershire a small amount of funding has been identified to improve wayfinding in the key Active and Sustainable Communities urban centres.

Page 19 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

Universities Working with UWE to promote sustainable travel to students and to get the best possible use of the U- Link services. Move to To work with schools to promote sustainable travel Secondary choices with a particular focus on the move to Schools secondary school.

Preparing for To work with FE colleges and job centres to promote Work, Training sustainable travel and to identify barriers to & Education sustainable travel choices for 16 to 19 year olds.

New To work with developers to ensure that sustainable Developments travel is a consideration for individuals buying new houses at the point of making the decision to buy through the provision of information and promotion of Transitions to a Low Carbon Lifestyle the benefits of sustainable travel. 7.11.

7.12. In addition to these major schemes, this paper sets out the rationale behind the transport infrastructure packages set out in Policy CS7 of the Adopted Core Strategy (Dec 2013). These packages are considered necessary to provide travel choice to the residents of the new development and assist reduce congestion in their respective areas. They comprise:

x The Cribbs/Patchway New Neighbourhoods Package; x The East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood Package; x The Yate/Chipping Sodbury Package; x The Rural Package; x The Ring Road Package.

The totality of the packages and funding priorities between individual elements is subject to: ongoing review, the availability of public funding and negotiations with respective development partners. The totality of the packages are not prerequisites to development proceeding. The relationship of these to the various spatial areas is described below; associated costs, funding sources and risks are shown in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The rationale and breakdown of costs is set out in Appendix A and B.

Communities of the North Fringe South Gloucestershire Local Plan Sites

7.13. There are several South Gloucestershire Local Plan [SGLP] sites where there is ongoing or committed development; these were described in Section 5. Given the generally congested nature of the North Fringe, high

Page 20 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

priority will be given to securing improvements in transportation infrastructure.

7.14. Therefore, SGLP Site 10 (Land East of Coldharbour Lane – 500 dwellings) would provide contributions towards the MetroBus project, as its route passes down Coldharbour Lane and would directly benefit the site. It would also contribute to the local walking & cycling network and other alternative travel initiatives, such as community transport and car clubs. Given the number of local bus services that serve Coldharbour Lane and the UWE interchange, no substantive contribution would be sought towards local bus services.

7.15. On the same basis, a contribution towards MetroBus would be sought from UWE as part of the transport package to support its proposed expansion. The Cheswick Village bus link was completed in 2012.

East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood

7.16. This development would need to fund the East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood Package, the key part of which is the NFHP MetroBus route, which would include the SGTL through the site between the Ring Road, Great Stoke Way and Parkway North Park & Ride in Stoke Gifford. The SGTL carries the MetroBus route between Bristol and the North Fringe, which is the essential public transport element of the Package. The SGTL is the prerequisite for the delivery of this new neighbourhood; hence, the development would have to provide a signification financial contribution and the land required to support the major transport scheme bid.

7.17. The new neighbourhood will need to provide pedestrian and cycle routes, including a section of the Cycle Trunk Route linking Emersons Green with Cribbs Causeway, to link it with adjacent communities and to Bristol Parkway station and UWE.

7.18. Notwithstanding these transport improvements, the new neighbourhood would still result in the generation of trips onto networks that are very congested; in consequence, financial contributions to other transport major schemes and packages would be appropriate, especially the MetroWest rail and the MetroBus major transport schemes..

Frenchay 7.19. There are two key sites in this area, UWE and the Hospital. UWE is master-planning the consolidation of its activities onto its Frenchay site, adjacent to Coldharbour Lane; there is also a proposal for a new sports stadium. The MetroBus would serve UWE from stops on Coldharbour Lane, whilst the SGTL would provide a direct link north to Bristol Parkway, Bradley Stoke and Aztec West. The master-planning should include the

Page 21 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

provision of a multi-modal interchange and bus services, plus improvements to foot and cycle networks

7.20. The redevelopment of the Frenchay Hospital site for residential and ancillary infrastructure and services, including new health facilities, will change the nature of the site’s transport impact but is likely to have a comparable impact. The net effect has been considered as part of the master-planning process..

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood and the Filton Enterprise Area 7.21. The Adopted Core Strategy promotes the development of two new neighbourhoods in the North Fringe, the East Of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood (EHSNN) located immediately north of the A4174 and east of the M32 and the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN) on the site of the former Filton Airfield further west.

7.22. All significant developments in this area would need to contribute to their site-specific transport infrastructure requirements (e.g. cross-site connections) and to the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Package. The CPNN Supplementary Planning Document [SPD] will set out the overarching principles against which development proposals will be assessed. The SPD is in preparation, whilst there are on-going discussions with the CPNN developers on the detailed site requirements.

7.23. The release of the airfield for development presents a major opportunity to improve north-south connections between Patchway and The Mall areas and land south of the airfield and Bristol City. The key strategic infrastructure requirement includes:

x The MetroBus NFHP and its extension between The Mall bus station and Parkway via the new neighbourhood (providing sufficient bus priority such that MetroBus services are not delayed by general traffic congestion); x Increased local bus service frequencies to key destinations and existing communities in Bristol and the North Fringe, such as The Mall, Southmead Hospital, UWE, Emersons Green; x New and improved strategic pedestrian and cycle routes, including the Cycle Trunk Route from Cribbs Causeway to Emersons Green, to ensure high quality links extending the Cycling City network to key destinations, including Airbus, Filton College and south to Southmead; x Contributions towards increased rail service frequency in the wider area (subject to a satisfactory business case being established at a point in the future); x Contributions towards the MetroWest major transport scheme including stations on the Henbury Line and improvements to the rail stations at Parkway and Patchway;

Page 22 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

x Improvements to the A38, A4018, M5 Junctions 16 and 17 and other local roads as appropriate. x Contributions towards traffic management measures on the local road network to mitigate the impact of development traffic upon local communities.

Communities of the East Fringe 7.24. There are several South Gloucestershire Local Plan [SGLP] sites where there is ongoing or committed development; these were described in Section 5.

7.25. Any further development at windfall sites would need to contribute towards their site-specific transport infrastructure requirements and to strategic transport infrastructure projects including the MetroBus project which includes a spur to Emersons Green. Information with regards the Ring Road Scheme is provided in Appendix A.

Yate and Chipping Sodbury 7.26. The main proposed development in this area is the North Yate New Neighbourhood; there could also be some dwellings in unspecified ‘windfall’ sites. These developments would need to contribute to their site- specific transport infrastructure requirements and to the Yate and Chipping Sodbury Package.

7.27. The Yate and Chipping Sodbury Package is designed to improve accessibility and cater for additional development in the area. Existing bus services in north Yate are limited; hence, bus services must be significantly improved to provide a public transport network that would be a viable alternative to the car.

7.28. Rather than ‘bolt-on’ new/revised services to the existing network, the scale of a proposed new neighbourhood to the north of Yate is such that a more fundamental review of bus services in the Yate and Chipping Sodbury area should be undertaken jointly with commercial operators, the Council and developers. The outcome should be a revised network that would be fit-for-purpose for the towns in the plan period. The network will provide:

x An intra-town network linking residential areas, employment areas, the town centres and transport interchanges; x A country bus network comprising routes to surrounding towns and villages; x Services to the Bristol North and East Fringe; x Limited-stop services to/from Bristol city centre.

Page 23 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

7.29. It is an aim of the Rural Package to improve bus services and infrastructure in respect of country bus services; therefore, developer contributions to this Package are also appropriate.

7.30. The limited stop services will utilise part of the network that would be delivered by the NFHP; that is, along the Ring Road and the M32. In consequence, development in Yate and Chipping Sodbury should make a contribution to the local funding requirement of the scheme.

7.31. To further increase the attractiveness of the bus services, a Park and Ride facility is proposed at Nibley; this would provide access to services for people who are beyond reasonable walking distance from bus stops.

7.32. The footfall at Yate Station would be increased by the proposed developments and, hence, contributions to its improvements would be required. The current hourly service frequency would need to double, which is the aim of the MetroWest major transport scheme; so, a financial contribution from development would be required towards this project and to any associated improvements of the station infrastructure.

7.33. The new neighbourhood would need pedestrian and cycle routes to link it with adjacent communities and to the station, the town centres and other services and the surrounding settlements such as Iron Acton. This includes the completion of the Yate Spur cycle route linking the town to Emersons Green and thence to Bristol.

7.34. Notwithstanding these transport improvements, development would still result in the generation of trips onto highway networks that are very congested in places, especially the Ring Road; in consequence, financial contributions to local highway improvements would be required and also to the Ring Road Package.

Thornbury 7.35. The main development in this area will be located on two Housing Opportunity sites located north of Castle School and adjacent to Morton Way on the northern side of the town. There could also be some dwellings in unspecified ‘windfall’ sites. These developments would need to contribute to their site-specific transport infrastructure requirements and to the Rural Package.

7.36. The Rural Package is designed to improve accessibility and cater for additional development in rural areas and small towns such as Thornbury; as such, development should make a financial contribution in respect of public transport infrastructure and services to/from the town.

Page 24 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

7.37. A particular aspiration is the extension of the A38 Showcase Bus Corridor from Bristol to Thornbury; whilst improvements may be tailored to available funding, developer contributions will be sought to provide:

x Bus priority measures at key locations (e.g. approach to M5 Junction 16); x Bus stop improvements (e.g. Real Time Information); x Service enhancements (e.g. improved frequencies and vehicles).

7.38. New development will need pedestrian and cycle routes to link it with adjacent communities, the town centre and other services. Particular importance is attached to extending the Cycle City route from Bristol to Thornbury.

7.39. Notwithstanding these transport improvements, development would still result in the generation of trips onto networks that are congested in places; in consequence, financial contributions to local highway improvements would be required.

7.40. To the North West of Thornbury, a new nuclear power station is proposed at Oldbury-upon-Severn, on a site next to the de-commissioned Oldbury Power Station. The new facility will generate significant travel demand, especially through the construction phase. This will require significant offsite facilities such as wharf / jetty provision to facilitate water-borne movement of materials and waste, highway improvements on the local road network, improvements at motorway junctions, and the provision of park and ride and freight-handling facilities at appropriate locations to minimise the impact of the movement of workers and materials upon local communities including Thornbury.

Rural Areas 7.41. The main proposed development in this area will primarily arise from unspecified ‘windfall’ sites. These developments would need to contribute to their site-specific transport infrastructure requirements and to the Rural Package.

7.42. The Rural Package is designed to improve accessibility and cater for additional development in rural areas; as such, development should make a financial contribution in respect of public transport infrastructure and services to/from the nearest town providing improved access to facilities such as education, employment, health and shopping / leisure.

7.43. New development will also need pedestrian and cycle routes to link it with adjacent settlements, services and to the strategic cycle network.

7.44. Notwithstanding these transport improvements, development would still result in the generation of trips onto networks that are congested in

Page 25 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

places; in consequence, financial contributions to local highway improvements would be required.

Severnside 7.45. Employment is a key economic driver for the West of England sub-region. Hence, the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has recently designated the area as the Avonmouth Severnside Enterprise Area (ASEA), one of the six Enterprise Zones/Areas across the region.

7.46. To realise the full potential of the Enterprise Area it is necessary to improve access to the Avonmouth Severnside area.

7.47. The most significant proposal for the Severnside area will be the delivery of an intermediate junction on the M49 to give the area direct access to the Motorway network. This will connect to a ‘spine road’ through the site to be provided by its developers. Delivery of this junction is being progressed in partnership with the Highways Agency who are responsible for the management of the M49.

7.48. The ASEA will also benefit from other transport improvements such as those delivered by the MetroWest project., which will deliver improved rail services to Avonmouth and Severn Beach

Page 26 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

APPENDIX A – Cost and funding assumptions

Cost estimates The following assumptions have been made about the costs during the foregoing notes:

Item Unit Units Notes Source cost MetroWest EiP transport High-quality priority Predominately on- £2.5m Per km studies quoting measures street running RFA bid. Pedestrian and cycle facilities Dedicated foot or SPD/EiP £150,000 cost per km cycleway Llnk transport studies Pedestrian and/or SPD/EiP £100,000 cost per crossing cycle crossing transport studies Provision of cost per set of SPD/EiP £500 dropped kerbs dropped kerbs transport studies SPD/EiP Improved signage £100 cost per sign transport studies Public transport facilities GBBN cost RT Bus Stops £20k Per stop estimates Bus priority £1.0m Per km On-street running SPD/EiP measures transport studies Bus priority Requiring new £2.5m Per km SPD/EiP measures carriageway transport studies Cost of Worle Park & Ride £9k Per space Parkway Bus services enhancements Bus Operating Per service per £200k SPD/EiP costs annum transport studies Highway works Road widening £2.5m Per km SPD/EiP transport studies Traffic Combined measures management £0.5m Per set including signs, SPD/EiP measures lining, islands etc. transport studies Rail facilities New stations £7m Per station SPD/EiP transport studies Additional local Per service per £1m Subsidy required SPD/EiP services annum transport studies

All costs should be viewed as a guide only and each proposal would need to be subject to bespoke detailed design and costing.

Page 27 of 28 IDP Transport Evidence Base

S106 Assumptions To provide an indication of possible contributions towards transport which may be accrued from new residential developments in South Gloucestershire an assumption about the likely S106 income has been made. The income which could be expected from these developments is dependent upon developers’ view of the viability of each site at the time they apply for planning permission and so could vary. Thus in order, to make an estimate of the likely S106 contributions, the income per dwelling from earlier agreements for development at Harry Stoke and Filton Northfield has been used.

In the case of the 1,200 household Harry Stoke development had previously agreed S106 payments totalling £3.43m. This equates to £2,861 per house. Whereas, the Filton Northfield development’s S106 contributions averaged £3,955 per house giving a total contribution of £8.70m from 2,200 houses. Therefore, to provide an indication of what contributions could be anticipated from new dwellings during the development if the IDP, a contribution of £3,500 per dwelling house has been assumed.

Notwithstanding this assumption, the actual S106 contributions will need to be agreed for each specific development at the time a planning application is submitted for its development and each development will be agreed on its on merits.

Page 28 of 28 SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY

INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN

EVIDENCE BASE

DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, ADULTS AND HEALTH SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL

MARCH 2014 Provision of Childcare and School Places for the 0-19 age range

1. Introduction

1.1 The shared vision for South Gloucestershire is set out in the Sustainable Communities Strategy and the Council Plan sets out how this vision will be delivered. Both of these have managing future development, promoting safer and stronger communities and modernising health and community care services as priorities.

1.2 The Local Development Framework will set out the spatial expression of these priorities and is key to the creation of sustainable communities that are well designed and planned, provide access to a full range of community facilities, formal and informal open spaces and which are well integrated with existing communities.

1.3 This paper sets out an initial assessment of requirements for future growth for the provision of [education] services and facilities for the 0-19 age range taking account of growth proposed in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy. Any variation in the overall scale or location of growth will clearly alter the requirements. The document also aims to set out the principles upon which the requirements are based.

2. Department for Children and Young People - Policy Framework

2.1 The Local Authority (LA) has a policy of delivering high quality, accessible education and childcare services through an appropriate and diverse infrastructure. The policy is well documented, and key plans and strategies that exist within the department provide an overarching framework for the delivery and provision of services. A summary description of relevant key documents, strategies and plans is provided in Appendix 1.

2.2 The policy framework reflects the changing national policy context which sets out new duties for Local Authorities (LAs). A summary of relevant education legislation underpinning these duties is provided in Appendix 2. The new duties go beyond the existing planning of school places function and incorporates the planning and commissioning of pre-school, school and 14-19 places. In this, increasingly, the LA is seen as commissioner of places for children and young people, new schools, early years and childcare places, youth provision, child and adolescent mental health services or support for children and young people and families from the voluntary sector. A significant amount of commissioning is undertaken jointly with Health and with our neighbouring Local Authorities.

2.3 The LA’s role as strategic leader in the planning of services for the 0-19 age range is summarised as follows:

x Analyse latest demographic trends to balance supply of provision with demand; x Provide sufficient diverse, accessible and inclusive learning environments to meet the needs of local children aged 0-19 (ensuring fair access and supporting increasing achievement of parental preference where possible). This includes, full day nurseries, sessional pre-schools, Children’s Centres, helping to develop the core offer of extended school facilities, youth centres and high quality play areas in partnership with the private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sector; x Encourage new providers and stimulate greater community engagement (this will require the LA to develop systems to hold competitions in respect of new and reorganised school provision); x Continue to work with schools and groups of schools to explore options for re-organisation and broker sensible solutions for shared use of accommodation (thus supporting multi-agency delivery of services and extended use, increasing participation and encouraging community cohesion); x Respond to the Growth Agenda by seeking Section 106 contributions/CIL from developers, as appropriate, to provide the educational infrastructure necessary to serve growing communities; x As commissioner of services: - Decide where schools, pre-school provision and provision for 14- 19 are needed - Decide the site/area to be served - Draw up detailed specification (size, admission number, age range) - Identify the capital provision 3. Strategic Issues/Principles

3.1 The LA’s Commissioning School Places Strategy will identify the principles by which provision of school places will be planned and delivered. As a strategic leader, the Local Authority is seen as the commissioner of places rather than necessarily being the direct provider. The role of the LA is set within a legal framework of statutory duties to ensure that there are sufficient school places in its area. Working in partnership with other stakeholders, the Local Authority will ensure all factors are brought to bear in considering educational viability, efficiency and effectiveness of provision in preparation for the future planning context.

3.2 In considering the impact of new development on local school provision at primary level, the Council considers the capacity and numbers on roll/pupil projections in all primary schools with the statutory walking distance of 2 miles. At secondary level, the Council considers the capacity and numbers on roll/pupil projections in the school that serves the local area - defined by an Area of Prime Responsibility (APR). Where there is no Area of Prime Responsibility the Council considers the capacity and numbers on roll/projections at all secondary schools with the statutory walking distance of 3 miles. Further information on Statutory Walking Distances and APRs are set out at Appendix 1.

3.3 Both the APR and distance considerations are important in order that the Council:

x continues to adhere to the principle of providing local schools for local children (South Gloucestershire Commissioning of Places Strategy 2012-2017). Local schools must be accessible and meet local needs given that schools have an important role in promoting social and community cohesion through the use of their facilities and through wider educational and community initiatives. x reduces the need for lengthy journeys to school and avoids further use of cars and increased traffic congestion (adhering the Sustainable Travel and Transport Policy). The Council considers the location and the effect on home to school journeys in school organisation planning. Schools must be within reasonable distance of the communities they serve and for all children there should be safe routes to school. x continues to meet the statutory duties of the Council in making transport provision and safeguard the use of limited public funds to ensure that in the vast majority of cases eligible pupils receive assistance (save for those offered assistance under the Council’s discretionary transport policies). The provision of places must take into account the future and ongoing transport implications and the associated resources necessary to secure provision in the long term. 3.4 New education provision commissioned by South Gloucestershire Council will take account of the following principles:

x Schools should wherever possible be sited in the community they serve, within walking distance of home and giving maximum opportunity for strong home school relationships. Children living in geographically isolated areas and those wishing to access only a faith or community school may have to travel further to school. x Schools will be designed and maintained to be at the heart of their communities and support economic and community regeneration. Community needs will determine which services will ideally be co- located with schools. x Any re-organisations will take into careful consideration the distances to be travelled by pupils accessing the schools, together with safe travel routes along footpaths and cycle routes. x In its role as commissioner of school places, the LA will seek to make capital investment decisions that increase parental access to popular and successful schools. x Wherever possible, existing primary schools should be based on totals of 210 (30 entrants per year), or 420 places (60 entrants per year), with the optimum size for a new primary school being 420 places. Land size requirements are set out in out in Appendix 3. x Where appropriate, seek opportunities for reorganisation to provide primary education on a 4-11 all through basis. x Continue to support the provision of denominational schools as part of the overall provision of school places. x Continue to consult the local community about new or changed school provision. x Continue to seek developer contributions for the provision of places as appropriate to the size and type of dwellings and in accordance with well versed procedures and practices which incorporate the use of agreed pupil yield model and DFE cost calculators (see Appendix 3 for details of cost calculators and pupil yield model). Any contribution requested is directly related to the proposed development and is reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development. A contribution is not requested where there is already surplus capacity at schools which are local to the proposed development. All contributions requested are supported by South Gloucestershire planning documents summarised as at Appendix 4. x Existing and new local centres need to provide childcare and youth facilities. New local centres which will serve a population of 1000 or more teenagers will need to incorporate a Youth Centre. Smaller local centres will need a dedicated Youth Space which may be co-located in a public building. Offsite contributions towards Children’s Centres in priority neighbourhoods (see Note 1 below) may also be sought where developments fall below these thresholds. The childcare facilities should offer a flexible range of services for different age groups; for different time periods; and for any additional needs of parents, carers and young people with a disability.

Note 1: There are 6 Priority Neighbourhoods in South Gloucestershire. These areas indicate a high level of need for services and help support vulnerable families.

3.5 Commissioning New School Provision: Working in partnership with other stakeholders, the Local Authority will ensure all factors are brought to bear in considering educational viability, efficiency and effectiveness of new education infrastructure in preparation for the future planning context. The requirements of new school infrastructure will also be informed by the Commissioning of Places Strategy and other strategic documents as appropriate. It is the responsibility of the Council to determine:

i) the requirements in relation to the size of school; ii) the preferred type of school; iii) the location, land and finances available iv) proposed opening date v) any need for associated community/nursery facilities vi) the factors that will be taken into account when choosing a preferred (common factors to be considered are likely to include: ability to deliver the stated requirements specifically in relation to size and type of school; strength of educational vision; track record of success; inclusive practices and provision for pupils with differing abilities; commitment to community provision; and educational and financial capability).

3.6 The Council will seek new/existing providers to establish new schools and the land and funding for the provision of new places will be transferred to the approved provider. In line with guidance issued by the Department for Education, the Council will first invite proposals for the establishment of a new school and this will involve early discussion with potential providers. The Council continues to adopt a pragmatic approach to issues of legal school status including Academies, Trust Schools and Free Schools and continues to support the provision of denominational schools as part of the overall provision of school places. Following informal discussion, the Council will:

x invite expressions of interest and proposers will be given a minimum of six weeks to respond; x convene a stakeholder group to consider responses (including Member involvement). 3.7 The preferred proposal would then be put forward to the Department for Education for final approval. Note: this is a summary guide and not exhaustive of all steps involved in commissioning new school provision.

3.8 Commissioning New Childcare/Nursery Provision: With the exception of one or two nurseries, the Council is no longer a direct provider of childcare in South Gloucestershire. Developers are encouraged to enter into negotiations with a private, voluntary or independent provider in order to provide a nursery facility within the development site. The location should be identified in consultation with the Council and the provision facility should be agreed with the Council prior to the commencement of development. If commercially run facilities are not to be provided as part of the development, the Council will seek a contribution to provide additional land and funds to provide extra space and facilities at one of the new school sites.

3.9 Location of School and Childcare Provision: Schools and childcare places/nursery provision should be located in the most accessible locations, designed to offer flexible facilities and designed as landmark buildings to help create a sense of place and identity. All school and nursery provision should: x be co-located and close to other community facilities; x be sited at the heart of their communities within walking distance of home and promote strong home school relationships; x support economic and community regeneration and will provide a focus for interaction with the local community. Flexible design should maximise use of facilities as multi-use spaces and community needs will determine which services will ideally be co-located with schools; x be well served by safe travel routes including footpaths, cycle ways and public transport. This will help encourage children and staff to walk to school thereby promoting a safe and healthy environment for children, young people and adults. In relation to schools there should be multiple access routes to the school grounds and safe spaces should be created both within the school grounds and on the edge; x be welcoming to all potential users and relate well to surrounding buildings and uses.

3.10 Youth Provision: In line with the requirements set out in the Developer’s Guide and in order that the Council meets national and South Gloucestershire Youth Work targets, the Council requires the developer to contribute to the provision of local youth service facilities. This will help to:

x extend the reach of youth services to children aged 13-19 generated by new development; x Increase participation of children in youth work aged 13-19 generated by new development.

3.11 Youth service provision combines elements of targeted youth work provision; information, advice and guidance; young people’s voice and influence programmes; young carers; positive activities for young people to access youth work and personal and social development programmes and volunteering and community involvement.. This creates a coherent youth development and support service with a comprehensive “offer”, working in partnership with colleagues in the voluntary sector.

3.12 Services are delivered by multiple providers and agencies and across a range of youth centres, outdoor centres, mobile units and information points. Existing services are already stretched and additional housing development will generate additional young children who will benefit from the various elements of targeted youth work provision/additional support.

3.13 The LA currently uses a figure of 25 children per 100 dwellings to determine the number of additional teenagers requiring access to Youth Service provision arising from new housing development. The uptake of Youth Services in South Gloucestershire is 30%.

3.14 Timing of new provision: The timely provision of appropriate nursery and school facilities is a major part of creating new sustainable communities across the north fringe and will be planned in line with the Chelmer model. The Chelmer model phasing is used to apply the pupil yield from the development to the pupil projections. In summary, the Chelmer model provides that:

x the first 70% of the pupil yield from each set of 300 units will require a place within the first year of that set of units being completed; x the next 30% of the pupil yield will require a place 5 years later (Year 6 of that set of units being completed).

3.15 For example, assuming a build out rate of 300 units per year, the phasing of the pupil yield would require the provision of additional places in Year 1 of the build (providing for 70% of 108 primary school age children yielded– 76 children). Numbers thereafter generate a requirement for the equivalent of one form of entry by Year 3 of the build i.e. 210 places, 2 forms of entry in Year 5 of the build (420 places), 3 forms of entry by Year 7 of the build (630 places) and so on. The triggers for the provision of new primary school places will need to be determined in line with actual build-out rates. The yield figures will also added to the local projections and compared again with the admission number capacity to arrive at a surplus/deficit for each year. This may determine a timescale that differs from the Chelmer Model. 4. Targets and Links with National Targets and datasets

4.1 The Partnership Strategy for Children and Young People 2012-2016 sets out what the Children’s Trust Board will do to improve the lives of children and young people in South Gloucestershire. It describes how the Council will work with children and young people from 0 to 19, and with young people with learning difficulties and disabilities up to 25 years of age, to help them to take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing. It also shows how the Council will work with their parents, carers and families and how we will provide targeted and specialist help to those children and young people, and their families, who need particular support or who are at risk of harm.

4.2 The Commissioning School Places Strategy 2012 – 2017 sets out how the LA plans to meet its statutory responsibility to secure sufficient education provision within its area in order to promote higher standards of attainment for pupils of primary and secondary school age. It provides a policy context for opening, closing and defining the size of schools, a summary analysis of how the LA intends to address gaps in provision/relevant policies for the commissioning of provision and the parameters for considering places for the statutory school age range. The Strategy also sets out the LA’s response to legislative change, in particular those which relate to new school competition arrangements, free schools, foundation and trust school models, academies and all though primary and secondary schools age 3-19. The Strategy explains what places are needed at present and in the future and how and where they will be provided. It provides details of over and under-subscribed schools, admission levels and an analysis of the impact of new housing developments. This is particular important in an area such as South Gloucestershire where demographic changes are significant.

4.3 The LA regularly updates its pupil projections in line with new data obtained from the Area Health Authority, data on school admissions, data obtained from the pupil level annual schools census, proposed new house building, in/out authority pupil movement and other data sources which have a bearing on pupil numbers. It is important that any assessment of the impact of new development is based on the most up-to-date data particularly given that pupil yields and financial contributions are determined by existing patterns of demand, development timing, mix and build-out rates. Any assessment of the impact of new development on the provision of school places (in response to new planning applications) is normally valid for a three month period only. The summary analysis set out in this document should be, therefore, viewed with caution and does not constitute the final position of the Council. 4.4 The Childcare Sufficiency Assessment provides a basis from which to manage the local childcare market in partnership with private, voluntary and independent providers. It is a statutory requirement to undertake an assessment and it is the Council’s statutory duty to ensure there are sufficient, flexible childcare places to meet the demands generated within the area. The assessment indentifies areas of need and enables the Council to commission places of the right type in the right locations.

5. Spatial Requirements

5.1 South Gloucestershire Wide: Pupil projections are produced across seven planning areas within South Gloucestershire for primary school provision and across five planning areas for secondary school provision. In each of the planning areas and indeed between the two phases there is variable demand for school places. Primary phase pupil numbers are increasingly significantly and secondary school numbers are decreasing in the short to medium term.

There are very few surplus places in the Reception Year Group in primary phase schools south of Filton and pressure for places is significant in schools across all areas except for schools in Thornbury and Yate and some schools in outlying rural villages/rural locations. Demand for places is projected to increase year on year from 2009 onwards in the primary phase and from 2015 onwards in the secondary phase. The Growth Agenda will also prompt a shift change in demand for places over the next 20 years where the primary school population is expected to increase by some 8,000 pupils generating an additional need for additional primary schools. The secondary school population is expected to increase by around 4,000 pupils generating additional need for secondary school and extended school places. The longer term projections in the secondary phase indicate that additional school provision will be required post 2020 to meet demand generated from new house building.

5.2 Spatial Areas: The pupil yield generated by housing development is heavily dependent upon the size and type of dwellings to be developed, which is not yet known. A summary of estimated requirements for each of the spatial areas (including associated options) is provided below and is based upon a typical mix of dwellings. These estimates should not be viewed as minimum or maximum requirements and should not be taken as the final position of the Council. The provisional costs of providing for these requirements are set out in Appendix 5. Main Sites - South Gloucestershire Core Strategy New Neighbourhoods No. Dwellings Phasing East of Harry Stoke 2,000 2015/16 – 2025/26 Cribbs / Patchway 5,700 2013/14 – 2023/24 Land North of Yate 3,000 2015/16 – 2025/26 Thornbury 500 2012/13 – 2017/18 Land East of Coldharbour Lane 500 2011/12 – 2017/18 Frenchay Hospital 450 2013/14 - 2018/19

5.3 East of Harry Stoke: The scenario of 2,000 new dwellings may generate three and a half forms of entry at primary level. These primary pupils may be accommodated at two primary schools located within the development.

5.4 The development may also generate two and a half forms of entry at secondary level. Based on current pupil numbers and depending on the mix, timing and build-out rates, it is anticipated that secondary school age children yielded from the proposed development on the land East of Harry Stoke will be accommodated at existing secondary schools within a 3 miles radius. The Council however, will need to review the sufficiency and subsequent provision of secondary schools places as new and updated information/data becomes available and during the planning application process. This will be particularly important given that high numbers on roll currently in the primary phase will roll forward into the secondary phase and longer term projections indicate demand for secondary school places will increase and surplus places will decrease. Any additional demand for places necessitated by new housing development will require additional secondary school provision and the Council will seek developer contributions as appropriate. The Council will regularly review its position in the context of CIL offsite contributions.

5.5 It will also generate the need for a new full-day nursery with 60 places, and new Children’s and Youth Facilities to be located within the development and / or contributions towards Children’s Centres offsite.

5.6 Cribbs / Patchway New Neighbourhood: The Core Strategy contains a provision for 5,700 new dwellings in Cribbs Causeway and Patchway area. The phasing of the development is set out in the table below. Number of Dwellings and Phasing of Development at Cribbs/Patchway Cribbs/Patchway No. of Phasing New Neighbourhood Dwellings A – Land West of the A4018 1,000 2015 – 2021 B – Land South of Filton Airfield 1,200 2014 – 2020 C – Filton Airfield 2,500 2015 – 2026 D – Rest of Cribbs/Patchway Area 1,000 2021 – 2026 Total for Cribbs / Patchway 5,700 2014 – 2026

5.7 Summary requirements for the provision of education are as follows:

x a total of 5,700 new dwellings may generate 10 forms of entry at primary level. These primary pupils may be accommodated at 5 new primary schools located within the development. x at secondary level the new neighbourhood at Cribbs/Patchway will generate 7 forms of entry. These secondary pupils may be accommodated at a new local secondary school located within the development. x it will also generate the need for 4 new full-day nurseries each providing 60 places. New nursery provision must be located within the development.

Indicative financial and land contributions for new school and nursery provision New Children and Young People Indicative Indicative Neighbourhoods Requirements Contribution Land Amount (£M) Contribution as at 2010 Q4 (ha) Cribbs / Patchway Primary – 10 FE on 5 sites 25.9 10.0 Secondary – 7 FE 19.5 8.2 Nursery – 4 x 60 place 2.1 1.6 Children’s Centre 0.5 0.2 Youth Provision 0.3 0.2 5,700 dwellings Total £48.3M 20.2 ha

5.8 Requirements for each parcel of land comprising Cribbs/Patchway New Neighbourhood: The four new neighbourhoods are likely to be developed separately, and it is not yet certain in which order they will be completed. It is possible that development of one or more of the areas may be delayed for a significant period of time.

5.9 In the long-term, Children’s Services will be provided seamlessly across the four new neighbourhoods; parents and children should not need to be aware of boundaries between the four areas. The detail provide at Appendix 7 is an outline plan for how the service requirements may be provided to allow for variations in development schedules. Land Parcels Comprising Cribbs/Patchway: Requirements New No. Projected Pro rata Children’s Services Neighbourhoods Dwellings No. Calculation to be provided on site Secondary of Land Pupils A – Land West of 1,000 1.2 FE 1.4 ha Primary School the A4018 1.5 FE Nursery 60 place B – Land South 1,200 1.4 FE 1.8 ha Primary School 2 of Filton Airfield FE Nursery 60 place C – Filton Airfield 2,500 3.0 FE 3.6 ha Primary Schools 1 x 3 FE 1 x 2 FE Nursery / 2 x 60 place Secondary School1 7 FE Youth Provision D – Rest of 1,000 1.2 FE 1.4 ha Primary School Cribbs/Patchway 1 Area .5FE Nursery 60 place Total for Cribbs / 5,700 6.8 FE 8.2 ha Patchway

5.10 Land North of Yate: The scenario of 3,000 new dwellings may generate five forms of entry at primary level. These primary pupils may be accommodated at two primary schools located within the development.

5.11 This preferred scenario may also generate four forms of entry at secondary level. These secondary pupils may be accommodated at existing local secondary schools, which may need to be extended.

5.12 It will also generate the need for a new full-day nursery with 60 places, and new Children’s and Youth facilities to be located within the

1 Ideally, the secondary school would be sited so that it crosses the border between neighbourhoods B and C. This would avoid the need for a land swap. Pro rata contributions would be required of approximately 1.8 ha of land in neighbourhood B, and 6.4 ha in neighbourhood C. development and / or contributions towards Children’s Centres offsite.

5.13 Thornbury: The Department for Children and Young People projects falling numbers of primary pupils in and around Thornbury in the coming years. Additional housing in the Thornbury area would assist the ongoing sustainability of existing schools in the area. The Castle School is considering options for the modernisation / redevelopment of its Sixth Form Centre and potential consolidation onto a single site. Development in Thornbury will generate additional demand for secondary school places and existing provision will need to be extended to meet the needs of local children.

5.14 Land East of Coldharbour Lane: The scenario of 500 new dwellings may generate up to one form of entry at primary level, and half of one form of entry at secondary level. There are very few surplus places at existing primary schools. The Council will need to consider options to extend the provision/increase the supply of places at existing primary and secondary schools. The Council will regularly review its position in the context of CIL offsite contributions.

5.15 Frenchay Hospital: The development of the Frenchay hospital site will generate the need for an equivalent of a one form of entry primary school. The Council will seek land and a financial contribution for new primary provision on the development site, though it will need to consider its options for the provision of places given the proximity of other local primary school provision.

5.16 Unidentified windfalls: Regeneration of existing urban areas will continue to generate a substantial number of additional dwellings on small and medium sized sites yet to be identified over the Core Strategy plan period. These developments will continue to place localised pressure on those schools / planning areas showing current high levels of demand. Previously the Council has applied a threshold, above which x number of dwellings it would seek to negotiate S106 agreements / contributions for Educational Services. The Council does not consider this approach equitable any longer and now advocates a roof tax / tariff approach either through CIL (subject to legislation being introduced) or existing circular 05/05 guidance. Until this approach is possible through the development of SPD or DPD the Council will consider applications on their merits in terms of impact on local schools on a case by case basis.

5.17 Land has been identified for a new secondary school at Emerson’s Green East through the master plan and Section 106 agreement for planning permission PK04/1965/0. Delivery would be expected towards the end of the plan period. The identified secondary school site has potential to provide capacity well beyond the requirements of the EGE development. It therefore would provide benefits to a much wider area. The Council will therefore continue to monitor the potential sources of funding and providers, but intends to investigate the potential to pool developer contributions from a wider area through a CIL. APPENDIX 1

Department for Children and Young People Documents - Key Strategies and Plans

The Partnership Strategy for Children and Young People 2016-2016

Sets out what the Children’s Trust Board will do to improve the lives of children and young people in South Gloucestershire. It describes how we work with children and young people from 0 to 19, and with young people with learning difficulties and disabilities up to 25 years of age, to help them to take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing. It also shows how we will work with their parents, carers and families and how we will provide targeted and specialist help to those children and young people, and their families, who need particular support or who are at risk of harm.

Commissioning of School Places Strategy

The Commissioning School Places Strategy 2012 – 2017 sets out how the LA plans to meet its statutory responsibility to secure sufficient education provision within its area in order to promote higher standards of attainment for pupils of primary and secondary school age. It provides a policy context for opening, closing and defining the size of schools, a summary analysis of how the LA intends to address gaps in provision/relevant policies for the commissioning of provision and the parameters for considering places for the statutory school age range. The Strategy explains what places are needed at present and in the future and how and where they will be provided. It provides details of over and under-subscribed schools, admission levels and an analysis of the impact of new housing developments. This is particular important in an area such as South Gloucestershire where demographic changes are significant.

South Gloucestershire’s Developers’ Guide

South Gloucestershire’s Developers’ Guide states in the section entitled Children and Young People: “Where demand exceeds local capacity, developers will be expected to meet the full cost of providing a site and additional school accommodation for pupils living in new development.” (Page 14, para.3) Accordingly, the appropriate level of education provision to meet the needs arising from the whole of the proposed development is considered for nursery and primary provision below.

Admission to School Booklets: Primary and Secondary

The Primary and secondary school admission booklets incorporate the admission policies to cover all schools in South Gloucestershire. School places are allocated according to Admission to School Policies. It will be for the Admission Authority of the school to determine the criteria by which places will be allocated. Where the LA is the Admission Authority, the LA’s oversubscription criteria will APPENDIX 1 apply. South Gloucestershire Council is the Admission Authority for Community and Controlled schools. Individual Governing Bodies are the Admission Authorities for Voluntary Aided schools. The LA’s oversubscription criteria allocate places according to, among other criterion, geographical considerations as follows:

x geographical considerations (those living with a School’s Area of Prime Responsibility); x geographical considerations (those living outside a School’s Area of Prime Responsibility).

In either criterion the intention is that priority will be given to children who live closest to the school. Where an Area of Prime Responsibility exists, the area indicates to parents/carers the schools which normally serve the home address. The APR is particularly helpful in densely populated areas.

Home to School Transport Policy

South Gloucestershire Council policy is to provide schools that are accessible, meet local needs and are within reasonable distance of the communities they serve. Schools have an important role in promoting social and community cohesion through the use of their facilities and through wider educational and community initiatives. Local provision is also important in reducing the need for lengthy journeys to school and avoiding further use of cars and increased traffic congestion. The LA considers the location and the effect on home to school journeys in school organisation planning. For all children there should be safe routes to school. The provision of places therefore needs consideration of the transport implications.

Statutory Walking Distance: The statutory distances from home to school beyond which transport must be provided are defined by Section 444 of the Education Act 1996:

(a) in relation to a child who is under the age of eight, 3.218688 kilometres (2 miles), and (b) in relation to a child who has attained the age of eight, 4.828032 kilometres (3 miles), in each case measured by the nearest available route.

In law, the ‘nearest appropriate school’ is defined by the Local Authority and will generally be the school geographically closest to home unless a special arrangement is made. The Local Authority has also to consider whether the walking route to the nearest appropriate school is unusually hazardous. If it decides the route is hazardous, transport can be arranged even though the distance requirements are not met. APPENDIX 1

Note: The statutory requirements on admissions and transport are separate. On school admissions, parents are entitled to express a preference for any school they wish and to obtain a place if one is available within the admission arrangements for that school. Parental preferences are not constrained by such matters as the nearest school, the previous history of admission patterns or community views.

The two important points follow from these statutory requirements. First, a child will not necessarily be entitled to have transport just because the child attends the preferred school. Secondly, if the route to any school from a location is hazardous it does not mean that transport will be automatically given to any preferred school.

Area of Prime Responsibility (APR): The Area of Prime Responsibility is a defined geographical area. It indicates to parents the school which serves the home address and is of prime importance in helping parents/carers to assess their chances of being offered a place at their local school. Further weight to the relevance of APRs is given in the statutory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code published February 2012. The Code requires that “catchment areas should be designed so that they are reasonable and clearly defined” and “parents should be able to look at a set of admission arrangements and understand, easily, how a place will be allocated.” Furthermore, South Gloucestershire Council’s Admission to School booklet on Secondary transfer states that “The Council strongly recommends that parents/carers indicate a preference for the school that serves their home address.” The Area of Prime Responsibility also forms part of the Oversubscription Criteria which is used to determine the allocation of places when applications exceed the number of places available.

Childcare Sufficiency Assessment

The assessment provides a basis from which to manage the local childcare market in partnership with private, voluntary and independent providers. The LA already holds information on the supply of registered childcare in South Gloucestershire and has some valuable knowledge of the demand for childcare obtain as part of the Sure Start Children’s centre developments, from the work of the CYPIS and through asking local providers about current vacancies. The LA’s Childcare Sufficiency Assessment takes the LA’s knowledge a stage further and has provided an evidence base for some of the more anecdotal information gathered as part of the day to day experience of working with the sector. The assessment enables the LA better to target its work and resources to meet specific needs in relation to type, location and sufficiency of provision and also focus support, advice and training in areas of need. APPENDIX 1

Standards for School Premises - Space Requirements for Primary and Secondary School Accommodation

The Government’s advice note Standards for School Premises is non-statutory, and has been produced to help recipients understand their obligations and duties in relation to the School Premises Regulations 2012. The note provides area guidelines for primary and secondary school buildings and is used by South Gloucestershire Council to inform school space requirements. APPENDIX 2

Relevant Education Legislation

School Standards and Framework Act 1998: Section 118 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 places a duty on local authorities to ensure sufficient nursery education provision for children of the prescribed age (3 and y year olds). It requires local authorities, in pursuance of this duty, to have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State.

Infant Class Size Legislation: The Infant Class Size Legislation was introduced as part of The School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The Act placed a duty on LAs and the governing bodies of maintained schools to limit the size of infant classes to 30 pupils per 'qualified teacher' (the Education (Infant Class Sizes) Regulations 1998). The Education Act 2002 subsequently amended the School Standards and Framework Act to limit the size of infant classes to 30 pupils to a single 'school teacher' (as opposed to a single 'qualified teacher'). South Gloucestershire Council helped schools meet the requirements by ensuring that primary school admission numbers were based on multiples of 30 and in exceptional circumstances 15.

Education Act 1996: Part 1, Chapter 111, section 14 places a duty on LAs to provide sufficient school places for children living in their area.

Section 444 of the Education Act 1996: Statutory duties on the provision of home to school transport.

Childcare Act 2006: Through the Childcare Act 2006 and the accompanying National Ten Year Childcare Strategy, the Government have sought to achieve their aim of high quality, flexible, affordable and accessible childcare under the banner of “sufficiency”. There are two duties, which the LA must have regard, the duty to assess sufficiency and the linked duty to secure sufficient childcare.

Section 11 of the Childcare Act 2006 gives LA’s the duty to undertake childcare sufficiency assessments, the first of which must be completed by April 2008 Section 6 of the Childcare Act 2006 gives LA’s a new duty of securing, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the provision of childcare is sufficient to meet the requirements of parents in their area in order to enable them to work, or undertake education or training leading to work.

Sufficient childcare in Section 6 of the Childcare Act 2006 is defined as ‘sufficient to meet the requirements of parents in the [local authority’s] area who require childcare in order for them to take up, or remain in, work, or training. Local Authorities need to satisfy themselves that, so far as is reasonably practicable: x There are sufficient places overall in each sub-local authority area, having regard to demographic trends and to patterns of employment and of travelling to work. APPENDIX 2 x There is sufficient flexibility, with places being available at the right times (for example, in the early morning, late evening, at weekends or during school holidays), to fit in with working patterns. x Places are sufficiently accessible, so that parents do not have to travel too far out of their way to access childcare. x Childcare places are high quality, in terms of judgements made by Ofsted. x Sufficiency will be met when parents in the local area are able to access the childcare they need to be able to work or train.

See also Education Act 2011 for a reference to the Council’s statutory duty to provide free nursery places for entitled 2 Year Olds.

Education and Inspections Act 2006: Under the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the Government has laid down a framework for the future organisation of school provision, proposals for new and reorganised provision, and the legal status of schools and the development of academies.

The EIA Act 2006 inserted new sections 508B and 508C into the Act. These sections place a duty on local authorities to ensure that suitable travel arrangements are made, where necessary to facilitate a child’s attendance at school. Details of eligible children and statutory distances are also set out as part of the duty applying to the provision of home to school transport. The LA’s home to school transport policies are published annually in the Admission to School booklets for primary and secondary schools.

Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (Section 198) places a duty on Local Authorities to establish sufficient numbers of Children’s Centres in their area to meet local needs.

Education and Skills Act 2008: The Education and Skills Act 2008 increases participation in learning for young people by legislating to raise the education leaving age to 18. Raising the participation age gives every young person the best chance to achieve and succeed. Young people are required to participate in education or training until their 18th birthday through either: x full-time education or training, including school, college and home education; x work-based learning, such as an Apprenticeship, including traditional contracts of apprenticeship; or x part-time education or training, if they are employed, self-employed or volunteering more than 20 hours a week.

In doing this, young people have new rights to take up opportunities for education and training, and the support they need to engage in learning. The APPENDIX 2

Commissioning of Places Strategy 0-19 will set out the mechanisms by which South Gloucestershire Council will support raising the participation age.

Academies Act 2010: Makes it possible for all publicly funded schools in England to become academies, still publicly funded but with a vastly increased degree of autonomy in issues such as setting teachers' wages and diverging from the National Curriculum.

Education Act 2011 Section 1 of the Education Act 2011 enables the Government to extend the early education entitlement to two-year-olds who meet eligibility criteria set out in regulations.

Section 37 enacts Schedule 11 of the Act which makes provision about the creation of new schools. It requires that when a local authority is of the opinion that a new school is required, it must seek proposals for such a school to be created through the creation of a new academy school, and that no competition for the creation of a new school may begin without the local authority obtaining the consent of the Secretary of State. The Schedule sets out the various bureaucratic processes that must be conducted by both the local authority and Secretary of State when the local authority decides that a new school is needed. APPENDIX 3

Cost Calculators and Yield Model

Pupil Cost Calculators: Department for Education and Skills (DFE) current cost calculators for school provision.

DFE cost calculator published in 2008 for South Glos April 2008 - March 2010 based on projected pricing levels (RICS Building Cost Index) at Q4 2008

Cost per place New Extension Multiplier Primary 12,651 10,747 11,890 Secondary 19,000 16,287 17,915

All figures have been reduced by the New 1fe primary 2,656,763 South Glos Location Factor = 0.97 New 2fe primary 5,313,526

New 6fe secondary 17,100,230

Yield Formula x The Department for Children and Young People calculates that new developments will generate 36 primary pupils per 100 dwellings and 18 secondary pupils per 100 dwellings on average. x The actual number of pupils generated at a particular development depends upon the size and type of dwellings in the development. A more refined calculator is applied to proposed developments once the mix of dwelling types is known. x The number of under-5 year-olds generated is calculated on a pro-rata basis, using the expected number of primary pupils. It is used when calculating requirements for Children’s Centres. x The number of teenagers generated is calculated on a pro-rata basis, using the expected number of secondary pupils. It is used when calculating requirements for Youth Centres. x A Children’s Centre is required to serve each population of 800 under-5 year-olds. A Youth Centre is required to serve each population of 1000 teenagers.

South Gloucestershire’s figures are based on research undertaken in April 2001 on behalf of six Unitary Authorities in Berkshire experiencing significant new housing development (set out in the Developer’s Guide pages 12-13). Since that time a more recent and specific survey of new developments in South Gloucestershire has been undertaken in order to ascertain the number of children and young people per household. The survey was completed in June 2006 and confirmed that the existing yield per 100 dwellings is appropriate as a starting point for considering required developer contributions where the mix is not known. Where the proposed mix of dwellings is known, then a more detailed formula based on the type and size of dwellings is applied. A report to the APPENDIX 3

Council’s Executive Councillor for Children and Young People in January 2007 recommended that these yield formulas be adopted. The yield formulas were agreed as recommended on 5 February 2007 (see below).

Executive Member Decision January 2007: Children and Young People Population Assessments. The decision was agreed on 5 February 2007 and is as follows:

1. To agree that the current starting point for calculating the level of developer contributions requested for the provision of services for children and young people, i.e.

x 36 places per 100 dwellings of two bedrooms and above for primary pupils x 18 places per 100 dwellings of two bedrooms and above for secondary pupils remains appropriate, where the proposed housing mix is not known.

2. To agree that where the proposed housing mix is known the basis of calculating the level of developer contributions requested for the provision of services for children and young people will be on a formula basis per type and size of dwelling, according to the profile of house occupation across new housing developments in South Gloucestershire obtained from the house-to-house survey carried out in June 2006, as set out below:

Number of bedrooms Flats Houses 1 or 2 3+ 1 2 3 4 5+ Pre school children per 100 dwellings 12 18 0 24 36 39 32 Primary pupils per 100 dwellings 4 30 4 9 30 46 65 Secondary pupils per 100 dwellings 0 0 3 3 14 27 46 Post 16 pupils per 100 dwellings 0 0 0 1 3 10 8

Land Size Requirements

Land will be requested in Section 106 Agreements for each of the proposed new schools and centres. The following minimum areas of land are required for each type of building:

Primary Schools – 1.2 ha for 1FE, 2.0 ha for 2FE Secondary Schools – 7.7 ha for 6FE Nursery – 0.2 ha for 30 places, 0.4 ha for 60 places Children’s Centre – 0.1 ha Youth Centre – 0.1 ha APPENDIX 4

Key South Gloucestershire Planning Documents

South Gloucestershire Local Plan (SGLP): Policy LC2 of the SGLP relates to the provision for education facilities. It states that “…where local education provision is inadequate to meet the projected need for places (pre-school, primary and secondary) arising from the future occupiers of proposals for new residential development, the Council will negotiate with developers to secure provision in scale and kind to meet these needs. This may include provision on-site by the developer and/or contributions to provision or enhancements of existing provision within the vicinity…” (page 292, para 1).

Appropriate level of provision: South Gloucestershire’s Local Plan (adopted January 2006) states in Chapter 2 (Sustainability): “An important element of the Local Plan strategy will be to … ensure that it … (new development)… makes an appropriate contribution to the provision of new or improved essential facilities and services which will be needed in the development in question.” (Page 12, para.2.6)

Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10): Annex A, p.131, identifies that residential development should be proposed within walking distance of a food shop and a primary school.

South Gloucestershire Core Strategy incorporating Post-Submission Changes December 2011 and reflecting the Inspector’s Preliminary Findings and draft Main Modifications (September 2012): Policy CS6 – Infrastructure & Developer Contributions, states that ‘all new development of a sufficient scale that would add to the overall demand and impact on infrastructure will be required to provide: Site specific measures…financial contributions etc’. Education Facilities are included in the definition of ‘Infrastructure’.

Department of the Environment Circular 05/05 Planning Obligations: A key principle of the guidance, as set out in paragraph B12, is that an obligation should “…be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development and reasonable in all other respects.” Paragraph B9 gives specific examples where a Planning Obligation may be appropriate. One such example is the provision of community facilities within new development. The guidance states that “…if a proposed development would give rise to the need for additional or expanded community infrastructure, for example, a new school classroom, which is necessary in planning terms and not provided for in an application, it might be acceptable for contributions to be sought towards this additional provision through a planning obligation.”

Page: 25 APPENDIX 5

Overview – Indicative Costs of Education Infrastructure

The purpose of this document is to give indicative ballpark figures for the amount of any education contribution that may be requested for each development scenario based on the DFE Cost Calculator for Basic Needs Allocation. Total build costs may be significantly higher. They are not maximum or minimum figures, and are subject to variation due to a number of variables including:

x the proposed dwelling numbers and mix at the time of a planning application; x impact of any projected future surplus capacity in nearby existing schools at the time of a planning application.

Figures are indexed at the Financial Year 2008/9 Quarter 4 level of the RICS Building Cost Index. Figures are not indicative of actual build costs which are considerably higher. Figures provide an early indication of the level of contribution required for development scenarios presented in the pre-submission document and will inevitably vary between 2010 -2026. Actual contributions are likely to be required between 2010 – 2041 to take account of the number pupils yielded from all developments (there is up to a 15 year lag between housing development and pupil yield). Early indications are that the values may have increased from these values by approximately 7% (as at March 2010), though official figures for this year have not yet been published. All figures are indicative only and should be viewed in that way and read in conjunction with the respective statements in section 5. Note: Early Years (EY) provision in South Gloucestershire is provided by private, voluntary and independent providers. South Gloucestershire Council requires developers to identify suitable provision to meet the needs of pre-school children.

Page: 26 APPENDIX 5 South Gloucestershire Council Core Strategy (costs calculated April 2013 –refer to footnotes) New Neighbourhoods No. Children and Young People Indicative Indicative Dwellings Requirements Contribution Contribution Note: Requirements will vary in line Amount (£M) Amount (£M) with development housing mix as at Q4 2008 as at Q4 20112 proposals, build-out timescales and Note: Actual amounts Note: Actual amounts the Council’s strategy for school will vary. Costs are will vary. Costs are place planning. not indicative of not indicative of actual build costs. actual build costs. Build costs will be Build costs will be significantly higher) significantly higher) East of Harry Stoke 2,000 Primary – New – 3½ FE on 2 9.1 9.2 New Neighbourhood Sites 6.8 6.9 Secondary – New – 2½ FE on 1 0.5 0.5 Site 0.5 0.5 Nursery (EY/Pre-school provision) 0.2 0.2 Children’s Centre (EY/Pre-school) 17.1 17.3 Youth Provision Sub-Total Cribbs / Patchway New 5,700 Primary – New – 10 FE on 5 Sites 25.9 26.3 Neighbourhood(s) Secondary –New – 7 FE 19.5 19.8 Nursery (EY/Pre-school provision) 2.1 2.1 Children’s Centre (EY/Pre-school) 0.5 0.5 Youth Provision 0.3 0.3 Sub-Total 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 48.8 49.5

2 Between Q4 2008 and Q4 2011, the RICS BCI decreased from 240 to 227, and the SG location factor increased from 0.97 to 1.04. Indicative contributions have been converted by multiplying by (227 / 240) x (1.04 / 0.97) = 1.014 (i.e. +1.4%) and then rounded to 1 decimal place. The projected value of the RICS BCI for Q4 2012 shows no change from Q4 2011, this may change when DfE or RICS publish actual indices for 2012. Page: 27 APPENDIX 5 New Neighbourhoods No. Children and Young People Indicative Indicative Dwellings Requirements Contribution Contribution Note: Requirements will vary in line Amount (£M) Amount (£M) with development housing mix as at Q4 2008 as at Q4 20112 proposals, build-out timescales and Note: Actual amounts Note: Actual amounts the Council’s strategy for school will vary. Costs are will vary. Costs are place planning. not indicative of not indicative of actual build costs. actual build costs. Build costs will be Build costs will be significantly higher) significantly higher) Land North of Yate 2,800 Primary – New – 5 FE on 2 Sites 12.8 13.0 Secondary – Ext – 4 FE 8.2 8.3 Nursery (EY/Pre-school provision) 0.5 0.5 Children’s Centre (EY/Pre-school) 0.5 0.5 Youth Provision 0.3 0.3 Sub-Total 22.3 22.6

Thornbury 500 Primary – New – 1 FE on 1 Site 0.0 to 2.3 0.0 to 2.3 Secondary – Ext – 1 FE 0.0 to 1.5 0.0 to 1.5 Nursery (EY/Pre-school 0.2 0.2 provision) 0.2 0.2 Children’s Centre (EY/Pre-school) 0.1 0.1 Youth Provision 0.5 to 4.3 0.5 to 4.3 Sub-Total

Land East of 500 Primary – New Ext – 1 FE on 1 2.3 2.3 Coldharbour Lane Site 0.0 to 1.5 0.0 to 1.5 Secondary – Ext – 1 FE 0.2 0.2 Nursery (EY/Pre-school provision) 0.2 0.2 Children’s Centre (EY/Pre-school) 0.1 0.1 Youth Provision 2.8 to 4.3 2.8 to 4.3 Sub-Total Frenchay Hospital 450 TBC TBC TBC Figures indicate the level of contribution required for development scenarios presented in the post-submission document as at 2008/09 prices. Actual contributions will vary significantly. Figures are not representative of build costs. Build costs will be significantly higher. All figures are indicative only and should be viewed in that way.

Page: 28 APPENDIX 6

Summary of Evidence

South Gloucestershire Documents

Planning Documents x South Gloucestershire Local Plan (SGLP) Adopted 2006 x Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10) x Department for the Environment Circular 05/05: Planning Obligations (July 2005)

Department for Children and Young People Documents x The Partnership Strategy for Children and Young People x Commissioning of Places Strategy 0-19 x South Gloucestershire Developer Guide x Youth Services Future Strategy x Admission to School Booklets – Primary and Secondary x Home to School Transport Policy x Building Bulletin 98: Briefing Framework for Primary School Accommodation x Building Bulletin 98: Briefing Framework for Secondary School Accommodation x BB102 Inclusion and Special School/Unit Accommodation

Relevant Education legislation

x School Standards and Framework Act 1998 x Infant Class Size Legislation x The Education Act 1996 x Children Act 2004 x Education Act 2002 x Education and Inspections Act 2006 x Childcare Act 2006 x Education and Skills Act 2008 x Academies Act 2010 x Education Act 2011

Other Material Considerations: Pupil Yield Model/Cost Calculators

x Department for Education (DFE) current cost calculators for school provision x Executive Member Decision January 2007

Page: 29 APPENDIX 7

Cribbs/Patchway New Neighbourhood – Land Parcels and Impact

A - Land West of the A4018 (1,000 dwellings) This development is projected to generate up to 1.7 FE primary pupils. Pupils will be accommodated in a new 1.5 FE primary school on site, with additional places provided in Area B. Early years education will be provided in a 60 place nursery on site.

B - Land South of Filton Airfield (1,200 dwellings) This development is projected to generate up to 2.1 FE primary pupils, and there may be an inflow of up to 0.2 FE from Area A. Pupils will be accommodated in a new 2FE primary school on site. Additional places will be provided in Area C for children resident in the eastern part of the neighbourhood. Early years education will be provided in a 60 place nursery on site.

C – Filton Airfield (2,500 dwellings) This development is projected to generate up to 4.3 FE primary pupils, and there may be an inflow of up to 0.3 FE from Area B. Pupils will be accommodated in two new primary schools on site one at 2FE and one at 3FE.

The most flexible solution would be for the 3FE school site to be next to the secondary school site. Early years education will be provided in a 60 place nursery on site. Consideration will be given to providing a further 60 places at a Children’s Centre on site, depending upon future legislation and statutory guidance regarding nursery education for two-year-olds.

Youth provision will be provided on site to meet the requirements of all four new neighbourhoods

D – Rest of Cribbs/Patchway Area (1,000 dwellings) This development is projected to generate up to 1.7 FE primary pupils. If this development comprises a significant proportion of flats and smaller houses, then fewer pupils may be generated. Pupils will be accommodated in a new 1.5FE primary school on site with any additional places provided at existing primary schools in the area.

Early years education will be provided in a 60 place nursery on site.

Provision of Secondary School Places

The four neighbourhoods are projected to generate between 7 forms of entry at secondary level (c. 1050 places). These secondary pupils may be accommodated at a new secondary school located within the development.

The best location for a new secondary school site of 8.2 ha would be towards the western end of Area C. The site could possibly be situated so that it crosses the border with Area B which would contribute approximately 1.8 ha on a pro rata basis, with the remaining 6.4 ha in Area C.

Page: 30 APPENDIX 7

A mechanism would need to be found for Areas A and D to make a financial or land contribution in lieu of provision of their share of the secondary school site. The table below shows the projected numbers of secondary pupils that would be generated by a typical mix of family housing. The actual numbers are likely to be slightly lower, depending upon the type and mix of dwelling constructed.

These figures are approximate, and depend upon the final type and mix of dwelling in each neighbourhood.

If Areas A or B are developed several years in advance of provision of a new secondary school in Area C, then it may be necessary to provide additional accommodation at either Patchway Community College or Abbeywood Community School. This may entail additional costs for the provision of temporary buildings at those sites, and pupils would be entitled to funding for transport to school.

Page: 31 SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY

INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN

EVIDENCE BASE

HEALTH SERVICES (NHS South Gloucestershire)

December 2011

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I 1. Introduction

1.1. The shared vision for South Gloucestershire is set out in the Sustainable Communities Strategy and the Council Plan sets out how this vision will be delivered. Both of these have managing future development, promoting safer and stronger communities and modernising health and community care services as priorities.

1.2. The Local Development Framework will set out the spatial expression of these priorities and is key to the creation of sustainable communities that are well designed and planned, provide access to a full range of community facilities, formal and informal open spaces and which are well integrated with existing communities.

1.3. This paper sets out an assessment of requirements for future growth for NHS health service provision taking account of dwelling growth proposed in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy Proposed Changes Version (Dec 2010). Any variation in the overall scale or location will clearly alter the requirements. The document also aims to set out the principles upon which the requirements are based.

2. NHS Health Service Provision

2.1. NHS services and facilities are crucial to the health and well-being of the local population.

2.2. Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) were created in 1999. They are corporate bodies established by statute – most recently the National Health Service Act 2006. As a statutory body, a PCT’s functions, powers and duties are set out in legislation.

2.3. PCTs have a duty to ensure access and choice to a range of high quality health services and ensure that the Government’s commitments to health, reducing health inequalities and health services are delivered for local people (Commissioning a patient-led NHS, 2005).

2.4. In support of these duties the PCT commissions services for: x GP primary care services, x Primary dental services, x a range of other health care provision including emergency and planned outpatient and inpatient services x Midwifery, health visiting and other community services including services such as District Nurses, Community Matrons and Intermediate Care.

2.5. NHS South Gloucestershire has a duty to ensure that there are sufficient services for people within its area and that these services are accessible. It

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I must also make sure that all health services are provided, including hospitals, dentists, opticians, mental health services, NHS walk-in centres, NHS Direct, patient transport (including accident and emergency), population screening, and pharmacies.

2.6. The vision of NHS South Gloucestershire set out in Strategic Plan 2009/10 – 2013/14 (June 2009) is to “maximise the health and well being of people in South Gloucestershire”.

2.7. NHS South Gloucestershire has four strategic priorities, these are:

1) Improve the health of people living in South Gloucestershire through effective partnerships with other organisations and with local people; 2) Reduce differences in health between people and places in South Gloucestershire; 3) Bring more health services closer to local people by delivering more primary and community-based services; and 4) Improve the experience of local patients when they use health by making sure that health services are provided promptly, safely and effectively.

2.8. NHS South Gloucestershire’s strategy requires appropriate outpatient clinics to operate in settings other than major hospitals, including community health facilities, and that, where appropriate, diagnostic services such as X-ray should be available.

2.9. The Department of Health allocates funding directly to PCTs primarily on the basis of the relative needs of their populations A weighted capitation formula determines each PCT’s target share of available resources, to enable them to commission similar levels of health services for populations in similar need, and to reduce avoidable health inequalities.

2.10. The weighted capitation formula calculates PCTs' target shares of available resources based on PCT populations adjusted for their age distribution, additional need above that accounted for by age, and unavoidable geographical variations in the cost of providing services. This is set out in Resource Allocation: Weighted Capitation Formula Sixth Edition (published by Department of Health: December 2008).The starting point and primary determinant of weighted capitation targets is the size of the populations for which PCTs are responsible.

2.11. The Health White Paper, 'Equity and Excellence: liberating the NHS' was published in July 2010 and set out a restructuring of the NHS that will change the way health care is commissioned in the future. Following consultation, the government published ‘Liberating the NHS: Legislative framework and next steps’ in December 2010.

2.12. The Health and Social Care Bill, which was introduced into Parliament on 19 January 2011, takes forward the areas of Equity and Excellence: Liberating

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I 2.13. Subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill, the NHS Commissioning Board will from April 2013 be responsible for commissioning primary medical care services. Until that time, NHS South Gloucestershire will continue to be responsible for commissioning primary medical care services

3. Strategic Issues Principles

3.1. Health Services and Facilities need to be accessible to the local populations who need to use them. As outlined above, this is a key principle in national and local health policy.

3.2. Health Services and Facilities also need to be of high quality and meeting all the necessary Care Quality Commission’s standards. The standards at the new Yate West Gate Centre and at Emersons Green Medical Centre are appropriate benchmarks.

3.3. The Care Quality Commission is the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England. It regulates health and adult social care services in England, whether they are provided by the NHS, local authorities, private companies or voluntary organisations. From April 2010, health and adult social care providers will be required to register with the PCT in order to be able to operate. To do so, they must show that they are meeting a wide range of essential standards of safety and quality set out under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Registration Requirements) Regulations 2009.

3.4. Health Services and Facilities need to be planned for the long term and therefore designed to be flexible and adaptable.

3.5. They need to be designed to achieve high energy efficiency standards as set out in Saving Carbon, Improving Health: NHS Carbon Reduction Strategy for England (January 2009). Taking sustainability and carbon emissions seriously is an integral part of a high quality health service. The new Yate West Gate Health Centre is of a good standard and would represent an appropriate standard for future developments. NHS South Gloucestershire is required to demonstrate that its buildings are designed to encourage sustainable development and low carbon usage in every aspect of its operation.

4. Targets and links with national and local targets

4.1. All health facilities and services must be planned with local communities. Engagement and consultation processes must form the basis of the plans and the local involvement networks will be key to assisting the PCT in organising this work.

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I 4.2. The NHS Act 2006 sets out a legal requirement for PCTs to involve users (including carers) of health services in the planning, development, and decision making about local health services. Section 242 (1B) states that users may be involved by being consulted, or by being given information, or in other ways. A number of activities can constitute involvement. Engagement, consultation and participation are all possible approaches to involving people.

4.3. NHS South Gloucestershire aims to ensure that all those who have a stake, interest or say in the work of the PCT have the opportunity to make their voices heard and have their views taken seriously and treated with respect.

4.4. Health service targets include the need to have timely and immediate access to primary care and health care services, minimum waiting times to diagnostic and outpatient clinics and to surgical services if necessary. The services and facilities planned for the new communities would need to address these targets. The Care Quality Commission publishes the list of indicators that it uses to assess the performance of PCTs against existing national commitments and priorities. These include a maximum 18 weeks from referral by a GP to treatment; fast access to GPs, ability to book GP appointment ahead and satisfaction with GP surgery opening hours; access to primary dental services; speed of response of ambulances and an overall assessment of the experience of patients. The full list is available from www.CQC.org.uk. In order to continue to meet these targets as the population increases it is necessary to provide additional capacity for the population of South Gloucestershire.

4.5. Health and Wellbeing can be planned into the design of the new communities and NHS South Gloucestershire would be keen to contribute to this process. South Gloucestershire’s Local Area Agreement (revised 2009) recognises the need to ensure that new communities have the services and facilities they need to make them healthy and sustainable and includes commitments to develop high quality services that provide individuals with greater choice and independence and to provide a wider range of health and social care services. NHS South Gloucestershire’s Health Improvement Programmes include matters such as promoting exercise and exercise on prescription. Therefore, the design of the open space and the housing developments are areas to which the PCT will have a contribution.

5. Current Provision

5.1. There are currently 27 registered GP practices within South Gloucestershire providing primary care to the population of South Gloucestershire. Appendix 6 lists the practices, number of GPs per practice and number of registered patients. The locations of each of these are shown in the Appendix 2. GP practices are independent contractors providing services under a contract with NHS South Gloucestershire. The vast majority of practice premises are owned by the practice rather than NHS South Gloucestershire.

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I 5.2. NHS South Gloucestershire currently has 24 Dental practices plus 2 prison dental practices, 1 Community Orthodontist and 1 Orthodontist practice based in Hospital. The locations of each of these are shown in the Appendix 3.

5.3. NHS South Gloucestershire also has 49 pharmacies throughout South Gloucestershire and 27 Opticians. The locations of each of these are shown in the Appendices 4 and 5 respectively.

5.4. NHS South Gloucestershire also provides a wide range of community care from a mixture of GP practices and separate community clinics. These services work with primary and secondary care to provide specialist care to patients in the community.

5.5. Within NHS South Gloucestershire the standard is for one GP to 1,700 people (based on average of practice populations as at 1 October 2009). This is above the national average of patients per practitioner which has gradually fallen from 1,788 in 1999 to 1,520 in 2009 (based on General and Personal Medical Services – England – 1999-2009, published by Health and Social Care Information Centre in 2010).

5.6. The PCT had a capital programme to address existing capacity issues (i.e. not taking into account the impact of new growth proposed in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy Proposed Changes Version) in general practice with schemes already approved to extend existing premises at Bradley Stoke, Stoke Gifford Medical Centre, Kingswood Health Centre, Leap Valley, Stokes Medical Centre and Three Shires Pucklechurch surgery. The PCT is also developing key community resources in Yate, Cossham, Thornbury and Frenchay to provide facilities for outpatient, diagnostic and dentistry services in local accessible settings. However, there is no ongoing capital programme within NHS South Gloucestershire to address any future capacity issues as a result of the impact of new growth proposed in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy.

5.7. Yate West Gate Centre opened in early 2010 providing accommodation for GP Practice, Minor Injuries Service, Diagnostics, Outpatients, Day services, Imaging and Therapeutics services. West Walk Practice has relocated into Yate West Gate Centre.

5.8. Cossham will provide a Birthing unit, Renal unit, Diagnostics, Outpatients, Day services, Imaging and Therapeutics services.

5.9. Details of the facilities to be provided from Thornbury and Frenchay are yet to be finalised. The schemes are still under development, and therefore subject to consultation and change. Thornbury is likely to provide new accommodation for two of the practices in Thornbury, Dr Burney and Dr Male. However, it is not currently expected that Frenchay will include a GP Practice.

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I 5.10. Dental Services do not work to registered populations so there is no direct relationship between location of developments and dental practices. However, large developments may necessitate the provision of additional dental surgery contract(s). Theoretically, the additional 21,500 new dwellings would require the equivalent of approximately 7 dental surgeries with three chairs providing 50,000 units of dental activity per year for the new population of 50,000. Hence, the PCT may encourage major developments to consider marketing space in new local centres to dental practices, but NHS South Gloucestershire commissions NHS Dentistry based on the dental health needs of the population and this may not coincide with new developments.

5.11. Pharmacy contracts are commercially funded without support from NHS South Gloucestershire so would not require financial support from developers. However, based on the ratio of pharmacies to patients in South Gloucestershire, it is likely that major developments of approximately 2,000 homes plus, (based on the ratio of pharmacies to residents in South Gloucestershire) would need to provide accommodation for a pharmacy in any retail development.

5.12. Optometry contracts are also commercially funded without support from NHS South Gloucestershire so would not require financial support from developers. However, based on the ratio of optometrists to patients in South Gloucestershire, it is likely that major developments of over 4,000 homes (based on the ratio of optometrists to residents in south Gloucestershire) would need to provide accommodation for an Optician in any retail development.

6. Spatial Requirements – South Gloucestershire Wide

6.1. Based on 1 GP per 1700 population, about 60% of the GP surgeries currently experience capacity issues. The PCT capital programme will provide additional capacity at the following practices: Bradley Stoke, Stoke Gifford Medical Centre, Kingswood, Leap Valley, the Stokes and Pucklechurch (Three Shires). However, there will still be significant shortfall in capacity across the district not taking account of proposed growth.

6.2. Simplistically, the new housing developments for South Gloucestershire will increase the demand for healthcare. The Core Strategy (Post Submission Version – Dec 2011) makes provision for approximately 26,400 new dwellings between 2006-2026. Based on 2.31 persons per dwelling (2006 ONS mid-yr population estimates produced for the West of England UAs by the GLA), the assumption is that there will be a new population of approximately 60,000 people requiring the services described above.

6.3. Simplistically, this level of new development would require facilities to accommodate: x approximately 35 GPs and the supporting primary and community care teams associated with them; x Approximately 26 Dentists; x Approximately 12 Pharmacies;

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I x Approximately 6 Opticians.

6.4. As an example of the likely quantum of new facilities required to serve the new housing growth, the Emersons Green Medical Centre in Emersons Green is the Primary Care base for 8,500 patients. It has the capacity to provide primary care services for 10,000. In entirety therefore the new developments would require the equivalent of about 6 Emersons Green Medical Centres for the primary care provision. The Yate West Gate Centre will provide facilities for outpatient and diagnostic services for 64,000 in and around the area of Yate. The outpatient capacity and diagnostic capacity required to serve the whole of the new communities is therefore the equivalent to half that of the Yate West Gate Centre.

6.5. The scope for realising development contributions for new services is however limited as, of the 26,400 dwellings proposed, some 4060 have already been constructed. Some 6740 have planning permission or are engaged in viability exercises on major sites:

x SGLP site 9 - Cheswick Village (750 dwellings) – Consented. No contribution was sought towards to health services. x SGLP site 13 – Harry Stoke (1200 dwellings) – Consented. Contribution of £364,000 towards an extension of the Stoke Gifford Medical Centre. x SGLP site 4 – Charlton Hayes (2200 dwellings) – 733m2 (internal gross space – serviced shell) in the neighbourhood centre for use as a 3GP doctors surgery and 2 dentist surgery) on a 20yr lease, by the 751st dwelling. x SGLP site 5 – Emersons Green East (2390 dwellings) – 709m2 5 GP Practice.

A further 3840 dwellings have planning permission or are expected to achieve planning permission in the near future, on small and medium sized sites, many of which have / will not contribute to new services, thereby the additional population will exert considerable further pressure on services and GP and other health accommodation. This leaves a number of proposed new neighbourhoods plus unidentified windfalls that could potentially contribute towards new health accommodation. These are discussed in section 7.

Service Provision Standards & Build Costs.

6.6. Primary and Community Care Services, including medical, dental and associated community services, can be and usually are highly dispersed with the location dependant on the nature of the population. However, outpatient and diagnostic services are normally centred in larger facilities in order to ensure quality of the service provided and take advantage of economies of scale offered through concentrating provision.

6.7. New services will require new facilities where major new communities are developed or enhanced existing facilities where substantial infill development increases local populations. In appropriate circumstances it is desirable for

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I health services to be integrated with social care and other community provision. This would be particularly relevant in larger developments where a large practice would be co-located with South Gloucestershire Council social services staff. This is the model that has been followed with the development of the new Yate West Gate Centre.

6.8. There are specific accommodation sizing requirements for GP services which NHS South Gloucestershire has used for recent GP Practice developments. These are listed at Appendix 7, together with number of homes / residents that would trigger each development, but these will be part of the detailed planning for the spatial areas.

6.9. Indicative costs of new surgeries are also quoted in Appendix 7. The figures are based on estimated construction costs for new GP surgery of £1,550 – £1,650 per square metre, plus 15 per cent for associated costs such as Structural Engineer, leading to a cost of £1,898 per square metre, excluding land costs. These costs are based on December 2009 costs and make no allowance for the effect of BREEAM on build cost. As such for the purposes of estimating costs of facility provision for the purposes of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan a figure of £2000 per square metre has been assumed. (These costs have been extrapolated from estimated costs for recent surgeries constructed in the area started 2008/9 at £1,350 – £1,450 per square metre to build).

6.10. However, opportunities for synergy should be explored as with other community infrastructure areas and multi-use buildings such as the Yate West Gate Centre would be of benefit in the significant new communities. Such a shared use may be more difficult with infill development where expansion of current facilities may be the most practical and deliverable approach.

6.11. Where buildings are extended, rather than newly built, the construction costs are likely to be similar to those quoted above. However, there will be additional costs of approximately £1,000 per square metre for provision of decant accommodation during construction. These costs are based on costs of temporary accommodation for Yate West Gate Centre. Such costs may however, vary significantly depending on the specific circumstances of individual projects. Indicative costs to extend are quoted in Appendix 7.

6.12. Almost all GP practice buildings are owned by the GP Practice, with the exception of four practices listed in Appendix 6. However, NHS South Gloucestershire contributes to the operational costs of the GP Practices. Therefore most developments will need to be carried out on behalf of the GP Practices but with funding from NHS South Gloucestershire.

7. Spatial areas

7.1. The details of this section will require review and adjustment once figures and locations are finalised.

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I 7.2. The following table lists the remaining of houses expected to be built in each area and the numbers of GPs required to provide for the expected population.

7.3. The table also gives a commentary on the ability of local GP surgeries (Appendix 2) to absorb the expected increase in patients in the area and the options to extend an existing practice building or develop a new building.

Area Number of Number Local GP status houses of GPs Allocated SGLP Sites Although the local practice (Northville) has capacity at present, this will not remain. See note 1) East of Coldharbour Lane 500 1 below New Neighbourhoods No space at local practice (Stoke Gifford) – New building East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood 2,000 3 required Insufficient space at local practice (Wellington Road) or other Yate practices – New building Land north of Yate 3,000 5 required No suitable practice available with capacity in South Gloucestershire. TBC Bristol PCT being (2x4GP consulted. – New Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhoods 5700 Practices) building(s) required Insufficient space at any practice in Thornbury – Thornbury 500 2 Extension possible Frenchay Hospital 450 TBC TBC

Notes to table: 1) Although Northville surgery currently has capacity, 750 houses are being built on Wallscourt (Cheswick) which will absorb all the capacity at Northville. The location of the Northville practice will make extension difficult. The proximity of the East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood makes a single health facility for the developments East of Coldharbour Lane and East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood a longer term possibility. However, the differing timings of these developments may require an interim solution for the development East of Coldharbour Lane before a long-term solution is considered or possible.

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I 2) Priorities for capacity improvements to surgeries, as a consequence of small sites / windfall developments will be subject to confirmation of location and developer S106 and / or CIL contributions. Dispersed developments may require additional capacity at various locations throughout area. See paragraph 7.15 for proposed approach.

7.4. As can be seen, the current practices cannot absorb the level of growth in patients within the existing practice staffing as listed in Appendix 6 and many practices would not be easily extended to accommodate extra capacity.

7.5. Where a new practice is required, the minimum size of new practice that would be required for a stand-alone practice is as indicated in the Appendix 7.

7.6. Where NHS South Gloucestershire commissions healthcare services for its population, its guiding principle is that the provision of all health and care services will be considered for possible competitive procurement for provision of the service.

7.7. NHS South Gloucestershire’s Procurement and Contestability Strategy (approved by NHS South Gloucestershire Board in October 2008) sets out the approach to whether to competitively procure services. There are clear risks and benefits to contesting and any decision not to contest a service must be supported by clear and transparent evidence.

7.8. The size of the service will clearly be a significant factor in choosing whether to contest a stand-alone service. When making this decision NHS South Gloucestershire would need to consider whether small stand-alone practices would be able to provide the wide range of services required by the population of South Gloucestershire. Therefore, for 2 or 3 GP practices, it may be possible and desirable to extend an existing practice rather than building a small stand-alone practice. However, this would be dependent on the specific practice(s) in the area and the physical possibilities of extending the practice(s).

7.9. However, the larger development North of Yate for example, would almost certainly require new premises to be built within the development area or very close to the development as the practices in Yate have insufficient capacity to accommodate the additional patients.

7.10. The above gives an indication of the rationale for the decision-making by NHS South Gloucestershire based on current policy guidance. However, any decision on whether to develop a new practice or extend an existing practice will be dependent on specific combination of circumstances relating to local practices when the planning application for any development is considered and will have to take account of best available information at that point.

7.11. In cases where more than 3 GPs are required it is likely that a new practice will be required, a suitable building of the required size and specification would have to be provided as part of the development; or funding to build a

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I suitable building of the required size and specification. The cost of such a building will be dependent on a number of factors but indicative costs are listed in Appendix 7.

7.12. In cases where 2 or 3 additional GPs are required it is likely that an existing practice will be extended, the cost will be dependent on the existing building construction and the indicative costs for extending are listed in Appendix 7.

7.13. In cases of developments of 735 houses or less, ie less than 1,700 residents, they may not require a new practice but will generate additional patients at local practices. As set out in Appendix 6, only ten of the 27 practices in NHS South Gloucestershire have spare capacity within their current staffing levels, based on 1,700 patients per GP. Therefore almost all developments may require additional capacity at local GP practices.

7.14. Although small numbers of additional patients can normally be accommodated within the normal turnover of a GP Practice, overall all new patients require additional resources.

7.15. It is therefore proposed that where S106 contributions towards specific onsite or near site requirements cannot be utilised that CIL funding could be utilised towards the costs of extending existing surgeries. Such an approach where contributions can be pooled and utilised to meet service priorities, would be supported by the PCT. This would be a more equitable approach to securing development contributions, taking into account the many small and medium sized sites that are likely to come forward during the plan period. Appendix 6 indicates where new extensions may be possible.

7.16. The exact costs of any extension will depend on the size of the practice to be extended. However, based on the costs in Appendix 7 for extending a surgery, Appendix 8 quotes the cost per patient of an extension to a 2, 3, 4 or 5 GP Practice based on the median number of patients for each practice size.

7.17. This leads to a cost per patient to extend of £342 - £547, and a cost per house of £789 – £1,265 to extend a surgery.

7.18. Although additional new patients will not always require an extension to a practice, should an extension be required, it will greatly exceed this notional cost for any extra patients. It is therefore proposed that each house contributes £955 (the average of the extension costs per house in Appendix 8) towards those extensions that are required as this is more equitable than requiring those developments to contribute the full cost of the extension which they trigger whilst requiring no contribution from the previous developments that generated that position.

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I http://nww.avon.nhs.uk/imtconsortium/Analysis/Maps_GIS/PCT%20maps/SGlos/SGlos_Practices.pdf

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I Appendix 3 - Map showing location of dental practices

http://nww.avon.nhs.uk/imtconsortium/Analysis/Maps_GIS/PCT%20maps/SGlos/SGlos_Dentists.pdf

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I Appendix 4 - Map showing location of pharmacies

http://nww.avon.nhs.uk/imtconsortium/Analysis/Maps_GIS/PCT%20maps/SGlos/SGlos_Pharmacies.pdf

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I Appendix 5 - Map showing location of optometrists

http://nww.avon.nhs.uk/imtconsortium/Analysis/Maps_GIS/PCT%20maps/SGlos/SGlos_Opticians.pdf

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I Appendix 6 - List of GP Practices and patient/GP ratio

Practice Name Number of Potential for WTE GPs List Size Extension Frome Valley Medical Centre 7.51 14022 Thornbury Health Centre - Burney 6.25 9884 The Stokes Medical Centre New Extension under 8.18 13893 construction Courtside Surgery 7.61 13104 Christchurch Family Medical Centre 6.31 11270 Northville Family Practice Extension difficult due to 4 5182 site constraints Three Shires Medical Practice Planning Permission Approved for new 5.17 9192 extension Coniston Medical Practice 6.38 9468 Kennedy Way Surgery 7.09 12567 Leap Valley Surgery Planning Permission Approved for new 5.5 10912 extension West Walk Surgery 5.97 13032 New extension complete Close Farm Surgery 3.5 7062 The Willow Surgery 6.5 11047 The Orchard Medical Centre 8.26 13147 Kingswood Health Centre New extension under 6 11015 construction Hanham Surgery 14.1 20796 St Mary Street Surgery Extension difficult due to 3.03 6749 site constraints Thornbury Health Centre - Male 2.67 4825 Pilning Surgery 2.75 4425 Extension Possible Stoke Gifford Medical Centre New extension under 7.14 12702 construction Almondsbury Surgery 2.11 4072 The Park Medical Practice 3.07 5620 The Oaks Medical Practice 3 5117 Emersons Green Medical Centre 3.63 8548 Extension Possible Mangotsfield Surgery Extension difficult due to 1 1165 site constraints Wellington Road Surgery 1.33 1682 Extension Possible Bradley Stoke Surgery New Extension Under 8 14964 Construction Data correct as at October 2009

Italics – PCT owned buildings

NHS South Gloucestershire has not carried out detailed feasibility reports into the GP Practice premises and so can not provide a definitive list of which practises could / could not be extended. The above comments represent an overview of known possible opportunities / issues. Assessment of those surgerys with no comment is required to establish opportunities / priorities. They may also change with patient movements between practices, irrespective of any developments.

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I Appendix 7 - Sizes of Practice for homes built

Number of Number of Number of Size of Cost to Cost to houses residents GPs Practice build extend 736 – 1,472 1,701 – 2 GP 368 square £698,280 £1,396,560 3,400 Practice metres 1,472 – 3,401 – 3 GP 461 square £874,748 £1,749,495 2,208 5,100 Practice metres 2,208 – 5,101 – 4 GP 554 square £1,051,215 £2,102,430 2,944 6,800 Practice metres 2,944 – 6,801 – 5 GP 689 square £1,307,378 £2,614,755 3,680 8,500 Practice metres

Appendix 8 – Cost of extending a surgery per patient (or house)

Number of Number of Cost to extend Cost per patient Cost per house GPs residents 2 GP Practice 1,701 – 3,400 £1,396,560 £547 £1,265 3 GP Practice 3,401 – 5,100 £1,749,495 £412 £951 4 GP Practice 5,101 – 6,800 £2,102,430 £353 £816 5 GP Practice 6,801 – 8,500 £2,614,755 £342 £789

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY

INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN

EVIDENCE BASE

LIBRARY SERVICES (South Gloucestershire Council)

March 2014

Page 1 of 19 18/03/2014 Contents

I Introduction Page 3

2 Policy context Page 3

3 Principles for provision Page 6

4 The current position in South Gloucestershire and national standards Page 8

5 The South Gloucestershire Library Delivery Plan 2009-2013 Page 8

6 Derivation of contributions Page 11

7 Level and form of contributions to support growth Page 13

Appendix 1: Implications of Growth Page 16 Appendix 2: Elements of public library space Page 17 Appendix 3 Hanham Library catchment area based on current active users Page 18

Page 2 of 19 18/03/2014 1. Introduction

1.1. The shared vision for South Gloucestershire is set out in the Sustainable Community Strategy 20121 and includes the following objectives:

- Deliver well designed and sustainable new development which integrates with and benefits existing communities; - Ensure that the social, cultural, health and education needs of all residents are met; - Conserve and enhance the rich cultural heritage; - Sustain and improve the vibrancy and vitality of town and district centres; - Actively promote equality and value diversity by reducing social inequality, by improving cohesion and by encouraging positive relationships between different groups; - Build a stronger community and voluntary sector: encourage volunteering; - Increase people’s involvement in all aspects of their local communities; - Encourage young people to make a positive contribution to their communities and enable their views and voices to be heard; - Help people make healthy choices and enjoy a healthy lifestyle, ensure the design of communities encourages play, recreation and active lifestyles.

1.2. The provision and improvement of libraries is critical to achieving all these objectives as they provide a place for local people to take part in many of the activities that will help achieve these goals.

1.3. The Local Development Framework (LDF) will set out the spatial expression of these priorities, and is key to the creation of sustainable communities that are well designed and planned, provide access to a full range of community facilities, formal and informal open spaces and that are well integrated with existing communities.

1.3. This paper sets out an assessment of requirements for future library services taking account of residential growth proposed in the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy (adopted Dec 2013). Any variation in the overall scale or location of development will clearly alter the requirements. The document also aims to set out the principles upon which the requirements are based.

2. Policy Context

2.1. South Gloucestershire Library and Information Service provides the statutory service for all residents in the area. This includes the following services: x Promotion of reading and literacy through the loan of books; x Developing interest in a range of media through the loan of audio visual stock (DVDs, CDs); x Provision of community information points; x Provision of free access to the internet;

1 South Gloucestershire 2026: “A great place to live and work”, Sustainable Community Strategy 2012

Page 3 of 19 18/03/2014 x Provision of meeting places for local groups and a base for the delivery of learning and advice; x Provision of neutral environments where local people can meet and bring people together thereby strengthening community cohesion; x Provision of exhibition areas for use by community groups.

2.2. Local Authorities have a statutory duty under the 1964 Public Library and Museums Act2 to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service to everyone who lives, works or studies in an area.

2.3 “World Class Places: The Governments Strategy for Improving Quality of Place”, stresses the importance of providing cultural sporting and healthcare facilities in association with new housing [DCLG 2009; p 12].

National Planning Policy

2.4. The approach set out in this document has been updated to be consistent with changes in national planning guidance, including the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Localism Act 2011 and reflects current South Gloucestershire Council policies and plans.

2.5. CIL came into force in 2010 and allows Local Authorities to set standard charges for new development and is intended to focus on the provision of new infrastructure. The Planning Act 2008 provides a wide definition of infrastructure, including cultural facilities such as community centres. The NPPF acknowledges that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, for which one of the guiding principles in the UK’s Sustainable Development Strategy is “ensuring a strong, healthy and just society”.3

2.6. Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning4 requires Local Authorities to work with their Local Strategic Partnerships and other relevant organisations to ensure that sufficient infrastructure is planned in parallel with housing and other development.

2.7. The NPPF has as one of its objectives the creation of strong, vibrant and healthy communities…with accessible local services that reflect community needs and support health, social and cultural well-being. A key element of promoting healthy communities is delivering social, recreational and cultural facilities such as meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings including libraries, which enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments. The framework makes specific reference to meeting places and public spaces and recognises the need for the built environment to facilitate social interaction and promote opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other, including through strong neighbourhood centres which bring together those who live, work and play in an area.

2 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1964/cukpga_19640075_en_1 3 UK Sustainable Development Strategy “Securing the Future” 4 Planning Policy Statement 12, DCLG, 2008 ISBN 978 0 11 753996 9

Page 4 of 19 18/03/2014 2.8. Libraries are an important aspect of the cultural facilities that make up the social and community offer in a place and as such contribute to the health, social and cultural well-being of people living in and visiting an area. Evidence in South Gloucestershire emphasises the importance of these venues as places where community cohesion is founded and strengthened, particularly in places that experience multiple deprivation across social- economic factors. Libraries are important to the development and support of and participation in cultural activities. They also contribute towards the economic success of a place as venues for community learning and education for all ages.

South Gloucestershire plans and policies

2.9. The adopted South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy (Dec 2013) includes policies which require provision and improvement of community facilities to support future growth, improve the sustainability of communities and encourage participation in cultural activity. Delivery of sustainable communities requires the provision of a full range of community facilities, including libraries, and new development will increase the need for spaces for people to take part in a wide range of social and cultural activities.

2.10. SGCS Policy CS6 Infrastructure and Developer Contributions states that where new development is of sufficient scale to add to overall demand and impact on infrastructure it will be required to provide community facilities to mitigate its impacts on existing communities and provide for the needs arising from development. SGCS Policy CS23 Community Buildings and Cultural Activity seeks to retain existing facilities and ensure new development provides or contributes towards new library space, stating that the Council will work with partners to provide additional, extended or enhanced community infrastructure and encourage participation in cultural activity.

2.11. Area based policies in the Core Strategy set out in more detail the requirements for library services to serve major new residential development in a number of locations including new neighbourhoods at Cribbs/Patchway, East of Harry Stoke and North Yate.

2.12. The continued provision and improvement of libraries is necessary to meet the objectives of South Gloucestershire 2026, the Sustainable Community Strategy 2012 – 2026, as they sit at the heart of delivering community based activities which support health and well-being, promote community cohesion for all ages and contribute to the objectives set out above in the Introduction.

2.13. The Council Strategy 2012-2016 has been updated following adoption of the refreshed Sustainable Communities Strategy and has the following aims :

Page 5 of 19 18/03/2014 x To have strong communities that are cohesive, by helping vulnerable people, combating inequality and bringing people and communities together; x To have a voluntary and community sector which contributes to local communities by stimulating the sector and strengthening resilience and robustness; x For the residents of South Gloucestershire to enjoy the best possible physical and mental health; x For older people to retain their independence; x To have healthy communities that are leading healthy lifestyles; x To ensure that our children have the best start in life.

Having a library service of suitable scale, quality and in the right place for communities to use is essential to the delivery of these aims.

2.14. Libraries are also important to the delivery of other South Gloucestershire Council strategies including the Cultural Strategy, the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy, the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership Strategy and the Children and Young People Strategy.

2.15. Provision of a library service is a statutory council function. Delivery of sustainable communities requires the provision of the full range of community and cultural facilities, including libraries. New development will increase demand on libraries and therefore the library service needs to plan for the enhancement of existing facilities in order to provide high quality services for people in the future. Increase in usage requires increases in space for library buildings, an increase in the quantity of stock to meet increased demand and increased provision of IT access.

2.16. South Gloucestershire Council believes it is essential that current levels of satisfaction, usage and quality be maintained in order to ensure that it retains its status as a high performing library authority. Any under-provision in capacity caused by not keeping pace with population growth will undermine these objectives and the wider social and economic benefits they’re intended to achieve.

3. Principles for provision

3.1 Modern public libraries are no longer only places of function – storing or lending; they are places of information, of free and shared exploration and learning, using all forms of media. These roles are reflected in the need for a wider range and new configurations of resources, activity areas and learning facilities within modern library buildings. Appendix 2 list elements of public library space commonly provided by library authorities

3.2 The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA), in the publication Public Libraries, Archives and New Development5 states that, modern and attractive public library facilities should have the following characteristics:

5 http://www.mla.gov.uk/resources/assets/P/Public_Libraries__Archives_and_New_Developme nt__A_standard_charge_approach_13345.pdf.

Page 6 of 19 18/03/2014 x Be located in highly accessible locations, such as town and neighbourhood centres;

x Be located in close proximity to, or jointly with, other community facilities, retail centres and services such as, health or education;

x Be integrated with the design of an overall development, in mixed use schemes; providing an active frontage to public areas, and clearly defined and attractive entrances, accessible to all users including those with a disability; and

x Be of a suitable size and standard for intended users.

The MLA has since been replaced by Arts Council England (ACE) who have ratified the policy.

3.3 Libraries therefore need to be flexible to meet diverse needs and adaptable over time to enable new ways of learning. They must also be fully accessible. Thus modern libraries must be inclusive and holistic in how they provide services.

3.4 Libraries are also increasingly provided as part of multi-use community buildings, thereby benefiting from and encouraging customers to undertake dual purpose trips. There are now many examples of such multi-use practice throughout the United Kingdom. These include:

x The Campus in North Somerset brings together two schools, a community learning centre, library, meeting rooms and sports hall to serve the Locking Castle housing development;

x The Platt Bridge Community Library in Wigan includes a primary school, a Sure Start children’s centre with wrap around nursery care, family support centre, community health centre and a housing office;

x The “For All Healthy Living Centre” in Weston super Mare combines library, church, health practice, community hall and café with training rooms and office space. It’s runs as a social enterprise promoting health, learning and well-being; and

x In South Gloucestershire, the library at Bradley Stoke is situated within the Leisure Centre and the Council, through the Active Project, has developed a single membership offer for leisure and library members. In Patchway the library is situated within the Patchway Hub, the centre includes children’s services and a Council One Stop Shop

x There is also scope for libraries to be co-located with residential development. A local example can be seen in the recently built library at Staple Hill which has 14 affordable dwellings on the site.

These models of joint provision are an approach the Council would support.

Page 7 of 19 18/03/2014 4. The current position in South Gloucestershire and national standards

4.1 South Gloucestershire currently has 13 static libraries and one mobile library. This equates to an average population per service point of 19,007 compared with the English Unitary authority median of 173856.

4.2 MLA published in June 2008 ‘A Standard Charge Approach for Public Libraries, Archives and New Development’. As part of the research, a national survey concluded that planning obligations sought by local planning authorities have generally been in the 22-35 sq m per 1,000 population range. MLA recommend a benchmark standard charge based on 30sq.m. of library space per 1,000 population.

4.3 New residential or commercial developments will increase the potential number of library users to whom the authority has an obligation to deliver a service. This will impose an additional financial cost on the service. While the revenue costs of such a service are met by increased council tax collection, the initial one-off costs cannot be met this way, and a contribution from developers is sought for capital improvements appropriate to the scale and nature of the development. Key indicators which will reflect an increase in population include: x Staff per 1,000 population: x Stock per 1,000 population; x Enquiries per 1,000 population; and x PC use per 10,000 population.

Increased usage in the library service will place pressure on all the above and reduce the quality of the existing service. The citizens panel survey carried out within South Gloucestershire show that 53% of the adult population have used a library in the last 12 months7.

5. The South Gloucestershire Library Delivery Plan 2009- 2013

5.1 In 2010 South Gloucestershire Council approved a Library Delivery Plan 2009 – 2013 (LDP)8 . The aim of the Delivery Plan is to:

x Identify how the library service supports key priorities of the South Gloucestershire Council Plan; x Outline key actions that will enable the service to develop in the next four years; and x Summarise the library services and policies.

6 CIPFA Public Library Statistics 2012- 13 Actuals 7 South Gloucestershire Viewpoint Survey 2011 8 Plan approved by Executive Councillor 22nd February 2010 http://council.southglos.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=14125

Page 8 of 19 18/03/2014 5.2 The Plan includes adoption of the MLA recommendation of 30 sq.m. of library space per 1,000 population as a basis for developer contributions for housing. The library standard charge has been adopted by a number of local authorities in England. Examples of the standard being adopted are cited in the document Public libraries and new development; Progress in Adoption of the MLA Recommended Standard Charge for Public libraries (report by Martin Elson, October 20089). The MLA standard has been accepted by developers in South Gloucestershire for example at Hanham Hall and Park Farm, Thornbury.

Improving the service for the existing community

5.3 The Library Delivery Plan also outlines a programme to improve services to the existing local community, especially to increase the amount of library space for customers. Significant investment has been made in the South Gloucestershire Library service since 1996 as the Authority seeks to increase the level of provision. Projects completed include:

x The opening of five new libraries (Bradley Stoke, Emersons Green, Filton, Staple Hill and Patchway which has been redeveloped and opened in September 2011): x The replacement of the mobile library: x The extension of three libraries (Cadbury Heath, Hanham, Winterbourne): x The complete refurbishment and extension of Yate Library funded by £1.5 million from the Big Lottery Fund: x The internal refurbishment of libraries at Kingswood, Chipping Sodbury and Downend Libraries: and x The introduction of Radio Frequency Identification [RFID] to enable the service to deal with increased usage without additional staff and to release staff to work with customers. RFID stands for the Radio Frequency Identification, used in libraries it enables customers to issue and return books themselves through self issue machines.

5.4 The above clearly demonstrates the Council’s commitment to the development of library services and the need to ensure that further developments do not have a negative impact on the improvements the projects listed above have delivered. The Council will continue to identify funding options to help increase space in libraries to discharge the range of functions modern libraries have to perform effectively [See summary in Appendix 2].

5.5 The development of library buildings has been funded from a range of sources including: x South Gloucestershire Council capital funding (extensions, refurbishments) x Big Lottery Fund (Yate Library); x Growth point funding (Patchway Library); x Partnership with Housing Associations (Staple Hill Library); and

9http://www.mlasoutheast.org.uk/assets/documents/10000F53ProgressinAdoptionoftheMLAR ecommendedStandardChargeforPubliclibrariesOctober2008.doc

Page 9 of 19 18/03/2014 x Developer contributions (Emersons Green Library and other library projects).

5.6 Compared to the MLA guidance, library services in South Gloucestershire fall substantially below the recommended space requirement of 30 sq.m. per 1,000 population. The Library Delivery Plan identifies actions the service is taking to address this shortfall to provide additional capacity in libraries. It also reviews the priorities for further growth and enhancement at each service point, and sets these out in Appendix 1. In spite of these potential improvements, there will remain existing significant shortfall in capacity across the District even taking account of the capital programme identified within the Delivery Plan.

Table 1: Existing library provision in South Gloucestershire10

Current sq m of Gross library Gross public space in floor space Library Surplus or Library floor each library per required Library Catchment shortfall space 1,000 30sq m per population sq m sq m population 1,000 population Bradley Stoke 36,721 582 15.8 1,102 -520 Library Cadbury Heath 11,967 204 17.0 359 -155 Library Chipping 6,677 70 10.5 200 -130 Sodbury Library Downend 14,179 365 25.7 425 -60 Library Emersons 21,080 450 21.3 632 -182 Green Library Filton Library 12,178 218 17.9 365 -147 Hanham Library 18,590 363 19.5 558 -195 Kingswood 22,378 369 16.5 671 -302 Library Patchway 10,465 310 29.6 314 -4 Library Staple Hill 14,004 359 25.6 420 -61 Library Thornbury 22,414 421 18.8 672 -251 Library Winterbourne 8,262 276 33.4 248 28 Library Yate Library 36,407 759 20.8 1,092 -333

Catchment areas

5.7 The catchment areas of the current libraries has been mapped based on the usage pattern of customers combined with Census figures for the wards (e.g see Appendix 3 Hanham Library Example). It should be noted that customers will visit a library based also on where they attend school, work, shop or use other local facilities as well as where they live.

10 Updated October 2011

Page 10 of 19 18/03/2014 6. Derivation of contributions

Cost of provision

6.1 Contributions will be calculated using the floorspace standard of 30sq.m. per 1,000 population and a build cost per square metre based on the MLA benchmark costs taken from the Building Cost Information Service [BCIS]11 mean building costs for libraries based on the figure on 1st April of the year in which the planning application is submitted. The BCIS index is made up of new builds and extensions over the whole of England. The benchmark includes the following:

x cost of constructing the library building, including space open to the public, and backroom space (e.g. office, store, toilets etc);

x allowances for design and external works, including car parking, hard standing and landscaping;

x cost of initial equipment of the building, including IT equipment and initial book and other stock

The figure for initial fit out costs (88% of building cost) is averaged from those local authorities that gave a breakdown of costs at the time the standard charge document was written. In appropriate circumstances, the developer’s contributions towards the provision of land will be required as well.

6.2 Table 2 illustrates how the cost per sq.m. would be calculated using BCIS mean building cost for libraries from 2011 as an example. This formula will be used in South Gloucestershire to calculate a contribution per person which will then be applied to the expected future population of a proposed development. The relevant BCIS figure will be inserted at *.

Table 2: Library building costs at October 2011

Aspect of work Cost per Cumulative square metre cost per square metre Mean building cost for public library buildings (BCIS) 2011* £1,62412 £1,624 External works: car parking, hard £244 £1,868 standing, landscaping, security fencing, signage (assume 15% of build costs) Design costs (assume 15% of £280 £2,148 building and external works costs) Fitting out costs, including initial £1,429 £3,577 book stock and ICT (88% of capital costs of £1,624) Total cost £3,577 The cost of 30 sq.m. of library provision at £3,577 per sq.m. is £107,310 and this is the cost of provision for 1,000 people.

11 BCIS published by RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) 12 The BCIS mean figure current at the time a planning application is submitted will be used

Page 11 of 19 18/03/2014 The cost per person is therefore £107,310 ÷ 1,000 = £107.31.

Note the figure of £107.31 per person is for illustrative purposes for this example and may vary according to the BCIS figure at time of application.

Where the local library cannot be extended funding will be sought for the costs of stock, IT and internal refurbishment to enable the building to deal with additional demand. This will be based on the figures in Table 2 and are illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3: Costs of library provision where extension is not feasible

Residential development where extension to local library is not possible Costs

Fitting out costs, including initial book etc. stock and ICT (88% of capital costs of £1,624) £1,429 Cost of providing library services at £1,429 per sq.m. equals £42,870 Cost per person £42.87

The figures in tables 2 and 3 will be revised on 1st April each year. They do not include land costs or VAT and should be indexed from the date an application is submitted.

How contributions would be spent

6.3 Contributions may be used for additional stock, associated fixtures and fittings, ICT equipment and services, or the cost of an extension, both physical and in terms of the service. Contributions will normally be directed to the library most closely associated with the community where the development is proposed, however it should be noted that the library service operates as an Authority wide service, and that items such as stock are purchased for the Authority as a whole.

6.4 Other related off site facilities and services may also benefit from contributions, which will then be used to improve the service within the local community. Contributions from individual small developments or “windfalls” may be ‘pooled’ to enable more significant improvements at any one individual library to meet increased demand.

Page 12 of 19 18/03/2014 Level and form of contributions to support growth

7.1 The South Gloucestershire Council Core Strategy makes provision for more than 28,000 new dwellings between 2006 and 2027. Using the average household size of 2.4 persons as the basis for estimating the likely population within a development (2011 Census), the assumption is that this level of growth will lead to approximately 68,000 additional residents who will require access to library services over this period.

7.2 The Core Strategy proposes new neighbourhoods in three locations which will require a number of new community centres on site. A further 4,000 dwellings have planning permission or are expected to achieve planning permission on small and medium sized sites. Unidentified windfalls could also potentially contribute towards new provision or improvements to existing community facilities. The approach to provide or expand library services to support this growth for different scales of development is set out below.

7.3 With the introduction of CIL the mechanism for securing funding and provision of community infrastructure is changing. The Council is preparing a Regulation 123 list and a Supplementary Planning Document which will cover CIL and s106. CIL Regulation 122 sets out the following tests that must be satisfied in order for obligations to be required in respect of development proposals:

• the obligation must be necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; • the obligation must be directly related to the proposed development; • the obligation must be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development.

7.4 The Council will consider planning applications on their merits in terms of impact on local libraries in line with policy guidance and evidence on a case by case basis. Until a CIL approach is adopted Section 106 will continue to be the preferred mechanism to fund specific items including library space to support delivery of the Core Strategy new neighbourhoods as well as the redevelopment of Frenchay Hospital and Land East of Coldharbour Lane. The Council will seek a contribution from other developments if they would give rise to the need for additional or expanded community infrastructure which is necessary in planning terms, directly and fairly related to the development in scale and kind and not provided for in development proposals. Where there is robust evidence that there is sufficient capacity in existing libraries to meet the needs arising from new development contributions will not be sought.

7.5 If a CIL approach is adopted the floorspace standard set out above and the method for calculating contributions in paragraph 6.2 could be adapted to establish a per dwelling tariff. The developer contributions that will be sought per person to provide library services to support this growth and the approach taken for different scales of development is set out in detail below and summarised in Table 4.

Page 13 of 19 18/03/2014 Table 4: Summary of developer contributions sought from new development

Type of development Cost per person in new development

Residential development where extension to £107.31 library is required

Residential development where no extension £42.87 to library can be built. The funding will be used for additional stock, IT and internal refurbishment

Care Home development.t This relates to £24.00 homes where the residents are totally dependent on services provided within the home and the library service would be brought in by the local library service

Contributions will be sought from:

Strategic residential and mixed use Core Strategy allocations

7.6 Where appropriate developers will be expected to provide land and construct a library, preferably as part of a multi-use building, or make a financial contribution towards the capital costs of providing library extensions to local libraries required for the development. Any requirement for a new library will be reviewed at the appropriate time in the context of whether the Council can guarantee revenue funding.

Medium or small residential developments

7.7 These developments will attract developer contributions to offset the pressure placed upon the service by additional residents. Housing reserved for occupation for vulnerable residents and affordable dwellings will be treated as other residential development for the purposes of calculating library contributions as the service has a statutory duty to provide for all residents.

Care homes

7.8 The service has a responsibility to provide library services to all residents including people who are unable to travel to a library. South Gloucestershire Libraries provide regular deliveries of stock to 80 care homes within the area to meet the reading needs of the residents. Where a new care home is built, or existing properties are converted to this use, the service will seek contributions towards the loan service based on the South Gloucestershire figure of 784 items per 1,000 population to support the establishment. The contribution would be £24 per resident which is calculated as follows:

Basis of calculation: £10.00 per volume including servicing and acquisition costs as a start-up collection, additional books £7,844 per 1,000, for next two years. [£7.84 x 2 years = £15.68 + £7.84 = £24 rounded].

Page 14 of 19 18/03/2014 Development thresholds

7.9 Previously the Council has applied a threshold where contributions for Library Services are sought via negotiation and S106 agreements for proposals of more than 10 household units. To continue to use this threshold would mean that a significant proportion of new developments would not contribute towards the mitigation of increased pressure on library facilities. The service will therefore seek contributions from all developments of one household unit or more if a proposed development would give rise to the need for additional or expanded community infrastructure which is necessary in planning terms and not provided for in an application13. Until this approach is possible through the development of an adopted CIL Charging Schedule DPD, the Council will consider applications on their merits in terms of impact on local library services in line with policy and guidance on a case by case basis.

7.10 The Council is currently compiling information on works it would wish to carry out to mitigate the impacts of growth should funds become available from development beyond the strategic sites identified in Appendix 1.

13 In line with guidance in planning circular 05/2005

Page 15 of 19 18/03/2014 Appendix 1: Implications of Growth

These tables list the major residential and mixed developments allocated in the adopted Core Strategy and the associated requirement for library enhancement to provide for the expected new population. Libraries identified for extension have sufficient space for this. Costs are based on the per person contribution of £107.31 outlined above and if costs change may need to be amended at time of applications.

Table 5: Requirements for enhancement of libraries for strategic residential and mixed use allocations

Area Dwelling Estimated Space Financial Libraries Options for numbers new require contribution where enhancement residents d if library not enhancements (2.4ppd) (sq.m.) built by might be made developers (£107.31 pp) SGLP14 Housing Sites Land East of 500 1,200 36 £128,772 Bradley Stoke Extension, Coldharbour Lane Winterbourne additional stock Downend and IT New Neighbourhoods (CS15) Land East of Harry 2,000 4,800 144 £515,088 Bradley Stoke New library (see Stoke Winterbourne para. 7.3) Downend or Extension, additional stock and IT Land North of Yate 3,000 7,200 216 £772,632 Yate Extension, additional stock and IT. Possible satellite location in community centre in addition to extension Land South and West 5,700 13,680 410.4 £1,468,001 New library New library on of Filton Airfield and airfield site; Cribbs Patchway developers will Remodelling be expected to provide land and construct a library, preferably as part of a multi- use building

Thornbury, Park Farm 500 1,200 36 £128,772 Thornbury Extension, additional stock and IT Frenchay Hospital 450 1,080 32.4 £115,895 Downend library Extension, Mobile library additional stock and IT Combine contribution to Subject to timing new library at of devt and East of Harry revenue funding Stoke

14 South Gloucestershire Local Plan 2006 15 South Gloucestershire Core Strategy Post Submission Version (Dec 2011)

Page 16 of 19 18/03/2014 Table 6: Requirements for enhancement of libraries for small and windfall sites

Area Dwelling Estimated new Space Financial Options for numbers residents required contributions enhancement (2.4ppd) (sq.m.) (£107.31 pp) District Wide 2,990 7,176 215.3 £770,057 Enhancement of Small & Medium existing local libraries, sites/windfalls – 250 per assessed on site by annum to 2012 site basis.

Appendix 2: Elements of public library space

Public space

Reception area, cloakrooms, toilets, baby care facilities

Open access to books and other print collections, local studies material

Networked PCs with internet access and IT support; computer teaching area

Dedicated areas for priority audiences; children and young people

Meeting room, advice rooms, exhibition space

Some share space with sport, health, education, council information or general community facilities Non public space

Staff offices, rest room

Workrooms, storage, plant room

Computer server room, security, cleaners store External

Service and large group access

Car and cycle parking

Landscaping, signage, other security Source MLA [2008] Public Libraries and New Development: A Standard Charge Approach

Page 17 of 19 18/03/2014 Appendix 3 Hanham Library catchment area based on current active users

Page 18 of 19 18/03/2014 Page 19 of 19 18/03/2014 SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY

INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN

EVIDENCE BASE PAPER

COMMUNITY CENTRES & VILLAGE HALLS

March 2014

Page1of21 Contents

I Summary Page 3

2 Introduction Page 3

3 Policy context Page 4

4 Principles for provision Page 6

5 Current position in South Gloucestershire Page 9

6 Calculation of contributions Page 10

7 Level and form of contributions to support growth Page 11

Appendix 1: List of Dedicated Community Centres & Village Halls Page 16 Appendix 2: Map showing distribution of DCCs Page 21

Page2of21 1. Summary

1.1. Community centres and village halls are essential to meet the objectives set out in the NPPF and the Development Plan to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs and create sustainable communities.

1.2. For strategic residential and mixed used developments new community centres are required on site either as part of a multi-use community complex or located with other community uses. For smaller sites financial contributions will be required to increase capacity at existing community centres; where this isn’t feasible options to create increased capacity in other community facilities may be considered.

1.3. Contributions will be calculated using the floorspace standard of 0.14sq.m. per person and a building cost per square metre gross internal floor area taken from the published BCIS mean building costs for new build Community Centres published for the South West region. Allowance will be made for design fees, external works, initial fitting out and equipment plus contingencies as appropriate. This will then be applied to the expected future population of a proposed development as follows:

Cost per sq.m. X 0.14sq.m. per person = £ contribution per person

2. Introduction

2.1. The shared vision for South Gloucestershire is set out in the Sustainable Community Strategy 20121 and includes the following objectives:

- Deliver well designed and sustainable new development which integrates with and benefits existing communities; - Plan well for sustainability, affordability and healthy lifestyles in new developments; - Ensure that the social, cultural, health and education needs of all residents are met; - Identify and reduce health inequalities; - Conserve and enhance the rich cultural heritage; - Sustain and improve the vibrancy and vitality of town and district centres; - Increase community planning, ownership and involvement in managing facilities and services; - Actively promote equality and value diversity by reducing social inequality, by improving cohesion and by encouraging positive relationships between different groups; - Build a stronger community and voluntary sector: encourage volunteering; - Increase people’s involvement in all aspects of their local communities; - Encourage young people to make a positive contribution to their communities and enable their views and voices to be heard; - Reduce the level and impact of crime and disorder on our communities and improve public confidence; - Help people make healthy choices and enjoy a healthy lifestyle, ensure the design of communities encourages play, recreation and active lifestyles.

1 South Gloucestershire 2026: “A great place to live and work”, Sustainable Community Strategy 2012

Page3of21 2.2. The provision and improvement of community centres and village halls are critical to achieving all these objectives as they provide a place for local people to take part in many of the activities that will help achieve these goals.

2.3. The Local Development Framework sets out the spatial expression of these priorities and is key to the creation of sustainable communities that are well designed and planned, provide access to a full range of community facilities, formal and informal open spaces and which are well integrated with existing communities.

2.4. This paper sets out an assessment of requirements for future growth for community centres and village halls taking account of existing provision and dwelling growth proposed in the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy (adopted Dec 2013). Any variation in the overall scale or location of development will clearly alter the requirements. The document also sets out the principles upon which the requirements are based.

3. Policy Context

National Planning Policy

3.1. The approach set out in this document has been updated to be consistent with changes in national planning guidance, including the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Localism Act 2011 and reflects current South Gloucestershire Council policies and plans.

3.2. CIL came into force in 2010 and allows Local Authorities to set standard charges for new development and is intended to focus on the provision of new infrastructure. The Planning Act 2008 provides a wide definition of infrastructure, including cultural facilities such as community centres. The NPPF acknowledges that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, for which one of the guiding principles in the UK’s Sustainable Development Strategy is “ensuring a strong, healthy and just society”.2

3.3. Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning3 requires Local Authorities to work with their Local Strategic Partnerships and other relevant organisations to ensure that sufficient infrastructure is planned in parallel with housing and other development.

3.4. The NPPF has as one of its objectives the creation of strong, vibrant and healthy communities…with accessible local services that reflect community needs and support health, social and cultural well-being. A key element of promoting healthy communities is delivering social, recreational and cultural facilities such as meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings that enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments. The framework makes specific reference to meeting places and public spaces and recognises the need for the built environment to facilitate social interaction and promote opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other, including through strong neighbourhood centres which bring together those who live, work and play in an area.

3.5. Community centres and village halls are an important aspect of the cultural facilities that make up the social and community offer in a place and as such contribute to the health,

2 UK Sustainable Development Strategy “Securing the Future” 3 Planning Policy Statement 12, DCLG, 2008 ISBN 978 0 11 753996 9

Page4of21 social and cultural well-being of people living in and visiting an area. Evidence in South Gloucestershire emphasises the importance of community venues as places where community cohesion is founded and strengthened, particularly in places that experience multiple deprivation across social-economic factors. Community centres and meeting spaces are important to the development and support of and participation in cultural activities. They also contribute towards the economic success of a place as venues for community learning and education.

South Gloucestershire plans and policies

3.6. The adopted South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy (Dec 2013) includes policies which require provision and improvement of community facilities to support future growth, improve the sustainability of communities and encourage participation in cultural activity. Delivery of sustainable communities requires the provision of a full range of community facilities, including high quality meeting spaces and new development will increase the need for spaces for people to take part in a wide range of social and cultural activities.

3.7. SGCS Policy CS6 Infrastructure and Developer Contributions states that where new development is of sufficient scale to add to overall demand and impact on infrastructure it will be required to provide community facilities to mitigate its impacts on existing communities and provide for the needs arising from development. SGCS Policy CS23 Community Buildings and Cultural Activity seeks to retain existing facilities and ensure new development provides or contributes towards new meeting spaces, stating that the Council will work with partners to provide additional, extended or enhanced community infrastructure, including community centres, and encourage participation in cultural activity.

3.8. Area based policies in the Core Strategy set out in more detail the requirements for community centres to serve major new residential development in a number of locations including new neighbourhoods at Cribbs/Patchway, East of Harry Stoke and North Yate.

3.9. The continued provision and improvement of community centres and village halls is necessary to meet the objectives of South Gloucestershire 2026, the Sustainable Community Strategy 2012 – 2026, as they sit at the heart of delivering community based activities which support health and well-being, promote community cohesion for all ages and contribute to the objectives set out above in the Introduction.

3.10. The Council Strategy 2012-2016 has been updated following adoption of the refreshed Sustainable Communities Strategy and has the following aims :

x To have well designed, sustainable new development which integrates with and benefits existing communities; x To have an appropriate physical infrastructure within our existing communities to support the needs of our residents; x To have vibrant, thriving and accessible high streets, town and district centres; x To have strong communities that are cohesive, by helping vulnerable people, combating inequality and bringing people and communities together; x To have a voluntary and community sector which contributes to local communities by stimulating the sector and strengthening resilience and robustness; x For the residents of South Gloucestershire to enjoy the best possible physical and mental health; x For older people to retain their independence; x To have healthy communities that are leading healthy lifestyles;

Page5of21 x To ensure that our children have the best start in life.

Having sufficient community centres and village halls of suitable scale, quality and in the right place for communities to use is essential to the delivery of these aims.

3.11. Community centres and village halls are important to the delivery of other South Gloucestershire Council strategies including the Cultural Strategy, the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy, the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership Strategy and the Children and Young People Strategy.

4. Principles for Provision

Definition of community centres/village halls

4.1. While there is no single nationally recognised definition of a community centre or village hall there is no doubt that all people need access to community facilities for a wide range of activities. The Localism Act 2011 suggests that an asset whose primary use furthers the social well-being or social interests of a local community is recognised as having community value4. For the purposes of this paper South Gloucestershire Council defines a community centre or village hall as a “dedicated facility which provides a range of affordable and accessible activities and services which is owned or managed by the community for use by the whole community in perpetuity”. Management by the community allows the facility to respond directly to local needs.

4.2. A distinction is made between a dedicated community centre and a meeting space that’s available for community members or groups to use in a building with a different primary purpose, for instance a room for hire in a public house or church, or a school hall. Similarly the distinction is made between a dedicated community centre and a facility which is owned by or reserved for a particular use or user group rather than for general use by the whole community; for instance ex-servicemen’s clubs, sports and social clubs and scout huts. Exceptions may exist where such facilities are available for use by the wider community and this use is secured by legal agreement; these would be counted as dedicated community centres.

Catchment Areas

4.3. While there are no national standards for the catchments of community centres, guidance is outlined in the handbook for planners, designers, developers and community groups “Shaping Neighbourhoods: A Guide for Health, Sustainability and Vitality” (2003)5. This suggests that the catchment population required to sustain one community centre is around 4,000 people (see table 1) and that 800m is the furthest people should expect to live from a community centre.

4.4. Analysis of the household survey of sports and recreation facilities undertaken by South Gloucestershire Council in 20106 indicated that 75% of users of indoor community halls walk for on average 15.5 minutes to get to them. At the average walking speed of 3 miles (4,800metres) per hour a person can walk approximately 1,240 metres in 15.5 minutes.

4 Localism Act 2011 (c.20) Part 5 Community empowerment Chapter 3 Assets of community value 5 Shaping Neighbourhoods: a guide for health, sustainability and vitality by Hugh Barton, Marcus Grant, Richard Guise (Taylor & Francis 2003) 6 Householder survey on sport, recreation and open space undertaken in 2010 to inform the evidence base for the emerging South Gloucestershire Core Strategy

Page6of21 National guidelines based on Fields in Trust7 research recommends conversion of actual distances travelled into straight line distances to allow analysis to be undertaken using a GIS mapping system. This allows for the fact that routes to sites will not be straight, and the actual route taken will be more complex and further than a straight line distance to a facility. This effectively reduces the distance travelled by 40% to give the equivalent straight line distance. Thus the typical travel time in South Gloucestershire can be expressed as equivalent to approximately 745 metres straight line distance, allowing us to identify a reasonable distance for people to travel to such a facility.

4.5. Population numbers and densities in rural areas are much lower than in urban areas and a village or community hall often serves a population spread over a wider geographical area than its equivalent in a more built up area. In these areas people will generally expect to travel further to their nearest community centre.

4.6. Using the findings from the household survey and the recommended standards in “Shaping Neighbourhoods” we consider 800m straight line distance from a dedicated community centre to be a reasonable standard to seek in urban areas for the majority of residents. In rural areas this would be an unrealistic standard to seek and so in those areas it is more reasonable to seek a standard of provision that is aligned more closely with the ratio of 1 centre per 4,000 residents.

Table 1: Accessibility standards from Shaping Neighbourhoods (2002) Barton et al

Space Standards

4.7. There is no nationally recognised floorspace standard for community centres or village halls but Sport England produces a helpful guidance note “Village and Community Halls” (2001) which outlines good practice in the design of new community buildings and

7 Fields In Trust (previously the National Playing Fields Association): www.fieldsintrust.org

Page7of21 illustrates a range of buildings of different sizes which accommodate various facilities. The Council will seek to apply standards set out in that guidance note or appropriate equivalent standards where new provision or improvements to local community meeting facilities are required.

4.8. The minimum standard should be a building which can accommodate a range of activities and provide for many different community groups and activities that will develop and support health, social and cultural well-being for all people. All buildings should contain toilets, changing rooms, including appropriate space and facilities for those with disabilities, a kitchen, foyer, store and office as well as a number of flexible spaces and rooms for meetings and activities. Where a new community building is required, the Sport England design guidance suggests as a minimum a building should include a main hall, a secondary hall and a lounge/community room, with a total minimum floorspace of 575 square metres (GIFA8). A sample layout is shown below. In addition to this suitable and useable external spaces and adequate car and cycle parking should be provided as part of the facility where appropriate.

4.9. Applying this minimum floorspace for a new centre to the “Shaping Neighbourhoods” standard of one community centre per 4,000 people gives a ratio of 0.14 square metres GIFA per person. For the purposes of identifying the minimum amount of community centre floorspace needed to support a local community South Gloucestershire Council will therefore use 0.14 square metres GIFA per person.

4.10. This will be used as a minimum standard to calculate both new community centre provision and the scale of enhancement of existing facilities to provide for the residents of new development, where either there is no dedicated community centre close enough for residents to use, or where it can be demonstrated that there is insufficient capacity in existing facilities. To inform this assessment it is appropriate to consider the ratio of usable space in a facility to the local population and the programmes available for those users, as well as numbers and distribution of community centres, as together these contribute to the overall quantity and quality of provision.

8 GIFA: gross internal floor area

Page8of21 5. Current Provision in South Gloucestershire

5.1. There are many community facilities in South Gloucestershire including dedicated community centres as well as spaces in schools, churches, sports clubs and even fire stations that are available for hire or use by local people. Long term use by the community of space in shared facilities whose primary purpose is not that of a community centre cannot be guaranteed and they are not typically as responsive to local needs. Therefore it is important to have sufficient dedicated community centres which are available for wider public use and can respond directly to local needs, in order to create and sustain mixed, inclusive and cohesive communities.

5.2. There are approximately 80 facilities known to us which can be counted as dedicated community centres or village halls in South Gloucestershire; these are listed in appendix 1. The map at appendix 2 shows how they are distributed across the district and that, while they broadly correspond with populated areas, they are not evenly distributed and some areas are less well served by centres and halls.

5.3. In many of the more populated urban areas provision in number and distribution of centres is generally good with most residential areas being well served by dedicated community centres. Analysis of the 2010 household survey of sports and recreation facilities supports this and indicates that 36% of respondents consider the quantity of indoor hall, studios and rooms is about right. This rises to almost 50% in the north fringe and Yate/Chipping Sodbury.

5.4. In the more rural parts of the district, provision is also generally good, with many villages having a good number of community centres or village halls per head of population. In some cases dedicated community centres serve village populations of fewer than 4,000 residents, so the space to user ratio is high, although this doesn’t necessarily mean that the quality of those spaces is high. If we accept that rural residents normally expect to travel further to such a facility than urban dwellers, as supported by the 2010 householder survey9, generally all but the most remote rural areas are within reasonable reach of a dedicated facility.

5.5. In the towns of Yate and Chipping Sodbury there are seven dedicated community centres and these are mostly distributed in a wide east-west band which broadly follows the main A432. Residential areas to the north of the B4059 in the north of Yate are least well served in terms of distance from a dedicated facility.

5.6. In Thornbury there are three dedicated community halls and these are concentrated in the west and south of the town with most residential areas being within reasonable distance of at least one of these. Within the town there are a small number of residential streets that are further than the recommended distance from a hall.

5.7. While coverage is generally good across the district, there are exceptions, and in some areas people live much further than the recommended distance from a community hall or there are physical barriers such as major roads or railways which prevent reasonable access. These areas include Barrs Court, Rodway Hill and Siston Hill which lie close to the A4174 in the area known as the east fringe10. In the north fringe11 the residential areas which lack good access to dedicated community centres include residential communities around Catbrain Lane and Stoke Park.

9 Householder survey on sport, recreation and open space undertaken to inform the evidence base for the emerging South Gloucestershire core strategy 2010 10 Described as Communities of the East Fringe of the Bristol Urban Area in SGCS 11 Described as Communities of the North Fringe of the Bristol Urban Area in SGCS

Page9of21 5.8. The principles of provision we would seek to achieve are set out in section 3 above. Where developments come forward in areas where there appears to be sufficient provision, existing community centres will be put under pressure from new residents and there will be a displacement effect over time. It is therefore important to bring all areas of the district up to an acceptable standard of space and accessibility. The approach South Gloucestershire Council will take to addressing a lack of provision where there is evidence of insufficient or inadequate community centre provision is set out below.

6. Calculation of contributions

6.1. Where costs for building new community centres and providing new capacity at existing facilities aren’t known at the time an application is submitted, it is appropriate to use a formula. This will be based on mean building costs per square metre of gross internal floor area for new build Community Centres adjusted for the South West Region as published by the Building Cost Information Service [BCIS] of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors12. In addition to this basic building cost, it is reasonable to make allowance for design fees, external works (including car parking, hard standing, external lighting, sustainable drainage system and landscaping), the cost of initial fitting out and equipping of the building (including loose furniture and ICT) to ensure facilities are of sufficient quality to meet community needs plus contingencies.

6.2. Contributions will be calculated using a build cost per square metre based on the BCIS mean building costs for Community Centres current at the time a planning application is submitted. To illustrate this the formula below uses the mean building cost for Q1 2014.

Table 2: Typical Calculation of cost per sq.m.

Cost per sq.m. Mean building cost for Community Centres £1,44213 (BCIS) Q1 2013 External works (assume 15% of build costs) £216 Design costs (assume 15% of building + external £248 works costs) ICT, fitting out (say 50% of mean building costs) £721 Sub-total cost per sq.m. £2,627 Contingency @ 15% £394

Total cost per sq m £3,021 14

6.3. The cost per sq.m. current at the time of application can then be applied to the floorspace standard of 0.14sq.m. per person to give a contribution per person:

Cost per sq.m. X 0.14sq.m. per person = £ contribution per person

In this example:

£3,021 X 0.14 = £422.94

12 BCIS published mean for community centres 500sq.m. – 2,000sq.m. GIFA (Generally) rebased to South West region 13 The BCIS mean figure current at the time a planning application is submitted will be used. 14 The cost per sq.m. shown is illustrative only, contributions will be based on figures current at time of application.

Page10of21 6.1. The contribution per person will then be applied to the expected future population of a proposed development. The figure excludes land and VAT and should be indexed in s106 agreements from the date an application is submitted, to allow for any change in the index during the period taken to determine an application. The agreed figure should be based on the mid-point of construction.

6.2. Where a new dedicated community centre/village hall is required the recommended minimum size is 575sq.m. and the total size should be calculated using the predicted population and the space standard of 0.14 sq.m. per person. Total floorspace will depend on whether the facility combines a number of uses and what those are. The layout and the design of the building will be agreed in collaboration with the Council and with the organisation/s likely to run the facility.

7. Level and form of provision and contributions to support development

7.1. The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy makes provision for more than 28,000 new dwellings between 2006 and 2027. Using the average household size of 2.4 persons as the basis for estimating the likely population within a development (2011 Census), the assumption is that this level of growth will lead to approximately 68,000 additional residents who will require access to community centres and halls across the district. Based on the minimum space standard of 0.14sq.m.per person this level of new development would require more than 9,500sq.m. of community centre space, or the equivalent of 16 new halls of 575sq.m.

7.2. In addition to the growth set out in the Core Strategy, more than 6,500 new dwellings on strategic housing sites allocated in the South Gloucestershire Local Plan (SGLP) have planning permission and provision of community space is agreed for those as follows: x Cheswick Village (750 dwellings) – £400,000 contribution towards dual use community facilities in new primary school on site. x Harry Stoke (1200 dwellings) – new community building onsite (493sq.m.). x North Field Charlton Hayes (2200 dwellings) – £1.5m contribution towards off site provision. x Emersons Green East (2390 dwellings) – new community hall on site (880sq.m.) and social space in a cricket pavilion (200sq.m.).

7.3. The Core Strategy proposes new neighbourhoods in three locations which will require new community centres on site. A further 4,000 dwellings have planning permission or are expected to achieve planning permission on small and medium sized sites. Unidentified windfalls may also potentially contribute towards new provision or improvements to existing community facilities. The approach to provide or expand centres to support this growth for different scales of development is set out below.

7.4. With the introduction of CIL the mechanism for securing funding and provision of community infrastructure is changing. The Council is preparing a Regulation 123 list and a Supplementary Planning Document which will cover CIL and s106. CIL Regulation 122 sets out the following tests that must be satisfied in order for obligations to be required in respect of development proposals:

Page11of21 7.5. The Council will consider planning applications on their merits in terms of impact on local community centres in line with policy guidance and evidence on a case by case basis. Until a CIL approach is adopted Section 106 will continue to be the preferred mechanism to fund specific items including community centre space to support delivery of the Core Strategy new neighbourhoods as well as the redevelopment of Frenchay Hospital and Land East of Coldharbour Lane. The Council will seek a contribution from other developments if they would give rise to the need for additional or expanded community infrastructure which is necessary in planning terms, directly and fairly related to the development in scale and kind and not provided for in development proposals15. Where there is robust evidence that there is sufficient capacity in existing community facilities to meet the needs arising from new development contributions will not be sought.

7.6. If a CIL approach is adopted the floorspace standard set out above and the method for calculating contributions in paragraph 6.2-6.4 could be adapted to establish a per dwelling tariff.

Strategic residential and mixed use developments and Core Strategy allocations

7.7. For large scale new residential and mixed developments such as the new neighbourhoods, community centre space is required on site in a new facility which should be easily accessible to all residents of that community. Where it will improve the long term sustainability and quality of provision for the community, co-location of meeting space with other suitable uses in a multi-purpose facility or as a cluster of complementary uses will be encouraged. Such a facility might for instance combine a community centre with a library, space for activities for young people and for the support of older people, a cafe and health centre. It might be located in a local centre close to housing for the elderly. The combination that best suits the characteristics of each new neighbourhood will be determined through master planning for the sites and development management.

7.8. For multi-use facilities the floorspace requirements for community centre space set out in section 4 will be added to those spatial requirements for other uses to give an overall minimum facility floorspace. Efficiencies in floorspace may be made where as part of a multi-use centre facilities can be shared effectively e.g. reception areas, toilets, kitchens, parking; provided it can be demonstrated that the appropriate capacity for all uses can still be met. Where appropriate, developers will be expected to provide land at nil cost and build a new community centre required for the development to a specification agreed with the Council or to transfer the land at nil cost and make a financial contribution towards the costs of the Council building the facility, using the formula in paragraph 6.1-6.3.

7.9. Unforeseen development proposals of a strategic nature (1,500+ units) that come forward either as a single application or as separate proposals which together add up to this scale of new development in an area, are likely to be required to provide facilities on this basis.

7.10. Contributions will not be sought from Extra Care Housing (ECH) schemes where these are classified as C2 under the relevant Use Classes Order as ancillary social facilities would normally be provided as part of those schemes. Where an ECH scheme is classed as Use Class C3 consideration will be given to whether contributions should be made towards local social and community facilities based on whether adequate and suitable ancillary facilities are provided on site as part of the scheme.

15 In line with the tests of CIL regulation 122

Page12of21 Medium and small residential developments

7.11. For smaller non-strategic and non-allocated sites where residential development is of a scale that doesn’t require a new community facility on site and where there is evidence, for example from management bodies of facilities or community-led plans, that local facilities don’t have the capacity to accommodate the needs of new residents or where there are quality or accessibility deficiencies, contributions towards creating additional capacity and improving access will be sought.

7.12. In these cases, the formula set out in paragraph 6.2-6.4 will be applied to the population that will be generated and used to calculate the contribution; this may be adjusted to suit local circumstances and evidence. As community centres are intended for use by all residents, exceptions will not be made for affordable dwellings when calculating contributions.

7.13. Contributions will be spent to create additional capacity in nearby dedicated community centres that new residents are most likely to use; for instance through extending the fabric of existing facilities or through improved management and accessibility. Where there isn’t a suitable dedicated community centre nearby improvements may be made to non- dedicated community spaces and agreements put in place to ensure provision is made available for the new residents. If there is no clear option for spending funding at the time an application is considered contributions may be pooled.

7.14. Table 3 sets out the requirement for community centres for new development expected on allocated strategic residential and mixed use sites and the suggested approach for delivery. Table 4 sets out the required community centre space for new development expected for smaller developments.

How contributions will be allocated

7.15. It is important to secure long term community access to facilities and the Council aims to ensure that investment is made in facilities most likely to deliver this. Good quality buildings with maximum flexibility of use will ensure that best value is achieved, both in terms of well-being benefits to the community and in terms of investment in sustainable assets.

7.16. The following options will be considered for providing community centre space: extension or renovation of an existing facility a new or replacement building changes to management arrangements and/or programmes

7.17. The Council will identify the preferred project to create additional capacity to meet evidenced local needs in consultation with the most appropriate body that represents the local community; this might include Town and Parish Councils, community lead organisations, management bodies of facilities, Local Area Forums and Safer Stronger Community Groups. This will take account of local evidence including a list of assets of community value which is maintained by the Council.

7.18. Where new buildings are provided they should meet the minimum standards of Sport England16 or equivalent relevant standards. Where new centres are provided for the new neighbourhoods or other strategic sites the Council will follow its approved process to select a management body to run the facility. Delivery of improvements to existing community centres will be led by the organisations responsible for the facility to be

16 Sport England guidance note “Village and Community Halls” (2001)

Page13of21 improved. They will need to demonstrate how funding will be spent to provide additional capacity and commit to this in writing.

7.19. To inform future infrastructure planning the Council together with local decision making bodies may identify potential projects that would improve capacity in community facilities and bring the most health and social well-being benefits to residents. The Council will endeavour to take capacity of facilities into account when taking decisions about the allocation of s106 contributions as well as funding from CIL and the New Homes Bonus.

Table 3: Indicative requirements for community centres for strategic residential and mixed use allocations with options for delivery

Area Dwellings Estimated Space Options for delivery new required residents (0.14sq. (2.4 ppd) m. per person)

Land East of 500 1,200 168 Too small for new stand alone Coldharbour centre, so options include: Lane x add contribution to enhance provision on UWE Frenchay campus x add to East of Harry Stoke requirement x reserve land on site and find pooled funding to deliver a facility Land East of 2,000 4,800 672 Substantial new neighbourhood: on Harry Stoke site facility required Land North of 3,000 7,200 1,008 Substantial new neighbourhood: on Yate site facility required Land at Filton 5,700 13,680 1,915.2 Dedicated community centres Airfield, required for each individual South of development parcel. Co location Filton Airfield, with other CI considered. West of the Airfield site: substantial new A4018, and neighbourhood: minimum two Cribbs centres should be built and co Patchway location with other CI considered. remodelling South of airfield: substantial new (residential neighbourhood; on site facility requirements required. only) West of A4018: substantial new neighbourhood; on site facility required. Cribbs Causeway /Patchway remodelling should integrate with Patchway/Coniston. Financial contribution to enhance existing community facilities there. Frenchay 490 1,176 164.6 New community centre on hospital Hospital site to serve the whole village or A financial contribution towards improvements at Frenchay village hall (subject to this being viable).

Page14of21 Table 4: Requirements for community centres for smaller sites with options for delivery

Area Dwellings Estimated Space Options for delivery new required residents (0.14sq. (2.4 ppd) m. per person)

Small & 3,750 9,188 1,286.32 x Enhancement of existing local Medium facilities assessed on site by sites/windfall site basis. Delivery through s – 250 per partners/ community based annum to organisations with stakeholder 2012 engagement.

Page15of21 Appendix 1: Dedicated Community Centres & Village Halls, South Gloucestershire

Ref Name Of Address Postcode Owned by Managed by No. Venue 1 Almondsbury Church Road, BS32 4ED Almondsbury Almondsbury Old School Almondsbury Parish Council Parish Council Village Hall 2 Armstrong Hall Chapel Street, BS35 2BJ Charitable Trust Charity or Trust Complex Thornbury 3 Aust Village Main Road, Aust BS35 4AZ Aust village hall Voluntary Hall trust on behalf of Management the people of Committee Aust 4 Badminton Hayes Lane, GL9 1DD Yate Parochial Yate Parochial Memorial Hall Badminton Council Council 5 Baileys Court Baileys Court Road, BS32 8BH Bradley Stoke Bradley Stoke Community Bradley Stoke Town Council Town Council Centre 6 Brook Way Brook Way, Bradley BS32 9DA Bradley Stoke Bradley Stoke Community Stoke Town Council Town Council Centre 7 Cadbury Heath School Road, BS30 8EN Oldland Parish Voluntary Hall Cadbury Heath Council Management Committee 8 Casson Centre Rodway Road, BS34 5DQ Patchway Town Patchway Town Patchway Council Council 9 Charfield Wooton Road, GL12 8SR Charitable Trust Voluntary Memorial Hall Charfield Management Committee 10 Chipping 57-59 Broad Street, BS37 6AD Chipping Chipping Sodbury Town Chipping Sodbury Sodbury Town Sodbury Town Hall Lands Charity Lands Charity 11 Coalpit Heath 214 Badminton BS36 2QB Coalpit Heath Voluntary Village Hall Road, Coalpit Heath Village Hall Management Charity. Committee 12 Cold Ashton Cold Ashton, SN14 8JT The Bristol Voluntary Parish Hall. Chippenham Diocesan Board Management of Finance. Committee 13 Coniston Coniston Road, BS34 5LP Patchway Town Voluntary Community Patchway Council lease to Management Centre Coniston Comm. Committee Assoc 14 Cromhall Talbots End, GL12 8AJ Tortworth Estate Voluntary Parish Hall Cromhall, Wotton- Company Management Under-Edge Committee 15 Crossbow 58 School Road, BS36 2DA Frampton Executive cttee House Frampton Cotterell Cotterell and manages the Community District building Centre Community Association 16 Dodington Finch Road, BS37 6YZ Dodington Parish Dodington Parish Parish Hall Chipping Sodbury Council Council 17 Downend Salisbury Road, BS16 6RA Charitable Trust Voluntary Assembly Hall Downend Management Committee 18 Downend Folk Lincombe Barn, BS16 2RW South Voluntary House Overndale Road, Gloucestershire Management Downend Council Committee

Page16of21 Ref Name Of Address Postcode Owned by Managed by No. Venue 19 Doynton Village Toghill Lane, BS30 5SY Charitable Trust Voluntary Hall Doynton Management Committee 20 Dyrham & Dyrham Lane, SN14 8HA Community Hall Voluntary Hinton Village Dyrham, Trust Management Hall Chippenham, Committee 21 Easter Main Road, Easter BS35 5SJ Almondsbury Voluntary Compton Compton, Parish Council Management Village Hall Committee 22 Elberton Village Elberton Road, BS35 4AB Elberton Village Voluntary Hall Elberton, Olveston Hall Ltd Management Committee 23 Emersons Emerson Way, BS16 7AP South Charity or Trust Green Village Emersons Green Gloucestershire Hall Council 24 Falfield Village Bristol Road, Falfield GL12 8DE The Diocese of Voluntary Hall Gloucester Management Committee 25 Filton Folk Elm Park, Filton BS34 7PS Trustees (are a Filton Community Centre Charity) Association 26 Frenchay Beckspool Road, BS16 1NU Bristol Diocese Voluntary Village Hall Frenchay Trust Management Committee: Frenchay Village Hall Charitable Trust 27 Hallen Village Moorhouse Lane, BS10 7RU Trustees Voluntary Hall and Hallen Management Recreation Committee Centre 28 St. Elizabeth’s Hambrook Lane, BS16 1RT Frenchay Church Voluntary Hall Hambrook Management Committee: Hambrook Village Hall Trust 29 Hanham High Street, Hanham BS15 3EJ Hanham Folk Voluntary Community Centre Management Centre Committee 30 Hawkesbury High Street, GL9 1AU Hawkesbury Voluntary Hospital Hall Hawkesbury Upton, Upton Parish Management Badminton Council Committee 31 Henfield Hall Ram Hill, Coalpit BS36 2UF Westerleigh Elected Voluntary Heath parish council for Management people of Committee Henfield and Westerleigh 32 Hill Village Hill Road, Hill, GL13 9DX Community Berkeley Hall 33 Horton and Horton Hill, Horton BS37 6QH Trustees of Voluntary Little Sodbury Horton & Little Management Village Hall Sodbury Village Committee Hall & Recreation Ground 34 Iron Acton High Street, Iron BS37 9UH Registered Voluntary Village Hall Acton charity Management Committee

Page17of21 Ref Name Of Address Postcode Owned by Managed by No. Venue 35 Jubilee Centre Savages Wood BS32 8HL Bradley Stoke Bradley Stoke Road, Bradley Stoke Town Council Town Council 36 Jubilee Hall Green Hill, Alveston BS35 2QX Parishioners of Voluntary Alveston Management Committee 37 King George V Wotton Road, BS37 7LZ The people of Voluntary Memorial Hall Rangeworthy Rangeworthy Management Committee 38 Kingswood Community Centre, BS15 4AB Charity buildings Voluntary Community High Street, Management Association Kingswood Committee 39 Little Stoke Little Stoke Park, BS34 6HR Stoke Gifford Stoke Gifford Community Little Stoke Lane, Parish Council Parish Council Hall Little Stoke 40 Littleton Village Littleton-Upon- BS35 1NR CofE owns, long Voluntary Hall Severn, Thornbury lease to LVH MC Management Committee 41 Longwell Green Shellards Road, BS30 9DU Longwell Green, Voluntary Community Longwell Green Memorial Hall Management Centre and Playing Field Committee Association 42 Marshfield The Hayfield, SN14 8PG Registered Voluntary Community Marshfield charity Management Centre Committee 43 North Common Millers Drive, North BS30 8XX Trustees/resident Voluntary Community Common s of North Management Centre Common Committee 44 North Gloucester Rd, BS34 6ND The people of Voluntary Patchway Hall. Patchway North Patchway Management Committee 45 Oldbury-on- 13 Camp Road, BS35 1PT Trustees - Voluntary Severn Oldbury-on-Severn charitable trust Management Memorial Hall Committee 46 Olveston Upper Tockington BS35 4DY Olveston Parish Voluntary Parish Hall Road, Olveston Hall Trust Management Committee 47 Page Page Road, Staple BS16 4NE South Voluntary Community Hill Gloucestershire Management Association Council Committee 48 Park Centre High St, Kingswood BS15 4AR South Voluntary Gloucestershire Management Council Committee 49 Patchway Rodway Road, BS34 5PF Patchway Town Voluntary Community Patchway Council lease to Management Centre Patchway Committee Community Association 50 Pilning Village Cross Hands Road, BS35 4JB Pilning and Voluntary Hall Pilning Severn Beach Management Parish Council Committee 51 Poole Court Poole Court Drive, BS37 5PP Yate Town Yate Town Yate Council Council 52 Poplar Rooms North Road, Stoke BS34 8PE Stoke Gifford Voluntary Gifford Trust Management Committee

Page18of21 Ref Name Of Address Postcode Owned by Managed by No. Venue 53 Pucklechurch Abson Rd, BS16 9RH Pucklechurch Voluntary Community Pucklechurch Parish Council Management Centre Committee 54 Ridgewood 244 Station Road, BS37 4AF Trust Trustees Community Yate Ridgewood Centre Community Association 55 Rockhampton Church Road, GL13 9DX Rockhampton Voluntary Village Hall Rockhampton, Nr. village hall Management Berkeley charitable trust Committee 56 Severn Beach Alveston Lane, BS35 4PY The Children Of Voluntary Village Hall Severn Beach Severn Beach Management Committee 57 Shire Way The Centre, Shire BS37 8YS Charity Trustees Voluntary Community Way, Yate of Shireway Management Centre Community Committee, Association Privately Owned and Operated 58 St Michaels Old The Green, Stoke BS34 8PD St Michaels Old Voluntary School Rooms Gifford School Rooms Management Trust Committee 59 St Peters Hall. School Rd, BS36 2DB Frampton Voluntary Frampton Cotterell Cotterell and Management District Committee Community Assoc. 60 The Woodend Road, BS36 2LQ Frampton Frampton Brockeridge Frampton Cotterell Cotterell Parish Cotterell Parish Centre Council Council 61 The Chantry 52 Castle Street, BS35 1HB Thornbury & Voluntary Thornbury District Management Community Committee Association 62 The Greenfield Park Avenue, BS36 1NJ Winterbourne Winterbourne Centre Winterbourne Parish Council Parish Council 63 The Manor Hall Henfield Road, BS36 2TG Westerleigh Voluntary House Coalpit Heath Parish Council Management Committee 64 The Old High Street, BS37 6AD Chipping Chipping Grammar Chipping Sodbury Sodbury Town Sodbury Town School Lands Charity Lands Charity 65 The Pavilion, Elm Park, Filton BS34 7PS Filton Town Filton Town Filton Council Council 67 Tormarton High Street, GL9 1HU Tormarton Parish Voluntary Parish Hall Tormarton Council Management Committee 68 Trust Hall North Rd, Stoke BS34 8PE Stoke Gifford Voluntary Gifford Trust. Management Committee 69 Turnberries Bath Road, BS35 2BB South Voluntary Community Thornbury Gloucestershire Management Building Council Committee: Thornbury Community Building Trust (TCBT)

Page19of21 Ref Name Of Address Postcode Owned by Managed by No. Venue 70 Tytherington Itchington Road, GL12 8EU Tytherington Voluntary Village Hall Tytherington Parish Council Management Committee 71 Warmley Clock Tower Road North, BS30 8XU South Voluntary Tower Warmley Gloucestershire Management Council Committee 72 Warmley 20 Deanery Road, BS15 9JB Owned by Voluntary Community Warmley membership. Management Centre Committee 73 Westerleigh Short Hill, BS37 Held in trust by Voluntary Village Hall Westerleigh Westerleigh Management Parish Council. Committee 74 Wick and Manor Road, Wick BS30 5RG Residents of the Voluntary Abson Village parish of Wick Management Hall and Abson. Committee 75 Wickwar Honeybourne Way, GL12 8NH South Parish /Town Community Wickwar Gloucestershire Council Managed Centre Council 76 Wickwar Town High St, Wickwar GL12 8NP Wickwar Parish Voluntary Hall Council. Management Committee 77 Wickwar 5 Station Road, GL12 8NB Tortworth Estate Voluntary Village Hall Wickwar Management Committee 78 Winterbourne Hoopers Farm, BS36 1QG Winterbourne Winterbourne And District Watleys End Rd, and District and District Community Winterbourne Community Community Centre Association Association. 79 Yate Station Road, Yate BS37 4PQ Yate Town Voluntary Community Council Management Centre Committee 80 Yate Parish Station Rd, Yate BS37 4PQ Yate Town Yate Town Hall Council Council

Page20of21 Appendix 2: Dedicated Community Centres & Village Halls in South Gloucestershire

Page21of21 DistributionÿofÿDedicatedÿCommunity Centresÿ

32 45 24 9

14 40 2 3 22 76 36 30 46 37 50 56 33 1 34

21 13 6 79 54 10 4 8 35 15 39 62 11 5 57 27 58 31 28 25 67 26 23 17 53 20 47

19 42 38 72 74 12 29 7 43 41

CopyrightÿSouthÿGloucestershireÿCouncilÿ[2011].ÿAllÿrightsÿreserved ThisÿmapÿisÿreproducedÿfromÿOrdnanceÿSurveyÿwithÿtheÿpermissionÿofÿOrdnanceÿSurveyÿonÿbehalfÿofÿtheÿController ofÿHerÿMajesty'sÿStationeryÿOffice.ÿCrownÿCopyright.ÿÿUnauthorisesÿreproductionÿinfringesÿCrownÿCopyrightÿ andÿmayÿleadÿtoÿprosecutionÿorÿcivilÿproceedingsÿ100023410,[2011]. abc SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY

INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN

EVIDENCE BASE

WASTE MANAGEMENT (South Gloucestershire Council)

March 2014 Waste Management Infrastructure

1. Introduction

1.3. This paper sets out a basic assessment of requirements for future growth for municipal waste management infrastructure taking account of growth proposed in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy Post Submission Version (Dec 2011). Any variation in the overall scale or location will clearly alter the requirements as will external factors, for example changes in the national waste strategy. The document also aims to set out the principles upon which the requirements are based.

2. Policy & Legislative Background

2.1 It is a statutory duty of a waste collection authority to arrange for the collection of household waste and the waste disposal authority to arrange for the disposal of the collected waste (Section 46 and Section 51 Environmental Protection Act 1990 part 2). 2.2 There is a raft of policy guidance that supports increased targets for improved waste management and reductions in the amount of waste going to landfill. These include:

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005): Para 20 & 27(iv) require Development Plan policies to take account of ‘the management of waste’ and bring forward sufficient land, ‘including for sustainable waste management’.

PPS1 Supplement: Planning & Climate Change (2007): Para 24 & 42 requires that Planning Authorities should take into account the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure, including for ‘waste management’ and should expect new development to ‘provide for sustainable waste management’.

Waste Strategy for England (2007) DEFRA: Sets out the Governments plans and targets for reducing waste including a household waste recycling target of 50% by 2020. Government Review of Policy in England 2011

The aim of the review is to ensure waste policies and ways of delivering them are fit for purpose, meeting society’s expectations. The government wants to move beyond a throwaway society towards a zero waste economy.

Southwest Regional Waste Strategy (2004) SWRA: Sets out in detail the regional approach to managing waste, in particular the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill.

Southwest Regional Spatial Strategy (July 2008) SWRA: Identifies managing waste as one of the greatest challenges facing the region. It incorporates apportionments for Municipal and Commercial and Industrial wastes to 2020.

Joint Waste Strategy & Joint Waste Core Strategy Development Plan Document – (2009) West of England Partnership: The Council is working in partnership with other West of England authorities to procure treatment capacity for residual waste, having agreed a Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy. In parallel, the West of England Partnership has adopted a Development Plan Document for Strategic Waste Facilities. Para 6.29 states that; ‘Urban extensions may provide locational opportunities’, in reference to new household waste recycling centres.

The Council Plan 2008-2011: Priority 24 - Resource Use, Pollution and Waste, aims to “Cut consumption of resources, prevent pollution and waste and live within environmental limits”. This is repeated in the Sustainable Community Strategy 2008.

South Gloucestershire’s Local Area Agreement 2008-2011: National Indicator 192: Household Waste recycled and composted commits to a target of 50% by 2010/11 from a baseline of 40% in 2006/7, and NI 193: Municipal Waste landfilled commits to a target of 46% in 2010/11 from a baseline of 56% in 2006/7.

3. The South Gloucestershire Local Waste Strategy 2013 – 2019

3.1 The strategy was approved in September 2013 following public consultation. This is the key document in the delivery of Municipal Waste services in South Gloucestershire. It describes linkages with national and regional targets, the strategies as set out above in more detail and implications of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS). It also sets out current performance and programmes, future challenges and objectives. There is a general commitment to;

To encourage the development of a “circular waste economy” in South Gloucestershire by; recognising the importance of preventing waste and, where it cannot be prevented, giving material resources a second life through re-use and recycling, or through the generation of renewable energy and, only disposing to landfill as a last resort. 4. Waste Management Infrastructure provision in South Gloucestershire

4.1 Waste management services are high profile and provided to all residents in South Gloucestershire. They include kerbside collection of materials for recycling and residual waste, provision of wheeled bins and boxes for storage, bulky waste collections, operation of four SORT IT Centres and provision of a network of approximately 39 ‘bring banks’. 4.2 In the year April 2010 to March 2011 the service dealt with 124,000 tonnes of waste from 109,380 households, which for the purposes of this document gives a figure of 1.13 tonnes per household. Nationally household waste has reduced in recent years due to the effect of the financial recession. 4.3 The materials collected by the kerbside recycling service are glass bottles and jars, food and drink cans, empty aerosol cans, aluminium foil, clothes and textiles, shoes, car batteries, household batteries, engine oil and newspapers and magazines. The collection is made fortnightly. 4.4 The optional subscription based green wheeled bin is collected fortnightly. The service accepts grass cuttings and garden trimmings, weeds, prunings, twigs and leaves, garden or house plants, rabbit, guinea pig and rodent bedding. There is seasonal variation in the amount collected with the amount peaking during the growing season, May to October. 4.5 Food waste is collected from the kerbside on a weekly basis and the same vehicle also collects plastic bottles and cardboard as an alternating service. 4.6 The bring banks are mainly bottle banks although some large sites also have banks for paper, textiles and tetrapak type cartons. Bring banks are used to service properties that might not fit in with the kerbside collection of recyclables, for example flats. 4.7 These services are provided by SITA South Gloucestershire through a 25 year PFI contract. A dedicated waste management client unit monitors SITA and manages the contract. The unit is also responsible for reviewing and developing waste policies and strategies and working with SITA to implement changes. 4.8 To enable these services to operate there needs to be a robust supporting infrastructure of facilities with sufficient capacity to receive, store and transport all materials collected for recycling, treatment or disposal. 4.9 SITA currently operate the following waste infrastructure facilities through the PFI contract:- o Two combined waste transfer stations and SORT IT Centres, one at Collett Way,Yate and one in Carsons Rd, Mangotsfield. o Two vehicle and staff depots, one in Dean Road, Yate and the other at Cowhorn Hill in Warmley. The Yate facility includes a vehicle workshop. o Two stand alone SORT IT Centres, one in Station Road, Stoke Gifford and one in Short Way, Thornbury. o One recycling depot in Collett Way, Yate (opposite the transfer station). o One Materials Recycling Facility for baling plastic bottles and cardboard in Collett Way, Yate 4.10 SITA operate a fleet of 65 vehicles of five different types to make the collections.

4.11 YATE: The existing combined Sort It Centre and Transfer Station serves a population of 48,000. It was built in 2002 with the old civic amenity site being converted into a depot for recyclable materials. The SORT IT Centre and Transfer Station is small with a total area including the transfer station of 6,100m2. The layout is split with the public access road running between the waste tipping and the recyclable tipping areas and there is very little space on site for queuing vehicles. Making space for any further waste segregation or to handle increased quantities is likely to be difficult. In the financial year April 2010 to March 2011 the Sort It Centre handled 8,249 tonnes and of that 64% was recycled or recovered, and the site as a whole handled 50,480 tonnes. 4.12 THORNBURY: The site was built in 2005 and it serves a population of 27,000 and has an area of 5,000m2. In the financial year April 2010 to March 2011 the site handled 4487 tonnes and of that 65% was recycled or recovered. 4.13 MANGOTSFIELD: Mangotsfield Sort It Centre combined with the transfer station it is 9,500m2 and it serves a population of approx 98,000. Although it was built in 2003, the facility was not designed for the extended range of segregated waste streams now being dealt with. Recent additions such as waste electrical items and plastic bottle recycling have taken up space originally for traffic management with the effect of slowing the throughput of the site, i.e. fewer people can use this site in a given day. Both traffic and waste capacity are now thought to be near to the limits of the site in its current form and with the current opening times. In the financial year April 2010 to March 2011 the Sort It Centre site handled 16,387 tonnes and of that 53% was recycled or recovered. The site as a whole handled 59,855 tonnes. 4.14 STOKE GIFFORD: The population served by the Station Road civic amenity site in Stoke Gifford amounts to 65,000 people. It was built in 1981 before the housing development at Bradley Stoke. The site is small covering an area of 2,400m2 and this limits the number of people that can use the site at anyone time to around ten. Because of the limited area available, high vehicles and those with trailers are required to use an alternative site. In the financial year April 2010 to March 2011 the site handled 7,283 tonnes and of that 61% was recycled or recovered. Well used sports facilities to the north and east and the low railway bridge to the south (that would need reconstruction), limit the opportunity to expand the site. 4.15 There are also currently four Community Composting sites; located in Thornbury, Patchway, Hawkesbury Upton and Yate. The ethos is one of small scale composting facilities run on a day-day basis by dedicated community groups. Both home and community composting help to illustrate the waste minimisation message. The scheme is managed by StreetCare who provide support to the community groups. New sites should ideally serve 2,000 properties and be 400m2 in area with suitable controls to prevent flytipping. The Environment Agency generally require sites to be away from water courses and 250m from housing unless there are mitigation measures. 4.16 SITA do not operate any disposal facilities within South Gloucestershire. New disposal, recycling and recovery facilities would improve the Councils performance under the proximity principle and these may be provided in the future through the West of England Partnership. 5. Strategic issues / Waste Planning Principles

5.1 The quantity and the composition of waste that the population produces varies with the economic cycle and consumer trends however the long term trend has been that individuals create more waste over time. In addition waste increases in line with demographic and more specifically housing growth. 5.2 Additional housing will result in more waste being produced and needing to be handled. Increased quantities of recycling materials and residual waste will need to be collected directly from households. In addition there will be an increase in the amount of waste delivered to the SORT IT Centres. The capacity of the supporting infrastructure i.e. collection vehicles, transfer stations, and recycling depots needs to be capable of managing the volumes of household waste produced by the residents of South Gloucestershire.

5.3 Currently 109,380 households are served and approximately 124,000 tonne of waste is collected each year. Each household therefore produces 1.134 tonnes of waste per annum. 5.4 The Council is committed to minimising waste generation through awareness raising and promotional activities, delivered in partnership with SITA. 5.5 There is currently a trend for increased waste stream segregation in order to increase recovery and recycling rates. Increased segregation, splitting waste into a number of piles, requires more storage and more complex handling. The 50% recycling target is a significant increase on the 39.5% achieved in 2007 and its pursuit is creating pressure on existing facilities. 5.6 Overall storage capacity increases with greater number of waste streams above that needed for mixed waste. Economic loads for a HGV lorry are twenty tonnes, so in simple terms, for five waste streams a site would need storage capacity of 100 tonnes. Co-mingled recycling were all dry recyclables are collected and stored (mixed) prior to mechanical sorting is an alternative option, however gains made in the reduced area needed for storage are often lost in the greater area needed for sorting. 5.7 Access to each stockpile of material has an impact on the aspect ratio of the site footprint. One large stockpile only requires one access point, five stockpiles require five access points although these may overlap if the site can be designed as such from the start. 5.8 Well signed logical, ergonomic, layouts for SORT IT Centres are also educational and help to get the recycling and recovery message across to the site users and allow them to take part in the success of the site without any additional efforts. 5.9 Adequate traffic capacity for all forms of transport and sensible locations and opening hours to reduce overall journey miles and peak period congestion are important. Larger sites in particular can suffer from congestion around the access point effectively limiting the size of the catchment area. 5.10 Alternative ways of dealing with waste should not be excluded and it should not be presumed that past methods will provide the best service for the future. Kamikatsu village in Japan is part of a UN waste study and it does not have a waste collection but does have a Sort It centre collecting 34 different waste streams and is able to recycle 80% of its waste. This model requires a move away from fewer larger sites to more smaller local sites. Such an option is more suited to new build towns and smaller existing communities. 6. Spatial Requirements

6.1 Additional housing will bring an increase in population and the additional population will produce more waste to be dealt with. Proposed growth of approximately 27,000 dwellings is expected to increase annual waste production in SG by 30,500 tonnes per annum. Legislation will continue to steer waste disposal away from landfill towards recycling and recovery and more attention will be given to the carbon footprint. This will make waste collection and handling more complex with a likely increase in land take footprint. All the existing sites are operating at or near to capacity with the exception of Thornbury. The most pressing need is for a new SORT IT Centre in the Bristol North Fringe to replace the inadequate Stoke Gifford site. This presents an opportunity to add a transfer station in combination, which would reduce the demands on the Yate and Mangotsfield Transfer Stations. In addition, remodelling of the Yate SORT IT & Transfer Station site would enhance capacity.

Yate & Chipping Sodbury

6.2 The Core Strategy proposes an additional 3000 dwellings at North Yate some incremental infill development. This will generate an additional 3400 tonnes of waste per annum. 6.3 Additional collection vehicles will be required to serve the additional housing unless there is a change of method, a double shift system for example. These vehicles will require secure parking and vehicle servicing areas. 6.4 The recycling storage depot at Yate uses the infrastructure of the original civic amenity site and as such does not make the best use of the space available. The site has an area of 5,400m2 although only the central 2,000m2 can be used for handling and storing recyclables. The outer area is used for parking for the collection vehicles. Waste is divided into nine streams and the throughput is 18,672 tonnes per year (April 2010 to March 2011). Increases in waste arisings, population and the rate of recycling will overload this facility although the situation is complex. A rebuild on the existing footprint coupled with an increased rate of export may be enough to cope with demand. 6.5 The Yate Transfer station will generally benefit from an increase in recycling because in its current configuration it handles mostly residual waste. However the additional housing will overload the facility unless an equal quantity of waste can be delivered directly to a disposal point.

North Fringe

6.6 The South Gloucestershire Local Plan allocated major sites at Charlton Hayes – 2200 dwellings, Cheswick Village – 750 dwellings and Harry Stoke – 1200 dwellings. Currently there is no capacity at the local Stoke Gifford site for these new households and the expected outcome is for increased queues at this site and outside along Station Road.

6.7 In addition to these sites the Core Strategy allocates 2000 dwellings on land East of Harry Stoke, 5700 dwellings at Cribbs / Patchway and rolls forward the SGLP allocation of 500 dwellings on Land East of Coldharbour Lane (LECHL). There will also be incremental infill development. 6.8 The Core Strategy allocations plus windfalls will contribute approximately 8,000 additional dwellings. As a consequence, the Stoke Gifford site will be overwhelmed. A replacement SORT IT centre is therefore required to meet forecast demand for the locality. This would provide an opportunity to include a transfer station to alleviate pressure on both Yate and Mangotsfield transfer stations.

Thornbury

6.9 Thornbury SORT IT Centre at Short Way has significant extra capacity, easily able to accommodate a further 10,000 dwellings. The expected 500 additional houses will not present any issues.

Mangotsfield

6.10 There is planning permission for approximately 2,400 dwellings at Emersons Green East. Significant additional incremental infilling is also expected over the Core Strategy plan period. 6.11 The existing SORT IT centre and transfer station operates at near capacity and using this site to provide a service to new properties in the North Fringe would add to capacity problems and be inefficient. A new transfer station in the North Fringe area would relieve pressure on this facility and allow the site to serve the new local population.

Budgets and Funding

5.13 Appendix 1 lists a number of recent civic amenity (SORT IT) projects in the UK. It shows total build costs vary between £1.1 and £3.8 million with a typical price excluding land and machinery of £1.5 million. Appendix 2 gives an outline description of and developer contributions for a facility to serve the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood and wider area.

5.14 The design & construction cost of a new SORT IT Centre at 2011 prices (excluding land) is therefore estimated to be in the order of £2m. The cost of a new transfer station (which includes additional plant and covered sorting ‘shed’ plus vehicle parking) is estimated to be £3.5m (excluding land). The total cost is therefore estimated at approximately £5.5m. The cost of rebuilding the Yate recycling depot is estimated at £0.7 million, making a total predicted investment of approximately £6.2million.

5.15 The Council has £1.78 million identified within the Waste Management Client Unit budget for future infrastructure which is subject to continuing review. There is therefore a potential shortfall of £4.4 million. Other sources of funding will therefore need to be identified.

5.16 These estimated costs are subject to continual review. The Council is also currently carrying out a detailed audit of existing waste infrastructure. 2011 Census data will also be available in autumn 2012 which will assist demand estimates. 7. Conclusion

7.1 The pressure for waste sorting and recycling facilities will increase as European and national legislation continues to seek to segregate waste for reuse, recycling or recovery and as populations grow as a consequence of planned growth. To meet planned growth it is proposed to replace the existing SORT IT centre at Stoke Gifford with a combined SORT IT centre and Transfer Station and secure refuse collection vehicle parking in the North Fringe. The location for this new facility should be centrally within the main population of the north fringe to maximise the efficiency of the operation and reduce the impact of transport. Access is required for public cars, collection vehicles and articulated export lorries. A link to the A38 on the east side of the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood would provide the best solution.

7.2 This new site will reduce the demand at the Mangotsfield facility and allow for growth in the Bristol East Fringe. The cost of the facility is estimated to be £5.5m excluding land. Council funding will contribute £1.78 million towards the cost of developing this facility. A rebuild of the Yate recycling facility is also proposed to accommodate growth in that locality. This is estimated to cost £0.7 million. The total funding shortfall is approximately £4.2 million. The disposal of the Stoke Gifford SORT IT may contribute some additional funding. However, there would remain a significant funding gap. The proposed development of a further 5700 dwellings plus commercial and industrial uses in the Cribbs Patchway area represents an opportunity to locate a SORT IT & transfer centre in these commercial areas. It would also be well located to serve the new neighbourhoods and surrounding population. The funding gap would require Community Infrastructure Levy and / or S106 funding as well as any further Capital grants etc from Central Government or other sources that may become available. Collett Way SORT IT and transfer Centre and recyclate storage depot. Proposed remodelling of the recyclate storage depot.

Stoke Gifford SORT IT to be replaced by a combined SORT IT and waste transfer site. References 1. South Gloucestershire Local Waste Strategy 2013 to 2019

2. Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy March 2008

3. West of England Partnership Preferred Options January 2009

4. Sort It Centre to service the Bradley stoke and Patchway area Feb 2008

5. Towards Zero Waste – ecotowns waste management worksheet Appendix 1

Assessment of civic amenity site construction costs in 2011

Information gathered through an internet search and through a question to members of the National Association of Waste Disposal Officers.

Kingston Upon Hull £1.4 million Capacity 15,000 tonnes pa, spilt level, roof, 10 bays.

East Sussex £2 million with land Large with split level and 15 bins

Lincolnshire £1.8 million 1.25 acres, serving 13,000 population. Split level with canopy.

Exeter (Pinbrook rd) £3.8 million Large site split level with canopy

Swanage £2.9 million Split level with canopy. 2,800 tonnes per year. 1 hectare with extensive screening.

Vale of Glamorgan, Barry Island. £1.1 million No details

North Yorkshire £1.3 million 16 bays, split level. Land cost £450k

Suffolk County £600,000 for 2,800m2 site with building. Appendix 2 - Combined Sort It Centre, Transfer Station and collection vehicle parking for Cribbs Patchway area

CRIBBS PATCHWAY NEW NEIGHBOURHOOD

Outline description of waste infrastructure required. A Sort It centre with a capacity of 200 vehicles per hour, 20,000 tonnes of waste per year, 14 waste streams, secure boundary. A transfer station with a capacity of 15 HGV’s per hour, 40,000 tonnes of waste per year, ability to segregate waste streams, secure boundary. Collection vehicle parking for 12 HGV’s being a mix of residual waste, food waste, green waste and recycling service vehicles. Also staff welfare and car parking for 40 staff. Secure boundary. Based on a site currently being built at Bridport the land required for a combined facility in the Cribbs Patchway New neighbourhood will have a land area of 9,000m2 with a minimum site width of 50m. The land area is a minimum and does not include land for access, land drainage or landscaping. Construction is expected to cost £5.5milion. Access should be onto a local road preferably 30m or more from a distributor road to avoid traffic problems should a queue form. The site will have a separate entrance for heavy goods vehicles and for the public.

Table of land areas and costs based on a combined site Land Area Cost Contribution Land Area Finance Sort It Centre 4000m2 £2.5 million 24% 960m2 £0.6 million Transfer Station 3800m2 £2.5 million 19% * 722m2 £0.475 million Vehicle parking 1200m2 £0.5 million 19% * 228m2 £0.095 million Total 9000m2 £5.5 million 1910m2 £1.17 million * includes contribution from North Thornbury development

Calculation of the % contribution for the Sort It Centre from existing and proposed housing within the catchment area.

Code Ward Population Households New E05002043 Almondsbury 4115 1619 E05002046 Bradley Stoke Central and Stoke Lodge 8031 3473 E05002047 Bradley Stoke North 3812 1722 E05002048 Bradley Stoke South 9279 3809 E05002055 Filton 10607 4642 E05002057 Frenchay and Stoke Park 6827 2313 490 E05002064 Patchway 9071 3959 5700 E05002070 Stoke Gifford 12145 4977 800 E05002074 Winterbourne 6994 2867 2400 totals 70881 29381 9390 The proposed new housing makes up 24% of the future total

Calculation of the % contribution for the Transfer station and vehicle parking from existing and proposed housing within the (larger) catchment area. This facility will serve the area of per the Sort it Centre plus the area of Thornbury.

Code Ward Population Households New E05002049 Charfield 4678 1538 E05002060 Ladden Brook 3858 1456 E05002065 Pilning and Severn Beach 3647 1541 E05002067 Severn 3628 1477 E05002071 Thornbury North 7484 3326 500 E05002072 Thornbury South and Alveston 7532 3205 Totals 30827 12543 500

The proposed new housing makes up 19% of the future total

Bridport example site The proposed (2013) Bridport, Dorset combined Sort It Centre and Transfer Station serves a wide area with an immediate population of 14,000 (Bridport North, South and Beaminster). This is a recent example of the type of facility envisaged to serve the catchment area although it does not have a parking are for the collection vehicles and the population served is significantly less. Dorset Waste Partnership expect the facility to cost £8 million and the design has an area of 9000m2. The neighbouring Sort it Centres are at Sherborne, Dorchester and Weymouth. The boundary to the west is the County boundary with Devon. The existing Sort It Centre at Sherborne is of an unusual design and it is not readily defined from aerial photography. The design at Dorchester is a simple flat site with 11 bins and around 14 parking spaces, the site land area is 1790m2 with a slightly trapezoidal shape (65m long and 22 to 33m wide). The population of Dorchester is 19,000 (mid 2012). Weymouth has a flat level square design, 3600m2 in area (60m by 60m) plus an entrance road that contains the weighbridge. There are 22 parking spaces and 17 bins. The population of Weymouth is 52,000 (2011).

Mark Garrett Waste Contract Engineer 28th February 2014 Appendix 3 SITA assessment of future needs

SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY PROVISION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Due to population growth and planned new housing developments in the Cribbs and northern fringe areas, new waste management infrastructure is required to supplement exiting infrastructure which is at and (in the case of Stoke Goffird Sort It Centre) over capacity.

New infrastructure should take the form of;

1. a new facility to serve the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood and existing catchment area comprising materials bulking (possibly refuse, principally recyclables), a new Sort It Centre to supplement / replace Stoke Gifford, and a new vehicle parking area for vehicles collecting in the area,

2. A new vehicle depot to replace Cowhorn Hill depot. The cost of this new depot could be off-set by the disposal of the Cowhorn Hill depot with planning permission for residential development.

PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER

This paper reviews the current level of strategic waste management facility provision within South Gloucestershire and advises upon;

x the adequacy of that existing level of infrastructure to meet future requirements, and x where there is a shortfall, recommends solutions to remedy any shortfall.

BACKGROUND

The R3 Waste Management Contract was signed between South Gloucestershire Council and United Waste Services Ltd (now SITA) in 2000. This contract required;

1. Operation, closure and restoration of Harnhill landfill (now completed and restored).

2. Construction of a new Refuse Transfer Station (RTS) and Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) on South Gloucestershire Council owned land at Collett Way, Yate (built 2002), to replace the former HWRC on Collett Way. 3. Construction of a new vehicle depot and HGV workshop on South Gloucestershire Council owned land at Dean Road (built 2002)

4. Redevelop the Carsons Road, Mangotsfield RTS and HWRC (built 2005).

5. Source, securer consents build and operate an In-Vessel Composting Facility within South Gloucestershire Council (project terminated by mutual consent following land and planning difficulties and changes in the organic markets).

6. Develop a new recyclables bulking facility at South Gloucestershire Council owned land at Cowhorn depot (project terminated by mutual consent due to need for vehicle depot and stability risk from mine workings).

7. Develop a new larger HWRC to replace the existing Stoke Gifford HWRC at Station Road (project terminated by mutual consent due to lack of replacement sites).

8. Develop a new Sort It Centre for Thornbury (built 2006)

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE SINCE 1999

At the time the R3 contract was signed in 1999, South Gloucestershire had a population of 241,600*

The 2011 census recorded 262,800 people in South Gloucestershire, an 8.7% increase compared to 1999.

The 2011 census also recorded 107,538 occupied households.

When comparing households increase between the 2001 and 2011 census, the census results show significant increases in households within distinct areas of South Gloucestershire;

Parish / Area % age increase in households 2001-2011†

Stoke Gifford 35% (3,985 new households) Bradley Stoke 16% (2,794 new households) Mangotsfield Rural 28% (2,707 new households) Siston 71% (1,888 new households)

As shown above, expansion pressures from new households are concentrated in the northern fringe and eastern areas of the Council catchment area.

* Source Office of National Statistics; Mid year Population estimates and Components for Change † Source: SGC Briefing Note on 2011 census results EXPECTED FUTURE POPULATION PRESSURES

The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy adopted in December 2013 allows for the creation of 22,545 additional new houses within South Gloucestershire between 2013 – 2027 making a total of over 130,000 houses.

This represents an increase of 21% compared to the number of occupied households in 2011 and an increase of 31% when compared to the number of households in South Gloucestershire in 2001 (99,038‡), i.e. around 1/3 increase over and above that existing at the time the R3 contract was signed.

EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE ABILITY OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE TO MEET FUTURE MEDIUM / LONG TERM NEEDS

The existing municipal waste management and recycling infrastructure within South Gloucestershire under the existing PFI contract is as follows:

Facility Purpose Area Date built / operational

Cowhorn Depot HGV parking & 0.36 hectares Pre 1999 contract fleet depot (0.89 acres)

Mangotsfield Sort Combined RTS & 0.89 hectares 2005 It Centre HWRC & limited (2.2 acres) recyclables bulking

Stoke Gifford Sort HWRC 0.24 hectares Pre 1999 contract It Centre (0.59 acres)

Thornbury Sort It HWRC 0.51 hectares 2006 Centre & Reuse (1.26 acres) Store

Yate Baling Recyclables 0.3 hectares 2010 facility (Unit A Baling (0.74 acres) Collett Way)

Yate bulking & Recyclables 0.4 hectares Pre 1999 parking yard bulking & HGV (0.98 acres) contract, used as (former HWRC parking a HWRC until Collet Way) 2002

Yate Depot Dean Contract office 0.25 hectares 2002 Road and HGV (0.62 acres)

‡ Source: 2001 Census workshop Yate Sort It Combined RTS & 0.62 hectares 2002 Centre HWRC (1.53 acres) Collett Way

At present a number of existing facilities are deemed by SITA to be at capacity or are operating above their design capacity;

Cowhorn Depot

This site totals 3,670m2 in area which comprises approx 2,800m2 (0.7 acres) of South Gloucestershire Council freehold land and 870m2 leased from Western Power Distribution.

The site has been operational from the start of the PFI Contract and is used to park up to 30 trucks (utilising the additional 870m2 of land leased from Western Power Distribution).

This site is one of two vehicle depots, (the other being Yate) and serves the eastern half of the South Gloucestershire area.

However the site is not large enough to accommodate staff parking and separate arrangements have had to be made for staff parking in the former golf club car park opposite the site.

The site is currently at capacity. However Western power Distribution have served notice and will terminate the lease of the additional 870m2 in 2016. At that point the remaining site within South Gloucestershire control will not be big enough to accommodate the 30 HGV`s currently parked there.

Furthermore with the roll out of new services, parking will be required for an additional 9 HGV`s giving a site total of 39HGV`s and in total car parking for up to 85 members of staff (drivers, loaders and fleet management).

The current site cannot accommodate the continuation of the existing service beyond 2016 with the loss of the additional leased area and cannot accommodate the new planned services.

Mangtosfield Sort It Centre

The existing site occupies a plot of 0.89 hectares (2.2 acres) and comprises a 1,650m2 transfer building (66m by 25m) which also serves as the combined HWRC residual / wood / green / metal bays. In 2014, the site handled 54,268 tpa and 45 HGV`s per weekday. This site is one of two RTS`s servicing the South Gloucestershire area and as such serves the eastern half of the Council area.

With the highways constraints of Carsons Road, access and queuing is a key issue particularly given the fact that it is a combined RTS & HWRC (meaning that both HGV`s and public cars are using the same stretch of public highway and are therefore queuing together during peak hours), the site is deemed by SITA to be running at design capacity.

The site is surrounded on two sides by fields and therefore in theory is capable of physical expansion. However these fields form part of the urban fringe green belt, and therefore “very special circumstances” would need to be demonstrated to justify development of these green belt green fields.

However this site on the wrong side of the District to accommodate additional service requirements for the Cribbs Patchway / northern fringe expansion areas.

Stoke Gifford Sort It Centre

This site has been operated largely in its current configuration since 1999. There have been a number of minor modifications and significant additional recyclable streams added to the facility since 1999 to accommodate the changing nature of municipal waste management and recycling since the R3 PFI contract was signed.

Given the significant increase in the local catchment area for this site, with the expansion of Stoke Gifford housing area and Bradley Stoke, this site has been identified by both SITA and South Gloucestershire as operating above capacity for some significant period of time.

The site cannot accommodate any additional housing numbers within its catchment area and deliver a level of service that residents would expect. The nearest alternative sites at Yate (at capacity) and Thornbury (within capacity) are located 7.5 miles and 8 miles away respectively.

Thornbury Sort It Centre & Reuse facility

Thornbury is the most recently built of the four South Gloucestershire Sort It Centres and as such is purpose built (given the plot of land available).

It was built in 2006 and currently handles 3,134 tpa and an average of 155 cars per day. The Reuse store is a recent addition through the change of use of the existing storage building on site.

The Reuse store has been a tremendous success and this site remains operating as anticipated and within design capacity. Yate baling facility, Unit A Collett Way

This site was leased by SITA from Curly Brothers in 2010 under a 15 year lease and provides a baling facility for recyclable cardboard and plastics.

The site comprises 0.3 hectares with an existing industrial building measuring 252m2 (28m by 9m).

The site is currently running close to capacity, and due to the constraints of the existing premises and neighbouring premises on the industrial estate is not readily capable of expansion.

The site would not be able to cope with additional recyclates from additional housing provision. Similarly the site is not located in an appropriate area to receive recyclable materials from the identified expansion areas of Cribbs and the northern fringe.

Yate bulking and parking yard, Collet Way (former HWRC)

This site comprises 0.4 hectares and bears an unusual layout due to its former use as the Yate HWRC until 2002 when it was replaced by the new Sort It centre on the other side of Collett Way.

The site is now used for loose dry recyclables bulking (glass, paper etc) on the lower level, using for the former HWRC concrete bays and bulking bays together with a covered paper store built in 2004, whilst the upper level is used for parking of the Yate collection fleet (around 20 HGV`s).

The site is physically constrained by the former HWRC layout and by the neighbouring premises of the Dean Road Contract office and workshops and by Collett Way.

The site is currently considered to be operating at Capacity.

The site may be capable of limited expansion through either the compete levelling of the site (i.e. removing the former HWRC split level layout and concrete bays), or from expansion onto a small neighbouring plot of land which is used by an independent haulier for HGV parking. It is likely that there would be an issue over cost benefit for the amount of investment required for a minor increase in site capacity. The site is not ideally located to receive additional materials from the identified expansion areas of Cribbs and the northern fringe.

Yate Dean Road Contract office and HGV workshop

This site was developed in 2002 and comprises a two-storey building accommodating the Contract offices for SITA south Gloucestershire, drivers welfare and fleet management for the collection fleet based at Yate (neighbouring Collett Way parking yard) and the collection fleet HGV workshop.

This site is not capable of physical expansion due to the constraints of neighbouring sites including the Collett way bulking and parking yard.

Yate Sort It Centre

Existing site occupies a plot of 0.62 hectares (1.53 acres) and comprises a 1,728m2 transfer building (54m by 32m) which also serves as the combined HWRC residual / wood / green / metal bays. In 2013, the site handled 35,184 tpa and an average of 35 HGV`s per weekday.

This site is one of two RTS`s servicing the South Gloucestershire area and as such serves the northern and western sections of the Council area. It therefore services the areas which have seen the highest increase in house numbers and population since the start of the PFI Contract. It also currently serves the area in which the greatest level of new homes provision is expected (Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood).

With the highways constraints from Collett Way and the fact that it is a combined RTS & HWRC (meaning that both HGV`s and public cars are using the same stretch of public highway and are therefore queuing together during peak hours), the site is deemed by SITA to be running at / over design capacity.

This site is therefore not capable of accommodating additional deliveries and waste from the Cribbs Patchway housing areas that are anticipated between 2013 and 2027. Similarly due to the physical constraints of the site the only way to increase the physical capacity of the RTS is to relocate the HWRC to another site.

This site is not in a suitable location to accommodate additional service requirements for the Cribbs Patchway expansion areas.

ANTICIPATED FUTURE DEMANDS TO BE PLACED ON THE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING SERVICE FROM 2015

As stated previously;

1 there has been an 8.7% increase in the population of South Gloucestershire between 2001 – 2011,

2 The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy targets the creation of an additional 22,545 new houses between 2013 – 2027, representating an increase in households of 21% from 2011 levels, 3 The majority of this household expansion will be delivered in the Cribbs / northern fringe area,

4 The nearest existing Sort It Centre to the expansion area is the Stoke Gifford Sort It Centre which has been running at over-capacity for a number of years,

5 The nearest existing site for waste transfer, recyclables bulking and vehicle parking, are the Yate sites at Collett Way which are at or near capacity.

6 The existing Cowhorn Hill Depot is at / over capacity. The operation of this depot will become untenable in 2016 when the leased area is reclaimed by the Landlord, and with the requirement to provide new services and additional collection vehicles.

7 With significant increase in housing concentrated in particular areas of Cribbs Patchway and the northern fringe, spatial issues for vehicle depots are highlighted, for instance a collection vehicle parked at Yate will take during a normal working day 1 hour to drive to and from Yate to the collection area using 3 gallons of diesel per day for an RCV and 1.5 gallons of diesel for a stillage vehicle (3,900 – 1,950 gallons per annum). This daily driving time and daily fuel consumption can be saved by locating collection trucks within the housing growth area.

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO THE ABOVE PROBLEMS

Issues 1 to 5 above could be resolved through the development of a new combined waste management facility comprising an RTS building, Sort It Centre, separate HWRC, bulking area for dry recyclables and HGV parking for locally based collection vehicles.

Issue 6 could be resolved through the closure and sale for residential development of the existing depot and a new fleet depot created elsewhere within the eastern fringe area.

New Build facility for Cribbs / Eastern fringe area

A new combined facility as described above to resolve issues 1-5 on one site would require;

x 1.2 – 1.9 hectares depending on site shape and highways access.

A combined (co-located) facility comprising a number of activities as listed above would have economies of scale advantages over a number of individual sites through cost savings from land purchase, construction economies, environmental and amenity impacts being confined to a single site rather than separate sites, and lower management costs.

Similar comparable SITA facilities elsewhere in the country are;

Launceston, Cornwall, (layout plan enclosed in Appendix 1).

This site comprised a plot of 1.03 on a sloping site of an irregular shape.

The site accommodates a HWRC to cover the eastern area of Cornwall with the nearest other sites available at Bude (20 miles), Saltash (20 miles) and Bodmin (26 miles). The HWRC is expected to handle around 6,500tpa, but is designed for 10,000tpa.

The parking and bins storage area of the HWRC measures approximately 500m2 excluding access and egress. The area provides 11 parking bays for the public to unload and recycle (including 3 wide access bays) and provision for 8 RoRo bins.

The Refuse Transfer Station building is 1,073m2 (37m by 29m by 10m high) and is designed to transfer a minimum of 40,000tpa of recyclable and non recyclable wastes

The site handles up to 50 HGV`s per day.

The site took 9 months to build and 6 months for planning (compilation of the application and subsequent determination).

Earlswood, Surrey, (layout plan enclosed in Appendix 2)

This site recently consented on a green belt site in Surrey and is a collaboration between SITA, Surrey County Council and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. The site measures 1.8 hectares and comprises a bulking facility measuring 2,508m2 (66m by 38m) and which will have a throughput of 110,000tpa together with a fleet depot for parking 62 HGV`s. The site will also accommodate improvement works to Reigate and Banstead Council`s existing neighbouring depot.

St Erth, Cornwall (layout plan enclosed in Appendix 3)

This new build site replaced an existing small out-dated transfer station and HWRC. The new site comprised a plot of 1.86 hectares on a long linear flat site.

The site accommodates a HWRC to cover the western area of Cornwall with the nearest other sites available at Helston (15 miles), Falmouth (24 miles) and Redruth (15 miles). The HWRC handles around 8,500tpa, but is designed for 12,000tpa.

The HWRC area provides 21 parking bays for the public to unload and recycle.

The Refuse Transfer Station building is 1,700m2 (50m by 34m by 10m high) and is designed to transfer a minimum of 50,000tpa of recyclable and non recyclable wastes.

This site also accommodates dry recyclables bulking and HGV parking.

The site handles up to 60 HGV`s per day.

The site took 12 months to build (including 1/2km new road access) and 5 months for planning (compilation of the application and subsequent determination).

It is recognised however, that plot size constraints may dictate that co-location is not possible.

In this instance, segregated facilities can be provided, for instance;

Falmouth HWRC, Cornwall (see Appendix 4)

Site area comprises 1 hectare for the HWRC, but 2.6 hectares including access and highways works on the A394.

The site is designed for 12,000tpa.

This site and the highways works associated with it highlight the constraints around highways access for busy HWRC facilities.

Hanworth bulking facility & parking depot, South west London (see Appendix 5)

This facility comprised an area of 0.38 hectares for the provision of a Fleet parking facility for 35 HGV`s as well as a dry recyclables bulking facility for up to 17,000tpa.

Connon Bridge Refuse Transfer Station (see Appendix 6)

This stand alone Refuse Transfer Station was consented and built to replace a mothballed landfill to act as a local delivery point for Local Authority collected municipal wastes. The site comprised 0.7 hectares (excluding access to public highway) with the transfer station building measuring 1,800m2 (60m by 30m by 11m high), and was designed to transfer (bulking with no treatment) up to 160,000tpa.

Vehicle Depot Provision to replace Cowhorn Depot

A potential solution to issue 6 is through the provision of a replacement eastern area vehicle depot with the potential sale of the existing Cowhorn depot to part finance the development.

The existing Cowhorn depot comprises (within the freehold ownership of South Gloucestershire Council) approximately 0.7 acres.

The value of the existing depot with planning permission for residential development is likely to be between £500,000 to £875,000. The reason for the value range arises from the housing density that could be achieved on site, the higher the density the higher the value (land value range from £725,000 per acre to £1,250,000 per acre).

There are existing plots of industrial land within the eastern fringes of South Gloucestershire (Warmley, Emersons Green, Kingswood) that are currently available and would meet the spatial requirements of the waste management service provision going forward including new services.

Currently industrial land on the eastern fringe is around £400,000 - £450,000 per acre. Existing industrial sites in Warmley are being marketed for freehold sale of £1.75mill for 1.75 acres with 24,000sqft of industrial buildings, offices and workshops.

Gareth Phillips Head of Planning & Property – South SITA UK Ltd 28th February 2014 SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL

INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN

EVIDENCE BASE

EXTRA CARE HOUSING (South Gloucestershire Council)

March 2014

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I Extra Care Housing

1. Introduction

1.1. The shared vision for South Gloucestershire is set out in the Sustainable Community Strategy 2012 “South Gloucestershire a great place to live and work” and the Council Strategy 2012-2016 sets out how this vision will be delivered. Both of these have managing future development, promoting safer and stronger communities and modernising health and community care services as priorities.

1.3. This paper sets out an assessment of requirements for future growth for Extra Care Housing, taking account of growth proposed in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy incorporating post submission changes (Dec 2011). Any variation in the overall scale or location of growth will clearly alter the requirements. The document also aims to set out the principles upon which the requirements are based.

2. Extra Care Housing

2.1 ExtraCare Housing should provide a home for as long as is possible which aims to prevent older people having to move to residential or nursing homes, should their level of support and care needs increase. It gives people the independence of living in their own self-contained accommodation within an environment that enables them to live lives that are as full and independent as they wish, whilst being able to readily access high quality support and care services on site.

2.2 ExtraCare housing schemes may also incorporate a wide range of communal facilities including on site restaurant, laundry, health suite, hairdressing salon, IT suite etc, all of which can potentially be used as a resource for residents and older people in the wider community. It is South Gloucestershire Council’s aim to create balanced communities of older people within the ExtraCare housing schemes, making sure that each scheme remains flexible enough to serve older people with a range of personal, social, and care needs whilst maintaining inclusion within the wider community.

2.3 ExtraCare differs from sheltered accommodation in as much as that there is 24/7 flexible care and support available in addition to a menu of services to enhance independence and promote health and wellbeing.

2.4 There are currently five ExtraCare schemes (in Yate, Downend, Kingswood and two remodelled schemes in Filton) operating in South Gloucestershire. See Appendix for further details.

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I Policy Context 2.5 The following National Strategies provide the policy framework/justification to support the provision of ExtraCare housing:

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012): “supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well- being”

Sustainable Planning for Housing in an Ageing population: A guide for regional- level strategies (Feb 2008) Dept for Communities and Local Government: states in the forward that ‘the purpose…is to place social sustainability at the heart of sustainable planning’ and recognises the importance of cross-sectoral partnerships in order to integrate ‘planning for housing, health, social care and community’.

Care and Support Specialised Housing Fund – Department of Health and Housing and Communities Agency , Ministerial Forward (2012) “In the White Paper, Caring for our future: reforming care and support - and accompanying draft Bill the Government outlined a plan to shift the system from one that responds to crisis to one which focuses on wellbeing, and on an individual’s ability to live independently for as long as possible. Specialised housing is a key part of this new system. It offers positive solutions for the people who want to continue living in - and potentially owning - their own property, remaining as independent as possible as their needs change. Most importantly of all, we know living in well-designed specialised housing improves the health and wellbeing of many people.”

New Health and Social Care Structures – What are the Opportunities for housing (2007) Housing LIN: identifies the role of housing organisations in the provision of health and social care through creating sustainable neighbourhoods, providing and adapting more accessible homes and promoting independence etc.

Lifetime Homes in Lifetime Neighbourhoods Department for Communities & Local Government. February 2008 - sustainable and “future proofed” design for long term future. Economic and social sustainability by raising profile of choice for older people by providing better housing information joined up housing health and social care and improved specialised housing.

Laying the Foundations: a housing strategy for England. Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). - “ Without urgent action to build new homes, children will grow up without the same opportunities to live near their families, young people will struggle to get a place to call their own and older people will not have the choice and support they need. Some 60 per cent of projected growth in households to 2033 will be aged 65 and older. “

White paper Department of Health. January 2006 , Our health, Our care, Our say - provide a more personal service that is tailored to the specific health or social care needs of individuals and change the way these services are provided in communities and make them as flexible as possible.

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I

Housing our Ageing Population; Panel for Innovation (June 2009) Good quality housing for older people in accessible neighbourhoods can bring considerable benefits – not only to the lives of older people, but in contributing to inclusive, safer, sustainable communities; and supporting older people to live healthy, active lives can potentially mean longer-term efficiencies across housing, health and care services.

2.6 All these documents point to local authorities paying more regard to demographic trends and the housing requirements of older people and to providing greater choice, mirroring an increasingly diverse older population. Local Authorities such as South Gloucestershire, with social services responsibilities, and their housing partners, are therefore actively seeking to enhance the housing with care supply in their areas. This is contingent upon better domiciliary care for older people in their own homes, and the development of supported accommodation in the social and private housing sectors – such as ExtraCare.

Local Strategies 2.7 The following Local Strategies interpret National objectives to provide more flexible support for the elderly, particularly through the provision of ExtraCare housing:

Joint Accommodation & Care Strategy (March 2006) Community Care & Housing and South Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust. This is the key document that’s sets out the Council and former PCT strategy for the provision of ExtraCare housing to 2016. Its main objective is the development or facilitation of 15 ExtraCare schemes by 2016, and the promotion of ExtraCare as an alternative form of provision to residential care. It provides key baseline data and rationale for this target. The Council works in a strategic partnership with the other West of England local authorities, Bristol City Council, Bath and North East Somerset Council, North Somerset Council, and has selected a Housing Delivery Panel to develop and manage mixed tenure housing across the West of England until 2015.

Draft Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (2013). In section 7 of the Assessment, “Ageing and supporting independence” recommendations to be considered by commissioners include “To continue to deliver mixed tenure ExtraCare Housing Schemes, where older people can experience a new lease of life.”

2.8 The Joint Accommodation & Care Strategy was set in the framework of the:

Sustainable Community Strategy (2008) Modernising Health & Community Care Services, (Pg 16)- Quality of Life - need to improve the quality of life by providing services for older people and vulnerable people to retain and maximise independence which will include an ExtraCare housing development, and

SGC Housing Strategy (2013/18) – The housing and healthier living theme identifies ExtraCare as a key measure of success.

The list of national and local strategies given here is not exhaustive and strategic objectives and resultant action plans may be updated from time to time.

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I Demand for ExtraCare

2.9 Existing and future demand for ExtraCare services can be assessed from a number of sources. These include:

x Joint Accommodation & Care Strategy (March 2006) x @ Shop Toolkit developed by The Housing Learning Improvement Network (December 2011) x Community Care & Housing Home Care Data x Statistics Projecting Older People Population Information – Institute of Public Care x 2011 Census

2.10 An analysis of supply and demand carried out by South Gloucestershire Community Care & Housing Department and NHS South Gloucestershire in December 2005 to inform the Joint Accommodation and Care Strategy for Older People showed that there was an unmet need for appropriate housing for older people. It showed that there were a number of areas in South Gloucestershire, particularly in new development areas, lacking available units. In other areas sheltered schemes were experiencing high levels of voids due to the nature of the accommodation available. In final analysis the report stated: “Overall it appears that there is demand from individuals to move into accommodation which will offer support if required and allow them to age in place.”

2.11 In terms of future demand, projected population figures sourced and calculated using the national Projecting Older Peoples Population Information system (POPPI), show a substantial increase particularly in the over 85’s age group. (See below)

*Projected Population Growth in South Gloucestershire 65-84: 2011 65-84: 2020 % change 85+: 2011 85+:2020 % change 38,800 47,200 21.6% 5500 8200 49.1% *These figures do not take into account future proposed housing growth as set out in the SWRSS. *Population projections are an indication of the future trends in population by age and gender over a period of 10 years. They are trend based projections, which means assumptions for future levels of births, deaths and migration are based on observed levels mainly over the 2006-2010 period, as used in the 2010-based subnational population projections. They show what the population will be if recent trends in these continue. For example there has been an increase of 65-74year olds of 21.7% from 2001to 2011 and a 30.8% increase of older people over the age of 75.

2.12 From extrapolating on previous findings it seems evident that demand will grow. A report entitled “Understanding the demand for ExtraCare Housing” by Trimmer CS Housing Consultancy for the Department of Health concluded that actual demand was directly linked to public understanding of the service as well as the availability of sites. (Simply put, demand for Extra Care accommodation will grow rapidly as people become aware of it as a housing option. This will not happen until there are, in any given area a number of schemes on the

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I ground).The report therefore concluded that Local Authorities have a significant role in the development of the market.

2.13 Care in the Community and ExtraCare is projected to rise with subsequent reductions in the percentage of the over 65 population accommodated in Residential Care and Sheltered Housing over the period to 2016.

How much ExtraCare Housing does South Gloucestershire need?

2.14 Currently 258 ExtraCare affordable rented units are available in South Gloucestershire. The Council and its partners are planning to develop an additional 442 units of leasehold and rented accommodation by 2016/17. (see appendix 1 for progress). These will accommodate a range of levels of care and support need. Those with identified needs would be required to meet the South Gloucestershire Fairer Access to Care eligibility criteria. For those wishing to purchase South Gloucestershire would wish to prioritise a local connection.

2.15 The total number of units required has been based on; x Replacing 30% of admissions who would have previously been in residential accommodation, x Accommodating people currently inappropriately placed in sheltered Housing x Accommodating older people in South Gloucestershire with low care and support needs who are looking to move to more appropriate accommodation (downsizing).

2.16 The need for a greater range of accommodation for Older People is illustrated in Chapter 10.2.17 of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment by a table demonstrating the provision of ExtraCare in 2007 on an authority basis and the projected requirement to 2026.

Authority Social Market Units Additional Additional Additional Additional Rented Housing per units units units units developed 1,000 required required required required for aged to reach to to to reach sale/part 65+ target of 6 reach reach target of sale per 1,000 target target of 12 per of social of 6 per 12 1,000 of rented 1,000 of per 1,000 all stock stock now social of 2026 rented all stock stock now 2026 South 37 0 1.0 198 329 433 695 Glos

Extract from: Table 10.6 Page 128 Strategic Housing Market Assessment.

The unit requirement demonstrated in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment can be enhanced further by examining a number of housing

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I and social care trends identified and defined by the Institute of Public Care in their publication entitled Projecting Older People Population Information (POPPI).

3. Scheme Design Standards

3.1 The principal aim and object of ExtraCare design is to enable older people to remain independent for as long as they wish to be. When considering a potential site the following must be considered to ensure suitability:

1. Location and accessibility to public transport, open space, retail and medical services.

2. New development should contribute to, local communities; local businesses; local facilities, enhancing the sustainability of that neighbourhood and ensuring a positive future for its residents. .

3. The design must focus on providing residents with a secure and safe environment.

4. Construction and building standards should meet:

x Area needs to be a minimum of 1.5 - 2 acres/or 1 hectare. A sustainable scheme will consist of a minimum 50 to 60 units of accommodation with a range of communal areas appropriate to the location. Sites also require sufficient landscaped / recreation areas as well as adequate parking and vehicle turning areas.

x Recommendations and design aspirations set out in the Housing our Ageing Population: Panel for Innovation published in December 2009.

x Housing Design principals for ExtraCare (February 2008) PRP Architects for the Department of Health.

Further guidelines, are available in the South Gloucestershire Design Brief for ExtraCare Housing (March 2012).

4. The Extra Care Programme

4.1 The Joint Accommodation & Care Strategy examines the current provision of accommodation and identifies the need to commission 15 ExtraCare schemes, (private and public sector) to ensure that existing demand for alternative accommodation is met. To help meet this target, within the West of England Delivery Panel a sub group (Lot) has been set up consisting of 6 panel members specifically selected for the development and management of ExtraCare and housing for older people.

4.2 The partnership ensures potential developments are suitable in terms meeting strategic need, location and availability of services in addition to South Gloucestershire minimum design principals being maintained.

4.3 A number of potential sites are currently in differing stages of development from early feasibility to planning. Sites include land owned by South Gloucestershire

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I council, private sector large scale development areas. These are set out in Appendix 1.

5. Providing Extra Care beyond 2016

5.1 Current figures show people over the age of 65 account for approximately 16.9% *of the total population in South Gloucestershire and projections, not taking into account proposed housing growth, show a 21.6% increase in people aged between 65 and 84 to 2020 x 2011 Census figures

5.2 Currently the majority of older people live around the fringe of Bristol, Kingswood, Downend and Filton areas. Correspondingly appropriate accommodation services such as the ExtraCare programme are being targeted in these areas.

5.3 Hence, as the number of older people increases, the Council’s ExtraCare programme develops and awareness of the model increases as a housing option, so it is considered that demand will substantially increase. It is considered therefore that private providers are likely to enter the market on a commercial basis. Policy CS20 of the Draft Core Strategy therefore guides privately promoted schemes towards appropriate locations.

5.4 The Core Strategy (Dec 13) proposes an additional 26,400 dwellings to 2027. Based on 2.31 persons per dwelling (2006 ONS mid-yr population estimates produced for the West of England UAs by the GLA), the assumption is that there will be a new population of approximately 60,000 people. 15-20% of these people will be over 65.

5.5 The position with regard major sites is shown below:

x SGLP site 9 - Cheswick Village (750 dwellings) – Consented. No Extra Care housing is currently agreed as part of the S106 or proposed. x SGLP site 13 – Harry Stoke (1200 dwellings) – Consented. No Extra Care housing is currently agreed as part of the S106 or proposed. x SGLP site 4 – Charlton Hayes (2200 dwellings) – An Extra Care scheme is proposed as part of the S106. x SGLP site 5 – Emersons Green East (2390 dwellings) – An Extra Care scheme is proposed as part of the S106. x North Yate New Neighbourhood (3000 dwellings) – An Extra Care Scheme is proposed as part of the S106

5.6 This leaves new neighbourhoods at Cribbs Patchway & East of Harry Stoke plus unidentified windfall sites that could potentially contribute towards the provision of new Extra Care accommodation, possibly via S106.

5.7 Discussions with existing providers indicate that Extra Care schemes must be a minimum size of about 50 to 60 units to be viable given the 24 hour on site care and support services they provide. Since the majority of windfall sites fall below this figure in total, requiring a percentage of dwellings to be Extra Care on such sites would be impractical. Therefore, only major strategic sites are likely to be able to accommodate a requirement for ExtraCare provision onsite.

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I 5.8 With regard major sites estimating the influx of older people cannot accurately be determined. An assumption would be that older people would be less likely to relocate for employment/economic reasons and more likely to join families or take advantage of health, leisure or other related services. However as the population grows older and more frail there will be a corresponding need to deliver increased preventative and response services, including ExtraCare in these new neighbourhoods.

5.9 Given that it is demonstrable that demand for older peoples accommodation will rise, policy and legislation provides a strong basis for its inclusion in the Local Development Framework and other plans and strategies of the Council, 5.8 above and the minimum ‘viable’ size for ExtraCare schemes, it is therefore proposed to require ExtraCare is delivered as part of identified Strategic sites in the Core Strategy, but not require a certain percentage of dwellings to be Extra Care, simply that an ExtraCare scheme is delivered with a percentage of affordable Extra Care. Core Strategy Policy CS20 therefore identifies three strategic sites (East of Harry Stoke, North of Yate and Cribbs / Patchway new neighbourhoods) where ExtraCare Schemes will be required.

5.10 The Council intends to adopt new Affordable Housing & Extra-Care SPD in May 2014. This document should be referred to with regard the considerations that will be taken into account in determining the use class (C2 or C3) of Extra-Care and implications with regard provision of affordable housing .

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I APPENDIX 1 - Current Position of Extra Care Programme

Site Development Target date Cambrian Drive, Yate Completed Jan 2011

Beaufort Road, Downend Completed Feb 2011

Fiveways, Kingswood Completed Jan 2012

Remodelling at Filton: Completed May 2012 (2 schemes)

Thornbury Feasibility ongoing Frenchay Feasibility ongoing

Cold Harbour Lane Development timescale forecast for 2017/18

Rural site Not established

As at February 2014

Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY

INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN

EVIDENCE BASE

Public Open Space, Outdoor Sport and Recreation - Provision and Maintenance

February 2014 Introduction

The Council requires a range of public open space, sport and recreation facilities to be provided in line with policy to support new developments. Provision should accord with the standards set out in Core Strategy policy CS24. All costs are 2013/14 figures subject to annual inflationary uplifts (annually updated in April).

Core Strategy – Summary of Provision Standards

The Core Strategy requires a range of green infrastructure/open space to be delivered in order to create sustainable communities, in accordance with NPPF. The Council has recently adopted its Core Strategy, which contains provisions standards, that were based on an assessment of existing accessible sites and through a comprehensive consultation process, a review of national standards and local comparables has established local standards of provision, which accords with the approach suggested within the NPPF.

Full details on the standards can be found within the Open Space Audit, www.southglos.gov.uk/corestrategyevidence . Table 1 provides a summary of the quantity provision standards set out in the Core Strategy.

Table 1. Open Space Quantitative Provision Standards:

Category of Open Space Requirement - Minimum figures, hectares/1,000 population Informal recreational open space 1.4 Natural and Semi-Natural green 1.5 space Outdoor Sports facilities 1.6 Provision for Children and Young 0.25 People (this may be located within the informal recreational open space) Allotments 0.2 Total: 4.7 (On the basis that provision for children and young people can be located within the informal recreational open space).

In all instances the open spaces to be provided in connection with new developments will be in addition to the requirements arising from other policy objectives e.g. surface water infrastructure, retention of nature conservation sites (other than natural and semi-natural green space, where nature conservation is included).

Further details on applications of the standards, including the requirement to address qualitative and accessibility consideration will be set out in the Green Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document. Capital Cost of Provision:

Average capital costs for the provision of the different types of open space are detailed in table 2 below; these exclude the cost of any land purchase that may be required:

Table 2. Average capital costs per square metre of the different types of open space provision:

Type of Outdoor Provision Natural Informal Allotments open space Sports for and Semi Recreation facilities Children Natural Open and Young Green Space People Space Average capital cost £47.93 £160.60 £13.36 £24.10 £8.79 per square metre

The detailed breakdown of these average costs can be found in Appendix 1. The costs reflect the type of spaces and facilities that the Council would expect to see delivered and are based on examples that have been adopted from other new developments, which have taken place within South Gloucestershire.

These capital costs are based on a range of industry costs for the provision of open space facilities, and the maintenance costs are routinely tested through APSE (Association for Public Sector Excellence). They are therefore considered reasonable and fully justified in order to ensure standards match the expectations of South Gloucestershire’s population.

Maintenance Cost:

Where additional open space has been provided as a result of development or existing provision enhanced to cater for the increased demand arising from development the developer will be required to pay a contribution towards fifteen years of future maintenance.

The average costs of maintaining the different types of open space provision expected in line with policy requirements are detailed in table 3 below. The detailed breakdown of these average costs can be found in Appendix 2. The use of average maintenance costs based on typical landscapes has limitations; as such they would need to be adjusted to take account of more unique designs and features. Upon this basis the figures set out can be used as a guide. The costs reflect the type of spaces and facilities that South Gloucestershire Council would expect to see delivered. The costs reflect the type of open spaces and associated facilities that the Council has been adopting from new developments over the last fifteen years. These figures do not include features such as surface water infrastructure, toilets, teen shelters, bandstands and other features which can be included in conjunction with open space provision. The maintenance cost of such features/provision will need to be assessed separately.

The detailed tables in Appendix 2 are not intended to influence the type of design that may be achieved on any given location; they must be developed to reflect site specific consideration and informed through the planning process. The design assessment for formal and informal provision needs to be made on a site by site basis and in accordance with the adopted standards and national policy requirements.

Table 3. Average maintenance costs to maintain the different types of open space provision:

Type of Outdoor Provision Natural Informal Allotments open space Sports for and Semi Recreation facilities Children Natural Open and Young Green Space People Space Average Maintenance Cost per £14.51 £168.88 £22.16 £42.48 £11.21 square metre for 15 years

The costs in tables 2 and 3 (and their supporting justification in Appendix 1 and 2) are subject to annual inflationary uplifts using GM ’87, published by the BCIS. The annual uplift to the 2014/2015 figures will be applied as soon the latest index figures are published.

Full details of the capital and maintenance costs can be found in Appendix 1 and 2. Future Growth Locations – Open Space, Outdoor Sport and Recreation Provision Requirements

A detailed break down of the requirements arising from the new neighbourhoods is set out in Appendix 3, it details the quantum of each open space typology and the maintenance costs associated with such provision.

These figures are indicative, as highlighted above in this paper, until site specific details have been discussed and agreed through the planning applications process.

In summary the following provisions will be required, if full provision of each typology is proven to be required at the time the planning application is considered.

Location Total Spatial Maintenance Cost Requirement (sqm) East of Harry Stoke 225,600 £7,118,960 New Neighbourhood Cribbs / Patchway New 642,960 £20,488,536 Neighbourhood Appendix 1: Details of Capital Costs

Capital cost calculator 2013/2014 prices

INFORMAL RECREATION SPACE INFORMAL RECREATION SPACE Unit Area/ Cost 2013- Feature Measure Unit 14 Total capital cost £241,012.01 Informal Recreation Space Approx. Cleaning virgin ground sq.m. 10,000 £4,818.10 Area 10,000.00 Pathways and paving sq.m. 800 £42,827.55 Average cost per sq.m. £24.10 Soil amelioration - shrub and rose beds sq.m. 1,560 £13,383.61 Shrubs sq.m. 1,300 £31,049.97 Roses/perennials sq.m. 260 £8,351.37 Amenity grass - topsoil and turf sq.m. 4,400 £46,039.61 Hedging Lm l.m. 400 £3,426.20 Post and rail fencing l.m. 150 £3,854.48 Floral bedding - spring sq.m. 100 £3,212.07 Floral bedding - summer sq.m. 100 £3,212.07 Pond/s sq.m. 340 £9,100.85 Natural play features sq.m. 2,400 £48,180.99 Trees - 30 - 35cm.g. per tree 15 £16,060.33 Trees - 12 - 14cm.g. per tree 12 £3,212.07 Seating/timber features per bench 4 £1,284.83 Provision and installation of litter bins per bin 2 £856.55 Provision and installation of dog bin per bin 1 £214.14 Interpretation/information boards per sign 1 £1,927.24 NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL GREEN SPACE GREEN SPACE Unit Area/ Cost 2013- Feature Measure Unit 14 Total capital cost £133,557.70 Natural and Semi Natural Green Whips and seedling trees (sq.m.) sq.m. 2,000 £5,995.86 Space Approx. Area 10,000.00 Hedges (Lm) l.m. 800 £6,852.41 Average cost per sq.m. £13.36 Wildflower grass meadow - spring/summer sq.m. 4,800 £3,747.41 Footpath (sq.m.) sq.m. 800 £32,120.66 Grilles/headwalls per grille 2£642.41 Create ditches/streams/ponds - 1metre deep sq.m. 200 £12,848.26 Trees (if none on site) 20-25cm.g., incl. aftercare per tree 28 £22,484.46 Planting area - soil amelioration sq.m. 5,200 £6,959.48 Strip topsoil and cart to tip, to achieve low fertility (720cu.m.) cu.m. 4,800 £36,724.62 Trees in grass meadow 12-14cm.g. per tree 12 £3,212.07 Provision and Installation of Litter Bin per bin 1 £428.28 Provision and Installation of Dog Bin per bin 1 £214.14 Access signage per sign 1 £1,070.69 Bat box 4no. @ £20 incl. installation per box 4 £85.66 Bird box at £20 incl. installation per box 8 £171.31 OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES (PITCHES) (PITCHES) Unit Area/ Cost 2013- Feature Measure Unit 14 Sub total capital cost £972,613.55 Pitches (total area 24,000sq.m.) Plus 5% Contingency £48,630.68 Grass pitches x 2 (incl. primary and secondary drainage system) sqm 12,800 £176,449.49 Total Capital Cost £1,021,244.23 Pavilion (4 teams) sqm 1 £588,878.75 Pitches Approx. Area 24,000.00 Pitch seasonal adjustment area (at 50%) sqm 6,400 £87,796.47 Annual cost per sq.m. £42.55 Cricket wickets and bowling run sqm 2,200 £35,332.72 Car park/access/roads (cost included in other calcs) sqm 1,000 £0.00 Natural/semi-natural landscape improvement sqm 1,600 £21,413.77 Technical assessment & drainage feasibility study operation £26,767.22 Water attenuation/SUDs area £34,262.04 Access signage per sign 1 £1,070.69 Provision and installation of dog bin per bin 1 £214.14 Provision and installation of litter bin per bin 1 £428.28

OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES (COURTS AND GREENS) (COURTS AND GREENS) Unit Area/ Cost 2013- Feature Measure Unit 14 Sub total capital cost £634,918.36 MUGA sqm 685 £85,655.09 Plus 5% Contingency £31,745.92 Outdoor tennis sqm 1,340 £139,189.52 Total Capital Cost £666,664.28 Club grade sports track sqm 5,500 £208,248.94 Courts and Greens Approx. Area 10,406.00 Boules sqm 100 £2,676.72 Annual cost per sq.m. £64.07 Croquet sqm 1,100 £19,165.33 Bowls sqm 1,681 £178,912.07 Access signage per sign 1 £1,070.69

OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES (AVERAGE COST PER SQUARE METRE) OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES AVERAGE cost per Area Feature sqm sq.m. Total Cost Total capital cost pitches £766.88 Pitches £42.55 12.00 £510.62 Total area 16 Courts and greens £64.07 4.00 £256.26 Average Cost per Sq.m. £47.93 PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE YOUNG PEOPLE Unit Area/ Cost 2013- Feature Measure Unit 14 Total capital cost £64,241.32 Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) 400 Children's Play Approx. Area 400 Minimum 5no. items of play (swinging, rotating, climbing, sliding, Average cost per sq.m. rocking) sq.m. £32,120.66 £160.60 Safer surfacing sq.m. £16,060.33 Fencing incl. gates sq.m. £8,565.51 Signage per sign 1 £214.14 Benches per bench 2£642.41 Provision and installation of litter bins per bin 2 £856.55 Access pathways sq.m. £2,783.79 Grass area ("free space") sq.m. £2,997.93

ALLOTMENTS ALLOTMENTS Unit Area/ Cost 2013- Feature Measure Unit 14 Total capital cost £13,447.85 Site of 10no. 125sq.m. allotments, plus parking 1,530 Allotments Approx. Area 1,530.00 Palisade fencing 1.8m ht. l.m. 78 £5,032.24 Average cost per sq.m. £8.79 Fencing hedge sides 1.2m ht steel frame, chespale l.m. 78 £2,301.98 Standpipe/trough 1 £1,573.91 Rotavation/power harrowing of plots sq.m. 1,250 £942.21 Weed control and preparation of pathways and seeding sq.m. 110 £235.55 Stonedust/hardstanding sq.m. 170 £2,141.38 Prepare and plant hedging north and east sides Lm l.m. 80 £685.24 Bench per bench 1 £321.21 Allotment sign per sign 1 £214.14 Appendix 2: Details of Maintenance Costs

Maintenance cost calculator 2013/2014 prices, excl. attenuation, culverts, noise bunds, toilets, teen shelters, band stands etc

INFORMAL RECREATION SPACE (Parks amenity green space and green corridors) (based on INFORMAL RECREATION SPACE 2,500sq.m.) Unit cost Unit Area/ per annum Total Cost Approx. Area sq.m. Resource Task Description Measure Unit 2013/14 per Annum 2,500.00 Pathways/paving Sweep sq.m. 200 £0.13 £25.70 Total yearly maintenance cost £5,597.19 Shrubs Prune, hoe and weed sq.m. 325 £2.03 £661.15 Annual cost per sqm. £2.24 Prune, cut, weed, deadhead, 10% to cover contingency and Roses/Perennials split, replant sq.m. 65 £6.46 £419.66 vandalism £0.22 Grass Amenity cut sq.m. 1,100 £0.24 £259.11 15% to cover Admin £0.37 Hedging - 1.5m wide 1.5 high two sides and top l.m. 100 £2.49 £249.47 Total per sq.m. £2.83 prepare supply and plant spring Total x 15 years Per Square Floral bedding bedding sq m. 25 £19.14 £478.60 Metre £42.48 prepare supply and plant Floral bedding summer bedding sq.m. 25 £22.35 £558.63 maintenance of vegetation Ponds inlets/outlets and de-silting sq.m. 85 £14.02 £1,191.30 Inspection of and maintenance Natural play areas of feature sq.m. 600 £1.36 £815.87 Arboricultural maintenance Trees - mature (existing trees) per tree 5 £79.95 £399.74 Trees - young Semi-mature - formative pruning per tree 3 £15.82 £47.47 Seating/Timber Clean/paint or preservative once features every 4 years 1 0.25 £139.96 £34.99 Litter bins Empty and dispose per bin 1 £203.23 £203.23 Dog faeces bin Empty and dispose per bin 0.5 £222.46 £111.23 Check fixings and clean every 6 Signage/Interpretation months per sign 2 £70.53 £141.05 NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL GREEN SPACE (based on 2,500sq.m.) NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL GREEN SPACE Unit cost Unit Area/ per annum Total Cost Approx. Area sq.m. Resource Task Description Measure Unit 2013/14 per Annum 2,500.00 Woodland Semi-mature woodland sq.m. 250 £0.40 £99.04 Total yearly maintenance cost £2,919.09 Woodland Tree whips and scrub sq.m. 500 £0.73 £364.03 Annual cost per sq.m. £1.17 10% to cover contingency and Hedges 1.5m - 3m High 2sides + Top Lm 200 £2.49 £498.94 vandalism £0.12 Conservation Cut Summer Grass S. Meadow Meadow sq.m. 1200 £0.42 £501.08 15% to cover Admin £0.19 Hard/Dust Surface Sweep sq.m. 200 £0.13 £25.70 Total per sq.m. £1.48 Total x 15 years Per Square Ditches & streams Maintenance of grills 6 visits 6 2 £23.66 £47.32 Metre £22.16 Litter collect/disposal & annual Ditches & streams vegetation cut back L.m. 150 £3.52 £528.38 Arboricultural maintenance Trees - mature (existing trees) per tree 7 £79.95 £559.64 Check fixings and clean every 6 Signage/interpretation months per sign 2 £70.53 £141.05 Trees - young Semi-mature - formative pruning per tree 3 £15.82 £47.47 Dog faeces bin Empty and dispose per bin 0.25 £222.46 £55.61 Litter bin Empty and dispose per bin 0.25 £203.23 £50.81 OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES (Pitches, Courts and Greens) (Based on 19,176sq.m.) OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

Unit cost Unit Area/ per annum Total Cost Approx. Area sq.m. Resource Task Description Measure Unit 2013/14 per Annum 19,176.00 Winter maintenance - 5-a-side Total yearly maintenance cost Sports Soccer (grass) sq.m. 1,008 £0.40 £407.66 £14,660.53 Winter maintenance - football Annual cost per sq.m. Sports pitch (grass) sq.m. 10,800 £0.11 £1,236.46 £0.76 Summer maintenance - bowling 10% to cover contingency and Sports greens sq.m. 1,406 £4.70 £6,605.12 vandalism £0.08 Summer maintenance - cricket £0.13 Sports square sq.m. 74.44 £39.36 £2,930.10 15% to cover Admin Summer maintenance - tennis £0.97 Sports courts (hard surface) sq.m. 260.75 £1.14 £297.57 Total per sq.m. Summer maintenance - Athletics Total x 15 years Per Square £14.51 Sports track sq.m. 3,904 £0.05 £209.60 Metre Re-mark - Multi - use games Sports area (3 years) sq mtrs 685 £0.26 £181.16 Sweep - Multi-use games area Sports (MUGA) sq mtrs 685 £0.13 £90.58 Sports Re-mark - (3 years) sq mtrs 1,008 £0.26 £266.58 Sweep - 5-a-side Soccer (hard Sports surface) sq.m. 1,008 £0.13 £133.29 Pavilion Cleaning sq.m. 120 £5.42 £650.32 Litter bins Empty and dispose per bin 0.80 £203.23 £162.58 Dog faeces bins Empty and dispose per bin 0.80 £222.46 £177.97 Litter General Litter pick and disposal sq.m. 19,176 £0.06 £1,170.50 Check fixings and clean every 6 Signage months per sign 2 £70.53 £141.06 PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG (based on 400sq.m.) PEOPLE Unit cost Unit Area/ per annum Total Cost Approx. Area Resource Task Description Measure Unit 2013/14 per Annum 400.00 Inspection Equipment inspection per site 1 £427.45 £427.45 Total yearly maintenance cost £3,559.96 Inspection Routine weekly maintenance per site 1 £120.23 £120.23 Annual cost per sq.m. £8.90 10% to cover contingency and Inspection Playground Safety inspection per site 1 £865.05 £865.05 vandalism £0.89 Safety resurfacing (every 7th Safety resurfacing Year) per site 1 £1,484.06 £1,484.06 15% to cover Admin £1.47 Litter General Litter pick and disposal sq.m. 400 £0.07 £29.86 Total per sq.m. £11.26 Litter Bins Empty and dispose per bin 2 £203.22 £406.45 Total x 15 years Per Sq.m £168.88 Seating/Timber Clean/paint or preservative once features every 4 years per bench 0.5 £139.96 £69.98 Check fixings and clean every 6 Signage/Interpretation months per sign 2 £70.53 £141.06 Semi-mature- Staked/Formative Tree pruning per tree 1 £15.82 £15.82

ALLOTMENTS (based on 1,530sq.m.) ALLOTMENTS Unit cost Unit Area/ per annum Total Cost Approx. Area Resource Task Description Measure Unit 2013/14 per Annum 1,530.00 Hedges - on n.& e. Total yearly maintenance cost side 1.5 high two sides and top l.m. 80 £2.49 £199.58 £903.66 Paths - grass Amenity cut sq.m. 288 £0.24 £67.84 Annual cost per sq.m. £0.59 Troughs/standpipe/wat 10% to cover contingency and er Maintenance/repairs/supply each 1 £100.61 £100.61 vandalism £0.06 Hard/dust surface Sweep/rake sq.m. 242 £0.13 £31.09 15% to cover Admin £0.10 Fencing and gates Maintenance/repairs l.m. 158 £1.21 £191.16 Total per sq.m. £0.75 Litter General Litter pick and disposal sq.m. 1,530 £0.06 £98.29 Total x 15 years Per Sq.m. £11.21 Signage/Interpretation Check fixings and clean per sign 1 £35.27 £35.27 Seat Clean/paint or preservative 1 0.25 £139.96 £34.99 Non-compostables Annual clearance of removal material/debris operation 1£144.83 £144.83

CEMETREIES AND CHURCH YARDS Unit Area/ Total Cost Resource Task Description Measure Unit Cost per Annum

CONTINGENCIES / MISCELLANEOUS / SPECIALIST FEATURES 1000sqm Unit cost Unit per annum total cost Resource Task description measure Unit 2013/14 p.a. Seats / timber Clean / preservative sq.m. 0.25 £135.99 £34.00 Features Graffiti / clean sq.m. 1 £32.90 £32.90 Maintenance of grills & annual Ditches & streams vegetation cut back sq.m. 1 £4.74 £4.74 Ditches & streams Litter collect/disposal sq.m. 1 £0.04 £0.04 maintenance of vegetation Ponds / lakes inlets/outlets and de-silting sq.m. 1 £13.62 £13.62 Attenuation features Spillways/Penstock/Desilting 0.1Ha 1 £2,983.60 £2,983.60 Ponds / lakes Litter collect/disposal sq.m. 1 £0.04 £0.04 per Life belts Routine safety checks annum 1 £413.92 £413.92 Life belts Replacements per item 1 £111.44 £111.44 Litter bins Empty / dispose per bin 1 £197.45 £197.45 Dog Faeces bins Empty / dispose per bin 1 £222.46 £222.46 Teen Shelters Parcours Bandstands Toilets Noise attenuation fence Raised Beds Culverts Maintenance checks 10 lin. m. Graffiti walls Noise bunds

SPECIAL FEATURES 1ha Attenuation pond Maintenance of spill ways Attenuation pond Maintenance of penstock per site 0.1ha £8,950.82 £8,950.82 Attenuation pond De-silting Attenuation pond Vegetation clearance Culverts Maintenance check 10 Lm 1 £131.63 £131.63 Trees Mature tree per tree 1 £77.68 £77.68 Semi-mature - staked & Trees formative pruning per tree 1 £15.38 £15.38 Woodland Mature woodland sq.m. 1 £2.11 £2.11 Woodland Woodland with bark mulch sq.m. 1 £1.12 £1.12 Appendix 3: Details of the requirements arising from the Growth Locations

Natural and Outdoor Sports Equipped Informal Open Allotment Total sqm of Population per Semi- Natural Facilities Space Children's Play Space per Space per POS per Household green space per person per person person person Person per person

Space Requirement per person (m²) 16 2.5 11.5 2 15 47 Capital Cost per £254.78 Sqm £47.93 £160.60 £24.10 £8.79 £13.36 Maintenance Cost per sqm £259.23 15yrs £14.51 £168.88 £42.48 £11.21 £22.16

Costs based per household based 2.4 on 2.4 residents Capital Cost per household 2.4 residents £1,840.51 £963.60 £665.16 £42.19 £480.96 £3,992.42 Maintenance Cost per Household 2.4 residents 15yrs £557.18 £1,013.28 £1,172.45 £53.81 £797.76 £3,594.48 Total per Household inc maintenance £7,586.90 A) Land East of Harry Stoke

Natural and Number of Outdoor Equipped Semi- Number of future Sports Children's Informal Open Natural houses residents Facilities Play Space Allotments green space Total Number 2000 4800 Space requirement 76800 12000 55200 9600 72000 225600 Capital Cost £3,681,024.00 £1,927,200.00 £1,330,320.00 £84,384.00 £961,920.00 £7,984,848.00 Maintenance Cost £1,114,368.00 £2,026,560.00 £2,344,896.00 £107,616.00 £1,595,520.00 £7,188,960.00

B) Cribbs/Patchway

Natural and Number of Outdoor Equipped Semi- Number of future Sports Children's Informal Open Natural houses residents Facilities Play Space Allotments green space Total Number 5700 13,680 Space requirement 218,880 34,200 157,320 27,360 205,200 642,960 Capital Cost £10,490,918.40 £5,492,520.00 £3,791,412.00 £240,494.40 £2,741,472.00 £22,756,816.80 Maintenance Cost £3,175,948.80 £5,775,696.00 £6,682,953.60 £306,705.60 £4,547,232.00 £20,488,536.00 Amended 08.01.14

South Gloucestershire Police

Section 106 Community Impact Levy Submission

Submitted on behalf of Chief Superintendent Crew

Prepared by Inspector Treacy

1of49 CONTENTS:

1. Executive Summary

2. Background to Police application

3. Current Policing Position

4. Development Overview

5. Why is Community Safety from a policing perspective so Important?

6. Generic Police Requirements for future planning applications and Developments

7. Site Specific Development Contributions

8. North Yate Development Contribution

9. East of Harry Stoke Contribution

10. Cribbs Patchway Development Contribution

11. Summary of Required Developer Contributions

2of49 3of49 Appendices:

1. Secured By Design Research Digest

2. Core Strategy: Potential increase in crime due to New Build in South Glos. Research Document produced by Police Crime Analyst

3. Scoping Reports Cheswick Village

4. Scoping Report Charlton Hayes

5. Community Safety North Yate and Harry Stoke reports

6. Special Duty Charges ACPO Charging Methodology

4of49 1. Executive Summary

1.1 This document has been completed to provide planners, developers and other interested parties a detailed perspective of how planned new developments within South Gloucestershire will impact on Policing during the development period and in the future.

1.2 This overarching document, using analytical research of crime patterns, Anti Social Behaviour reports and the experience of the police and partner agencies, seeks to identify ways, with the help of developer contributions, to mitigate the projected increase in calls for police service.

1.3 Three development areas are addressed: North Yate, East of Harry Stoke and the Cribbs Patchway development. Each development will bring its own operational problems. In particular, the scoping research on Anti Social Behaviour we have undertaken on the new Cheswick Village and Charlton Hayes estates provides us with a firm analytical basis for believing there will be an increase in calls to police once the new developments are under construction. This will increase again when the homes are being occupied.

1.4 We are requesting a contribution from developers to help the police meet this increased demand which amounts to a 20% increase in households within South Gloucestershire, as well as a 20% increase in retail space on the Cribbs development.

1.5 To effectively meet these increases police on South Gloucestershire District would need an increase of 39 officers (as outlined in the Impact of Core Strategy Document, appendix 2). However, there is recognition that there is unlikely to be an increase in police establishment by 39 officers.

1.6 Through this document, the Constabulary is seeking to address and mitigate the increase in demand with a proportionate and evidence based rationale justifying contributions from developers under Sect 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act and the Community Impact Levy.

1.7 These contributions amount to: 2 PCSOs for 3 years 2 PCSOs for 5 years 4 police posts 13 ANPR cameras Generic adaptations achieved through design and equipment specification

5of49 2. Background to Police Application

2.1. The Police Act 1996 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 place duties on local Police Forces to reduce crime and promote effective policing.

2.2. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act places a duty on the local authority, in exercising their various functions, to consider crime and disorder implications and the need to do all that they reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in their area.

2.3. South Gloucestershire Council has included crime prevention in their local plan. South Gloucestershire Local Plan Adopted: January 2006 Chapter 3 Paragraph D1 F states that it is necessary that The overall layout and design takes account of personal safety, security and crime prevention.

2.4. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which sets out the Governments planning policies, states that local and neighbourhood plans should aim to ensure that developments create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.

2.5. The Avon and Somerset Constabulary has been working closely with South Gloucestershire Council to implement schemes to ensure that new developments are not only in conformity with Secured by Design principles but also that arrangements are in place to ensure community policing is established in accordance with both Government policy and local initiatives.

2.6. The Council are of the view that such measures are necessary if the development is to be successful.

2.7. Any successful police funding bid will be used to ensure effective policing initiatives to cover the development area and its immediate environment only.

6of49 3. Current Policing Position

3.1. Policing in South Gloucestershire is currently conducted from five Police stations: Concorde House Emersons Green (the District headquarters), Staple Hill, Filton, Chipping Sodbury and Thornbury. There is a police post within the Mall complex. The attached map illustrates the current position of Police Stations on the district.

3.2. The current Police establishment in South Gloucestershire is:

234 Police officers

60 PCSOs

62 Members of Police Staff.

3.3. Core patrol policing is managed and run from Concorde House and Filton Police stations.

By January 2014 the stations at Staple Hill, Thornbury and Filton will be closed and a new Police station will open on the A38 on the old Bensons site, Patchway. This new station will house the new Filton station and a new custody and investigation centre servicing the greater Bristol area. In addition to these stations there is a

7of49 small police post on the Mall complex Cribbs Causeway housing a dedicated team policing the Mall.

3.4. The existing police stations will provide the main operating bases for police for the foreseeable future. The Avon and Somerset Constabulary will not be making any applications for large scale new police buildings to meet the anticipated increase in calls on service to the police as a consequence of any new developments.

3.5 Rather, this document will outline how the police will seek to meet the increased calls on service, which the new developments will bring, within existing police officer numbers through the use of design, technology and embedding neighbourhood policing officers (PCSOs) in the heart of new and growing communities.

4. Development overview

4.1. The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy document lays out the planned development within the county up to 2026. From 2011 to 2026 some 22,375 home will be built. These developments are set out below. The developments are sited across the county and the South Gloucestershire police district.

4.2. These developments will contribute to a significant increase in demand for police services. If we work on the basis of 2.4 occupants for each home this increased development could increase the population in South Gloucestershire by 53,700. It is accepted that there is a national trend for household sizes to drop from 2.4 to 2.1 by 2026 reflecting more single households. However the number of households will increase and substantially influence the police demand profile.

Planned Development up to 2026

North Yate: 3,000 houses planned, of which 2,700 will be built between 2016 and 2026 and up to 9 ha of employment land.

Thornbury Park Farm: 500 houses between 2012 -2016.

East of Harry Stoke: 2,000 houses mainly built 2016 2026 with 50 before 2016.

North East Fringes of Bristol: 2,730 houses between 2012- 2016. These sites have unimplemented planning permission or will take place on unallocated brown field sites.

Cribbs Patchway: 5,700 houses built mainly 2016-2026, with 100 built before 2016, 50ha of employment land and greater diversity of Cribbs Causeway retail area, which will potentially expand by 35,000 sqm.

Infill and windfall sites within existing urban areas and rural villages: 1,360 houses built between 2012- 2026.

8of49 Existing Local Plan sites: 7,385 houses on sites allocated or with unimplemented planning permission.

4.3. The Cribbs Patchway development, in particular, of 5,700 new homes and the commercial /retail construction accompanying that development represents the creation of a new town with up to 13,680 new residents. The increase in demand for police services created by the residential and commercial expansion will present a significant policing challenge within existing resource levels.

4.4. The challenge for the police in South Gloucestershire is how to effectively meet the increased calls on service within existing resources. By close collaboration with our partners, planners and developers, and through the effective use of Secured by Design principles, technology and the targeted deployment of Police and Community Support Officers, there is an opportunity not only to mitigate the increase in demand but also create safe communities and cohesive communities. Our rationale for this is outlined below.

5. Why is Community Safety so important?

5.1. Safe communities are a pre-requisite for achieving sustainable and thriving communities, which are characterised by high levels of community cohesion and stability, resident wellbeing and overall vibrancy. Whilst a degree of criminal and anti-social behaviour can be designed out of new development, design measures alone will not address community safety fully. Neighbourhood Policing is a national initiative which places communities their needs, their issues and their priorities - at the heart of local policing. Neighbourhood Policing works by encouraging active collaboration between Police, partners and the public to solve local crime and disorder problems, improve the quality of life for residents across the neighbourhood and increase feelings of security. To deliver this form of policing effectively a highly visible and accessible physical presence within existing and new neighbourhoods is essential. Experience has shown that developing neighbourhoods need an enhanced standard of intensive engagement within the emerging community, giving residents a stronger voice and improved contact and awareness of their Neighbourhood Police Teams. Our recent experience with new developments has reinforced this view. This will be outlined more fully below.

5.2. Neighbourhood Policing is fully embedded within South Gloucestershire, with Neighbourhood Policing Teams operating from five primary bases: Kingswood Civic Centre, Staple Hill, Filton, Chipping Sodbury and Thornbury. Several smaller police posts are based within community locations across the county.

5.3 Crime and disorder has a tangible impact on economic growth, social exclusion and quality of life issues. Without a range of community safety measures to address these issues: Crime will rise Police response times will reduce Fear of crime will increase Community cohesion and wellbeing will suffer Expectations will not be met

9of49 Negative perceptions will be formed and, in the case of new communities, potential new inhabitants and businesses may choose not to move in and existing residents/ businesses may choose not to stay.

5.4 The police, in partnership with planners and developers, would like to ensure where possible that all the new developments across South Gloucestershire are safe, successful, vibrant, thriving communities with low levels of crime or anti- social behaviour.

6. Generic Police Requirements for future planning applications and Developments

6.1 Before going on to outline site specific bids for funding to help the police in South Gloucestershire meet the increase in service demand the new developments will bring, a self explanatory list of generic police requirements for these and future developments is set below1. Their adoption and implementation will assist the police deliver an efficient and effective police service to new communities and businesses. Whilst this is by no means a definitive list, these principles will promote community safety in the new communities.

Requirements:

6.2. Secured by Design is the official UK Police initiative which promotes the principles of 'designing out crime'. It focuses on crime prevention of homes and commercial premises and encourages the use of security standards for a wide range of applications and products. By combining minimum standards of physical security and well-tested principles of natural surveillance and defensible space, the principles havebeenproventoachieveareductionofcrimeriskbyupto75%.Theinitiative has been academically validated and is supported by the Government policy document Safer Places - The Planning System and Crime Prevention. The police require developers to comply with Secured by Design provisions in the planned developments in South Gloucestershire.

6.3. Design principles of new developments should include 'active frontages' facilitating local surveillance by the community.

6.4. Block perimeters are a required design principle.

6.5. Street and access design should be made in the cognisance of the ongoing 'part lighting' roll out in South Gloucestershire.

6.6. Streetlamps should be of a suitable standard and quality to support wireless CCTV cameras deployed by the council (and owned by the council), particularly in open areas, areas of commercial and retail developments. Historically these areas have

1 No similar request was made for sites that have already been granted planning permission (e.g. Emersons Green East). The police acknowledge that the opportunity to do so has now passed. 10 of 49 been hotspots for anti- social behaviour. Wireless CCTV cameras require lamp standards of a minimum height of 8 metres to be effectively deployed. This should be the minimum height for areas where historically police and partners experience, or have had reported, anti social behaviour, i.e. shopping areas, open areas such as play areas skate board parks or natural meeting points with potential shelter.

6.7. Consideration should be given to excluding identified potential ASB hotspots from the roll out of the part lighting scheme (Council Lighting scheme).

6.8. Every opportunity should be made to extend the fibre optic cable network (owned and maintained by the council). If not the fibre then the ducting should be laid. This allows the council to extend the CCTV network and/or the opportunity to extend it at a later date without the requirement for retrofit2.

6.9. In larger developments the police will seek to have police posts to give the new communities greater access to police services and allow the police service greater visibility in these new communities (at zero or peppercorn rent to the police). Ideally these posts will be a suitably sized room in a community one stop shop development (not stand alone buildings or new police stations). Detailed requests are described later in the document.

6.10. Rear car parking courts or blocks of garages are strongly discouraged in new developments; if unavoidable, they should be gated.

6.11. Road widths in new developments must be sufficient for Fire tenders to pass safely.

6.12. Coach house build design is not to be encouraged. If built then appropriate gating is essential.

6.13. With cul-de-sac developments consideration should be given to potential parking problems that already exist in residential areas. These should be designed out or control measures put in place (i.e. yellow lines at junctions).

6.14. New road developments must be scoped for opportunities at the design stage to site police lay-bys for deployment of Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) equipped vehicles, speed detection devices and public reassurance.

6.15. All new developments must be assessed by police to ensure there is Airwave coverage in those areas (Airwave is the emergency services radio network). Remedial work such as signal boosters or additional masts may require funding if problems are identified.

2 This would facilitate alarm monitoring capability by the council to local schools, businesses and developments in the long term. This has considerable advantages for police working in partnership with the council, as well as an income generation opportunity for the council. 11 of 49 6.16. Crowded Places remain an attractive target for terrorists. Putting in place robust counter terrorism security reduces both the likelihood and impact of a terrorist attack. Local Crime Prevention Design Advisers (CPDAs) will liaise with Counter Terrorism Security Advisers (CTSAs) on new planning applications across a range of sectors, crowded places, transport infrastructure, licensed premises, utilities and storage of hazardous material. This will establish how any vulnerability can best be reduced.

7. Site Specific Development Contributions

7.1 This report will outline in three sections site specific contributions that individual or groups of developers can make to assist the police in mitigating the increase in calls on service that these developments will bring. However, before turning to site specific requirements it is important to quantify the overall demand on police services the new developments represent. Analysis of the projected increase is set out below.

7.2 The increase in new homes is estimated to increase the population by 54,420 people (2.4 per household) which is equivalent to a 20% increase in households and population in South Gloucestershire.

7.3 Currently the district employs ~200 Police Constables who each deal with ~300 calls for service from the public which result in ~73 crimes per officer per year.

7.4 In summary the increase of 22,675 houses (54,420 people) is estimated to impact as follows:

Calls for service: Currently South Gloucestershire police district receives over 58 thousand calls for service from the public each year. This is equivalent to ~200 calls for every thousand people. The new development is estimated to increase the number of calls for service by ~11 000 from the public. This is equivalent to the work load of 37 additional officers.

Increase in crime (a subset of calls for service but requiring longer term investigation): Based on the average rate of crime per thousand people on the beats where development is planned, it is estimated that the District could experience an increase of ~ 2700 crimes per year. Based on the current workload of ~73 crimes per officer this is equivalent to the work load of 37 additional officers.

7.5 A fuller report is at Appendix 2.

7.6 It is accepted that there will be no increases in police officer numbers to cope with this increased demand.

12 of 49 8. North Yate Development Contribution

Quantifying the demand on policing services

8.1. The North Yate development is expected to include 3000 new houses and as yet unspecified commercial development (illustrated on Appendix A of draft planning master plan).

8.2. This will potentially increase the population in the North Yate area by at least 7200 (using the ACPO toolkit as a guide). If normal planning guidelines are applied 35% of the new homes will be identified as social housing, some 1050 homes in groupings of up to six units. This population and demographic increase will significantly increase the demand upon police services within South Gloucestershire.

8.3. Policing for the Chipping Sodbury area including Yate is currently managed and run from Chipping Sodbury Police Station situated in Chipping Sodbury High Street. A Neighbourhood Policing Team works from this station.

8.4. In order to project the increase in demand for policing services engendered by the development, an examination has been made of the crime figures for Yate for 2010/2011 and 2011/12. Attached are two architectural liaison officer reports which indicate that beat DC 120 which is adjacent to the new North Yate development site had 1394 crimes between 1/4/2010 and 31/3/2011. From 1/4/2011 to 31/3/2012 we have recorded 1319 crimes (Appendix 5)

8.5. It should be noted that crimes recorded are not a complete measure of demand on police as many police interactions do not result in crimes, for example response to road traffic collisions, anti social behaviour and other calls for service. However, it does give an indication of trends in demand.

8.6. The below illustrates the breakdown of crime on the Chipping Sodbury area by beat for 2011/12. You will note that Beat DC 120, which will be adjacent to the new development, is by far the beat with the highest recorded crime.

Breakdown of crime by beat on Chipping Sodbury Sector for 2011/12:

DC 120 1319 DC 121 360 DC 122 424 DC 123 172 DC 124 611 DC 125 122

8.7 It is not unreasonable to assume that the crime levels in the new North Yate development will be comparable to the existing Beat DC 120 which will be directly adjacent to it.

8.8 In addition, it should be noted that Yate is designated by South Gloucestershire Council, police, and partner agencies as a Priority Neighbourhood. Priority Neighbourhood status is allocated by the Local Strategic Partnership to identify an

13 of 49 area with higher levels of deprivation and crime. Resources are accordingly targeted at the area to improve conditions for the inhabitants.

Managing the demand

8.9 The police service would seek to address this increased demand by (i) the use of technology i.e. ANPR cameras; (ii) the creation of a police post in the new development and (iii) a dedicated Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) funded for three years.

(i) ANPR Cameras:

8.10 There are three main access roads into the new North Yate development. The police propose the placement of an ANPR camera on all three of these access roads. ANPR offers the police service a SMART method for monitoring access in and out of the area of vehicles and associated persons linked to crime and disorder, therefore permitting targeted (rather than speculative) deployments. This has proved, since its inception, as an invaluable means of preventing and detecting crime. These cameras can be mounted on suitable lamp posts with a power supply or a dedicated post with power. The units are robust and proven technology requiring little maintenance.

8.11 The cost of the ANPR camera is £5000 per unit, one camera will cover one lane of traffic.

8.12 A suitable lamppost or similar will have should be provided with electrical power.

8.13 There will be no ongoing cost to the developer.

8.14 This is subject to a satisfactory site survey.

8.15 The equipment and data will remain the property of Avon and Somerset Constabulary.

The total cost for the three ANPR cameras for North Yate: £15000

(ii) Police Post:

8.16 Additionally the police propose the provision of a police post within the development, ideally in any local centre. This should be co-located within any Council one stop shop provision or similar or within a commercial development if the former is not possible.

8.17 The police post will allow the Neighbourhood Policing Team increased visibility and a solid presence in the new community. It will give the new community access to police in the important transitional stage of the development and allow officers to forge links and promote community capacity building.

8.18 The police post should be a secure single room at least 6mx6m with electricity provided. This would allow adequate room for small beat surgeries with the public. Ideally it should be decorated to a basic standard and be provided with a desk, 2 chairs, a shredder and storage. A laptop safe that meets Secured by Design standards would be required for security purposes.

14 of 49 8.19 There should also be access on site to W.C. facilities and water (not necessarily within the post).

8.20 Ideally the police post should have external access as the post may be in use 24/7. The external frontage should have police signage to promote public confidence. Similarly there must be designated police parking in a prominent position to the front of any complex again to promote public confidence.

8.21 If the police post cannot be included in a zoned alarm system it must be provided with a stand alone alarm system that meets approved standards. This should be part of the facility agreements.

8.22. Ongoing cleaning and maintenance etc should be part of the facility agreements.

8.23 Provision of the police post and ongoing electricity cost should be provided free of charge or for a peppercorn rent. The developer should be in a position to provide costings for any police post provision.

8.24 Additionally the police post must also meet with the requirements and secure the approval of the Constabularys Estates department before the final planning stage.

(iii) Funded Dedicated PCSO Post

8.25 With the development of 3000 new homes in the North Yate area there is going to be considerable pressure on the existing Neighbourhood Policing Team to meet the increased demand for police services and visibility in the new neighbourhood.

8.26 To promote community cohesion and to provide a visible police presence in the new neighbourhood in the crucial development years, the police propose a funded PCSO post to assist with this important work. The ACPO cost breakdown for a PCSO is £44,427 per annum, including National Insurance and Pension contributions (See Appendix 6).

8.27 To meet the increased call on police service we would seek a funding contribution for a period of three years. We would seek to increase this year on year funding on a pro rata basis in line with the current ACPO charging formula to cater for inflation etc.

8.28 The total cost over three years (at todays cost3)is:£133,281

3 See paragraph 8.27 15 of 49 9. East of Harry Stoke Development Contribution

Quantifying the demand on policing services

9.1. The East of Harry Stoke development of 2000 houses will be a considerable distance from Filton Police station from where the relevant Neighbourhood Policing Team operates. This will still be the case when Filton Police station moves in January 2014.

9.2. The development will result in 4800 additional residents requiring policing services. In the early part of the development a high proportion of the households will be social housing residents. The scoping analysis of the new Cheswick Village and Charlton Hayes developments (Illustrated at Appendices 3 and 4) has indicated been that there is a very strong likelihood of an increase in calls for service, particularly incidents of Anti Social Behaviour.

9.3. From the 1/4/2010 to 31/3/2011 there were 1282 crimes recorded in the two beats adjacent to the proposed new development. From the 1/4/2011 to the 31/3/2012 this rose to 1343 crimes (appendix 5). As with the North Yate hypothesis the police project that the offence levels for the new development would be broadly in line with those in the surrounding beats. For example, it is estimated that there will be an increase in burglaries in the order of 39 per year. With additional calls for service being estimated at 981 per year ( Appendix 5).

Managing the demand

(i) East of Harry Stoke Police Post

9.4. To improve police visibility and to promote community building and cohesion in the early days of the development, the police will be seeking a developer contribution for a Police post within a community facility developed in that area.

9.5. The criteria for that police post are the same as set out above for North Yate at points 8.16 - 8.24. It is projected that this will be at a nominal cost.

(ii) ANPR Camera Provision for East of Harry Stoke

9.6. The Stoke Gifford Link road (illustrated below) will be a main arterial road linking the A4174 to Bradley Stoke and the new Stoke Gifford development. It is anticipated that traffic flow on this road linking the A4174 to the new development and Bradley Stoke will be heavy and will require additional police patrols. To assist police in managing this major new road and to utilise technology to detect and prevent crime we propose the installation of ANPR cameras at each end of the link road with one camera for each carriageway, four cameras in total (subject to a satisfactory site survey).

9.7. The requirements for ANPR cameras are detailed at points 8.10 8.15 above. These units are flexible and could be redeployed elsewhere on the development subject to need.

Total cost for four ANPR units: £20,000

16 of 49 Illustration of Stoke Gifford Link Road

(iii) Funded PCSO for East of Harry Stoke.

9.8. The police would seek a funding contribution for a period of three years at £44,427 a year for a PCSO post at todays costings. The police would look to increase these costs in line with the ACPO charging formula for the year the funding is required.

9.9. The total cost over three years (at todays cost4) for one PCSO post: £133,281

4 See paragraph 8.27 17 of 49 10. Cribbs Patchway Development Contribution.

10.1. The Cribbs Patchway development of 5700 homes will cause a potential population increase of 13,680. This and the proposed commercial and recreational development in the area will very significantly impact on the capability of the local Neighbourhood Policing Team and the wider policing resources in South Gloucestershire to deal with the increased calls on service.

10.2 The new housing development will in its early stages create substantive crime and Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) issues. The Cheswick Village estate (adjacent to UWE, Stoke Gifford) and the Charlton Hayes development in Patchway have clearly demonstrated the over riding need for a clear, fulltime and visible police presence within such new developments at a very early stage and within the subsequent formative years.

The Sector Inspector Robert Evely commented: It is also right to say that if we had had the ability to put some additional resources into the area as it was up and coming we would have been able to be much more effective in dealing with incidents before they happened, to have pursued ABCs quicker and also to have created NHW Schemes from a very early stage as well. (ABCs - Acceptable Behaviour Contracts)

10.3. From February 2010 to date, the Safer Stronger South Gloucestershire ASB Panel have had regular referrals due to ASB and crime problems on the Cheswick and Charlton Hayes developments, particularly in regard to social housing residents. This may be a consequence of social housing residents being amongst the first to move into new developments before cohesive communities are formed and community infrastructure is in place.

10.4. The combination of new residents in a new development with limited facilities and unfamiliar surroundings created tension between neighbours which resulted in threats and, in the worst cases, violence. Below is a breakdown of the calls to police (Storm Logs) and crime reports, in the busiest roads for the Cheswick and Charlton Hayes estates.

Location Storm Guardian Logs Incidents The Bowery 5 0 Eastfields 11 26 Tinding Drive 25 16 Little Stoney Leas 9 3 Tallsticks 1 0 Great Copsie Way 37 18 Home Leas Close 89 38 Long Down Ave 160 50 Woodmead 18 33 TOTAL 355 184

10.5. Two more detailed scoping studies have been conducted for each development and these are illustrated at Appendices 3 and 4. It is clear from this analysis that problems on new developments ranging from Anti Social Behaviour to crime are reported to police from the pre-development stage and continue to rise.

18 of 49 10.6. Key findings - Cheswick Village:

The number of ASB related incidents has increased in Cheswick Village since the start of the Redrow development. Incidents of rowdy nuisance behaviour during June 2011 November 2011 were almost double the level recorded six months previous from December 2010 May 2011. Throughout the development period harassment and vehicle nuisance also showed an increase. Priority acquisitive crime including burglary has also increased in the area since the start of development. As development has progressed and subsequent occupants move in, the reporting of ASB increases in these areas as a result creating mini-hotspots over the longer-term.

A large group of offenders with transient members aged between 9 16 cause the biggest proportion of ASB in the area. This group cause nuisance, disorder, arson, criminal damage and vandalism in the area occurring on a daily basis which is proving tiresome for local residents both within the Somer Housing areas and increasingly within occupants of newly built private houses nearby.

Nuisance neighbours is the second biggest driver in relation to ASB reporting in the area. Occupants living in flats located along Long Down Avenue & Home Lease Close are by far the highest reporters of nuisance neighbours, many of whom are both victims and offenders of such behaviour resulting in their being numerous repeat premises.

The breaching of tags by offenders living in the newly developed Somer Housing property including bail check failures and missed appointments has shown the biggest increase in offences since the start of the development. Whilst not directly ASB, this activity shows an additional call on police resources.

The development sites, whilst under construction, are a focus of ASB behaviour. The large groups of young offenders are known to routinely break into sites where they commit vandalism, fool around on construction equipment not only causing general nuisance but also endangering themselves in the process. The reporting of such occurrences accounts for approximately 25% of all rowdy type incidents reported in the village.

There are a small number of repeat premises within the village that routinely report offences. The reason for the reporting of ASB varies from nuisance behaviour, breaches of tags and curfews, domestic related issues and harassment. The top 5 repeat premises account for 17% of all offences combined and all repeat premises account for 39%.

Cycle paths, especially the path that runs from the ring road to the University of West England are vulnerable to vehicle nuisance caused by youths on mopeds who endanger walkers and cyclists using the path as well as being an audible irritation.

The main response that victims of ASB relay to the police is the desire for increased police patrols in the area. Peak time analysis indicates offences build up at 5pm before dying down at approximately 9pm. Although this suggests offences occur while youths are returning home after school, offences occur at the same rate over weekend periods.

19 of 49 10.7. This report details the impact of the Cheswick Village development on local policing. The key findings listed clearly demonstrate the over-riding importance of a clear and visible police presence on new developments from a very early stage. This presence needs to be visible from the outset of development as experience shows that building sites are an attractive draw to young people resulting in crime and nuisance behaviour. The police attest that this analysis would hold true to any new development within South Gloucestershire.

10.8 Key findings - Charlton Hayes:

Levels of ASB in Charlton Hayes have fluctuated over the last 18 months with no indications that incidents have reduced or increased.

A small number of residents cause significant harm to the local community within Charlton Hayes by repeatedly engaging in anti-social behaviour. Intelligence indicates that some of the top offenders originate from the travelling community. Neighbours surrounding these offenders in the immediate vicinity report high levels of offences as a result of loud noise, shouting and harassment. Neighbours living slightly further a-field from these offenders but on the same street also report significant levels of ASB caused by unruly children and congregations of anti-social associates spilling onto the street under the influence of alcohol. These individuals drain significant amounts of multi-agency resources due to a multitude of factors including alcohol, child neglect, mistreating of animals and breaching of tags and ABCs.

Small groups of youths aged 9 15, many of whom are females local to the estate, cause significant amounts of anti-social behaviour to residents within the neighbourhood. Reported unruly behaviour includes the throwing of stones, kicking of footballs over gardens, throwing of rubbish over property and generic screaming and shouting.

Offenders, who breach tags, fail to appear for doorstep checks and miss pre- arranged appointments account for approximately 25% of all incidents within the neighbourhood which wastes a significant amount of police time. Other agencies including housing and social services also report similar occurrences (which are not reflected in police data).

Youths riding around in the area on mopeds are often the cause of anti-social reports. Noise created by such activity is the main aggravating factor but there are also a handful of reports suggesting dangerous driving endangering local residents.

The design and subsequent development of social housing within the neighbourhood contributes to significant reporting of offences by residents living in private property due to social housing being built sporadically throughout Charlton Hayes, rather than in pockets.

Managing the demand

(i) Two Police Posts On Cribbs Patchway Development

20 of 49 10.9. Due to the large size of this development the police would like to secure two Police posts in community buildings within the new development, preferably sited well into the heart of the development. These posts will promote police visibility and community cohesion. Ideally the Police posts will be some distance from the new Filton Police station. The criteria for police posts are clearly set out at points 8.16 - 8.24 for North Yate. Ideally, this will be at a nominal cost, forming part of the projected build costs.

(ii) Two funded PCSO Posts for Cribbs Patchway Development.

10.10. The size of the new development and the projected increase in demand for police services make the need for additional police resources on the ground from the outset an imperative to ensure that the development is not bogged down with continual ASB and does not gain a reputation as a problem neighbourhood; rather as an attractive and safe place to live.

10.11. The impact on new developments of ongoing Anti Social Behaviour and criminality is well evidenced above. By deploying a visible dedicated police presence the police would seek to identify emerging problems or hot spots and focus police and partnership resources to resolve them at an early stage.

10.12. The police would see this as an opportunity for developers to use as a marketing point i.e. working with the police to fund a dedicated police presence in the emerging communities to promote safety, harmony and cohesion.

10.13. Given the scale and life cycle of this development a PCSO presence will be required over five years to assist the embedding of this growing new town.

10.14. The police seek a funding contribution for a period of five years at £44,427 a year for each PCSO post at todays costings. We would look to increase these costs in line with the ACPO charging formula.

10.15. Total cost per annum for four PCSO posts at todays costing: £88,854. A total of (at todays cost5) £ 444,270 over five years .

(iii) PCSO Vehicle for Cribbs Patchway Development

10.16.The costings for a PCSO vehicle at todays prices:

Ford Fiesta 5dr 1.4TDCi Style in livery (or like vehicle).50mph. £10,500 3.25 pence per mile for service, maintenance and repairs (assumes 10k miles per year): £325 pa Insurance per annum: £1,200 pa RFL £0 if registered in 'Police' taxation class

10.17. These costings are at todays figures. The purchase and running costs will be sometime in the near future. Therefore these costs will need refreshing to factor in inflation and any increases in costs in the interim period.

5 See paragraph 8.27 21 of 49 (iv) ANPR Cameras for Cribbs Patchway Development.

10.18. The Cribbs Patchway development is the largest development and will border Bristol utilising the old Filton airfield.

10.19. The road layout for the new development has not been outlined. The exact number of ANPR cameras will be determined once the road layouts have been established

10.20. To meet the expected demand the police will look to site six ANPR cameras around and in the new development. The criteria for ANPR cameras have been set out earlier in the report.

10.21. The full cost of six ANPR cameras at todays prices is: £30,000.

11. Summary of Required Developer Contributions

11.1 All developments with South Glos Core Strategy: The police requirements are set out in full at Section 6.

11.2 North Yate:

1 x Police post (rent free or peppercorn rent) 3 x ANPR cameras @ £15,000 1 x PCSO for 3 years @ £133,281

11.3 Harry Stoke 2:

1 x Police post (rent free or peppercorn rent) 4 x ANPR cameras @ £20,000 1 x PCSO for 3 years @ £133,281

11.4 Cribbs Patchway:

2 x Police post (rent free or peppercorn rent) 6 x ANPR cameras @ £30,000 2 x PCSO for 5 years @ £444,270 1 x PCSO vehicle (insurance and service inclusive) @ £11,025

22 of 49 Appendix 1. Summary of research and reports supporting Secured by Design Re-evaluating Secured by Design housing in West Yorkshire, Armitage & Monchuk 2009 This survey mirrored the original survey of 1999 and took into account the improvements made in SBD requirements over 10 years. The results were very positive, replicating the earlier reductions in crime and fear of crime compared with non-SBD estates and West Yorkshire as a whole.

Securing the Nation: the case for safer homes. Association of British Insurers 2006 Summarises the evidence for Secured by Design, calls for its wider adoption and identifies the benefits to the wider audience, the economy and householders. It provides a per unit cost to developers. Cost is dependent on the pre-existing level to be upgraded but these are mainly confined to physical security upgrades with little or no cost for the environmental design element of SBD. The costs were re- assessed in 2010 by Davis Langdon in the light of significant reductions in unit costs as more tested products have become available since publication.

The capital costs of Secured by Design accreditation. Davis Langdon 2010. Davis Langdon Associates established the cost for SBD for the 2006 ABI report Securing the nation at £480 to £740 depending on property. Their revised costs for 2010 show dramatic reductions to £70 to £240, reflecting the increased availability and competitiveness of relevant products.

Permeability &crime risk. Johnson & Bowers 2009 Research of the crime risk posed by permeable layouts and types of cul-de-sac shows the latter producing an 11% reduction in burglary risk against permeable local roads, rising to 28% where major roads also feature. SBD does not demand cul-de-sacs but seeks to achieve a balance between accessibility and crime reduction by limiting unnecessary routes that attract crime.

Safer Places; the planning system & crime prevention (ODPM & Home Office 2004) Highlights good practice in crime prevention and designing out crime generally, but identified Secured by Design as a successful model and devoted an entire section to practical advice and modelling on how the police, through the CPDA/ALO, can provide a major contribution to local authority planning and to architects and developers. It remains a key document in the planning system.

23 of 49 Evaluation of Secured by Design in Gwent, South Wales (John Brown 1999) Following adoption of SBD by Housing for Wales, a 2 year study of 9,173 homes confirmed similar reductions in crime as experienced in West Yorkshire 40% less burglary and vehicle crime and 25% less criminal damage.

Northview, Swanley Kent, refurbishment. FDKC Architects 1996-2002) A refurbishment of ten multi-story blocks, replacing remote parking areas with dedicated parking close to homes, improved security on access to communal deck levels and landscaping previously void areas. The tenants remained substantially the same and experienced reduced burglary and car crime levels in excess of 50%. No evidence of crime displacement or gentrification of the estate.

Cost benefit analysis of ALO/CPDA work. David Lancaster 2010. A university validated spreadsheet based programme which analyses the scale/type of building development, the input of the ALO/CPDA, local crime data and trends to show cost-benefit of applying designing out crime principles to a particular site or area. . The Secure Warm Modern programme in Nottingham Nottingham City Homes and Nottingham Trent University Crime report Study carried out as a Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) on the social, economic and environmental benefits of the scheme. It looks at how this work tackles crime, improves health, increases energy efficiency and reduces fuel poverty, and has helped promote employment in the local area. Secured by Design Windows were installed in the area and helped to reduce burglaries.

24 of 49 Appendix 2.

Potential increase in crime due to New Build in South Glos

Date produced: 8June2012 Author CIO Angela Archer Aim: To provide the partnership stakeholders with an estimate of the impact on Crime and calls for service as a result of the core strategy

Summary

The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy sets out plans to develop 22,675 additional homes, 35 sqm of retail space and 59 ha of employment land by 2026.

The increase in new homes is estimated to increase the population by 54,420 people (2.4 per household) which is equivalent to a 20% increase in households and population in South Gloucestershire.

Co-incidentally the planned increase in retail space within the Cribbs Causeway area is also equivalent to a 20% increase.

Currently the district employs ~200 Police Constables who each deal with ~300 calls for service from the public which result in ~73 crimes per officer per year.

The following document details the estimated impact of the new development on the South Glos police District. In summary the increase of 22,675 houses (54,420 people) and 35 spm of retail space is estimated to impact as follows:

Calls for service: Currently South Glos BCU receives over 58 thousand calls for service from the public each year. This is equivalent to ~200 calls for every thousand people and ~14 calls per sqm of retail space. The new development is estimated to increase the number of calls for service by 11 thousand from the public and ~500 from retail. This is equivalent to the work load of 39 additional officers

Increase in crime: Based on the average rate of crime per thousand people on the beats where development is planned and an estimated calculation of 4.5 crimes per sqm of retail space, it is estimated that the District could experience an increase of ~2,800 crimes per year. Based on the current workload of ~73 crimes per officer this is equivalent to the work load of 39 additional officers Methodology

Estimates for the potential increase in crime (as a result of the new build) are based on the average number of crimes per thousand people currently experienced in the areas identified for development.

Timing of development: The development is planned to be conducted over the next 14 years, with some build not due to commence until 2016. The figures below have been calculated using the figures for the total build (which will not be achieved until 2026) and current crime rates (between April 2011 March 2012 from Guardian)

Beat and Sector averages: In order to take account of the varying crime levels across the district, the estimated increase in crime has been calculated using the individual beat and sector averages where the new development is planned.

Residential vs Retail Crime: Total crime covers all crime categories and therefore includes Shoplifting and other commercial related crimes. All beats have a commercial element, but some greater than others. The Patchway Beat contains the Mall and Cribbs Causeway complex. After

25 of 49 removing the crimes known to be committed within the Mall building, the Patchway beat records double the number of crimes per thousand residents than other similar beats and the sector average. It has therefore been concluded that approximately half of the crimes recorded on the Patchway beat can be attributed to the Cribs causeway complex. This is a similar case with calls for service.

Crime on employment land: It has not been possible to establish the impact that the additional 59 ha of employment land will have on crime and calls for service.

Core Strategy

The Core Strategy is a document in which South Gloucestershire Council identifies several areas of new development across the district:

Between 2006 - 2026 the council aims to provide a total of 26,435 new homes together with supporting infrastructure including employment, leisure and shopping. Between 2006 and 2011 a total of 4,060 houses were completed, leaving a remainder of 22,375 houses still to be built. (Note: the below figures add up to 22,675)

The principle areas of South Gloucestershire that will see this growth are:

North Yate: 3,000 houses planned, of which 2,700 will be built between 2016 and 2026 and upto 9 ha of employment land Thornbury Park Farm: 500 houses between 2012 -2016 East of Harry Stoke: 2,000 houses mainly built between 2016 2026,with50before2016 North East Fringes of Bristol: 2,730 houses between 2012-2016. These sites have unimplemented planning permission or will take place on unallocated brownfield sites Cribbs Patchway: 5,7000 houses built mainly between 2016-2026, with 100 built before 2016, 50ha of employment land and greater diversity of Cribbs Causeway retail area, which will potentially expand by 35,000 sqm Infill and windfall sites within existing urban areas and rural villages: 1,360 houses built between 2012-2026 Existing Local Plan sites: 7,385 houses on sites allocated or with unimplemented planning permission

Data sources

Current Crime levels: Crime data was obtained from the police Guardian Crime system between April 2011 March 2012.

Population Data: Population figures for each Beat were obtained from the beat profiles provided by the Citizen Focus team. This is based on the estimated increase from the 2001 census data. The more recent 2011 census data is not yet available.

Calls for service: Obtained from A&S Storm system (SfN). Total calls for service include ASB, traffic incidents etc.

Police officer numbers: Obtained from the Establishment report on A&S intranet.

Police officer costs: Average cost of mid scale officer obtained from Force ready-reckoner. This includes pension and NI contribution but does not include uniform, vehicles, accommodation or supervision.

26 of 49 Potential Increase in Total Crime - Residential

Total Crimes per 1000 people potential increase in Total Crime crimes using per crimes using using Population Sector District MSG using nearest Beat 1000 per 1000 District MSG Planned inc (Av 2.4 Average Average Average Sector Av Area for new people per people people for Average Average Development houses house) for beat beat North Yate 3000 7200 Yate 43 38 51 56 307 272 364 403 Thornbury 500 1200 Thornbury 36 38 51 56 43 45 61 67 Harry Stoke 2000 4800 Stoke Gifford 56.4 51 51 56 271 245 245 269 North Fringes 2730 6552 51 56 0 0 334 367 Cribbs 5700 13680 Patchway 105 51 51 56 1436 698 698 766 infil/landfill 1360 3264 51 56 0 0 166 183 Existing planning 7385 17724 51 56 0 0 904 993 Note: After removing the crimes known to be committed within the Mall building, the Patchway beat records double the number of crimes per thousand residents than other similar beats and the sector average. It has therefore been concluded that approximately half of the crimes recorded on the Patchway beat can be attributed to the Cribs causeway complex.

Potential Increase in Total Crime - Retail

current Estimate increase in Current Size crimes crimes cime of additional 35 (1000 sqm) per year per sqm sqm of retail space Mall 66.5 318 4.8 167 Cribbs 100.7 600 6.0 209

Potential Increase in Serious Acquisitive Crime (SAC) SAC Crimes per 1000 people potential increase in SAC using crimes crimes using using using Population per 1000 Sector District MSG nearest Beat per 1000 Sector District MSG Planned inc (Av 2.4 people Ave rag e Average Average people Av Ave rag e Average Area for new people per for beat Development houses house) for beat NorthYate30007200Yate 4.24.47.38.530325361 Thornbury 500 1200 Thornbury 3.5 4.4 7.3 8.5 4 5 9 10 Harry Stoke 2000 4800 Stoke Gifford 9.8 7.9 7.3 8.5 47 38 35 41 North Fringes 2730 6552 7.3 8.5 0 0 48 56 Cribbs 5700 13680 Patchway 13.9 7.9 7.3 8.5 190 108 100 116 infil/landfill 1360 3264 7.3 8.5 0 0 24 28 Existing planning 7385 17724 7.3 8.5 0 0 129 151

Serious Acquisitive Crime is defined as Burglary, Robbery, Theft of Motor vehicles and Theft from Motor Vehicle

Potential Increase in Dwelling Burglary

Burglary Crimes per 1000 people potential increase in Burglary

using using using using using Sector District MSG nearest Beat Beat Beat Sector District MSG Average Average Average Population Avera g e Avera g e Av Average Average Planned inc (Av 2.4 new people per Area for Development houses house) North Yate 3000 7200 Yate 2.8 3.2 6.7 7 20 23 48 50 Thornbury 500 1200 Thornbury 2.9 3.2 6.7 7 3 4 8 8 Harry Stoke 2000 4800 Stoke Gifford 8.2 8.8 6.7 7 39 42 32 34 North Fringes 2730 6552 8.8 6.7 7 0 58 44 46 Cribbs (Residential) 5700 13680 Patchway 10.3 8.8 6.7 7 141 120 92 96 infil/landfillPotential Increase 1360 in Non 3264 Dwelling Burglary 6.7 7 0 0 22 23 Existing planning 7385 17724 6.7 7 0 0 119 124 Total 22675 54420 6.7 7 00365 381 Potential Increase in Non Dwelling Burglary 27 of 49 NDB Crimes per 1000 people potential increase in NBD

using using using using using Sector District MSG nearest Beat Beat Beat Sector District MSG Average Average Average Population Average Average Av Average Average Planned inc (Av 2.4 new people per Area for Development houses house) North Yate 3000 7200 Yate 3 3.9 5.1 4.2 22 28 37 30 Thornbury 500 1200 Thornbury 5.2 3.9 5.1 4.2 6 5 6 5 Harry Stoke 2000 4800 Stoke Gifford 4.5 4 5.1 4.2 22 19 24 20 North Fringes 2730 6552 5.1 4.2 0 0 33 28 Cribbs (Residential) 5700 13680 Patchway 7.6 4 5.1 4.2 104 55 70 57 infil/landfill 1360 3264 5.1 4.2 0 0 17 14 Existing planning 7385 17724 5.1 4.2 0 0 90 74 Total 22675 54420 5.1 4.2 00278 229

Potential Increase in calls for service

nearest Beat No of call per current estimated Additional Population officers Planned inc (Av 2.4 calls for 1000 people officers additional (calls per new people per service (or sqm required at 292 calls due to officer Area for Development houses house) 2011 -12 retail) per officer new build 292) North Yate 3000 7200 Yate Thornbury 500 1200 Thornbury Harry Stoke 2000 4800 Stoke Gifford 2426 204 8 981 3 North Fringes 2730 6552 Cribbs (Residential) 5700 13680 Patchway 2366 201 8 2750 9 Cribbs (Commercial) 35 sqm 2366 14 8 496 2 infil/landfill 1360 3264 Existing planning 7385 17724 total 22675 54420 58379 198 200 10788 39

Total increased requirement for Police officers

Additional Additional PC/DC required PC/DC equired Total to deal with to deal with Min Max nearest Beat Total crime crime Min Total crime Max Total crime Additional Additional Additional Population officers to deal Planned inc (Av 2.4 potential potential increase at 73 increaseat 73 with additional cost for cost for new people per increase increase crimes per crimes per calls (292 per PC/DC PC/DC Area for Development houses house) min max officer officer officer) (£44,550) (£44,550) North Yate 3000 7200 Yate 272 364 4 5 £165,995 £222,140 Thornbury 500 1200 Thornbury 43 61 1 1 £26,242 £37,227 Harry Stoke 2000 4800 Stoke Gifford 245 271 3 4 3 £149,517 £165,384 North Fringes 2730 6552 334 334 5 5 £203,832 £203,832 Cribbs (Residential) 5700 13680 Patchway 698 698 10 10 9 £425,971 £425,971 Cribbs (Commercial) 35sqm Cribbs 168 210 2 3 2 £102,526 £128,158 infil/landfill 1360 3264 166 166 2 2 £101,305 £101,305 Existing planning 7385 17724 904 904 12 12 £551,688 £551,688 Total 22675 54420 2830 3008 39 41 39 £1,727,075 £1,835,704

28 of 49 Appendix 3.

REPORT TITLE:ASBIN CHESWICK

Author: Nathan EMERY Date produced: 11/10/12 Plan Owner: Date requested: 09/10/12 Task summary: Assess the extent of ASB in relation to new development at Cheswick Village

5 x 5 x 5 Handling Code 1 May be disseminated to partnership agencies and law enforcement agencies

Inference

The new development within Cheswick Village has resulted in the number of ASB incidents doubling. A large group of youths aged 9 16 who are extremely disorderly on a daily basis have increased their level of offending within their own neighbourhood as well in areas of new private development and is the major problem for community at present. The increase in nuisance neighbours within Somer Housing and the introduction of offenders on tag and subsequent breaches are also responsible for increases of ASB incidents during the past 18 months. The development sites themselves are focal points for Anti-social behaviour endangering residents and offenders in the process. Youths riding mopeds dangerously along cycle paths also threaten the safety and peace of the community. The Police need to increase patrols in the areas identified to reassure residents who desire increased presence and increase intelligence submissions to fill intelligence gaps on those responsible for being anti-social in the area. The Police will need to ensure emphasis is continued and increased where appropriate on repeat victims at risk, which accounts for a significant portion of all ASB incidents.

29 of 49 KEY FINDINGS

1. The number of ASB related incidents has increased in Cheswick Village since the start of the Redrow development. Incidents of rowdy nuisance behaviour during June 2011 November 2011 were almost double the level recorded six months previous from December 2010 May 2011. Throughout the development period harassment and vehicle nuisance also showed an increase. Priority acquisitive crime including burglary has also increased in the area since the start of development. As development has progressed and subsequent occupants move in, the reporting of ASB increases in these areas as a result creating mini-hotspots over the longer-term.

2. A large group of offenders with transient members aged between 9 16 cause the biggest proportion of ASB in the area. This group cause nuisance, disorder, arson, criminal damage and vandalism in the area occurring on a daily basis which is proving tiresome for local residents both within the Somer Housing areas and increasingly within occupants of newly built private houses nearby.

3. Nuisance neighbours is the second biggest driver in relation to ASB reporting in the area. Occupants living in flats located along Long Down Avenue & Home Lease Close are by far the highest reporters of nuisance neighbours, many of whom are both victims and offenders of such behaviour resulting in their being numerous repeat premises.

4. The breaching of tags by offenders living in the newly developed Somer Housing property including bail check failures and missed appointments has shown the biggest increase in offences since the start of the development.

5. The development sites whilst under construction are a focus of ASB behaviour. The large groups of young offenders are known to routinely break into sites where they commit vandalism, fool around on construction equipment not only causing general nuisance but also endangering themselves in the process. The reporting of such occurrences accounts for approximately 25% of all rowdy type incidents reported in the village.

6. The are a small number of repeat premises within the village that routinely report offences. Reasons for the reporting of ASB varies from nuisance behaviour, breaches of tags and curfews, domestic related issues and harassment. The top 5 repeat premises account for 17% of all offences combined and all repeat premises account for 39%.

7. Cycle paths, especially the path that runs from the ring road to the University of West England are vulnerable to vehicle nuisance caused by youths on mopeds who endanger walkers and cyclists using the path as well as being an audible irritation.

8. Intelligence relating to incidents and offenders of ASB in Cheswick Village is extremely limited and emphasis should be tailored towards increasing the submission of intelligence to fill vast intelligence gaps.

9. The main response that victims of ASB relay onto the Police is the desire for increased Police patrols in the area. Peak time analysis indicates offences build up at 5pm before dying down at approximately 9pm. Although this suggests offences occur while youths are returning home after school, offences occur at the same rate over weekend periods.

10. The use of Facebook as a means of committing harassment type offences is on the increase although this is a national trend and not necessarily unique to the village of Cheswick.

30 of 49 RESTRICTED

DATA DESCRIPTION

The above graph illustrates how offences increased throughout the development stage and after completion. The dotted red line indicates that ASB related incidents rose sharply at the approximate time development started which continued for approximately 6 months before slowly reducing from approximately February 2012.

RESTRICTED 31 of 49 RESTRICTED

The above tables show the breakdown of all logs related offences throughout 3 separate identified periods as highlighted within the graph above which illustrates the drivers for increases in offences since the development at Cheswick Village. The table pre-development shows figures for the 6 months previous to the approximate start of development, post-development shows the 6 months from the approximate start of development and Last 6 Months shows offences within the last 6 months at the time of writing.

The tables indicate offences doubled (50 99) post development before reducing to 78 recorded offences. Rowdy/nuisance behaviour has seen an 80% increase since the start of development which has sustained in the 18 months since. In addition, a dramatic increase has been experienced in the number of tag breach related incidents. Such incidents accounted for 2% in the 6 months pre- development, compared to 31% recorded during the 18 months post development commencement. Most alarmingly, during August 2011 November 2011, these incidents accounted for half of all ASB related incidents. The number of vehicle nuisance type offences has also seen a significant increase, however, only in the last 6 months where offences have been recorded as being double as those experienced pre and post development. Slight increases have also been visible in harassment and priority crime, especially non-dwelling burglary.

RESTRICTED 32 of 49 RESTRICTED

By far the biggest hotspot within Cheswick Village is Long Down Avenue which runs through the village. Offences committed on this main artery route accounts for nearly a third of offences as highlighted in the table above.

RESTRICTED 33 of 49 RESTRICTED

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

The above shows how hotspots of offences developed throughout each 3 monthly periods (starting in October 2010 present) as development was progressed. It also highlights that the major hotspot continues to remain throughout the time period on Long Down Avenue.

RESTRICTED 34 of 49 RESTRICTED

The above graph shows offence levels on Long Down Avenue and how they compare closely to total offence levels shown by the dotted red line.

However, these tables showing offence breakdown in the 6 months pre and post development indicate how the profile of offending altered with breaching of tags (suspicious/wanted) by a small number of offenders becoming more predominant in the area.

RESTRICTED 35 of 49 RESTRICTED 2. A large group of offenders with transient members aged between 9 16 cause the biggest proportion of ASB in the area. This group cause nuisance, disorder, arson, criminal damage and vandalism in the area occurring on a daily basis which is proving tiresome for local residents both within the Somer Housing areas and increasingly within occupants of newly built private houses nearby.

Verbatim comments in logs suggest this large group of youths have blighted the area, not only to residents living in newly developed private property but also innocent residents living amoung the offenders within Somer Housing. The type of offences and behaviour experienced on an increasing level since the development has included climbing over fences, destroying plants and property, vandalism, damaging vehicles by kicking and jumping on them, swearing, playing football and being an audible nuisance, ringing doorbells on a constant basis. However, their offending goes beyond annoyance to a level in which they endanger themselves as well as communities they live and offend in including deliberately starting fires, being in possession of unruly dogs, playing on construction equipment stored on development sites, breaking into unoccupied houses being built and engaging in behaviour where they attempt to provoke innocent members of the public into reacting to their petit and sometimes dangerous behaviour. It is apparent that there is much bad parenting within the Somer Housing community of Cheswick which fuels this type of behaviour. A small number of these youths also ride mopeds on cycle paths which is explored later within this scoping profile.

Residents living along Long Down Avenue & Home Lease Close report the vast majority of nuisance neighbour type offences. The most reported nuisance behaviour is the playing of loud music within these buildings that are divided into flats and is most distressing for residents. There are numerous repeat victims and premises within the Cheswick area, many including victims who are also known to offend. Emphasis should be placed on engagement with Somer Housing to manage high risk victims and subsequent separating of these neighbours if deemed appropriate.

RESTRICTED 36 of 49 RESTRICTED 4. The breaching of tags by offenders living in the newly developed Somer Housing property including bail check failures and missed appointments has shown the biggest increase in offences since the start of the development.

The above graph shows the proportion of offences involving the breaching of tags, missed appointments and bail check failures compared to all ASB related offences reported in the area.

As discussed above, a dramatic increase has been experienced in the number of tag breach related incidents. Such incidents accounted for 2% in the 6 months pre-development, compared to 31% recorded during the 18 months post development commencement. Most alarmingly, during August 2011 November 2011, these incidents accounted for half of all ASB related incidents.

A small number of repeat offenders are evident who combined account for the vast majority of incidents who are discussed later within this profile under repeat premises.

5. The development sites whilst under construction are also a focus of ASB behaviour. The large groups of young offenders are known to routinely break into sites where they commit vandalism, fool around on construction equipment not only causing general nuisance but also endangering themselves in the process. The reporting of such occurrences accounts for approximately 25% of all rowdy type incidents reported in the village.

Such behaviour reported to the Police since the start of development include youths climbing on construction equipment, attempting to start diggers and other plant machinery, climbing on scaffolding, breaking into houses under construction and general nuisance noisy behaviour. The security of such sites should be reviewed to ensure groups of youths are unable to access such sites which are undoubtedly abundant with apparent danger.

RESTRICTED 37 of 49 RESTRICTED 6. The are a small number of repeat premises within the village that routinely report offences. Reasons for the reporting of ASB varies from nuisance behaviour, breaches of tags and curfews, domestic related issues and harassment. The top 5 repeat premises account for 17% of all offences combined and all repeat premises account for 39%.

As previously mentioned, vehicle nuisance has significantly increased in the past 6 months. Youths riding up and down walk ways and cycle paths pose the biggest threat in respect to this type of ASB and many residents have expressed concerns of the dangerous nature in which these youths ride their mopeds. Youths are also known to ride these mopeds in the local rugby field and the nearby forest area. However, the cycle path that links the ring road to UWE remains the most vulnerable to these dangerous antics committed by these youths. The remainder of vehicle nuisance related incidents reported fall into a small number of other categories including the reporting of expired or no tax discs, inconsiderate parking by residents and workers working on the development sites and vehicles parked on double yellow lines. Although only one incident whereby youths were seen to throw stones towards traffic has been reported, other anecdotal reports suggest the disruption to traffic caused by youths littering the road or playing football suggests this maybe significantly unreported.

The number of intelligence reports in relation to ASB in Cheswick is extremely limited, only a selected number of intelligence reports in relation to repeat victims are in existence suggesting not enough intelligence is being gathered from the area which is needed to fill intelligence gaps.

As previously stated, offences occur evenly throughout the week and weekends.

ASB builds up from 5pm, peaks significantly before dying down at 9pm.

~END

RESTRICTED 38 of 49 RESTRICTED Appendix 4.

REPORT TITLE:ASBIN CHARLTON HAYES,FILTON

Author: Nathan EMERY Date produced: 11/10/12 Plan Owner: Date requested: 09/10/12 Task summary: Assess the extent of ASB (Anti Social Behaviour) in relation to new development at Filton.

5 x 5 x 5 Handling Code 1 May be disseminated to partnership agencies and law enforcement agencies

Inference

The small number of residents, some of whom originate from travelling communities, cause the majority of ASB related incidents in Charlton Hayes, Filton whose behaviour not only affects immediate neighbours but also extends through the entire community. Significant amounts of multi-agency resources aimed at these offenders appear to have a limited affect in curbing such behaviour. Small groups of unruly local youths also cause harm to the local community by engaging in various elements of anti-social behaviour resulting in many being handed ABCs. Offenders who breach tags place significant demand on Police, now account of a quarter of all incidents which is lightly increasing over the longer term. Youths who ride mopeds in the local area who are often deemed as being anti-social and on occasion are reported as being dangerous. Intelligence needs to be increased in the area to fill intelligence gaps.

RESTRICTED 39 of 49 RESTRICTED

KEY FINDINGS

1. Levels of ASB in Charlton Hayes has fluctuated over the last 18 months with no indications that incidents have reduced or increased.

2. A small number of offenders cause significant harm to the local community within Charlton Hayes, Filton by repeatedly engaging in anti-social behaviour. Verbatim comments in logs frequently suggest that some of the top offenders originate from the travelling community.

3. Neighbours living next-door to these offenders in the immediate vicinity report high levels of offences as a result of loud noise, shouting and harassment. Neighbours living slightly further a-field from these offenders but on the same street also report significant levels of ASB caused by unruly children and congregations of anti-social associates spilling onto the street under the influence of alcohol.

4. Verbatim comments in logs suggest these individuals drain significant amounts of multi- agency resources due to a multitude of factors including alcohol, child neglect, mistreating of animals and breaching of tags & ABCs.

5. Small groups of youths aged 9 15, many of whom are females local to the estate cause significant amounts of anti-social to residents within the neighbourhood. Reported unruly behaviour includes the throwing of stones, kicking of footballs over gardens, throwing of rubbish over property and generic screaming and shouting.

6. Offenders, who breach tags, fail to appear for doorstep checks and miss pre-arranged appointments account for approximately 25% of all incidents within the neighbourhood which wastes a significant amount of Police time. Other agencies including housing and social services also report similar occurrences which doesnt reflect in figures.

7. Youths riding around in the area on mopeds are often the cause of anti-social reports. Noise created by such activity is the main aggravating factor but there is also a handful of reports suggesting dangerous driving endangering local residents.

8. The design and subsequent development of social housing within the neighbourhood contributes to significant reporting of offences by residents living in private property due to social housing being built sporadically throughout Charlton Hayes, rather than in pockets.

9. The amount of intelligence in relation to ASB in Charlton Hayes is limited. Intelligence needs to be increased in the area in order to fill intelligence gaps.

RESTRICTED 40 of 49 RESTRICTED

DATA DESCRIPTION

1. Levels of ASB in Charlton Hayes has fluctuated over the last 18 months with no indications that incidents have reduced or increased. However, on average the area suffers from approximately 15 offences per month.

The above graph shows the amount of incident logs per months commencing March 2011. The number of incidents reported has fluctuated significantly throughout this period with no distinct patterns.

RESTRICTED 41 of 49 RESTRICTED 2. A small number of offenders cause significant harm to the local community within Charlton Hayes, Filton by repeatedly engaging in anti-social behaviour. Verbatim comments in logs frequently suggest that some of the top offenders originate from the travelling community.

4. Verbatim comments in logs suggest these individuals drain significant amounts of multi-agency resources due to a multitude of factors including alcohol, child neglect, mistreating of animals and breaching of tags & ABCs.

The table on the left indicates the high number of repeat premises in which ASB incidents are reported. The top 5 repeat locations account for 48% of all incidents. Repeat premises in total account for approximately 81% of all incidetns highlighting the significant problem a small number of residents cause in the area in relation to ASB.

RESTRICTED 42 of 49 RESTRICTED

The most reported log type is linked to the breaching of tags (Suspicious/wanted, pre-planned event & contact record) representing approximately 25%). The most reported form of ASB is disturbance/nuisance representing 17.1% of all logs followed by domestic related ASB accounting for 10.7%. However, all these forms of logs are linked to the top repeat premises including nuisance caused by groups of youths which often contain children of families living at these addresses.

Verbatim comments in logs frequently suggest that some of the top offenders originate from the travelling community and the same groups of perpetrators consistently cause the problems. Alcohol is also frequently mentioned in logs and the perpetrators being children or youths.

The logs also show a number of partner agencies being called or referrals made to assist with individual cases.

RESTRICTED 43 of 49 RESTRICTED

The above graphs indicate that this form of ASB builds up at approximately 18:00 and begins to die down at 23:00. ASB occurs both on weekdays and weekends with no specific days of the week experiencing high levels of ASB caused by these groups of offenders.

Females are frequently mentioned as being part of the groups that are causing ASB. There is also a large volume of females on Acceptable Behaviour Contracts.

RESTRICTED 44 of 49 RESTRICTED

The above map highlights the areas of social housing which are spread throughout Charlton Hayes.

RESTRICTED 45 of 49 RESTRICTED

Appendix 5.

Crime Analysis Study Area

RESTRICTED 46 of 49 RESTRICTED

RESTRICTED 47 of 49 RESTRICTED

RESTRICTED 48 of 49 RESTRICTED

Appendix 6

Special Duty Charges - ACPO Charging Methodology

No O/time PCSO PCSO Sc4 Sc4 Scale Point 16 16 ££

Basic Salary 19,770 19,770 Other Allowances - Shift 2,768 2,768 Other Allowances - Weekend 1,977 1,977 24,515 24,515 National Insurance 1,695 1,695 Pension Contribution 3,334 3,334

Employable Cost 29,544 29,544

Overtime premium 9,885

Total Direct Cost 39,429 29,544

Direct Overheads Uniforms 360 360 Insurance 249 249 Transport 1,071 1,071 Training 1,031 1,031 Call Handling 4,482 4,482 Communications Infrastructure 1,895 1,895

Total Direct Overheads 9,088 9,088

Resource / Operational Cost 48,517 38,632

Indirect Overheads 11,590 5,795

Partnership Full Cost 60,107 44,427

RESTRICTED 49 of 49 SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY

INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN

EVIDENCE BASE

Utilities

March 2014 Electricity

National Grid is responsible for the electricity transmission network in England and Wales, and has the following electricity transmission assets located within South Gloucestershire: x 2VL line – 400kV route from Seabank substation in Bristol to the 4YX line in South Gloucestershire x 4YX line – 400kV route from Whitson substation in Newport to Melksham substation in Wiltshire via Aust Sealing End Compound in South Gloucestershire x XL line – 275kV route from Whitson substation in Newport to Melksham substation in Wiltshire via Iron Acton substation in South Gloucestershire x YXA/YXB lines – 132kV routes from Oldbury substation in South Gloucestershire to Iron Acton substation in South Gloucestershire

National Grid has confirmed that specific housing or employment development proposals within the South Gloucestershire Council area are unlikely to have a significant effect upon National Grid’s gas and electricity transmission infrastructure. Western Power Distribution and Central Networks are responsible for the electricity distribution network in the South Gloucestershire area. Annual corporate performance review plans are publicly available providing details of corporate strategies and priorities for their service plan areas as a whole.

WPD & CN are broadly responsible for low voltage cables (132, 33 & 11kv, & 415volts). WPD operate cables in the Severnside and Bristol North Fringe areas of South Gloucestershire and CN cover the remainder of the district. Western Power has confirmed that development of some 5700-6200 dwellings plus 40ha of commercial development in the Cribbs Patchway area will require a new Primary Sub Station. The sub station would require a site of approximate size 30x30m and cost in the region £1.6m. This cost would be apportioned between developers depending upon how much electricity they need. The preferred location would be at the eastern end of the airfield site. A Multi-Utilities Service Investment Strategy commissioned by SGC however alternatively concludes that reinforcement of the existing network and sub stations may provide a viable cost effective solution. The companies have otherwise confirmed that growth set out in the Core Strategy is either supportable or have not objected. Both companies wish to continue to be consulted with respect detailed master planning of the new neighbourhoods where their transmission lines are directly affected.

Gas

National Grid is responsible for the gas transmission system in England, Scotland and Wales, and has gas transmission assets located within South Gloucestershire. National Grid has confirmed that specific housing or employment development proposals within the South Gloucestershire Council area are unlikely to have a significant effect upon National Grid’s gas and electricity transmission infrastructure. The responsible distribution bodies in South Gloucestershire are National Grid and Wales & West Utilities. Annual corporate and performance review plans are publicly available providing details of corporate strategies and priorities for their service plan areas as a whole. NG & WWU have provided detail with respect the location of their respective distribution networks and neither has objected to growth set out in the Core Strategy. Expansion or upgrading of the network is generally triggered by specific requests from developers to lay infrastructure to specific sites. WWU wish to continue to be consulted with respect detailed master planning of the new neighbourhoods where their pipelines are directly affected.

Water & Sewerage

Bristol Water is responsible for water supply and Wessex Water for waste water in South Gloucestershire. Annual corporate and performance review plans are publicly available providing details of corporate strategies and priorities for their service plan areas as a whole.

Bristol Water have confirmed that their will not be the need for significant new infrastructure to supply growth set out in the Core Strategy. A new ring main has recently been installed in the Harry Stoke area of the North Fringe and BW are planning a further main between the Patchway North roundabout and Jct1 of the M32. Yate is confirmed as currently being ‘very well served’.

Wessex Water previously confirmed that investment at Avonmouth Sewage Treatment Works has provided future treatment capacity for new development within the catchment. Existing planned growth to 2016 will increase flows and some stretches of the strategic sewer system are considered to be approaching capacity.

Wessex Water has undertaken a strategic review for the Business Plan period between 2015 and 2020. The new trunk sewer link for the Frome Valley Relief Sewer has been included in these plans and forms our investment strategy to serve the strategic allocation of 3000 new homes at North Yate.

Future development at North Bristol also requires significant investment in sewer capacity. Development plans in this area will be subject to a Supplementary Planning Document for the Cribbs/Patchway New Neighbourhood. This will provide for a co-ordinated approach to completing a robust drainage strategy for foul water disposal. These sites will be commencing the initial phases over the next few years and building out over a period to 2026 and beyond. Strategic infrastructure is planned across a 10 year period between 2015 – 2025 with a phased approach to match the rate of development.

OFWAT are currently considering water company plans and will be making determinations by the end of 2014.

Preliminary assessment indicates that development areas [in the Cribbs Patchway locality] will gravitate southwards to the Trym Trunk sewer and areas at the north to the Frome Valley Relief Sewer. New development proposals will require long off site connecting sewers to agreed points of connection. Topography of the [Cribbs Patchway] area indicates that flows will generally gravitate to the south western corner of the site close to the A4018 highway. The existing railway forms a boundary constraint at the south of the area. Wessex Water will be making provision to safeguard strategic sewer routes to manage future development flows. These will be required in the later periods to intercept and convey flows to the new trunk sewerage.

In advance of this strategic review, some improvements to the trunk sewer network are nearing completion at Cog Mill upstream of Frampton Cotterell that will support the final phase of the Frome Valley Relief Sewer. At North Yate there is existing foul capacity to serve the initial phases of the proposed new neighbourhood and a Memorandum of Understanding has been entered into with Heron to accommodate both the initial phases and full development proposed by them.