Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh SO50 9YN
2000/01 Community Safety Preventing Crime and Disorder 2002/03 Fostering Business Growth 2008/09 Tackling Climate Change 26 March 2008
NOTICE OF MEETING
CABINET will meet on Thursday, 3 April 2008 beginning at 6:00 pm in the Committee Room, Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh
TO: Members of Cabinet
Councillor Keith House (Chair) Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Resources Councillor Anne Winstanley (Vice-Chair) Cabinet Member for Social Policy Councillor David Airey Cabinet Member for Transport & Streetscene Councillor Louise Bloom Cabinet Member for Environment Councillor Alan Broadhurst Cabinet Member for Leisure Councillor Cathie Fraser Cabinet Member for Health Councillor Chris Thomas Cabinet Member for Customer Service & ICT Councillor Peter Wall Cabinet Member for Business & Skills
Staff Contact: Alison Wright, Democratic Services Officer Tel: 023 8068 8111; Email: [email protected]
RICHARD WARD Head of Legal and Democratic Services
Copies of this and all other agendas can be accessed via the Council's website - http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/meetings as well as in other formats, including Braille, audio, large print and other languages, upon request.
Members of the public are invited to speak on general items at the start of the meeting, and on individual agenda items at the time the item is discussed. To register please contact the Democratic Services Officer above. AGENDA
1. Minutes (Pages 1 - 14)
To consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 March 2008.
2. Apologies
3. Declarations of Interest
RECOMMENDATION
4. Recommendations from Committees (to follow if necessary)
PLANNING
5. Proposed New National Planning Application Forms – Local Requirement (Pages 15 - 24)
6. Draft Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations (To Follow)
7. Strategic Land Availability Assessment - Introduction and Proposed Methodology (Pages 25 - 76)
8. Prysmian (formerly Pirelli) Phase 2, Eastleigh - Development Brief (Pages 77 - 120)
TRANSPORT & WASTE MANAGEMENT
9. Eastleigh Public Transport Strategy: Borough-Wide Strategic Bus Network 2008 - 2011 (Pages 121 - 144)
10. Local Area Agreement - Priority 7: Using Material Resources More Efficiently (Pages 145 - 148)
HOUSING
11. Keyworker Housing Policy (Pages 149 - 180)
12. Accessible Homes Strategy 2008 - 2011 (Pages 181 - 222)
FINANCE
13. Budget Management (To Follow)
14. Minimum Revenue Provision - Annual MRP Statement (To Follow)
15. CIP Schemes Approval (Pages 223 - 232)
16. Exempt Business
To consider passing a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of the following items of business on the grounds that they are likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
The Schedule 12A categories have been amended and are now subject to the public interest test, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This comes into effect on 1st March 2006.
It is considered that the following items are exempt from disclosure and that the public interest in not disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
EXEMPT ITEMS
17. Sundry Debtors Write-offs (Pages 233 - 236)
18. Proposed Lease of Land to Hiltingbury Community Association (Building Agreement and Agreement for Lease) (To Follow)
DATE OF NEXT MEETING Thursday, 15 May 2008 at 6:00 pm in the Committee Room, Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 1 1
CABINET
Thursday, 6 March 2008 (6:00 pm – 6:55 pm)
PRESENT:
Councillor House (Chair); Councillors Winstanley, Airey, A Broadhurst, Mrs Fraser and Wall
Also in attendance: Councillor Norgate
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bloom and Thomas ______
RECOMMENDED ITEMS (REQUIRING A DECISION)
99. LAND CHARGES FEES AND CHARGES 2008/09
Issue
To recommend an increase in the fee for the local land charges search (LLC1) (Paper 13).
Considerations
On 24 January 2008 Council approved a fee of £39.00 for a local land charges search (LLC1). New statistics show that this does not accurately reflect the cost of providing the service for these searches and an increase to the fee is being recommended.
RECOMMENDED -
That Council set a fee of £48 for the local land charges search fee (LLC1) with effect from 1 May 2008.
100. CIP SCHEMES APPROVAL
Issue
To approve schemes as part of the four-year Community Investment Programme (CIP) (Paper 17).
Considerations
The Council approved a 4-Year Strategy in April 2002 and since then reports have been submitted, on a regular basis, to the Executive/Cabinet seeking approval for schemes to progress. The Cabinet approved a revised Community Investment Strategy on 10 December 2007 which updated the programme for 2007/08 to 2011/12.
1 2
This report seeks further approvals to be financed from funds earmarked for the CIP.
The report also advises that expenditure is being incurred in advance of Capital Receipts being received and the measurement of this risk is embodied in the new Prudential Code of Practice for Capital Finance. A requirement of the Code is to continually monitor the Prudential Indicators and report to the Cabinet any changes resulting from the CIP Strategy. Any proposed change in borrowing limits requires approval by the Council. The changes to the Indicators resulting from alterations to the Strategy as a result of the schemes in the report are shown in Appendix B to the report.
RECOMMENDED -
That Council approve the changes to the Prudential Indicators (Appendix B).
RESOLVED -
(1) That the Private Sector Housing renewal budgets of £756,000 set by the Cabinet Member for Social Policy, to be financed from the resources earmarked for the Housing Capital Programme e.g. Right to Buy Receipts, be endorsed;
(2) That funding of £6,600 (including 10% for contingency work) to construct a waste collection ramp at Oak Road Bursledon, to be financed from a reserve earmarked for insurance reduction purposes, be approved;
(3) That funding of £25,000 to purchase an on-line licensing system, to be funded from the Licensing Act revenue budget, be approved;
(4) That funding for the South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone (SHSEZ) land acquisition be increased by £159,000 (from £625,000 to £784,000), to be financed from funds earmarked to finance the CIP;
(5) That a grant of £14,000 to Swaythling Housing Society towards the ground rent of affordable housing units in Southampton Road, Eastleigh in 2008/09 be approved;
(6) That 50% of the Housing Enabling post be funded from the Housing Capital Receipts from 2006/07 onwards in the sum of £10,800 and similar sums for future years based on salary inflation;
(7) That the approval of funding of £162,000 towards the construction of a floodlit community athletics training facility
2 3
(J track) at Wyvern Technology College, total cost £460,000 including internal staff costs, (see Paper 14 on the Agenda) be noted; and
(8) That the approval of schemes granted since 1 December 2007 (Appendix A) be noted.
RESOLVED ITEMS (SUBJECT TO QUESTIONS ONLY)
101. MINUTES
RESOLVED -
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2008 be agreed as a correct record.
102. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members were invited to declare interests in relation to items of business on the agenda. Any interests declared are recorded in the relevant minute below.
103. CIVIC OFFICES TRAVEL PLAN
Issue
To agree the Civic Offices Travel Plan and associated actions (Paper 4).
Considerations
The existing Civic Offices Travel Plan was adopted in 1999 and since then there have been substantial changes by the Department for Transport in the content and implementation of travel plans. A working group has been established consisting of representatives from key departments, the unions and Members to review the Council’s existing plan. The report details the consultation process which has been used to develop the revised Travel Plan, areas for future work, the monitoring and evaluation process and the programme of implementation.
The main objectives of the revised plan are to reduce the carbon footprint of staff commuting to the Civic Offices and of employees and Members travelling during the course of work. It is anticipated that the plan will play a fundamental role in the Council’s target to be Carbon Neutral in its own activities by 2012.
The meeting acknowledged the good work done by Sarah Wallbridge on the Travel Plan.
3 4
RESOLVED -
(1) That the proposed aims, objectives and targets of the revised Civic Offices Travel Plan be endorsed;
(2) That further work be carried out on the key areas outlined in paragraph 14 of the report; and
(3) That the proposed implementation programme, subject to funding being made available for those items not yet funded, be agreed.
104. INTERNAL AUDIT ARRANGEMENTS - JOINT WORKING PROPOSAL
Issue
To consider joint working / partnership arrangements with Gosport Borough Council for the provision of the internal audit service (Paper 5).
Considerations
Internal audit is a statutory function and is crucial to ensuring the Council’s financial systems and processes are sound and effective. With ever increasing demands the completion of all the audits each year has become difficult and will become more so with the retirement of the current Chief Internal Auditor on 31 March 2008.
Resources Scrutiny Panel requested that the potential for a partnership with Gosport Borough Council be explored which was later widened to include the status quo and outsourcing following concerns raised by UNISON. The investigation and consultation has now taken place and the Chair drew the attention of Members to the comments of staff and Unison. The report recommends that the partnership with Gosport Borough Council be agreed with effect from 1 April 2008.
RESOLVED -
That, subject to any comments from Resources Scrutiny Panel, the joint working / partnership arrangements with Gosport Borough Council with effect from 1 April 2008 be approved.
105. TOWNHILL FARM COMMUNITY CENTRE
Issue
To consider transfer of the leasehold interest in Townhill Farm Community Centre (Paper 6).
4 5
Considerations
On 13 July 2006 Cabinet resolved to consult the Townhill Farm Community Association on the transfer of the Council’s leasehold interest in the Townhill Farm Community Centre to West End Parish Council. The Community Association has since dissolved and the Parish Council has taken over management of the community centre. It is proposed that this management arrangement continue and that the site be transferred to the Parish Council for a nominal consideration of £1.
RESOLVED -
That the Townhill Farm Community Centre and play area leasehold interest be assigned to West End Parish Council.
106. PROJECT INTEGRA: ACTION PLAN 2008-13
Issue
To approve the Project Integra Action Plan 2008 -13 (Paper 7).
Considerations
Project Integra is the adopted brand name for the waste management partnership for Hampshire. Project Integra’s Strategic Board has resolved to approve the action plan attached to the report subject to consideration by the individual partners.
The action plan is the mechanism by which the Board receives its mandate to work on behalf of the partnership. It also sets out the costs of running the Board and the associated joint activities of the partnership. The action plan will help to focus the work of the partnership in developing and delivering a series of work streams which will improve performance and efficiency.
RESOLVED -
That the Project Integra Action Plan 2008 – 2013 be approved.
107. CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN 2008/09
Issue
To approve the Climate Change Action Plan 2008/09 for external consultation (Paper 8).
Considerations
The Climate Change Strategy 2008-2012 was approved by Cabinet in December 2007 and it was agreed that an associated Action Plan for
5 6
2008/09 be brought to Cabinet for approval. The Action Plan identifies key actions the Council is planning to take to meet the objectives set out in the Climate Change Strategy.
An Equal Opportunities Assessment has identified a need for public consultation on the Action Plan, focussed primarily on those groups who may be affected. It is proposed that a twelve week consultation period take place, starting on 13 March 2008. Any comments received during this period will be collected and consideration will be given to making any necessary amendments to the Action Plan. Once this has been completed the final Action Plan will be presented to Cabinet for approval.
The meeting commended all the staff and Members involved in achieving the Beacon Council status for tackling climate change.
RESOLVED –
(1) That the Climate Change Action Plan 2008/09 be approved;
(2) That the proposed external consultation arrangements for the Action Plan be agreed; and
(3) That, at the Cabinet meeting in July 2008, any proposed amendments following the external consultation be reviewed and consideration be given to approval of the final version of the Action Plan.
108. CORE STRATEGY PREPARATION/COMMUNITY PLAN REVIEW
Issue
To authorise a review of the Eastleigh Community Plan and commencement of core strategy preparation (Paper 9).
Considerations
Work has commenced in preparation for producing the core strategy element of the Council’s Local Development Framework. In doing this it has been highlighted that the Eastleigh Community Plan needs to be reviewed during the early stages of core strategy preparation. The Community Plan is produced by the Local Strategic Partnerships in each local authority area and the Eastleigh Strategic Partnership Executive has expressed its support for a review.
RESOLVED -
(1) That officers be authorised to assist the Eastleigh Strategic Partnership in undertaking a review of the Eastleigh Community Plan in accordance with the timescale set out at paragraph 19 of the report; and
6 7
(2) That the commencement of core strategy preparation be authorised.
109. CONSULTATION ON TEST VALLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL'S CORE STRATEGY PREFERRED OPTIONS
Issue
To consider a response to Test Valley Borough Council’s consultation on its Core Strategy Preferred Options (Paper 10).
Considerations
Test Valley Borough Council has published its Core Strategy Preferred Options for consultation. They propose to focus new development primarily at Andover (5000 dwellings plus employment) and Romsey (2,400 dwellings plus employment), with additional smaller scale development at other settlements, including 500 dwellings at North Baddesley, 300 at Nursling and further employment development at Chilworth.
The proposals of most concern to the Council are those at Romsey and North Baddesley because of their potential traffic implications for northern parts of this Borough. Test Valley Borough Council’s Preferred Options also reflect the work of the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire on Green Infrastructure, including a Country Park extending into the Borough.
RESOLVED -
(1) That Test Valley Borough Council be thanked for consulting the Council on its preferred options;
(2) That objection be raised to the absence of a rigorous analysis of the transport impacts of the options considered on areas outside the Borough, and that Test Valley Borough Council be requested to undertake Transport Assessment of their proposals, including the cumulative impact of development on adjoining areas, working with neighbouring authorities on assessing transport impacts arising from Local Development Framework Core Strategy proposals; and
(3) That support be given to employment development at Chilworth Science Park with the potential for improved access to the site by sustainable modes of transport being explored further and to the establishment of a Country Park in southern Test Valley.
(NOTE: Councillor Wall declared a prejudicial interest in this item and left the room during its consideration.)
7 8
110. MOORGREEN HOSPITAL, BOTLEY ROAD, WEST END
Issue
To consider the decision of English Heritage in relation to key buildings on the site of Moorgreen Hospital (Paper 11).
Considerations
On 11 December 2006 Cabinet agreed to submit a request to English Heritage to consider key buildings on the site of Moorgreen Hospital for listing as of ‘Special Architectural or Historic Interest’. A response has been received from English Heritage stating that a decision has been made not to add these buildings to the list.
Whilst no statutory protection can be offered for these buildings, efforts could now be made to encourage their incorporation and retention into any development proposals that may be prepared for the site. One measure that can be taken is to add the two receiving blocks and the entrance block to the List of Buildings of Special Local Architectural and Historic Interest. Once a building is on the local list, policy 175.LB of the Council’s adopted Local Plan would apply. This states – ‘Development which would have a detrimental impact on a building of local importance will not be permitted’.
At its meeting on 3 March 2008 the Hedge End, West End and Botley Local Area Committee considered this report and approved the recommendations.
RESOLVED -
(1) That the decision of the Secretary of State, following consultation with English Heritage, not to list Moorgreen Hospital as of ‘Special Architectural or Historical Interest’ be noted;
(2) That the entrance block and two receiving blocks at Moorgreen Hospital, West End, be placed on the List of Buildings of Special Local Architectural and Historic Interest; and
(3) That the owners of the site, Southampton Primary Care Trust, be advised of the listing in (2) above.
111. PHASE III THE POINT
Issue
To release funding for the proposed development at The Point (Paper 12).
8 9
Considerations
On 3 April 2006 Cabinet approved the plans for Phase III of The Point being developed to planning permission stage, in consultation with the Head of Property Services and in line with the new Point business plan which supported and gave the financial framework for the developments. The phase III development will provide much needed additional catering and changing facilities, more studio/workshop space, conference and meeting rooms plus a brand new, state of the art creative centre.
At the meeting it was advised that the following additional paragraph had been added to the Risk Management section of the report:
“Following on from the planning application we have been notified a member of the public is planning to request a judicial review. The effects of this even if the case is not proven, could be to significantly delay the build programme and this will have a serious negative effect as highlighted in point 16.”
Eastleigh Local Area Committee resolved, at its meeting on 18 February 2008, to grant planning permission and authorisation is now being sought for the release of the funding to enable work to commence.
RESOLVED -
That the monies in the Council's CIP programme ear-marked for the building of Phase III of The Point (£2,674,700) be released to be spent in the financial years 08/09 and 09/10 to deliver the proposals for which planning permission was granted by Eastleigh Local Area Committee on 18 February 2008.
112. CONSTRUCTION OF A FLOODLIT, COMMUNITY ATHLETICS TRAINING FACILITY (J TRACK) AT WYVERN TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE
Issue
To consider allocation of funding towards the proposed athletics training facility at Wyvern Technology College (Paper 14).
Considerations
Hampshire County Council approached officers in the Countryside and Recreation Unit in autumn 2006 regarding the potential for the construction of an athletics facility at Wyvern Technology College. This type of facility is not currently provided within the Borough but has been an aspiration of the Council. The proposed facility at the College does not aim to compete with existing facilities in neighbouring areas but complement them as peak time usage is already beyond capacity.
9 10
Funding is being sought from various organisations including the College, Hampshire County Council, Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area Committee and the Council. The report seeks approval for the allocation of the Council’s total contribution of £162,000, subject to the agreement of the Local Area Committee who will meet on 12 March 2008 to consider this.
The meeting thanked Andrew Thompson for his work in getting the project to this stage.
RESOLVED -
(1) That a capital contribution of £100,000 towards the proposed athletics training facility at Wyvern Technology College be approved;
(2) That an additional £12,000 towards the costs of internal staff for project management of the proposed athletics training facility at Wyvern Technology College be approved; and
(3) That total funding of £162,000, subject to approval of a separate report to Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area Committee on 12 March 2008, requesting a contribution of £50,000 from developers contributions be approved.
113. RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK REPORT
Issue
To approve various documents relating to risk management (Paper 15).
Considerations
Risk management is a key element of the Council’s service delivery process. The report sets out a new risk management framework to enable processes to operate effectively so that corporate objectives are achieved with minimum risk impact. This new framework follows a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers produced in April 2007 and will replace the out of date current framework.
The revised risk management framework was approved by Resources Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 10 January 2008, but to comply with the Council’s constitution, approval is now being sought from Cabinet.
RESOLVED -
(1) That the revised risk management policy, strategy, process, responsibilities and methods be approved; and
10 11
(2) That the revised terms of reference of the Strategic Risk Management Group be approved.
114. CORPORATE FINANCIAL MONITORING 1 APRIL TO 31 DECEMBER 2007
Issue
To consider the Corporate Financial Monitoring report for the period 1 April 2006 to 31 December 2007 (Paper 16).
Considerations
The report presents the Council’s overall financial position for the period to 1 April 2007 to 31 December 2007. It shows a favourable revenue variance for the third quarter of £302,759 against the phased revised budget. The forecast to the end of the financial year shows a predicted underspend of £304,701. Potential commitments have been identified against this reducing the final underspend to £7,701.
The Community Investment Programme budget for 2007/08 is £10.9M, of which £7.2M has been spent as at 31 December 2007.
RESOLVED -
(1) That the General Fund Revenue position as at 31 December 2007 be noted;
(2) That the Staff Monitoring as at 31 December 2007 be noted; and
(3) That the Community Investment Programme as at 31 December 2007 be noted.
115. EXEMPT BUSINESS
RESOLVED -
1) That, in pursuance of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they are likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act; and
2) That, in pursuance of the public interest test, the public interest in disclosing the information contained in the following item of business was outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
11 12
116. WRITE OFF IRRECOVERABLE DEBTS - COUNCIL TAX, NNDR & HOUSING BENEFIT OVERPAYMENTS
Issue
To note debts which have been written off and consider writing off a further 17 debts (Paper 19).
Considerations
The Corporate Director (CFO) has exercised his delegated powers to write-off certain debts and approval is sought for 17 debts over £2,000 to be written-off.
RESOLVED -
(1) That the 912 written-off debts under £2,000, totalling £142,888.43 be noted;
(2) That the 79 written-off debts due to bankruptcy/liquidation totalling £304,282.27 be noted;
(3) That the 99 reversed or recovered debts totalling £97,608.61 be noted; and
(4) That approval be given to write-off 17 debts over £2,000 totalling £77,625.54.
117. WILDERN MILL CLAIM FOR DECLARATION
Issue
To receive an update on legal issues relating to land at WiIdern Mill (Paper 20).
Considerations
The report provides an update on the legal issues surrounding land at Wildern Mill.
This item had not appeared on the agenda but it was agreed that it be taken as urgent business in order not to unnecessarily delay proceedings.
RESOLVED -
(1) That the legal action being taken be noted; and
(2) That the decision taken by the Chief Executive be noted.
12 13
______
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Declarations of interest were made as follows:
Minute Title Member Reason Consultation on Test Councillor Wall Financial interest in Valley Borough Council’s land in Romsey Core Strategy Preferred Options
M3480
13 This page is intentionally left blank
14 Agenda Item 5
CABINET
3 April 2008
PROPOSED NEW NATIONAL PLANNING APPLICATION FORMS – LOCAL REQUIREMENT
Report of the Head of Development Control
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Local Requirements, in respect of planning applications, set out in Appendix 1, be adopted.
Summary
The Government are introducing a new National Planning Application form (1APP), and checklist. This report proposes that the Authority also adopts local requirements.
Statutory Powers
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Introduction
1. As part of the Government’s drive to simplify the planning system and promote electronic delivery, a National Planning Application form known as 1APP is being introduced, and is mandatory as from the 6 April, 2008.
2. In addition to the new form there are national requirements specified on the information which developers also need to submit with planning applications.
3. On top of the national requirements, planning authorities are empowered to set out their own local requirements, which following consultation and adoption also become mandatory. HIPOG (Hampshire and Isle of Wight Planning Officers Group) members have worked together to produce local requirements, which has been publicised through the Council’s web site, and the Development Control Users Group. The consultation period ends on the 21 March 2008, and I will report orally to the Cabinet on the views expressed.
4. The National requirements, and the proposed Local requirements are set out in Appendix 1, attached to this report.
15 Comment
5. The introduction of a standardised national form is obviously to be welcomed instead of the plethora of different forms that authorities throughout the country had. It has however, proved to be rather more difficult to introduce than the Government anticipated, and the start date was postponed from last October to this April.
6. Although not compulsory we introduced the new form, and validation checklist, at the end of January 2008 to gain practical experience of its impact, but have continued to accept the old Hampshire forms on an interim basis.
7. Currently, about 20% of applicants take advantage of the national Planning Portal web site to submit applications electronically. The new application form actually comes in 26 versions, but those using the Planning Portal will not be aware of this, as the version is automatically adapted to responses typed in.
8. For the majority of customers not using the Planning Portal, paper versions of the form have to be printed and available from the reception desk.
9. The new form and the supporting information required for planning applications is more complex than previously, but should bring added value to the development control process, and provide much more information for the Council and its consultees and residents to judge the merits of planning applications.
10. It is likely that the number of applications submitted electronically will continue to grow, and the new electronic form encourages this. A particular advantage is that applications submitted electronically do not have to be scanned by the Council.
11. A significant disadvantage is that currently most consultees wish to see paper versions of applications, which involves a formidable amount of work in printing material from applications submitted electronically. Efforts are being made to persuade more consultees to accept electronic delivery to reduce this paper work.
Risk Management
12. There are no risks that have been specifically identified, other than the likelihood that the increased complexity of the information submitted with planning applications will add to the workload of Development Control staff.
Financial Implications
13. Although the new form is likely to increase the workload of Development Control staff, due to its greater complexity with additional printing involved for consultation purposes, it is hoped that this can be counter balanced by improved efficiency within the Unit as a consequence of the growth of electronic delivery thus avoiding additional financial costs.
16 Conclusion
14. Overall the new application form and the associated material and Local Requirements are to be welcomed as it will aid electronic delivery and the dissemination of information, as well as add further value to the development control process. There is however, concern that it will add to the workload of the Development Control Unit, and the administrative burden associated with converting electronic submissions to paper versions for the benefit of customers.
COLIN PETERS
Head of Development Control
Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN
Date: 17 March 2008 Contact Officer: Colin Peters Tel No: 023 8068 8248 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: No1 Report No dcaa312
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:
Validation of Planning Applications – draft guidance for Local Planning Authorities published by DCLG August 2007
17 APPENDIX 1
Validation Check List
Application for planning permission
NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
• Completed application form
(original plus 3 copies to be supplied unless the application is submitted electronically)
• A Location Plan based on an up to date map.
(original plus 3 copies to be supplied unless the application is submitted electronically)
This should be at a scale of 1:1250 or 1:2500. Plans should wherever possible show at least two named roads and surrounding buildings. The properties shown should be numbered or named.
A red line should clearly identify the application site. It should include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development – for example land required for access to the site from a public highway, visibility splays, landscaping, car parking and open areas around buildings.
A blue line should be drawn around any other land owned by the applicant, close to or adjoining the application site.
• Site Plans
(original plus 3 copies to be supplied unless the application is submitted electronically)
The site plans should be drawn at a scale of 1:500 or 1:200 and should accurately show
o The direction of North.
o The proposed development in relation to the site boundaries and other existing buildings on the site, with written dimensions including those to the boundaries.
18 o All the buildings, roads and footpaths on land adjoining the site including access arrangements.
o All public rights of way crossing or adjoining the site
o The position of all trees on the site and those on adjacent land that could influence or be affected by the development
o The extent and type of any hard surfacing, and
o Boundary treatment including walls or fencing where this is proposed.
• Block Plan
(original plus 3 copies to be supplied unless the application is submitted electronically)
The block plan should be drawn at a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 showing
o Any site boundaries
o The type and height of boundary treatment (e.g. walls, fences etc)
o The position of any building or structure on the other side of such boundaries
• Existing and Proposed Elevations
(original plus 3 copies to be supplied unless the application is submitted electronically)
These should be drawn to a scale of 1:50 or 1:100 and show clearly
o The proposed works in relation to what is already there.
o All sides of the proposal must be shown indicating where possible, the proposed building materials and the style, materials and finish of windows and doors.
o Blank elevations must also be included (if only to show that this is in fact the case)
o Where a proposed elevation adjoins another building or is in close proximity, the drawings should clearly show the relationship between the buildings, and detail the positions of the openings on each property
• Existing and Proposed Floor Plans
(original plus 3 copies to be supplied unless the application is submitted electronically)
These should be drawn to a scale of 1:50 or 1:100 and should explain the proposal in detail and show
19 o Details of the existing building(s) as well as those for the proposed development
o New buildings should also be shown in context with adjacent buildings (including property
o Numbers where applicable)
• Existing and Proposed Site Sections and Finished Floor and Site Levels
(original plus 3 copies to be supplied unless the application is submitted electronically)
These plans should be drawn at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100 and should show
o Cross sections through the proposed building(s)
o Where a proposal involves a change in ground levels, illustrative drawings should be submitted to show both existing and finished levels to include details of foundations and eaves and how encroachment onto adjoining land is to be avoided.
o Full information should also be submitted to demonstrate how proposed buildings relate to existing site levels and neighbouring development. Such plans should show existing site levels and finished floor levels (with levels related to a fixed datum point off site) and also show the proposals in relation to adjoining buildings. This will be required for all applications involving new buildings.
o In the case of householder development, the levels may be evident from floor plans and elevations, but particularly in the case of sloping sites it will be necessary to show how proposals relate to existing ground levels or where ground levels outside the extension would be modified.
• Roof Plans
(original plus 3 copies to be supplied unless the application is submitted electronically)
Drawn at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100 these plans should show
o The shape of the roof
o Roofing material
• The completed Ownership Certificate (A, B, C or D – as applicable) as required by Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995
20 • Agricultural Holdings Certificate as required by Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995
• In addition, where Ownership Certificates B, C or D have been completed, notice(s) as required by Article 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 must be given and/or published in accordance with this Article
• Design and Access Statement if required. (link to guidance)
A Design and Access Statement must accompany the application UNLESS it relates to one of the following
o A material change of use of land and buildings, (unless it also involves operational development)
o Engineering or mining operations
o Householder developments unless any part of a dwelling house or is curtilage falls within one of the following designated areas
National Park
Site of special scientific interest
Conservation area
Area of outstanding natural beauty
World Heritage site
The Broads
• The appropriate fee (link to fees list)
21 LOCAL REQUIREMENTS
Additional Mandatory Documents All Plans required must be number referenced, including any revisions
Conditional Document Type Circumstances when document should be submitted Documents Required
Affordable Housing All applications where affordable housing is required. These Statement currently are: Where 15 or more dwellings are proposed or the site is 0.5 hectares or more irrespective of the size in built up areas.
Air Quality All development affected by an AQMA (Air Quality Assessment Management Area)
Daylight Sunlight In circumstances where there is a potential adverse impact Assessment upon the current levels of sunlight/daylight enjoyed by adjoining properties or building(s), including associated gardens or amenity space then applications may also need to be accompanied by a daylight/sunlight assessment. Further guidance is provided in for example BRE guidelines on daylight assessments
Biodiversity survey Any development likely to affect a local or national designated and report nature conservation habitat or one which would have impact on a designated protected species.
Economic Where there are regeneration benefits from the proposed development, including details of any new jobs that might be Regeneration created or supported, the relative floor space totals for each Statement proposed use (where known) any community benefits and reference to any regeneration strategies that might lie behind or be supported by the proposal
Environmental Required for all Schedule 1 and some Schedule 2 projects as Statement defined by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations) 1999. To be provided in the form set out in Schedule 4.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/ sustainabilityenvironmental/environmentalimpactassessment/ If an EIA is not required the LPA may still require environmental information to be provided.
Flood risk assessment Planning applications for development proposals of 1 hectare or greater in Flood Zone 1 and all proposals for new development located in Flood Zone 2 and 3. see link
22 http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/aboutus/512398/908812/1351053/571633/?la ng=_e
Foul sewage and All applications in areas where existing sewage flooding takes utilities assessment place.
Further advice can be sought from Southern Water Services
http://www.southernwater.co.uk/
Heritage Statement The scope and degree of detail necessary will vary according (including Historical, to the particular circumstances of each application. Archaeological Applicants are advised to discuss proposals with Hampshire features and County Council Archaeologist. www.Hampshire.gov.uk Scheduled Ancient Monuments)
Land contamination Where contamination is known or suspected to exist or the assessment proposed use is vulnerable and is included on the list of contaminated sites. Within 250 metres of a currently licensed or historic landfill site.
Landscaping details Full landscaping and long term maintenance and landscape and Management management. Plan
Lighting assessment Required for proposals involving large areas of lighting for example golf driving ranges, or lit car parks.
Noise assessment Any development where it is likely to generate associated noise or where development is in noise sensitive areas .
Open Space Any development involving loss of existing open space. assessment
Parking Provision Applications may be required to provide details of existing and proposed parking provision. These details could also be shown on a site layout plan
Photographs and Strongly encouraged as part of Design and Access photomontages statement.
Planning Obligations - Where the development would require planning obligations. Draft Head(s) of http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-3236 Terms
Planning Statement A planning statement identifies the context and need for a proposed development and includes an assessment of how the proposed development accords with relevant national, regional and local planning policies. It may also include details of consultations with the local planning authority and wider community/statutory consultees undertaken prior to submission. Alternatively a separate statement on community
23 involvement may also be appropriate
Retail and Leisure As required by PPS6 and the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Assessment Review http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-1465
Site Survey Required on all new housing developments and any other major development. A site survey should be less than 12 months old. Site Waste Required for applications involving new residential and Management Plan commercial development
Statement of Required for all major applications to show how the developer Community has complied with the requirements for pre-application Involvement consultation as set out in the adopted Statement of Community Involvement. http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc- 1465
Structural Survey Application for conversion of an existing agricultural building to commercial or residential use.
Telecommunications As required by the Telecommunication Guidance Development – http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuild supplementary ing/planningpolicyguidance4 information
Transport Required where proposal would lead to significant transport Assessment implications, as set out in Appendix B - D of DOT Guidance.See link www.communities.gov.uk As required by Hampshire County Council http://www3.hants.gov.uk/hampshire-transport/local-transport- plan.htm Travel plan As required by Policy 100.T of EBC Local Plan Review http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-2094 And as required by Hampshire County Council http://www3.hants.gov.uk/hampshire-transport/local-transport- plan.html Tree survey/ Required for all applications where trees or hedgerows are arboricultural proposed to be lost or would be affected by the development. implications
Ventilation/extraction Required for applications for uses involving food preparation statement –restaurants, cafes, takeaways and pubs and developments in AQMA’s (Air Quality Management Area) where air conditioning units air conditioning units are proposed
24 Agenda Item 7
CABINET
3rd APRIL 2008
STRATEGIC LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT
INTRODUCTION & PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
Report of the Head of Regeneration & Planning Policy
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that: i) The Strategic Land Availability Assessment Methodology at Appendix A to this report be approved for public consultation; and
ii) Authority be given to the Head Of Regeneration & Planning Policy to make any minor editorial changes to the methodology document following consultation.
Summary
The Strategic Land Availability Assessment will form an important part of the evidence base for the Council’s Local Development Framework.
The purpose of the Strategic Land Availability Assessment is to identify the theoretical potential that land across the Borough could provide to contribute towards the growth of the Borough through to 2026. This growth includes the provision of over 7000 houses between 2006 and 2026. Having a robust evidence base to inform future decisions on how this growth is best provided for and managed is considered to be essential to ensure that future policy documents are found ‘sound’.
The first stage in the preparation of the Strategic Land Availability Assessment is to consult on a draft Methodology document and to invite the submission of potential sites from interested parties. This report summarises the proposed methodology and seeks approval for its publication for public consultation and the invitation to submit sites for consideration within the Assessment.
Statutory Powers Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Town and Country Planning Regulations 2004.
25
Introduction
1. The last few years have seen increasing weight placed by central government on the need for planning policies to be informed by a robust evidence base. This enables ‘sound’ planning policies to be prepared which are likely to deliver the desired outcomes.
2. As Members will recall, the Council’s current planning policies for the period up to 2011 are set out in the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review. Work is now commencing on preparing a new set of planning policies to provide for development through to 2026 which will collectively be known as the Local Development Framework (insert further footnote referring to previous report on the LDF process etc)
3. As part of the preparation of the evidence base for these policies, it is proposed to undertake an assessment of land available within the Borough. This is known formally as the Strategic Land Availability Assessment but hereafter referred to as the Assessment. The Assessment will establish the theoretical potential for land within the Borough to be developed for a number of different uses and whether these could be delivered by 2026.
4. The Assessment will complement the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, completed in October 2006, which identifies the growth requirements for the Borough within the wider South Hampshire sub-region up to 2026.
5. A key component of the Assessment is housing land availability. The assessment of housing land supply by Councils is an explicit requirement of national planning policy (PPS3) and from initial research across the country, it is evident that many Councils have made significant progress towards completing this assessment referred to as the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Most local authorities are solely focussing their work on the housing land supply with no consideration of the need to accommodate other land uses.
6. Whilst a SHLAA may be less resource intensive in the short term, officers are of the view that the assessment should be as broad as is reasonably practical in terms of potential uses of land. This enables the most efficient use of the Council resources in the long term and enables a more rigorous and comprehensive understanding of the land supply for the Borough. Furthermore, the requirement to consider the use of land for other uses including employment and retail is implicitly set out in the various national planning policies that have been produced over the last few years.
7. It is important to make it clear from the outset that the Assessment will not be making judgements on whether land should come forward for development. It is simply an exercise to establish the potential land supply across the Borough and to provide a robust evidence base to inform future decisions by the Council.
26
Baseline Context
8. To understand the challenges and opportunities facing the Borough, particularly with regard to the housing land supply, it is useful to review the existing/emerging commitments and requirements for providing land within the Borough.
Housing
Local Plan Context
9. The adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review commits the Council to providing land for 5608 dwellings between 2001 and 2011 (policy 70.H). This equates to an annual target of 561 dwellings. Table 1 below demonstrates the baseline housing provision for the Borough through to 2011 and data relating to past and future completions in comparison to these requirements.
Table 1 - Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review – current position against existing commitments
Timescale 2001-2011
Overall requirement 5608 dwellings
Requirement for 2001-07 3365 dwellings1
Completions 2001-07 3114 dwellings2
Requirement for 2007-11 2494 dwellings3
Projected completions 2143 dwellings 4 from existing commitments 2007-11
Projected shortfall 351 dwellings 2001-2011 from existing commitments
1 Requirement for housing provision for period 2001-2007 not specified in Local Plan. Figure arrived at by annualising 5608 dwellings target for each year to provide a trajectory for the period.
2 Source: Annual Monitoring Report 2007 pg 21
3 Requirement for 200-2011 period not specified in the Local Plan. Figure arrived at by deducting completions for 2001-2007 from overall requirements for 2001 to 2011 period.
4 Source: Annual Monitoring Report 2007 pg 21
27
10. As the table above indicates, the existing commitments within the housing land supply, based on 1st April 2007 data, is forecast to provide only 2143 of the 2494 dwellings required between 2007 and 2011.
11. It is acknowledged that the forecast for completions for the period 2007-2011 is not an exact science and there are likely to be previously unidentified sites (formerly known as windfall sites) that will come forward within this time period which may address this shortfall. Between 2001 and 2006, there was a historical average rate of completions on sites of 319 dwelling per annum.
12. However, it is also possible that the completion rate may dip within this period and with some 2494 dwellings (see Table 1 above) still required to be built as of April 2007, any shortfall in housing provision needs to carefully monitored and, where necessary, addressed.
Emerging South East Plan Context
13. The draft South East Plan requires that the Borough provides for 7083 dwellings between the period 2006 and 2026 in addition to accommodating part of the proposed Strategic Development Area. This Plan has made significant progress towards formal adoption as the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East but is awaiting final government confirmation, anticipated to be in July 2008.
14. The 2007 Annual Monitoring Report sets out the projected housing completions for the Borough through to 2017. A total of 4399 dwellings are projected to come forward from existing committed sites during this time thus leaving a further 2684 dwellings required on as yet unidentified sites.
15. It is envisaged that many of these 2684 dwellings will come forward from sites within existing urban areas. The likely amount that will come forward from these urban areas, as well as the potential availability of other sites, will be identified in the Assessment.
16. PPS3 – Five Year Land Supply
17. PPS3 requires that local authorities provide for and maintain a rolling 5 year supply of deliverable land for dwellings. Deliverable sites include those sites which are allocated and/or have planning permission and are likely to be developed within the period. The Annual Monitoring Report (which provides a baseline position for the housing land supply) identifies that at 1st April 2007, the Council had a deficit of 387 dwellings from that required to demonstrate a 5 year land supply. No data is yet available for the anticipated land supply as at 1st April 2008.
18. Paragraph 71 of PPS3 states that “where Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate an up to date 5-year supply of deliverable land……they should consider favourably planning applications for housing, having regard to (other policies in the PPS)”. This would include applications on sites outside the defined urban edge.
28
19. The Assessment will give a clearer picture of the land available within the Borough and this will assist the Council in achieving a 5 year land supply in the future.
Employment land context
20. Historically the Council has not had to deliver a specific employment land quantum within the Borough. However the emerging South East Plan sets a quantum figure for the PUSH area to reflect the desired aim of PUSH to achieve economic growth of 3.5% per annum by 2026. Work is currently being undertaken by the PUSH partners to distribute the provision of employment land across the sub-region.
21. Whilst Borough wide figures have yet to be agreed5, it is clear that additional employment land will be required within the Borough over and above that already committed. The Assessment will enable potential land to accommodate this growth to be assessed in terms of its suitability for employment uses.
Other uses
22. There will no doubt be requirements for other uses of land to be provided for within the Core Strategy which are also of importance in delivering sustainable growth. The Assessment will therefore consider the potential for sites to be used for a number of different uses including retail, marine, educational, leisure, community facilities etc.
Proposed Methodology Document
23. The proposed methodology for the Assessment is attached to this report as Appendix A. It mainly follows the guidance published by the Government and the Planning Advisory Service with reference to the assessment of housing land availability. Where necessary the proposed methodology deviates from this guidance to reflect:
(a) the broader uses of land that our Assessment will consider; and
(b) the particular characteristics of the Borough and its resources
24. Whilst the proposed methodology may seem at times to be very prescriptive, it is considered important to have a clearly defined process set out for the
5 The emerging South East Plan identifies that a total of 1,067,000 m2 of employment floorspace should be provided in the South West part of the PUSH area. This sub-area includes the whole of Southampton City Council and Eastleigh Borough Council and parts of Test Valley Borough Council and New Forest District Council.
29
Assessment. This enables all relevant interested parties to challenge and comment on particular aspects of the methodology during the consultation periods. In the longer term it also enables all parties to have confidence that a robust, comprehensive assessment will be/has been undertaken.
25. The proposed methodology splits the Assessment into two parts. The first part (stages 1 to 8) seeks to establish the land availability from individual, identified sites both within and outside of the urban area. The second part (stages 9 and 10) will only take place if insufficient identified sites fail to come forward within the first part of the Assessment
26. The Assessment will commence with a review of existing data held on potential land availability within the Borough. This data will come from a number of different sources and therefore some work needs to be undertaken to collate this data into a single resource, and to update it. Alongside the review of existing data, the proposed methodology also suggests that interested parties, including developers and landowners, are contacted to submit sites which they consider may be suitable to be developed.
27. Once the above information has been collected and collated, it will be necessary to undertake a survey of potential sites within the Borough which includes sites within and outside the urban edge. Due to the limited resources available, it is not realistic for officers to survey every possible site within the Borough. Instead the proposed methodology proposes a minimum site size threshold of 0.2 ha6.
28. To reflect government advice and the likelihood of particular sites being developable, the proposed methodology also proposes that certain types of land and areas of the Borough are excluded from the survey. In brief, these include those sites which have national protective designations, those not well related to existing settlements and land to the north/north-east of Hedge End (proposed broad area of search for the Strategic Development Area)
29. The survey of sites will involve officers visiting sites, followed by further desktop work to assess whether the site has the potential to be developed by 2026. This work will include a sustainability appraisal of each site, an assessment of physical constraints, contacting land owners to ascertain the availability of the land and on occasions testing the viability of developing the land. Testing of the viability of the development may involve contact with developers and/or agents.
6 In terms of housing development, 0.2 ha equates to the provision of approximately 6 dwellings when a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare is applied. In recent years, sites of five or fewer dwellings have only contributed 10-15% of the overall housing completions within the Borough. Sites below 0.2ha in size will not be included within the Assessment unless they are considered to have the potential to be key sites within the Borough e.g. a potential site for village shop.
30
30. It is anticipated that the result of this survey will provide a picture as to the potential land availability within the Borough, including individual sites deliverability and developability. These results will then be compared with the identified needs of the Borough e.g. for housing or employment. This is the end of the first part of the Assessment. If it is concluded that sufficient sites will be available, then the Assessment will be complete, subject to consultation as set out below.
31. However, if the Assessment demonstrates that there is a shortfall of available land as compared to that required, then the second part of the Assessment will need to be undertaken (stages 9 & 10 in the proposed methodology). This will consider identifying further potential land to address the shortfall through identifying broad locations for growth (i.e. extensions to settlements and new towns) and/or through the use of a windfall allowance.
32. Windfall allowances refer to the possibility that sites may come forward for development within the Borough which have not been identified within the first part of the Assessment. These previously unidentified sites may come forward unexpectedly for a number of reasons including enabling development on adjoining sites, changes in ownership, changes in commercial viability of developing a site, the site being below 0.2ha in size etc.
33. Government advice states that, if necessary and where local circumstances can justify it, Councils can make provision within the second part of the Assessment for a ‘windfall allowance’. The proposed methodology provides for the possibility of using a windfall allowance. However, taking into account the comprehensive nature of the Assessment (which is likely to identify some specific sites which would otherwise have come forward as windfalls), it is anticipated that windfalls will represent a smaller amount of the future land supply.
Proposed Consultation
34. The Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement does not identify how documents likely to form part of the evidence base of the Core Strategy should be consulted upon. The Strategic Land Availability Assessment is one such document which falls within this area.
35. Having considered the technical nature of the document and its role as evidence base for the Core Strategy, it is considered inappropriate for a comprehensive consultation exercise to take place which actively seeks to engage all parts of the community within the process.
36. Instead, the proposed methodology proposes that consultation is focussed on involving those interested parties who have a particular role within the development industry. These include developers, agents, infrastructure providers, statutory undertakers, parish and town councils and other local authorities. The proposed methodology document, invitation to submit sites and final Assessment document will be posted on our website so that the wider community is aware of the Assessment and has the opportunity to comment if they so wish.
31
37. There are two separate periods of consultation proposed within the methodology document:
(i) Consultation on the methodology (along with an invitation to submit sites)
(ii) Consultation on the completed Assessment
38. These consultation periods will enable the methodology and Assessment to be subject to scrutiny by stakeholders and other interested parties to ensure that the methodology to be used is reliable and valid and that the final Assessment is sufficiently robust to be used within the future evidence base of the Local Development Framework.
Proposed Timetable
39. As an important part of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework, and in particular the Core Strategy, it is important to undertake this Assessment in a timely manner. Appendix Two to the proposed methodology document provides a proposed timetable for undertaking this work.
40. In brief, it is proposed that work commences immediately on the Assessment with the site surveys having been completed by the Summer. The final document is proposed to be completed by November of this year.
Financial Implications
41. Much of the Assessment will be carried out by existing staff within the Regeneration and Planning Policy Unit and therefore will be within existing budgets.
42. The consultation exercises will require funding, in terms of the probable need to hire venues to hold events etc. This again will be met from within existing budgets.
Risk Management
43. If the Assessment is significantly delayed from the timetable as set out in the methodology document, it raises a number of potential issues. The Assessment will form part of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework and without this work, it is difficult to make significant progress on the Core Strategy.
44. With regard to the housing land availability component of this Assessment, the government’s current advice is that the absence of a five year land supply of deliverable sites will make it difficult to defend refusals of planning applications for land currently not provided for within the Development Plan.
45. The new Housing and Planning Delivery Grant, which replaces the Planning Delivery Grant, will direct extra resources to those local authorities who are
32
providing high levels of housing, and particularly to local authorities which can identify enough land to deliver the homes needed in their area over the next 15 years. As such the Assessment offers the potential to deliver additional revenue to the Council if delivered in a timely manner. Without this Assessment, it is likely that the Council will miss out on this revenue source.
Conclusion
46. The Strategic Land Availability Assessment will form an important part of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework, enabling the Council to have confidence that the policies that it will agree in the future are based on a robust appraisal of the land supply within the Borough.
47. The publication and consultation on the proposed methodology document is the first step in the process of undertaking this Assessment. This will enable interested parties to comment on the methodology, and, if necessary make suggestions as to how it could be improved to deliver a robust Assessment.
*PAUL RAMSHAW *Head of Regeneration & Planning Policy
Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN
Date: 25 March 2008 Contact Officer: Tim Guymer or Laila Bassett Tel No: 023 8068 8231 or 023 8068 8168 e-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] Appendices Attached: Assessment + 5 Appendices *Report No PP000039
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:
*Background Papers
33
This page is intentionally left blank
34 Appendix A Assessment Matrix
Eastleigh Borough Council Strategic Land Availability Assessment Proposed Methodology
1. Introduction
1 According to the proposals set out in the emerging South East Plan, by 2026 Eastleigh Borough will have accommodated over 7000 new houses and significant economic growth. In addition the Borough is likely to have accommodated part of a new ‘Strategic Development Area’ which will include 6000 new houses as well as employment and other associated uses. Such sustained growth within the Borough brings with it a demand for improved and additional facilities including community facilities, retail uses and recreational space as well as the associated infrastructure.
2 Whilst some of this growth is provided for by existing commitments (i.e. land allocated for development in the Local Plan and/or outstanding planning permissions), further as yet unidentified land will also be required. It is the responsibility and role of the Council to provide for and manage these growth requirements in a manner which ensures that ‘sustainable development’ is delivered.
3 The Council’s strategy for achieving this will be set out in the emerging Core Strategy1 which is currently in the early stages of preparation. To inform this strategy, the Council is undertaking a Strategic Land Availability Assessment (hereafter referred to as the Assessment) of the Borough to identify the potential land available to accommodate this growth. The Assessment will reflect government guidance by identifying land’s potential for the following uses:
a. Housing land – Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) and its companion guidance places a responsibility on Councils to undertake an assessment of land within the Borough to identify whether it has the potential to be ‘developable’ and ‘deliverable’ for housing. This assessment is formally referred to as the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).
b. Employment land – the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) guidance note ‘Employment Land Reviews’ (para. 6.24) requires that Councils identify potential sites that could be brought forward for employment development. This is implicitly reflected in emerging Planning Policy Statement 4.
1 This is the key Development Plan Document which will set out the planning strategy for the Borough. It will look at the broad distribution of land uses within the Borough and identify the larger strategic sites for development.
35 Assessment Matrix
c. Town centre uses - Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres requires that Councils should plan for the growth of town centres by identifying land for further development within and on the edge of existing centres.
4 In addition to the above there may be requirements for other land uses within the Borough, such as sport/recreation, marine, community facilities and education. Therefore it would be extremely useful to assess land for its potential to accommodate such requirements.
5 This document sets out how the Council proposes to undertake this Assessment. As a consultation document, the Council welcomes views on whether the methodology proposed represents the most appropriate way of carrying out this Assessment. In preparing this document, the Council has taken account of national and regional planning policy requirements, government and professional guidance notes and best practice.
6 It is important to note from the outset that the Assessment does not make judgements on which sites should be developed. Instead the Assessment will simply identify the theoretical potential for sites to be developed in order to provide an ‘evidence base’ to inform future policy decisions.
Methodology
7 The draft methodology proposed in this document reflects the guidance set out in the DCLG Practice Guidance in relation to a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Whilst the Council’s Assessment proposes that a wider range of uses are considered than just housing, it is considered that the Practice Guidance represents a sound foundation to base the proposed methodology upon.
8 Figure 1 below illustrates the main stages of the Assessment. Stages 1 to 8 represent the first part of the Assessment which assesses the potential of individual sites. The second part of the Assessment (stages 9 & 10) will only be undertaken if insufficient land is identified within stages 1 to 8.
36 Assessment Matrix
Figure 1 - SLAA process and outputs
Source: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments – Practice Guidance, July 2007
Stage 1: Planning the Assessment
9 The Council is committed to ensuring that a robust assessment of potential land supply is undertaken from the outset. In seeking to achieve this, the Council has to take into account the resources available to it and the need to enable timely progress to be made on the preparation of the Local Development Framework
Partnership Working
10 The Council recognises that there is encouragement within PPS3 and the guidance documents for Councils to work together with other adjoining Councils in preparing joint assessments or ensuring consistency in methodology.
11 The opportunities for preparing a joint Assessment within Hampshire, and in particular, the housing market area of South Hampshire has been carefully considered in preparing this methodology. It is evident however that each Council is at a different stage in preparing their Assessment and as such, it is not possible to undertake a joint Assessment or to agree a common methodology with adjoining Councils at this time
12 This document therefore relates to the proposed methodology for a Assessment for the geographical area within Eastleigh Borough
37 Assessment Matrix
Council. The Council will seek to undertake future reviews of the Assessment with the other local authorities within the PUSH (Partnership for South Hampshire) area to ensure consistent approaches to be taken.
13 There is already partnership working between Councils in Hampshire, in particular relating to development monitoring. This includes regular meetings between officers which, in the future, will provide opportunities to share experiences and enable consistent methodologies to be developed. The officer working groups associated with the Partnership for South Hampshire provides further opportunities for joint working.
14 The Council recognise that in order to prepare a robust assessment of the land availability within the Borough, it is also essential to consult with a variety of individuals groups and agencies which have an interest and/or role in development of land. These are hereafter referred to as ‘interested parties’. Their involvement ensures that a spatial perspective of the housing land supply within the Borough is achieved as well as providing the opportunity to check that the Council is identifying sites which are both deliverable and developable.
15 The interested parties that the Council proposes to involve in this process include central and local government agencies, house builders, landowners, commercial property agents, registered social landlords and infrastructure providers. (see list set out in Appendix One). The Council will also update and consult the members of the Council’s User Panel Group which comprises developers, agents and officers of the Council who meet regularly to discuss a wide variety of issues within the planning process.
Consultation
16 The Council proposes two main consultation periods relating to the preparation of the Assessment: a. The first consultation will be on the proposed methodology. This will enable any objections to be addressed before the assessment commences and ensure that it is robust and sound. This will be accompanied by an invitation to submit potential sites for assessment. A pro-forma (see Appendix Two) will be used to ensure that relevant information relating to the suitability of each site is given at the outset b. The second consultation period will be on the completed Assessment in order to ascertain stakeholder views on its outcomes.
17 Both consultations will involve the circulation of relevant information directly to the interested parties identified in Appendix One, the publication of all relevant documents on the Council’s website and
38 Assessment Matrix
the use of workshops to enable informal discussion between parties.
Resourcing the Assessment
18 In terms of resources, it is proposed that officers from within the Council will undertake the majority of the work. Principally this will involve officers within the Regeneration and Planning Policy Team. Where necessary, advice and expertise will be sought from other internal and external resources e.g. viability testing.
19 The administrative boundary of Eastleigh Borough is, in certain locations, located in very close proximity to the edge of settlements that are not within the administrative boundary of the Borough e.g. Southampton. In these instances, officers of this Council will seek to work jointly with the neighbouring Council to identify whether land in these areas has the potential to be identified for development. It is proposed that a reciprocal arrangement is made for instances where the circumstances are reversed i.e. land outside of the Borough in proximity to a settlement within the Borough.
Anticipated Timescale
20 The Council recognises the importance of undertaking this Assessment as soon as is reasonably practicable to inform the preparation of the Core Strategy and associated DPDs associated with the LDF. The anticipated timescale of this Assessment is set out in Appendix Three.
Stage 2: Determining which sources of sites will be included in the Assessment
21 Table 1 sets out the sources of sites that the Assessment proposes to consider for potential development. Matters relating to the size and location of the sites to be considered are addressed separately in Stage 4.
Table 1 – Sources of sites for the Assessment Sites in the planning process Land allocated within the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan which: has yet to be given planning permission; or is no longer required for the use as allocated Land where planning permission has been granted which: - is unimplemented; - is part implemented but there remains outstanding planning permissions; or - is currently under construction
39 Assessment Matrix
Sites not currently in the planning process Vacant and derelict land Surplus public sector land Land used for one purpose which may be suitable for re- development for an alternative use. E.g. commercial buildings or car parks where redevelopment for housing can be considered, including as part of a mixed-use development Additional housing opportunities in established residential areas, such as under-used garage blocks Re-development and re-design of existing areas including residential, retail and commercial Previously unidentified and undeveloped sites within or well related to existing settlements including omission sites (local plan inquiry sites and other developer proposals)
22 Whilst it is not the purpose of the Assessment to make judgements about the appropriateness of developing some sites and not others, it needs to be realistic in terms of the potential for some types of sites to come forward for development. As such, land which has the national designations set out in Table 2 below will not be included within the Assessment.
Table 2 –Designated sites excluded from Assessment
Types of land or areas excluded Justification from the Assessment
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) National planning policy states that development that would have an Scheduled Ancient Monuments adverse impact on these sites should (SAM) be avoided unless there are material Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) planning considerations that outweigh RAMSAR sites (wetlands of the harm to their value as national international importance) nature conservation interests Special Protection Areas (SPA) Sites within 400m of protected heathland Sites within Flood Zone 3 unless a To reflect national planning policy and water compatible use or a less the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment vulnerable use if within zone 3a with regard to the sequential test
Stage 3: Desktop review of existing information
23 Prior to going out on site to establish the potential of land to be developed, it is useful to review the existing sources of information available to the Council in relation to the types of sites that the Council propose to include within the Assessment. Table 3 below
40 Assessment Matrix
sets out the sources of information that the Council have identified as being useful to inform and plan for the site survey stage. This list is not exhaustive.
Table 3: Sources of information Sites in the planning process
Source Type of sites Hampshire County Council + To identify land allocated within the Eastleigh Internal Monitoring Borough Local Plan which has yet to be given planning permission To identify land allocated within the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan which is no longer required for the use as allocated To identify those sites which have planning permission but are as yet unimplemented or under construction. Site specific development To identify those sites where early work on briefs & Area Allocation Plans preparing a scheme for its development has begun. The initial work also helps to identify possible constraints. Other sources of information that may help to identify sites
Source Type of sites Urban Capacity Study 2003 Identifies potential capacity of urban sites to be developed between 2001 and 2011. (Approx 1630 between 2007&11) Empty Property Identifies dwellings that have empty for a period Register/Council Tax data of 12 months or more and are unfurnished. Empty Property Strategy 2004 estimates that there were 155 ‘true empties’. English House Condition To identify dwellings that may be in need of Survey significant repair or demolition National Land Use Database Identifies available buildings and land and potential constraints on their development. Register of Surplus Public To identify buildings and land which are surplus Sector Land to the requirements of some public sector organisations Employment Land Review To identify land and buildings currently used for employment which may be used for alternative uses and/or more intensive uses. Valuation Office Database To identify vacant buildings which may be suitable for re-use for alternative purposes EBC Vacant Property Register Identifies vacant buildings and land previously used for commercial and industrial purposes Commercial Property Identifies vacant and/or available buildings and Databases e.g. estate agents land which may be suitable for intensification or and property agents alternative uses.
41 Assessment Matrix
Ordnance Survey maps To identify land Aerial photography To identify land Internal Monitoring Lapsed planning consents To identify sites where planning consents have lapsed Pre-application discussions To identify sites that have the potential to be brought forward for development by 2026. Land submitted during To identify sites that were not discounted on ‘in- preparation of previous Local principle’ concerns Plan (omission sites) Refused planning To identify sites which have been refused permissions planning permission but not on the basis of the principle of development
24 In addition to the above sources, it is considered appropriate to contact interested parties and other relevant parties to invite them to submit sites which they consider have the potential to be developed through to 2026. A pro-forma is provided in Appendix Two this proposed methodology for interested parties to complete and return to the Council. In addition to the invitation to individual interested parties and other parties, an advert will be placed in the local newspaper and information will be placed on our website.
25 During this time, the owners and/or agents of sites which have outstanding planning permission and/or sites allocated in the Local Plan will also be contacted to assess when or whether their site is likely to come forward for development.
26 It is proposed that the Assessment will collate and filter the data from this review to remove duplicate sites when they arise, address inconsistencies between sources of information and to identify land owners where these details are not already known. The sites will then be plotted on the Council’s GIS mapping system.
Stage 4: Determining which sites and areas will be surveyed
27 Prior to undertaking the site survey element of the Assessment, it is important to define the geographic extent and size of the sites to be surveyed. In addition to a survey of all sites identified in the desktop review and those submitted by interested parties, the Council proposes that the following criteria are used to select sites to consider within the initial site survey: These criteria will subsequently be reviewed (see stages 9 & 10) if the Assessment fails to identify sufficient land to meet the anticipated requirements through to 2026.
i. A minimum site size threshold of 0.2 ha will be applied. This is considered to represent a reasonable site size which will enable a robust assessment of the main development opportunities within the Borough to be achieved. The Council
42 Assessment Matrix
recognises that smaller sites may well come forward for development. However seeking to identify small sites requires significantly greater resources than the Council currently has available and there tends to be less certainty about if/when they will come forward for development.
ii. The Assessment will exclude land North/North-East of Hedge End, including Boorley Green. Specifically the eastern boundary of this area will be the eastern boundary edge of the Borough. The southern boundary of the area will be the railway line. The northern edge of the area will be Snakemoor Lane and the western boundary will be Burnetts Lane. This reflects the broad area having been identified within the emerging South East Plan as being suitable for the provision of a Strategic Development Area. Separate work is anticipated to commence shortly on defining the extent of the area required to provide for this development and for the sake of clarity the Assessment is proposing to exclude this area at this time. Future revisions of the Assessment will revisit this situation.
iii. The site is well related to existing settlements – the site survey will look at all potential land which is within, or in close proximity to existing settlements. The survey will be undertaken on a ‘street by street’ basis. Land which is not well related to existing settlements will not be surveyed.
Stage 5: Carrying Out the Survey
28 Field survey work will be principally undertaken by officers from within the Regeneration and Planning Policy Unit on all sites identified in the desktop study. On each visit, a site survey form (draft form included as Appendix Four) will be completed which will record the characteristics of the site including:
- site size; - site boundaries; - current use(s); - site characteristics; - points of access; - surrounding land use(s); - nearby services and facilities; - character of surrounding area; - physical constraints; - opportunities (e.g. enhancing the built environment; site remediation); - development progress (where relevant); - initial assessment of potential land use; - initial assessment on potential form of development.
43 Assessment Matrix
Stage 6: Estimating the Development Potential of Each Site
29 Once the survey of the site has been undertaken, further desktop work will be undertaken by officers to establish the potential capacity of sites to accommodate different land uses. Current planning policies will be relevant to this including parking requirements, general design requirements and making the most efficient use of land.
30 With particular regard to residential uses, in order to identify the housing potential of particular sites it is recommended that a theoretical density figure is applied to different areas based initially on their proximity to existing service centres. Table 4 below sets out the proposed densities for different categories of areas. These density figures will be reviewed at the end of the consultation period in the light of further research into densities on recently completed sites in each zone and consultation responses received.
Table 4 - Proposed densities for residential uses
Density Zone Theoretical Density Definition (dwellings per hectare)
Town & District Centres 50 The centre of a town/district centre as defined in the Local Plan plus a zone up to 400m from the edge of this area Village & Local Centres 40 The centre of a village/local centre as defined in the Local Plan plus a zone up to 400m from the edge of this area Elsewhere 30 The remainder of the built up area Rural 30 Sites well related to existing settlements e.g. immediately adjoining the defined urban edge as defined ting Local Plan
31 With regard to the densities of employment development, there are currently no specific planning policies which set out the required densities for these types of uses. Within the Employment Land Review document, published in 2004, the government provides a brief summary of studies into plot ratios. Based on this review, and
44 Assessment Matrix
previous general practice Table 5 below sets out the theoretical densities applied to assessing the potential capacity of land to accommodate potential employment uses.
Table 5 - Proposed densities for employment uses Density Zone Theoretical Density Definition (floorspace as % of plot size)
Town Centre Use 75 The centre of a town/district centre as defined in the Local Plan plus a zone up to 400m from the edge of this area Village & Local Centres 60 The centre of a village/local centre as defined in the Local Plan plus a zone up to 400m from the edge of this area Elsewhere 40 The remainder of the built up urban area Rural 40 Sites well related to existing settlements e.g. immediately adjoining the defined urban edge as defined in the existing Local Plan
32 Providing theoretical density figures to other potential uses of land is even more problematic as particular users may well have different requirements within a particular use e.g. schools, medical facilities. As a starting point the employment plot ratios as set out above will be applied. Where this is not appropriate, a clear justification of why different densities have been applied will be set out in the Assessment.
33 Once the location of the site in relation to the density zones as applied above have been established, officers can begin to pull together the various sources of information available to inform the potential of individual sites. This will includes the initial views expressed in the survey work and where possible character appraisals, conservation area statements etc.
Stage 7: Assessing when and whether sites are likely to be developed
34 In many ways, stages 6 and 7 are inextricably linked and therefore it is proposed that both stages will run almost concurrently with each other. Stage 6 is focused on the potential capacity of the site,
45 Assessment Matrix
in traditional land use terms, with little regard to the suitability, availability and achievability of the sites. Stage 7 is focussed on testing the deliverability and developability of sites.
35 For a site to be deliverable, it needs to be:
i) available now ii) in a suitable location which would contribute towards sustainable, mixed communities; and iii) is achievable – there is a reasonable prospect that it will be delivered within five years.
36 Developable sites are defined as those sites which are in a suitable location for housing development and there is a reasonable prospect that it will be available for and could be developed at a specific point in time. These sites are generally unlikely to come forward for development within the next five years.
37 To inform the judgements on whether is a site is developable or deliverable, an assessment matrix (see Appendix Five) has been prepared which sets out a series of criteria to assess the proposal. This is designed to be in broad accordance with the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal document. Whilst officers of the Planning Policy and Design Team will be capable of assessing sites against most criteria, it is acknowledged that other resources may need to be used with regard to the availability and viability of sites.
38 It is envisaged that most sites that the Assessment will consider will fall into either of the above two categories. However there may be some sites which are neither developable nor deliverable. This may be due to site specific and temporal constraints such as land ownership issues. Where this is the case, the Assessment will identify the reasons and, where possible, identify actions that could overcome these issues.
Stage 8: Review of the Assessment
39 Following the initial site surveys, and the assessment of their deliverability and developability, an indicative housing trajectory will be formulated to identify the future housing potential in the Borough. This in turn will contribute to an indicative housing trajectory. To complement this stage, a risk assessment (as required by the practice guidance) will be undertaken to assess whether sites will come forward as anticipated.
40 Interested parties will be consulted on the draft document so they can verify the conclusions of stages 5 – 7, and advise on when the sites are likely to come forward.
46 Assessment Matrix
41 The opportunity will also be taken for a peer review of the document by other Hampshire local authorities who will be able to offer their expertise and advice on potential sites which may lie on the Borough’s borders.
42 If insufficient sites have been identified, then it will be necessary to investigate how the shortfall will be best overcome. There are two methods for this – (i) identification of broad locations (stage 9) and (ii) the use of a windfall allowance (stage 10).
Stage 9: Broad Locations (Where Necessary)
43 The SHLAA practice guidance defines broad locations as being areas where housing development is considered feasible, but where specific sites cannot yet be identified. In the absence of a sufficient land supply to meet the relevant requirements, identifying broad locations which has the potential to meet this shortfall will assist judgements to be made in the Core Strategy.
44 These broad locations would be assessed against the assessment matrix attached as Appendix Five and in general accordance with this Assessment and other relevant guidance and policies.
Stage 10: Determining the Housing Potential of Windfall Sites (Where Justified)
45 Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3: Housing expects the supply of land for housing to be based upon specific sites, and where necessary, broad locations. However, allowance for windfall supply can be made if there is robust evidence of genuine local circumstances that prevent specific sites from being identified. It must be realistic, consider historic windfall rates and expected future trends.
Monitoring & Updating the Assessment
46 Updates of the Assessment are to be an integral part of the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) process, and the updates will contribute towards the housing trajectory and 5 year supply of deliverable sites. The update will be required to include information on whether:
- sites under-construction have now been developed, or individual stages have been developed;
- sites with planning permission are now under-construction, and what progress has been made;
- planning applications have been submitted or approved on sites and broad locations identified by the Assessment;
47 Assessment Matrix
- progress has been made in removing constraints on development and whether a site is now considered to be developable or deliverable;
- unforeseen constraints have emerged which now mean a site is no longer deliverable or developable, and how these could be addressed; and
- the windfall allowance (where justified) is coming forward as expected, or may need to be adjusted.
48
APPENDIX ONE:
LIST OF INTERESTED PARTIES TO BE CONSULTED
49 Adams Hendry English Heritage Alder King Property Consultants Environment Agency Alexander Keen Estate Agents EWS Alliance Environment and Planning Fair Oak & Horton Heath Parish Ltd Council Associated British Ports Fareham Borough Council AtisReal First Provincial Atlantic Housing Limited Forestry Comission Austin & Wyatt Fox & Sons BAA Group Airport Planning Fuller Peiser Baker Associates Fusion Online Ltd Banner Homes Group plc George Wimpey Southern Limited Barratt Southampton Gleeson Homes Limited Barton Willmore Planning Gleeson Land Bellway Homes (Wessex) Goadsby & Harding Bellway Planning & Development Gosport Borough Council Bishopstoke Parish Council Government Office for the South Botley Parish Council East Bovis Homes Ltd GVA Grimley Ltd Boyer Planning Halifax Estate Agents Brian Campbell Associates Hamble-le-Rice Parish Council Brendons Associates Commercial Hampshire County Council British Gas (Southern) Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service Broadway Malyan Planning Hampshire Police Brockwood Estates Ltd Hanover Housing Association Bryan Jezeph Consultancy Hargreaves Developments Limited Bursledon Parish Council HCC Environment Department C B Richard Ellis Hedge End Town Council Century 21UK Highways Agency CgMs Consulting Home Builders Federation Chancellors Hound Parish Council Charles Planning Associates Ltd Humberts Planning Chris Thomas Ltd Hyde Housing Association Churchills Estate Agents Ian Judd & Partners Civil Aviation Authority Information Resource Manager Cluttons LLP James Barr Consultants Connell Land & Planning JMP Consulting Coplan Estates Limited King Sturge Crest Strategic Projects Limited Kris Mitra Associates Cushman and Wakefield Healey L3 Independent Estate Agents and Baker Lambert Smith Hampton David Evans Estate Agents Lennon Planning David Wilson Homes Southern Levvel Development Planning Partnership Lindesays Diocese of Portsmouth Litman & Robson DPDS Consulting Group Malcolm Judd and Partners Dreweatt Neate Mann Countrywide Drivers Jonas Mason Richards Planning Enfields Merlion Housing
50 Michael Weakley Associates Southampton & Fareham Chamber Miller Hughes Associates Ltd of Commerce & Industry Mobile Operations Association c/o Southampton City Council Mono Consultants Ltd Southampton City PCT, Trust HQ Mott Macdonald Southern Electric Murray Chrystal Southern Planning Practice Natural England Southern Water Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Southern Water Authority Network Rail Space NHS South Central Strategic Sparks Ellison Health Authority Strutt & Partner Nigel Hecks Consultant in Town & Swaythling Housing Society Country Planning Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd Orchard Homes Terence O’Rourke Owen Hamilton Test Valley Borough Council Paul & Company Tetlow King Planning Paul Dickinson and Associates The Barton Willmore Planning Peacock and Smith Partnership – Eastern Pegasus Planning Group The Bell Cornwall Partnership Persimmon Homes (South Coast) The Bell Cornwell Partnership Peter Brett Associates The Church Commissioners Planning & Capital Works Manager The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Planning Bureau Ltd Strategic Health Authority Planning Issues The John Phillips Planning Police Headquarters Consultancy Portsmouth City Council The Luken Beck Partnership Ltd Portsmouth Water Ltd The Planning Bureau Limited Post Office Property Holdings Tony Thorpe Associates Prides TPC Ltd Principal Planning TPK Consulting Pro Vision Planning & Design Turley Associates Profitline Consultancy Ltd Vail Williams Railtrack Property (Town Planning) Velmore Estates Limited Retail Property Consultant Ward International Consulting Ltd RMC UK Ltd West End Parish Council Robert Shaw Planning Westbury Homes Robert Tutton Planning Consultant White Young Green Planning Roger Miles Planning Limited Winchester City Council Roger Tym and Partners Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd Rosebrook Housing Association Woolf Bond Planning LLP RPS Your Move Savills (L&P) Limited + Eastleigh User Panel members Scottish and Southern Energy plc SEEDA SEERA Shire Consulting South Central Strategic Health Authority South West Trains Ltd
51 Assessment Matrix
APPENDIX TWO
POTENTIAL SITES PROFORMA
52 Assessment Matrix
Eastleigh Borough Council Strategic Land Availability Assessment
Guidance Notes for completing the Potential Sites Pro forma – April 2008
Government policy requires local authorities to produce a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment for their housing market area. This builds on previous studies and is designed to provide a more realistic and justifiable indication of capacity. It will ensure that the new planning policies within the Local Development Framework (LDF) are based on reliable evidence and are therefore deliverable.
The Strategic Land Availability Study has been widened to include land for employment, retail, tourism, leisure or a mix of these uses. The study will identify potential sites, the sites’ unconstrained potential and any constraints that may exist. It will also make realistic assessments of brownfield land available and identify the actions that may be needed to be taken to make sites available, suitable and viable for development.
If the Strategic Land Availability Study identifies land as having potential, it will not imply that the land will be allocated for development. We will be assessing the constraints and deciding whether sites should be developed as part of work on the Local Development Framework.
Please use the attached proforma to suggest sites that you think Eastleigh Borough Council should consider for development over the next 20 years.
The draft methodology can be viewed at: http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-1465.
Please return this form, together with a map that clearly identifies the boundary of the site, by Friday 23rd May 2008 to:
Planning Policy & Design, Eastleigh Borough Council, Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh, Hampshire, SO30 9YN
Email: [email protected]
In completing your form, please: • Use a separate form for each site (additional forms may be downloaded from www.eastleigh.gov.uk). Only information supplied on a form can be considered. • Attach a map outlining the precise boundaries of the whole site and the part which may be suitable for housing (if this is less than the whole). Without this mapped information we are unable to register the site. • Include only sites capable of accommodating at least 5 dwellings. • Do not submit sites that:
- already have planning permission for residential use, unless different proposals for housing are identified; - are outside of Eastleigh Borough Council’s boundary;
All sites will be considered but suggesting land at this first stage does not guarantee that the land will be allocated for housing development.
If you are unsure about suggesting a site please contact Planning Policy & Design on 023 8068 8252.
Please note that the information submitted using this proforma will be made public as it will form part of the evidence base to the LDF and will inform where future development may be delivered in the future. It cannot be kept confidential.
53 Assessment Matrix
EBC Logo For official use only:
Reference ______
Received ______
Acknowledged ______
Eastleigh Borough Council Strategic Land Availability Assessment Proposed Potential Sites pro forma
• Please complete the form clearly and legibly. • You must give your name and address for your comments to be considered. • You must attach a map showing the precise boundaries of the site • This form should be received by Eastleigh Borough Council by Friday 23rd May 2008.
DATA PROTECTION STATEMENT
The information collected in this response form will be used by the Council to inform the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and subsequent components of the Local Development Framework. By responding you are accepting that your response and the information within it will be made available to the public.
Your details
Name
Company /agent
Representing
Contact address
Contact telephone number
54 Assessment Matrix
Site details
Site address
Site postcode
OS grid reference – centre of site Yes Are you the landowner? No. Who then owns the land?
Please attach a map outlining the precise boundaries of the whole site and the part which may be suitable for housing (if this is less than the whole). Without this mapped information we are unable to register the site.
CURRENT AND POTENTIAL USE
What is the current use of the site?
Is there an existing or previous planning permission on the site? Yes (please give planning permission number)
No
What is the estimated area of the site (hectares)? Area of whole site
Area suitable for housing
What uses is the site suitable for? e.g. employment, retail, housing, marine etc.
If the site is only identified as being suitable for housing, please justify
55 Assessment Matrix
POSSIBLE CONSTRAINTS
To the best of your knowledge, are there any constraints that may affect development on the site? Please provide brief details : Access
Tree cover
Topography
Important open space
Listed Building(s) Ancient monument Local character
Ownership issues
Legal issues
Contamination / pollution Environmental designation (Ecology) Flood risk
Infrastructure/utility requirements Market viability
Cables, pylons, electricity lines, oil pipelines
Other considerations
Do you believe the constraints on the site can be overcome? If so, please explain why and how.
AVAILABILITY
Broadly what timeframe would you anticipate the site could first become available for development: Within the next 5 years i.e. by the 31st March 2013
Within a period 5-10 years hence i.e. between 1st April 2013 and 31st March 2018
Within a period 10-15 years hence i.e. between 1st April 2018 and 31st March 2023
Within a period 15-18 years hence i.e. between 1st April 2023 and 31st March 2026 After 31st March 2026
56 Assessment Matrix
If you anticipate the site could become available for housing development within the next five years, how many dwellings do you estimate will be completed in each year? Before the 31st March 2008
Between 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2009
Between 1st April 2009 and 31st March 2010
Between 1st April 2010 and 31st March 2011
Between 1st April 2011 and 31st March 2012
Once commenced, how many years do you think it would take to develop the site? Number of years
SURVEY AND OTHER ISSUES
In identifying such a site you are giving permission for an officer of the Council to access the site in order to ascertain site suitability. In this context would there be any access issues to the site?
If yes, please provide contact details of the person who should be contacted to arrange a site visit.
Do you know of any other issues that we should be aware of?
57 This page is intentionally left blank
58 Assessment Matrix
APPENDIX THREE
TIMESCALE
59 This page is intentionally left blank
60 Timescales Appendix 3
April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov
7th to 11th 14th to 18th 21st to 25th 28th to 2nd 5th to 9th 12th to 16th 19th to 23rd 26th to 30th 2nd to 6th 9th to 13th 16-20 23-27 30th to 4th 7th to 11th 14th to 18th 21-25 28th to 1st 4th to 8th 11th to 15th 18-22 25-29 1st to 5th 8th to 12th 15-19 22-26 29th to 3rd 6th to 10th 13-17 20-24 27-31 3rd to 7th
Stage Consultation on Start (11th) Finish (23rd) 1&2 proposed methodology Call for sites' Start (11th) Finish (23rd) Stage 3 Desktop review of Start (14th) Finish (2nd) existing information Constraints map Start (14th) Finish 9th produced Methodology Start (26th) Finish (6th) revised as necessary Final Start (26th) Finish (13th) determination of sites to survey and collation of data
Stage 5 Site surveys Start (16th) Finish (25th) undertaken & data collated Stage 6 Estimation of Start (21st) Finish (15th) housing potential on each site given
Stage 7 Assessment of Start (4th Finish (29th) when and whether sites are likely to be developed
Stage 8 Review of the Start (1st) Finish (19th) Assessment Consultation on Start (26th) Finish (7th) Assessment Stage 9 Identification and assessment of the housing potential of broad locations (only if necessary)
Stage 10 Determination of the housing potential of windfalls (only if necessary) 61 This page is intentionally left blank
62
APPENDIX FOUR
DRAFT PROFORMA FOR OFFICERS SITE VISIT
63
Site Reference: Site Name OS Grid Ref: Site Postcode
SITE LOCATION PLAN
PHOTO 1 PHOTO 2
PHOTO 3 PHOTO 4
64
Site Use Site Area
Local Plan Reference (if applicable) Current Site Use:
Previous Use
Site Characteristics Topography
Access
Flood Risk
Ecology
Tree cover Public Transport Provision Location of Nearest Services Contamination Issues Physical Constraints
Adjacent Land Uses
Surrounding Storey Height Local Plan Policy Constraints Timeframe for Development Current Planning Permission Relevant Planning History Estimated Development Capacity on Site Known Developer Interest Suitability for Non- Housing Development Deliverability
Developability
Comments:
65
APPENDIX FIVE
ASSESSMENT MATRIX
66 Assessment Matrix
SUITABILITY Criteria Measure Appraisal Source Survey Desktop Other e.g. Interested parties Land or Areas to be Excluded from the Assessment as Unsuitable Exclude from the Site located within any one of the following designations: Exclude √ Assessment Ramsar sites; Special Protection Areas (SPAs); Special Areas of Conservation (SACs); National Nature Reserves (NNRs); Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) Locational suitability / creation of sustainable, mixed communities Re-use of land Site is 100% PDL √ √ Site is mixed greenfield / PDL with > 50% PDL √ √ Site is mixed greenfield / PDL with < 50% PDL √ √ Site is 100% greenfield √ √ Located within a Entirely in built-up area (infill) √ √ settlement On edge of settlement but not projecting in open countryside √ √ (rounding off) On edge of settlement and projecting in open countryside √ √ (extension) Accessibility by Site is within 800m walking distance of all of the following: a √ foot to local convenience store, a primary school and a GP surgery services Site is within 800m walking distance of two of the following: a √ (measured from convenience store, a primary school and a GP surgery centre of site by Site is within 800m walking distance of only one of the √ walking distance) following: convenience store, a primary school and a GP surgery Site is more than 800m walking distance from all of the √ following: a convenience store, a primary school and a GP surgery
67
68 Assessment Matrix
SUITABILITY Criteria Measure Appraisal Source Survey Desktop Other e.g. Interested parties Locational suitability / creation of sustainable, mixed communities Accessibility to Site is within 400m walking distance of an existing bus stop or √ public transport 800m walking distance of a railway station, with hourly or services more frequent services Site is within 400m walking distance of an existing bus stop or √ 800m walking distance of a railway station, with less than hourly services Site is more than 400m walking distance of an existing bus √ stop and 800m walking distance of a railway station Accessibility to Site is located within 30 minutes public transport time of all of √ higher level the following: hospital, secondary school, areas of services by public employment and a major retail centre transport Site is located within 30 minutes public transport time of two √ of the following: hospital, secondary school, areas of employment and a major retail centre Site is located further than 30 minutes public transport time of √ all of the following: hospital, secondary school, areas of employment and a major retail centre Policy restrictions Designations Site is unaffected by designations √
Site located within or likely to affect any one of the following √ designations: Heritage Coast; historic woodland; RIG: mineral consultation area; trees or woodland subject to preservation order; SINC Site located likely to affect either of the following √ designations: AONB (not within settlement boundaries of towns) (major developments only); Strategic Gap
Assessment Matrix
SUITABILITY Criteria Measure Appraisal Source Survey Desktop Other e.g. Interested parties Physical problems or limitations Access Access to site already existing √ √ Site is not accessible at present but has potential for access √ √ Site is affected by severe access limitations √ √ Infrastructure Site is unaffected by infrastructural limitations √ √ Site is affected by infrastructural limitations √ √ Ground conditions Site is unaffected by ground condition limitations √ √ Site is affected by ground conditions but not to a significant √ √ extent Site is severely affected by ground condition limitations, √ √ including steep slopes or ground instability Flood risk Site is entirely in flood zone 1 (i.e. outside EA zones 2 or 3, or √ SFRA zones 3a or 3b) Site is only within current EA flood zone 2 √ Site is within SFRA zone 3a √ Site is within current EA zone 3 or SFRA zone 3b √ Groundwater Site is unaffected by groundwater source protection issues √ source protection Site is within Groundwater Source Protection Zone Cat 3 √ Site is within Groundwater Source Protection Zone Cat 2 √ Site is within Groundwater Source Protection Zone Cat 1 √ Hazardous risk Site is not affected by a hazardous risk or contamination / √ √ pollution issue Site is affected to hazardous risk or contamination / pollution √ √ issue to a lesser extent Site is affected by a hazardous risk or contamination / √ √ pollution issue
69
70 Assessment Matrix
SUITABILITY Criteria Measure Appraisal Source Survey Desktop Other e.g. Interested parties Potential impacts Townscape/ Development at this site may have a significant positive √ √ landscape impact on the key townscape or landscape characteristics on character the area Development at this site may have a neutral impact on the √ √ key townscape or landscape characteristics on the area Development at this site may have a neutral impact on the √ √ key townscape or landscape characteristics on the area (within or affecting a Conservation Area) Development at this site may have a significant negative √ √ impact on the key townscape or landscape characteristics of the area Development at this site may have a significant negative √ √ impact on the key townscape or landscape characteristics of the area (within or affecting a Conservation Area) Environmental conditions Effect on Site is not affected by road noise, unneighbourly uses, power √ √ prospective lines residents Site is affected by road noise, unneighbourly uses, power √ √ lines to a lesser extent Site is affected by road noise, unneighbourly uses, power √ √ lines AVAILABILITY Insurmountable A significant constraint or constraints on the availability of the √ √ constraint site is judged to be insurmountable Control of site Site is controlled by a housing developer √ √ Site is controlled by a public authority √ Site is controlled by an identified private land owner √ √ Control of site is unknown √ √
Assessment Matrix
AVAILABILITY Criteria Measure Appraisal Source Survey Desktop Other e.g. Interested parties √ Controller of site has expressed intention to make site √ available between 5 and 10 years hence (between 2012 and 2017) Controller of site has expressed intention to make site √ available between 10 and 15 years (between 2018 and 2022) Controller of site has expressed intention to make site √ available after 15 years hence (after 2022) Controller of site has not made intention known √ Controller of site has made clear that they do not intend to √ make site available Ownership here is only one owner of the site or, though in multiple √ √ ownership, is subject to a coordinated purchase / approach by a single developer The site is in multiple ownership, with 2 or 3 owners √ √ The site is in multiple ownership, with 4 or 5 owners √ √ The site is in multiple ownership, with 6 or more owners √ √ Access to the site is controlled by an ownership issue i.e. √ √ ransom strip Legal issues Availability of the site is unconstrained by a legal matter √ √ (covenants; It is unknown whether or not there are any legal constraints √ √ tenancies etc) Availability of the site is constrained by a legal matter √ √
71
72 Assessment Matrix
AVAILABILITY Criteria Measure Appraisal Source Survey Desktop Other e.g. Interested parties Planning status There is an outstanding planning permission for housing √ Site does not have outstanding permission but has previous √ planning history for housing (e.g. lapsed consent; withdrawn application or a refusal, but where principle of development was acceptable)
Site has been subject of a pre-application enquiry or a √ submission to an LDF consultation Site has previously been identified as a local plan or RSS √ objection site The site does not have planning permission for housing √ ACHIEVABILITY MARKET FACTORS Adjacent uses Uses adjacent to the site are likely to have a marked positive √ √ affect on the marketability of the site Uses adjacent to the site are likely to have a neutral affect on √ √ the marketability of the site Uses adjacent to the site are likely to have a detrimental √ √ affect on the marketability of the site Economic viability The economic viability of the existing use of the site makes √ of existing use of developing the site for housing a desirable option site No clear judgement can be made regarding the economic √ viability of the existing use of the site compared to reuse for housing The economic viability of the existing use of the site makes √ developing the site for housing undesirable
Assessment Matrix
AVAILABILITY Criteria Measure Appraisal Source Survey Desktop Other e.g. Interested parties MARKET FACTORS Economic viability The economic viability of possible alternative uses of the site √ of alternative uses makes developing the site for housing the most desirable to housing option No clear judgement can be made regarding the economic √ viability of alternative use of the site compared to reuse for housing The economic viability of alternative uses of the site makes √ developing the site for housing an undesirable option Attractiveness of The attractiveness of the site location has a marked positive √ √ location effect on developing and marketing the site for housing The attractiveness of the site location has a neutral effect on √ √ developing and marketing the site for housing The attractiveness of the site location has a negative effect on √ √ developing and marketing the site for housing Level of market Market demand is strong in this location for the proposed type √ demand and of housing development projected rate of Market demand is average in this location for the proposed √ sales type of housing development Market demand is weak in this location for the proposed type √ of housing development COST FACTORS Site preparation Site preparation costs are judged to be low √ √ costs relating to Site preparation costs are judged to be average / expected √ √ physical constraints Site preparation costs are judged to be high e.g. ground √ √
conditions;
redevelopment or
conversion etc
73
74 Assessment Matrix
AVAILABILITY Criteria Measure Appraisal Source Survey Desktop Other e.g. Interested parties COST FACTORS Relevant planning There are no exceptional planning design standards relating √ √ design standards to development of this site e.g. within Relevant planning design standards apply which will impose √ √ conservation area an additional cost on development Prospects of There are no identified constraints requiring funding or √ √ funding or investment to overcome investment to Funding or investment is available to address an identified √ √ address identified constraint to development e.g. flood mitigation constraints or assist Funding or investment is not available to address an identified √ √ development constraint to development DELIVERY FACTORS Phasing of The developer anticipates delivery of the site is likely to √ √ development comprise a single uninterrupted phase of development No information is available on the phasing of development √ √ The developer anticipates delivery of the site is likely to √ √ comprise more than one phase of development Single/ several Development is unlikely to be constrained or delayed by the √ √ developers number of developers on site Development may be constrained or delayed by an √ √ insufficient number of developers on site Size / capacity of Development of the site is unlikely to be constrained by the √ √ developers (past capacity of developer history of delivery) No judgement can be made concerning the capacity of the √ √ developer Development of the site may be constrained by the capacity √ √ of developer
Assessment Matrix
AVAILABILITY Criteria Measure Appraisal Source Survey Desktop Other e.g. Interested parties DELIVERY FACTORS Necessary Necessary infrastructure will be in place to permit √ √ Infrastructure development of the site Necessary infrastructure is unlikely to be in place to permit √ √ development of the site
75
This page is intentionally left blank
76 Agenda Item 8
CABINET
3 April 2008
EASTLEIGH LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE
8 April 2008
PRYSMIAN (FORMERLY PIRELLI) PHASE 2, EASTLEIGH DEVELOPMENT BRIEF
Report of the Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy
RECOMMENDATION TO CABINET
It is recommended that the Prysmian phase 2 Development Brief attached to this report be approved, subject to any comments made by the 8 April 2008 Eastleigh Local Area Committee.
RECOMMENDATION TO EASTLEIGH LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE
That the Committee consider the Prysmian phase 2 Development Brief attached to this report.
Summary
The development brief aims to ensure that the development of the Prysmian (Pirelli) Phase 2 site meets the Council’s objectives for this site. It has been subject to public consultation including an exhibition (at the Cranbury Centre and the Swan Centre). Amendments to the draft document following feedback from the public consultation and further consideration are presented here.
Statutory Powers
Town and Country Planning Act 1991
Introduction
1. The Prysmian site on Passfield Avenue and Dew Lane, Eastleigh, consists of factory buildings (formerly Pirelli Cables), an office building, large areas of hard standing and car parking together with the former Pirelli recreation facilities.
77 2. Prysmian is seeking to vacate and sell all of its property on this site in the very near future with phased release to suit manufacturing operations on the site.
3. The draft development brief was written in conjunction with Prysmian. The company’s agents’ intention was to include the agreed brief within the particulars being prepared for the sale of the site.
4. ELAC and Cabinet agreed in December 2007 to approve the draft brief for public consultation
Development Brief Status
5. The development brief will not be a statutory planning document but will be a non-statutory brief (after consultation and any subsequent amendments) approved by the Council.
Main Objectives of the Brief
6. To promote a residential development that is appropriate for this part of Eastleigh. This includes respecting the privacy of the occupiers of existing properties bordering the site on Passfield Avenue and Chadwick Road
7. To ensure that the development takes into account the important trees protected by two Tree Preservation Orders which cover the site.
8. To promote the completion of the important pedestrian and cycle link from Passfield Avenue through the site and to the town centre via the Pirelli phase 1 development.
9. To ensure that the development completes and complements the circular area of open space already started on the adjacent Pirelli phase 1 site.
10. To ensure that the development meets some measurable sustainable development objectives.
11. To ensure that the public realm areas (streets and open space) are attractive with particular emphasis on generous street tree planting.
The Public Consultation
12. The public exhibition of the development brief took place at the Cranbury Centre on Saturday 23 February and on Tuesday 26 February 2008. A third session took place in the Swan Centre on Thursday 28 February. The exhibition dates were publicised by a mail drop to households surrounding the site.
13. The exhibition consisted of mounted boards containing the exhibition material as well as a questionnaire that the public were encouraged to complete by members of staff. Over the three days 254 people visited the exhibition.
78 14. Several Chadwick Road residents who spoke to staff at the exhibition were concerned about the trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) growing inside the site that overhang their property boundaries with the site. The development brief requires the developer to make an arboricultural impact assessment of all the TPO trees and to act on any recommendations to improve the health and safety of the trees before construction commences on site. (see para 3.6.3 in the dev. brief).
15. Copies of the draft of the brief were also sent to statutory consultees.
16. The deadline for comments from statutory consultees and for completed questionnaires was Monday 10 March.
Questionnaire
17. In total 36 no. completed questionnaires were received before the end of the March 10 deadline. (6 were received after the deadline). The results are set out in Appendix 1.
18. Q1: There was overwhelming support for more sustainable development (only 3% disagreed).
19. Q2: There was very strong support (77%) for a new doctor’s surgery on site.
20. Q3a: There was very strong support (79%) for a contribution to a youth facility and Q3b: the majority (63%) favoured it being located on site.
21. Q4: There was overwhelming support (89%) for generous street tree planting
22. Q5a: There was overwhelming support (86%) for a greater proportion of ‘family houses’ to apartments compared with the Pirelli development and Q5b: more than 70% favoured a figure of only 20% or less as a proportion of apartments in the new development.
23. Q6: A clear majority (54% to 40% against) favoured new homes overlooking the Dew Lane footpath.
24. Q7: When given a choice (2, 3 or 4 storeys) for the maximum height of new buildings, 58% chose 2 storeys, 42% 3 storeys and none 4 storeys.
25. Q8: There was overwhelming support (91%) for the proposed east-west pedestrian/cycle route from Passfield Avenue to the Pirelli site (and beyond to Factory Road and the town centre).
26. Q9: There was very strong support (71%) for the proposal to use the Pirelli and Prysmian art contributions in a coordinated way to enhance the central open space.
27. Q10: When asked for positive aspects of the Pirelli 1 development the largest number (7) replied “nothing”.
79 28. Q11: When asked for negative aspects of the Pirelli 1 development the largest number cited the overcrowded layout and poor quality buildings. The unfinished highway areas and the amount of anti-social behaviour were also a big concern.
29. Any Other Comments: One of the largest concerns from prospective neighbours of the development was the fear of being overlooked. This is probably an exaggerated fear considering that the back to back distances between new and existing homes along Chadwick Road and Passfield Avenue boundaries is likely to be in excess of 40 metres (including a mature belt of trees) (this compares with the Eastleigh Residential Amenity Supplementary Planning Document minimum of 22m). Dew Lane properties will also be much more distant from new properties than is normally allowed. Residents may also fear new properties beyond 3 storeys in height which the development brief clearly prohibits except in possible rare cases (as an element of a landmark building for instance). The brief states that the majority of buildings should be either 2 or 3 storeys in height, (para 3.4.12).
Statutory Consultees
30. The Highway Agency, Hampshire County Council (as Highway Authority) and Southern Water commented at this stage. Their suggested amendments have been incorporated in the final document.
Amendments to the draft
31. All major changes to the draft development brief which was subject to the public consultation exercise have been highlighted in a red italic font.
Risk Management
32. If the brief is not approved it will be more difficult for Eastleigh Borough Council to secure the important objectives for this site as set out above.
Financial Implications
33. There are no financial implications to this report.
Conclusion
32. This important site needs a better quality of housing development than the Pirelli phase 1 scheme and should learn from some of the problems experienced on that development. The public consultation exercise and the interim period has allowed officers to refine the draft development brief into a document that should be a useful tool in achieving some of the Council’s key objectives.
PAUL RAMSHAW Head Regeneration and Planning Policy
80 Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN
Date: 25 March 2008 Contact Officer: Mark Waller-Gutiérrez Tel No: 023 8068 8164 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 1: Non-Statutory Development Brief: Prysmian 2 (with plans and other appendices attached) 2: Questionnaire Results
Report No PP000040
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:
Background Papers: none
81 This page is intentionally left blank
82 Prysmian II Leigh Road Eastleigh
Non Statutory Development Brief
83 This page is intentionally left blank
84 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 The Prysmian phase 2 site is approximately 40% of the historic Pirelli factory site still undeveloped for housing. It is a significant development site for the town of Eastleigh and is an opportunity to create an attractive residential quarter.
1.1.2 The need for this Development Brief arises from Policy 80.H of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) which was adopted in May 2006. A copy of the policy and its supporting text is provided in Appendix A.
1.1.3 In response to the policy, the purpose of this Development Brief is to provide initial guidance for the development of the site.
1.1.4 The Council’s objectives for this development are:
• To create an attractive residential quarter which respects its context.
• To ensure that the new development achieves high standards of sustainable design and construction.
• To create a hierarchy of internal streets including a through route which links Passfield Avenue to Leigh Road via the eastern end of Dew Lane
• To provide a choice of vehicular access points into the development to disperse the inevitable extra levels of vehicular traffic on surrounding streets.
• To improve pedestrian and cycle links from the Civic Offices and Fleming Park to the town centre.
• To create streets with street trees and major routes with generous street tree planting in the form of a boulevard.
• To retain and protect the identified important Tree Preservation Order trees.
• To ensure that new development along Dew Lane has a frontage with habitable rooms overlooking an improved Dew Lane footpath.
1.2 Status
1.2.1 This non-statutory Development Brief has been prepared by Officers of Eastleigh Borough Council in liaison with Prysmian’s professional advisers, Atisreal, and has been subject to public consultation .
1.2.2 The development brief will be considered by the Eastleigh Llocal Area Committee before being adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance by the Cabinet.
1 85
1.3 Policy Context
1.3.1 The Council’s policy relating specifically to this site is set out in Policy 80.H of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) which was adopted in May 2006. (see Appendix A) Other generic policies in the plan and specific Supplementary Planning Documents also need to be taken into account.
1.3.2 PPS3 (Housing) (November 2006) requires planning authorities to put more emphasis on good urban design and on the quality of development. This does not inevitably conflict with a high density of development – much will depend upon the quality of design – but, where a conflict should arise, the Council is likely to place more importance on design than maximising the density of development. PPS3 also requires a mix of households such as families in the interests of achieving a mixed community. There should be an additional emphasis on the need to provide family housing as a majority of dwellings on this site. It is the Council’s view that the original estimate of 400 dwellings may need to be revised downwards.
1.4 Site Information
©Crown copyright. All rights reserved (Licence LA077860) (2008)
Figure 1: Site Location
1.4.1 In 2005, Pirelli Cables Limited became Prysmian Cables & Systems Limited – hence the change of the site’s name from Pirelli Phase 2 to Prysmian Phase 2. Prysmian currently owns the whole site.
1.4.2 A plan of the site, on which its boundaries are shown in bold, is provided in Figure 1
1.4.3 The site has a land area of approximately 8.75 hectares (21.62 acres). Its
2 86 topography is relatively flat.
1.4.4 Access to the site (see the Indicative Plan at Appendix B) is from its frontages to Dew Lane and to Passfield Avenue and, on the eastern side, from the Pirelli Phase 1 site (now known as Park 21) the development of which with housing, offices, a community centre and public open space is nearing completion.
1.4.5 On the southern and part of the western sides of the site, there are interwar 2 storey residential properties which front onto Chadwick Road and Passfield Avenue respectively.
1.4.6 The buildings on the site comprise factory floor space, relatively modern offices (which are now let to tenants on a short term basis), a former social club (which has been disused since 2000) and various outbuildings.
1.4.7 The open areas of the site comprise hardstanding and car parking areas and former private recreational space (which has also been disused since 2000).
1.4.8 On the northern boundary of the site, the hedgerow between the footpath and the carriageway in Dew lane is designated as an ‘important hedgerow’ under the 1997 Hedgerow Regulations and may be of ancient origin.
1.4.9 There are numerous mature trees inside the site boundary adjacent to the rear of properties fronting onto Chadwick Road and Passfield Avenue and also located in the north eastern area of the site near Dew Lane (see 1.6.2 below).
1.4.10 The soils on the neighbouring Pirelli phase 1 site were found to be contaminated. A Geotechnical Survey Report assessing this site for ground contamination will need to be submitted with a planning application (see 4.1 (d) below).
1.5 Site History
1.5.1 The buildings date from various decades in the second half of the 20th Century. The most modern building on the site – the 3 storey office building - was constructed in the early 1990’s.
1.6 Designations
1.6.1 There are no Conservation Areas in the immediate vicinity, although the site is relatively close to the Eastleigh Urban Renaissance Quarter (north of Leigh Road) designated in the Local Plan which aims to create a more intensive and vital mixed residential area as development opportunities arise.
1.6.2 The mature trees inside the southern and part of the western boundaries of the site are the subject of Tree Preservation Order No. 449 – Pirelli Site, Passfield Avenue, Eastleigh, 2002. TPO No. 601 – Prysmian site, Dew Lane,
3 87 Eastleigh (October 2007) covers further individual mature trees in the north eastern area of the site.
An extract from each of the TPOs is provided at Appendix C
1.7 Other Constraints
1.7.1 The vehicular access to the site will need to be from the four points in the eastern end of the site identified in the Indicative Plan (Appendix B). The access from the west will be determined by the conclusions of the Transport Assessment.
1.7.2 TPO trees (see 1.6.2)
1.7.3 Potential Soil Contamination (see 1.4.9)
1.7.4 Neighbouring properties. Potential issues of overlooking and disturbance during construction.
1.7.5 Existing office building to be retained. Retaining the office use and associated plant room will require careful assessment of noise levels and of site layout to ensure any nearby residential dwellings are not subject to unacceptable levels of noise.
1.7.6 Office plant room. This currently is located in what will become a prominent location on the main route through the site.
1.7.7 As this development is adjacent and close to the current Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) any developer needs to have regard to the policy detail, 33ES in the Eastleigh Borough local plan requiring air quality modeling/assessment of the impact of construction and occupation on the AQMA.
1.7.8 retaining the office use and associated plant room will require careful assessment of noise levels and of site layout to ensure any nearby residential dwellings are not subject to unacceptable levels of noise.
4 88 SECTION 2: CLARIFICATION OF POLICY ISSUES
2.1 Policy 80.H and its supporting text (see sub-section 1.3 above) leave a number of issues to be clarified in this Development Brief.
2.2 Following further consideration by Council Officers, the required clarification is as follows:
(a) Additional Employment Floorspace
The Council considers that the need for housing outweighs the need for additional employment floorspace.
(b) Housing
The density of development will be addressed during pre-application discussions, alongside access and design proposals.
All dwellings in the development must be constructed to achieve at least Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Any development taking place after 2012 must meet at least Code Level 4.
(c) Public Open Space
The quantity of open space required in the development is based on the Local Plan standard (see also paragraphs 5.2 (b) (vi) and 5.5 of this Brief). In addition to the completion of the ‘circus’ which has been partly formed during the development of the Phase I site (see the Indicative Plan at Appendix C), a further single area of on-site public open space amounting to at least 0.2ha will be required (as per the Eastleigh Greenspace Strategy).
(d) Community Provision
A new community centre has been provided during the development of the Phase I site, close to the boundary with this site. This centre is already very well used but will be available for use by new residents in this development. Additional facilities specifically serving the needs of teenagers are needed. A financial contribution may be required towards the future provision of such facilities in the locality by the Council.
(e) Compensation for Loss of Community Buildings and Social and Recreational Facilities on Site
In satisfaction of this requirement (Criterion (iii) of Policy 80.H – see subsection 1.3 in Appendix A), the Council will accept the transfer to the Council (free of charge but subject to a restriction of use to outdoor recreational purposes) of the former Pirelli Sports Ground in Chestnut Avenue, Eastleigh together with an appropriate financial contribution to enable the Council to restore the playing fields and ancillary changing room accommodation to a condition fit for use. This is in compensation for the loss of the sports and recreation facilities mentioned in 1.4.6 and 1.4.7 above.
5 89 (f) Health Provision
The Hampshire Primary Care Trust (PCT) wishes to establish a health or healthcare facility on this site. For a 3 GP practice, this will require a minimum floorspace of 420 sqm as well as space for 10 no. cars. In addition a minimum 20 no. car adopted on-street visitor car park must be located very near this facility. The developer will be required to make available at no cost an area of the site adequate to accommodate this facility.
The other provisions of the policy also still apply.
2.3 Prospective developers should also note the requirements set out in Section 5 (Planning Obligations) of this Development Brief.
6 90 SECTION 3: PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT
This section sets out a number of principles which should shape the development of this site.
3.1 Occupational Uses
3.1.1 The adopted site-specific planning policy – Policy 80H of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) – allocates the site for, primarily, residential development but to include:-
the retention of the existing office premises
the provision of additional employment floorspace
public open space
community provision
3.1.2 As set out in Section 2 above, the Council has given further consideration to the uses which would be appropriate for the development of this site. Developers are invited to bring forward proposals which reflect the updated position.
3.1.3 The Council requires the inclusion of four live/work units which should be provided together in an appropriate location on the main route through the site. Both the live and work elements must be part of the same planning unit.
3.1.4 The Council requires the inclusion of four residential units which, on the ground floor, are fully adaptable to small scale commercial use. These should be on the street side of the building in an appropriate location on the main route through the site.
3.2 Access
3.2.1 The site must be highly permeable, with good pedestrian and cycle links across it in both north/south and east/west directions. These should be from the Dew Lane access connecting with the Pirelli Phase 1 cycle route via the circular park (the “circus”) and from the “circus” to the Passfield Avenue access respectively. (see the Indicative Plan at Appendix B).
3.2.2 Vehicular access will require careful consideration and will need to be agreed with the Hampshire County Council (HCC), as highway authority, prior to the final layout being adopted. A full Transport Assessment (TA) will be required. This will need to cover impact on the surrounding highway network, including options for Dew Lane, and consider the operation and capacity of adjacent junctions such as the Passfield Avenue/Leigh Road junction. The potential impact on the Strategic Road Network should also be considered. Pedestrian and cycle access should be from Dew Lane and Park 21(the Pirelli development) in the positions shown on the Indicative Plan at Appendix B. An additional pedestrian and cycle access should
7 91 connect the site with Passfield Avenue.
3.2.3 A pedestrian and cycleway link from Passfield Avenue to the public open space “circus”, thereby providing the completion of this link through the Phase I development to Factory Road, is required. This should take the form of a tree-lined boulevard, which may also provide a vehicular route, with trees at, on average at least 1 tree per 5 linear metres of street, which ultimately attain a medium to large size and are provided with appropriate growing space (at least 7 metres from the nearest building). This route needs to be overlooked by residential buildings along its length.
3.2.4 The development should create a hierarchy of internal streets including a through route which links Passfield Avenue to Leigh Road via the eastern end of Dew Lane
3.2.5 The development should accommodate a set back from the highway to enable an enhanced pedestrian and cycle crossing across Passfield Avenue.
3.2.6 The Dew Lane footpath should be widened to 2.5m to allow for the future growth of the important and possibly ancient hedgerow on the road carriageway side.
3.2.7 Access to the site through Great Farm Road must not become a potential high speed route through both sites. Consideration should be given in preventing this through physical traffic calming measures.
3.3 Vehicle parking
3.3.1 Car parking of off-road allocated spaces will be expected to provide an average of:
1 space per 1 bedroom property
1.5 spaces per 2 or 3 bedroom property
2 spaces per 4 (or more) bedroom property
In addition there should be adopted, on-street unallocated casual/visitor car parking equivalent to 1 space per 5 units. The difference between allocated and unallocated (adopted) car parking spaces must be made physically distinct. No allocated car spaces should be provided between the adopted highway carriageway and adopted highway footway.
3.3.2 The office car park will accommodate 1 car space per 30 sqm of office space (HCC standards) and will need to be reduced in size if it currently exceeds the level calculated via this formula. The location and layout of this car park may need to change to help accommodate the objective which is to maximise the residential frontage facing Dew Lane. Consideration should be given to the dual use of this car park with public visitor parking outside office hours.
8 92 3.3.3 It is expected that parking restrictions will need to be introduced throughout the adopted roads on the site to prohibit parking except in defined spaces.
3.3.4 Cycle storage for houses and flats will also be needed. Covered, secure storage for 1 bicycle per flat and 2 per house will be required. Cycle storage for flats should be integrated into the main building.
3.4 Urban Design
3.4.1 The development should be laid out in a clear and simple connected street layout with clear public (street) frontages and private (garden) backs to homes. (see the Indicative Plan at Appendix B).
3.4.2 Street design should conform with the ‘Manual for Streets’ (Dept for Transport 2007).
3.4.3 There should be no blocks of flats surrounded by large areas of open space or areas of car parking when viewed from the street but rather there should be good enclosure of streets provided by strong, relatively continuous building lines (without large gaps in the street frontage).
3.4.4 Where urban densities (above 50 dph) are proposed within the development the architecture should reflect this with contemporary urban house types.
3.4.5 Standard house types will not be acceptable.
3.4.6 There should be clear public and private sides to buildings, with the public sides relating to the street. All private houses should have front gardens. There should be clear visual and physical demarcation between public and private space.
Figure 2: Indicative sketch showing clear differentiation between public (street) and private (garden) sides to development. Also suitable street dimensions for street trees
9 93 3.4.7 To accommodate street trees (as well as well-designed bin storage) front gardens should be approximately 4m in depth. All front gardens should be enclosed with brick walls or by railings set on brick plinths between brick piers.
3.4.8 Street level elevations must not be dominated by garages or other ‘dead’ frontages.
3.4.9 Full provision for refuse and recycling bin stores will be needed. Minimum requirements are set out in the Eastleigh Borough Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘Storage and Collection of Domestic Waste and Recyclable Materials’ ( December 2005. Bin storage for houses should be carefully designed within front gardens. Bin storage for flats should be integrated within the main buildings.
3.4.10 New buildings which front onto the “circus” should complement those which front onto the “circus” within Phase I (Park 21) by following the same arc and by fronting onto the open space with balconies. The design of these balconies should not dominate the building elevation while allowing for sitting out. These buildings should be at least 3 storeys in height and should mostly consist of family housing.
3.4.11 At the junction of Passfield Avenue and Dew Lane it is felt that there is an opportunity to provide a landmark building alongside the western entrance to the site. Further local landmark buildings should be provided at the end of vistas or at road junctions, where buildings should address their corner locations.
3.4.12 A mixture of tenures and a range of dwelling unit sizes and building sizes will be required throughout the development. Two and three storey development is appropriate. Building elements as high as four storeys might be appropriate in rare situations (e.g. as part of a ‘landmark building’). There is now an additional requirement to provide a greater emphasis on the amount of family accommodation. No more than 25% of the units should consist of apartments unless it can clearly be justified in terms of a good housing mix.
3.4.13 The Council believes that the most suitable location for apartments is north of the main route or boulevard, in the northeastern corner of the site, between the existing office site and the Passfield Avenue. This location will also maximise the feasibility for connecting these apartments to the existing district heating facility on Passfield Avenue.
3.4.14 All existing brick walls on the site boundary should be retained unless otherwise agreed. The new property owners will be responsible for the maintenance of these walls unless any new management arrangements are put in place.
3.4.15 Public spaces should be designed to accommodate a high level of use, should be easily maintained and should have robust, high quality materials fit for adoption by the Borough Council.
3.4.16 The layout and design should demonstrate crime reduction compliance. This should include good passive surveillance and clear separation of public and private domains. In particular, play areas and car parking must be
10 94 overlooked by surrounding buildings. The existing footpath along Dew Lane must benefit from some significant new residential development facing onto it. Apartments or houses which overlook streets and open space should have properly-dimensioned balconies (minimum depth 1.2m) which enable sitting out.
3.4.17 The section of the Dew Lane hedgebank and associated footpath indicated on the Indicative Plan (Appendix B) should be reconfigured to match the original elevated level of the footpath to marry in with the majority of the remaining footpath which is still at the original higher level.
3.4.18 The widened Dew Lane footpath should be open to the new development along its length, necessitating the removal of all hedges, walls and fences on its southern side but carefully retaining any substantial trees (as agreed with the LPA).
3.4.19 Along the Dew Lane boundary, new residential development should form a frontage with front gardens opening onto access roads which run parallel and adjacent to the suitably widened Dew Lane footpath.
3.4.20 The existing office plant building will need to be relocated to a less conspicuous location, ideally in close association with the office building and away from the public realm.
3.4.21 The main vehicular route may coincide with the pedestrian/cycle tree-lined boulevard (see 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 above) and the layout and massing of buildings should reflect the different identity and function of the street.
Figure 3: Tight streets may be used but not for long stretches (as no room for street trees) and only 2 storey buildings suitable.
11 95 Figure 4: Wider streets require three storey buildings to create enclosure. Space for medium sized street trees, in scale with the buildings, is now available, creating a further sense of enclosure and more attractive streets.
Figure 5: A hybrid form of the above allows street trees on at least one side of the street (which can alternate).
12 96
Figure 6: A plan view of the hybrid form shown in Figure 5. The street tree planting on alternate sides of the street can be part of a traffic-calming chicane.
3.5 Sustainable Development
3.5.1 All residential building must meet at least the following standards of the Code for Sustainable Homes with certification at both the design and the post construction stages:
Completion up to 1 January 2012 at least Code Level 3
Completion from 1 January 2012 at least Code level 4
Completion from 1 January 2016 at least Code Level 6
Post-construction review certificates will be required for each dwelling type after each phase of construction has been completed.
Any non-residential buildings will be expected to achieve the appropriate BREEAM ‘very good’ standard (‘excellent’ standard from 2012). All affordable dwellings developed on the site will need to meet the standards required by the Housing Corporation at the time of construction in order to be able to attract funding for the scheme. The standards required may be above the minimum standards required in this brief and will therefore need to be 13
97 discussed as the detail of the scheme is worked up.
3.5.2 The layout of the site, and the orientation (within 30 degrees of south) and design of buildings, should demonstrate how passive solar heat gain can be utilised. Buildings should include fenestration (such as conservatories) and materials with thermal mass designed to capitalise on passive solar heat gain.
3.5.3 The development will need to be designed to avoid excessive heat gain in summer (shading, architectural details, natural ventilation and deciduous tree planting)
3.5.4 Buildings should be designed for long life and low user cost and should demonstrate low energy design both in use and in construction. Terraced medium rise buildings are the most energy efficient building forms. Flank walls, detached and semi-detached building forms should be minimised.
3.5.5 All buildings which do not have good solar access should be ‘super- insulated’
3.5.6 Every dwelling’s predicted CO2 emissions should be reduced by at least 10% by the supply of energy from local renewable or low carbon energy sources. All dwellings should gain at least 1 of the available 2 credits in Ene 7 (Low or Zero Carbon Technologies) in the Code for Sustainable Homes.
3.5.7 The opportunities for the installation of a community heating scheme (or a connection to an existing scheme) and/or a combined heat and power system for the site should be fully explored to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council at the earliest possible stage before any utility agreements are negotiated. Such a scheme must be implemented if proven technically and economically viable.
3.5.8 A site Travel Plan will be expected for the whole development. Any new employment development which may be proposed should make provision for showers and changing facilities to encourage commuting by bicycle.
3.5.9 Planting should encourage wildlife by the selection of native species and varieties (provided they are climate change resilient) that provide food sources for native fauna where appropriate.
3.5.10 Rainwater harvesting and/or grey water recycling should be employed to reduce the amount of white water consumption by residents and workers.
3.5.11 Surface water drainage should, where possible, be through porous surfaces such as landscaped areas or free-draining car parking, adopting the principles of sustainable drainage as recommended by the Environment Agency, reducing the quantity of water directed into surface water sewers, particularly during periods of peak flow.
14
98 3.6 Trees and Landscape
3.6.1 A 20 metre exclusion zone between the site boundary and new buildings will be required where the belt of TPO protected trees runs along the backs of the Chadwick Road and Passfield Avenue properties. No buildings should be constructed inside this 20 metre zone. This is to provide gardens of sufficient length to mitigate against the significant shading that these trees provide. Back gardens of a more standard length would inevitably lead to a ‘pressure to prune’ these trees from the new residents. All new property boundaries which run through this belt of trees must take care to avoid damaging the tree roots.
3.6.2 The trees protected by Tree Preservation Order no. 601 in the north eastern part of the site must be protected to a standard agreed by the Council’s arboriculturalist. An Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statements will be required for all trees on the site.
3.6.3 The Developer must carry out any of the works to the trees recommended by the Arboricultural Implications Assessment to improve their safety and long term health before any construction work is commenced on site.
3.6.4 The development should be characterised by street tree planting in all streets, creating avenues along the main routes and creating vistas. All streets should have an average minimum of one street tree for every 10 linear metres of street. To achieve this, it will be essential that detailed consideration is given to soft landscaping, including tree planting, within the layout and not as an afterthought. There should be no use of shrub areas in public areas. Emphasis must be on providing adequate space for street trees in hard surfacing. Street tree varieties should be those that are relatively long-lived and should be ultimately medium to large in size and planted at a minimum girth of 18-20cm with underground guying. All such street trees need to be planted in well dimensioned planting pits (2m x 2m minimum) or trenches to a 1m minimum depth of subsoil, free from underground services. All such street trees should be planted at least 7m from the nearest building and also in accordance with Hampshire County Council (HCC) guidelines for trees within the highway.
3.6.5 Large trees should be additionally designed into the development layout within the public realm (streets and public open space) which are at least 10m from the nearest building.
3.6.6 Tree specifications will be conditioned as part of any planning permission to cover the following:
• Tree pit design
• Planting specification
• Plant specification
15
99 • Aftercare specification (3 years)
• Irrigation (3 years)
• Condition compliance monitoring reports (monthly)
• Failure of tree condition
3.6.7 All landscape in the Highway (i.e. street trees) details must be submitted together with infrastructure for simultaneous approval (housing and open space landscape details can be submitted phase by phase).
3.6.8 Areas of proposed public open space that require remediation from soil contamination require a 1000mm depth of remediation. 500mm of this should be subsoil and the top 500mm should be topsoil.
3.7 Play
3.7.1 The minimum 0.2ha area of new open space will accommodate a play area with equipment funded by the developer but designed and implemented by Eastleigh Borough Council.
3.7.2 The developer will also fund an improvement to the adjacent existing play area on the Pirelli site, to be designed and implemented by Eastleigh Borough Council.
3.8 Phased Release of the Site for Development
3.8.1 It is appreciated that Prysmian intends to release part of the site for development in advance of the cessation of manufacturing at this location but with confirmed dates for the cessation of manufacturing operations and the release of any interim retained part.
3.8.2 Any such phased development will be dependent upon an approved masterplan for the development of the whole site. No occupation of any dwellings east of the dashed line shown on the Indicative Plan (entitled ‘phasing line’) (see Appendix B) will be permitted until the operations at the Prysmian factory have permanently ceased.
3.9 Public Art
3.9.1 In accordance with the policy for art in the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review and the Eastleigh Borough Council’s draft Planning Obligations SPD (Draft to be published for consultation April 2008) the Council will expect the developer to fund a public art scheme, which makes a positive contribution to 16
100 the public space.
This will be project managed either by Eastleigh Borough Council or will be contracted out using professional public art project management in collaboration with the developer. A detailed Public Art Statement will be expected with any planning application (in accordance with the forthcoming Eastleigh Borough Council Public Art Guidance).
3.10 Provision of Sewerage Infrastructure 3.10.1 Southern Water is currently investigating the capacity of the existing local sewers to accommodate any additional wastewater flows arising from development on the site. If the results show that capacity is insufficient to meet demand, the local sewer will need to be upgraded before the development can connect into it. The Water Services Regulation Authority (also known as Ofwat) takes the view that the developer should fund investment to local infrastructure for improvements required to service new development. This allows the cost of the investment to be passed to new customers, who directly benefit from it, and protects existing customers, who would otherwise have to pay through increases in general charges. The formal requisition procedures set out in the Water Industry Act 1991 provide a legal mechanism for developers to provide the necessary infrastructure to service their site. Southern Water will look to the Council to support this approach to ensure that development does not take place until infrastructure with adequate capacity is provided. Development that takes place before adequate sewerage infrastructure is available may lead to service failures such as flooding of property and environmental pollution. 3.10.2 On-site foul water sewers to serve the development should be constructed to adoptable standards. This will ensure provision of an efficient and sustainable sewer network to serve the development. Developers should refer to the current edition of Sewers for Adoption, published by WRc (http://www.wrcplc.co.uk/sfa/). Southern Water will only adopt on-site sewers if they are constructed to adoptable standards. If the sewers are not adopted by Southern Water, responsibility for their operation and maintenance falls to the owner of the infrastructure (usually property owners who may not have the necessary skills and knowledge to operate and maintain the infrastructure). 3.11 Construction Impact
17
101
3.11.1 Given the scale of demolition and construction works and the close proximity of residential dwellings great care will need to be exercised by the developer during the demolition and construction phases. The developer will be required to appoint a single person to have overall responsibility for ensuring adequate control of the environmental impacts of the development, and detailed procedures for public liaison and complaint resolution.
18
102 SECTION 4 – SUPPORTING INFORMATIVE STUDIES
4.1 Without prejudice to its response to a pre-planning application Screening Opinion in relation to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, it may be anticipated that the Council will require a planning application for the development of this site to be supported by:-
(a) A Full Transportation Assessment.
(b) A Sustainability Analysis including design stage certificates for Level 3 (or above, as appropriate) of the Code for Sustainable Homes for each ‘dwelling type’ and the BREEAM equivalent for non-residential buildings..
(c) A Travel Plan to cover both the residential and any employment uses on the site.
(d) A Geotechnical Survey to establish the level of any contamination and, as necessary, a scheme of remediation. Good quality reporting of that remediation will subsequently be required.
(e) A Report addressing the mitigation of Noise, Vibration and the Control of Dust in relation to demolition and construction works.
(f) A Landscape and Tree Management Strategy
(g) A Public Art Strategy.
(h) A whole-site development Master Plan
(i) A Design and Access Statement including illustrative details of public realm aspects of the development.
(j) A Noise Impact Assessment.
(k) A Flood Risk Assessment.
19
103 SECTION 5 – PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
5.1 In general, these should be compliant with the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on Planning Obligations as at the date of the submission of a planning application. (Draft to be published for consultation April 2008)
5.2 More specifically, and relating to Policy 80.H of the adopted Local Plan Review, it should be noted that:-
(a) The Council’s target is that 35% of the dwellings on this site should be affordable housing (criterion (iv) of Policy 80.H), of a mix, type, and size, reflecting the mix of the development as a whole and tenure to be agreed.
(b) Financial contributions will be required, in furtherance of criteria (ii) and (iii) of Policy 80.H and in so far as they are consistent with the application of Government Circular 05/05 (or any replacement of that Circular):-
(i) To improve educational provision in the locality.
(ii) For transport improvements in accordance with the HCC Transport Contributions Policy and to mitigate any residual impact on the strategic road network highlighted in the Transport Assessment.
(iii) Towards the provision, by the Council, of a community facility within the locality specifically for teenagers and young people.
(iv) To improve accessibility from the town centre through the site to Fleming Park, particularly for cyclists and pedestrians.
(vi) To provide a fully equipped children’s play area (to be designed and constructed by EBC) and to improve the closely adjacent play area on the Pirelli site.
(vii) For any on-site shortfall of Public Open Space, against the Council’s adopted standards, calculated, and to be allocated, in accordance with paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 below.
(viii) For the future maintenance of on-site Public Open Space (unless the Applicant should not propose the adoption of Public Open Space by the Council and should propose adequate arrangements for maintenance by a management company).
(ix) For the future maintenance of any SUDS design measures on site not otherwise covered by the local authority, highway authority or Southern Water. 20
104 (x) For the future maintenance of all street trees in the highway by Hampshire County Council (in accordance with the draft Eastleigh Borough Council SPD on Planning Obligations).
(xi) For public art.
(xii) For parking controls to enforce the restricted parking on adopted roads.
5.3 The developer of this site will be expected to enter into an agreement with the Council to provide a programme of training courses/apprenticeships as part of the development process and to utilise the South East Hants Employment in Construction (SEECON) project to deliver this benefit.
5.4 With regard to paragraph 5.2 (b) (iv) above, developer’s contributions should be directed to the improvement of existing off-site facilities in particular environmental improvements to the neighbouring Fleming Park and the link to Fleming Park across Passfield Avenue at which point a traffic light controlled pedestrian and cycle crossing will be needed.
5.5 The standard calculation for determining the amount of public open space on site is set at 2.8ha per 1000 population (or 28 sq m per bedroom). The baseline figure for calculating off-site contributions, when there is public open space on site below the standard requirement, is £485 per bedroom (index linked from April 2001). The actual size of public open space provided in the development divided by the full requirement will provide the fraction 1/X. The off-site contributions for this site will be calculated using the formula (£485 x (1-1/X)) per bedroom.
5.6 It is advised that the matters covered in this Section are discussed with the Council prior to the submission of a planning application.
21
105 APPENDIX A: Policy 80.H
The relevant extract from the Local Plan Review (with the Policy in bold) for the specific is as follows:-
“Pirelli/Passfield Avenue (Phase II)
“5.60 In September 2001 the Council adopted a development brief relating to the easternmost 11.7ha of the Pirelli Cables site in Leigh Road, Eastleigh. It is expected that the remainder of this site will become available for redevelopment (see Plan 12) and it is critical that its future is considered comprehensively in the context of its surroundings. To this end the Council will adopt a development brief to guide future redevelopment of the site. The development brief will be a material consideration in determining any planning application relating to the site. It is anticipated that the site will accommodate approximately 400 dwellings and an element of B1(b) employment floorspace. The development brief will clarify the site’s capacity to accommodate housing, employment, public open space and community provision.
“80.H Development will be permitted on land currently occupied by Pirelli General off Passfield Avenue, as shown on the Proposals Map, subject to all the following criteria being met:
i. redevelopment will be for primarily residential purposes with retention of the existing office premises, the provision of additional employment floorspace, public open space and community provision;
ii. financial contributions will be required to improve education provision in the locality; to improve accessibility between the site and the town centre, particularly for cyclists and pedestrians, for recreation and public transport facilities, and for public open space and community provision off-site;
iii. additional provision will need to be made off-site to compensate for any loss of existing community buildings and social and recreational facilities on site; and
iv. the Council’s target is for 35% of dwellings on this site to be affordable.”
22
106 107 This page is intentionally left blank
108 APPENDIX C: Extracts From Tree Preservation Orders Nos. 449 & 601
109 110
111
112
113 This page is intentionally left blank
114 PRYSMIAN II DEVELOPMENT BRIEF
QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS
Consultation from 23 February until 10 March 2008
Number of questionnaires received: 36
Q1: Do you agree that the new housing should be as environmentally sustainable (‘green’) as possible (and therefore cheaper to run), even if this increases the cost of buying slightly?
Question 1
9% 3%
Yes No Don't know
88%
Q2: Is a new doctor’s surgery on this site a good idea?
Question 2
14%
9% Yes No Don't know
77%
Other comments received:
Drop in surgery; access and traffic issues should be resolved.
115
Q3a: Should the developer make a financial contribution to help fund a ‘youth facility’?
Question 3
9% 12% Yes No Don't know
79%
Q3b: If yes, should it be on this site or elsewhere in Eastleigh?
Question 3b
37% On site Elsewhere 63%
Q4: Should all new streets have fairly generous street tree planting (as long as these trees are not too near the buildings)?
Question 4
11% 0%
Yes No Don't know
89%
116 Q5a: Should the development provide a greater proportion of ‘family houses’ to apartments than the recently completed developments on the Pirelli site?
Question 5a
8% 6%
Yes No Don't know
86%
Q5b: Percentage of whole development that should be apartments: 20% or 30% or 40%
Question 5b
3% 3%
10% 20% 30%
20% 40% 64% None Less
Q6: Do you believe that the Dew Lane footpath would benefit from new homes overlooking it to provide better surveillance and the feeling of safety?
Question 6
6%
Yes No 40% 54% Don't know
Other comments: Widen the path 117
Q7: What do you think should be the maximum height of new buildings on the site?
Question 7
0% 0% 2 storeys
3 storeys 42%
4 storeys 58%
More than 4 storeys
Q8: Do you think that the proposed east-west pedestrian and cycle route from Passfield Avenue through the site and (through the neighbouring Pirelli site) connecting with Factory Road is a good idea?
Question 8
6% 3%
Yes No Don't know
91%
Q9: One suggestion is to combine the Pirelli and the Prysmian developers’ contributions for art/environmental improvement works to help pay for the central circular park to be improved in the way it looks and works. This could make it a more special and distinctive public park. Do you think this is a good idea?
Question 9
20%
Yes 9% No Don't know 71%
118
Q10: What is good about the Pirelli development?
Close to shops/railway/airport/major road links - 2 Affordable housing 2 Nothing: 7 Attractive buildings 2 Pedestrian/cycle routes 1 Closure of factory 3 Redevelopment of brownfield site 2 Central Circular Park 2 The Crescent is attractive 1 Facilities for young being considered 1
Q11: What is bad about the Pirelli development?
Increased anti-social behaviour/lack of policing. 2
Too many flats; overdeveloped; overcrowded; cramped buildings too high; poor quality buildings; wrong social mix 16
Wrong social mix 1
Poor parking; obstructive parking; no restrictions; too few 10 Parking spaces. Wheelchair users can’t get past the cars
Confused road layout; uneven paths, roads not marked; Poor quality roads, raised manholes 8
Unfinished section a mess. Current development not Looked after. 1
No centre – pub, shops, etc. 1
Not enough green space/open space/trees/play areas For children 4
Everything. 2
Need more schools/doctors/chemist/community hall 1
Poor lighting on green. 1
Too much strain on local services – extra people 1
Too much traffic/increase in traffic 5
Cuts down major employment in and around Eastleigh Area 1
119
Any Other Comments?
• More play areas needed • Traffic congestion and pollution in Passfield Ave and Leigh Road (2 people) • More parking than on Pirelli 1 • Better legibility of streets • Fear of overlooking by new development (10 people) • Dew Lane traffic should not increase • Must be more sustainable development • More visitor car parking than 1 every 5 dwellings • Concern about odd junction Chadwick, Coniston, Tennyson, O’Connell. County considering this. • George Raymond Road should not be main construction access point (2 people) • Maintenance of TPO trees. Who is responsible? • More CCTV wanted • More Affordable Housing • Improve surrounding road network • Shops wanted • New planted screening of 69 and 71 Passfield Ave • Free pest service wanted as rats migrated into residential properties after demolition of Pirelli I (2 people) • More employment in Eastleigh needed (2 people) • Pirelli 1 far too crowded • Preserve character of Dew Lane (2 people)
120 Agenda Item 9
CABINET
Thursday 3 April 2008
EASTLEIGH PUBLIC TRANSPORT STRATEGY: BOROUGH-WIDE STRATEGIC BUS NETWORK 2008-2011
Report of the Head of Transportation and Engineering
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Cabinet:-
(1) Support the policy as a means for prioritising funding for the Eastleigh Area Bus Network until 2011 as annual funding streams allow to support services on the strategic network and also the social dividend network of routes;
(2) Use the policy as a form of assessment when approached for top-up funding for services which are not operated commercially or subsidised by Hampshire County Council or other sources.
(3) Note that services described in recommendation (2) shall be assessed on the grounds of where a service lies within the adopted policy alongside the cost per head of providing the service and the accessibility profile of services utilising the Council’s accessibility model.
Summary
Hampshire County Council (HCC) has recently re-tendered its supported bus network with some services no longer being funded due to operator service withdrawal. Bus services funded by Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) will be put under further pressure from the withdrawal of commercial services and also the increasing prices of subsidised services. This policy aims to direct the existing funding for public transport to services that meet the needs of the core strategic network with services which provide a social dividend.
Statutory Powers
Transport Act 1985
Introduction
1. Costs within the bus industry are rising more steeply than local authority funding; the pressures are mainly due to driver wages, fuel prices and insurance. These cost increases continue to put the County’s bus subsidy
121 budget under pressure. This in turn puts pressure on the limited discretionary resources of EBC and gives rise to the opportunity to prioritise previously reactionary piecemeal funding.
2. The Environment and Transport Scrutiny Panel has endorsed this policy as have all Local Area Committees of the Council following which a period of consultation took place and the policy has been amended to take the comments of all interested parties on board. The response to the consultation is included at Appendix 1 to this report as well as changes proposed to the draft policy. The policy proposed for adoption is attached as Appendix 2.
3. Eastleigh Borough Council is the responsible authority for concessionary fares, although it is proposed that this function is transferred to Hampshire County Council in 2011. From April 2008 the scheme will allow concessionary pass holders to travel on any local bus service in England, those passengers boarding buses within the border of the Borough of Eastleigh will be charged to EBC unlike now where EBC pick up the cost for its own residents only. The level of additional funding for 2008/2009 is expected to be in the region of £305k. To some extent, operators blamed the withdrawal of some of the commercial red rocket (and other) bus services on the reimbursement rate of concessionary fares both locally and nationally – claiming that the reimbursement rate in the pound makes services which were previously commercially viable, no longer so.
Eastleigh Borough Public Transport Policy
4. Whilst EBC has no statutory obligation to provide subsidies for local bus services the Council has taken the decision to support certain local services which are deemed socially necessary and do not meet the current criterion set for a County Council subsidy. In addition to these direct subsidies the Council also provides top-up funding for certain HCC contracts in the area.
5. Within the context of rising costs of bus operation and the limited resource of the County Council, the way EBC funds public transport services needs to be prioritised to achieve overall best value that is in line with the aspirations of the Council but that also supports the aims of the Local Transport Plan.
6. Until 2007 the funding of services by EBC evolved in a piecemeal manner over time. At the time HCC renewed its subsidies of local bus and transport services within the Borough it seemed timely that the criteria for top–up funding provided by limited resources allows for a clear and transparent allocation of funds dependent upon priorities consistent with policy. The Strategic Bus network policy seeks to provide this framework for funding.
7. The main priorities in supporting local bus services to, from, within and through the Borough are to maintain connections to main centres of population. The strategic network typically constitutes services operating a regular frequency at or above 1 bus per hour during daytime with additional evening and Sunday services, albeit at a reduced rate. These services are referred to as the Strategic Bus Network for Eastleigh – maintaining connections between nodes, centres of employment, housing and leisure.
122 This means supporting commercial (HCC frontline) services and HCC subsidised services. Where budgets allow EBC can identify funding for service improvements in consultation with operators, HCC and users.
8. Social Dividend Routes are generally classed as those services which provide an hourly or less daytime service but with limited evening and Sunday services. These services generally will not fulfil the criteria of HCC funding but provide a social linkage, which should ideally be maintained.
9. The Social Dividend network is subject to funding within budgets available to EBC in terms of supporting services but is secondary to maintaining the strategic network and hence will be regularly reviewed where EBC provides all or some subsidy.
10. It is intended that EBC reviews it funding of transport services in 2008. This policy allows for expenditure within funding available but also to be used as a background paper supporting overall transport policy as part of the emerging LDF and negotiating for developers contributions through development to improve overall accessibility.
Financial Implications
11. The bus support revenue budget for 2008/2009 is £211,230. The policy allows an assessment of support, on an annual basis, which can be subsidised within the prevailing budget for that year.
Risk Management
12. The policy aims to reduce the risk of funding being diverted from supporting routes on the strategic network utilising limited funding to best effect.
Conclusion
13. The Strategic Bus Network policy will assist in identifying how prevailing funds for bus service support by EBC can be targeted to achieve best value.
DUNCAN MCVEY Head of Transportation and Engineering
Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN
Date: 25th March 2008 Contact Officer: Paul Walker Tel No: 023 8068 8278 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 2 Report No: EN1075
123
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:
Eastleigh Borough Public Transport Policy – Borough-wide Strategic Bus Network 2008-2011, March 2008
124 Appendix 1
Borough of Eastleigh Strategic Bus Network – Response to Consultation
Rep Respondent Comments Response Action / Changes / Additional No. Amendment to Policy Comments Document 1 Environment AGREED – Noted and Agreed None Consultation & Transport (1) That, following consultation with Local Area Committees, with LACs Scrutiny it be recommended to Cabinet that the Strategy be used as and wider Panel a means for prioritising existing funding for the Eastleigh community as 20.09.07 Area Bus Network until 2011, as annual funding streams agreed. allow, to support services on the strategic network and also the Social Dividend network of routes; and Public (2) That the Strategy be used as a form of assessment Consultation when the Council is approached for top-up funding for 10.12.07 – services which are not operated commercially, or subsidised 18.01.08 by Hampshire County Council or other sources. Services shall be assessed on the grounds of where a service lies within the adopted policy alongside the cost per head of providing the service and the accessibility profile of services utilising the Council’s accessibility model.
2 Burlesdon, RESOLVED – Noted and Agreed None n/a Hamble & (1) That the policy be supported as a means for prioritizing Hound LAC existing funding for the Eastleigh Area Bus Network until 08.11.2007 2011, as annual funding streams allow, to support services on the strategic network and also the social dividend network of routes; and (2) That the policy be used as a form of assessment when approached for top-up funding for services which are not operated commercially or subsidised by Hampshire County Council or other sources. Services shall be assessed on the grounds of where a service lies within the adopted policy alongside the cost per head of providing the service and the accessibility profile of services utilising the Council’s accessibility model. 3 Bishopstoke, RESOLVED – Noted and Agreed None n/a Fair Oak and (1) That the policy be supported as a means for prioritizing Holton Heath existing funding for the Eastleigh Area Bus Network until LAC 2011as annual funding streams allow to support services on 125
126 Appendix 1 Rep Respondent Comments Response Action / Changes / Additional No. Amendment to Policy Comments Document 07.11.2007 the strategic network and also the social dividend network of routes; and (2) That the policy be used as a form of assessment when approached for top-up funding for services which were not operated commercially or subsidised by Hampshire County Council or other sources. Services would be assessed on the grounds of where a service lays within the adopted policy alongside the cost per head of providing the service and the accessibility profile of services utilising the Council’s accessibility model. 4 Hedge End, RESOLVED – Noted and Agreed None With Regard West End & (1) That the policy be supported as a means for prioritizing to Botley LAC existing funding for the Eastleigh Area Bus Network until Recommenda 22.10.2008 2011, as annual funding streams allow, to support services tion 3, CFH on the strategic network and also the social dividend service network of routes; and changes (2) That the policy be used as a form of assessment when planned for approached for top-up funding for services which are not February operated commercially or subsidised by Hampshire County 2008 were Council or other sources. Services shall be assessed on the discussed grounds of where a service lies within the adopted policy with CFHLAC alongside the cost per head of providing the service and the as to how accessibility profile of services utilising the Council’s they were accessibility model. effected (08.01.08) 5 Chandler’s RESOLVED - Noted and Agreed None n/a Ford & (1) That the Eastleigh Borough Public Transport policy be Hiltingbury supported as a means for prioritising existing funding for the LAC Eastleigh Area Bus Network until 2011, as annual funding 14.11.2007 streams allow, to support services on the strategic network and also the social dividend network of routes; (2) That the policy be used as a form of assessment when approached for top-up funding for services which are not operated commercially or subsidised by Hampshire County Council or other sources, and that services would be assessed on the grounds of where a service lays within the adopted policy alongside the cost per head of providing the
Appendix 1 Rep Respondent Comments Response Action / Changes / Additional No. Amendment to Policy Comments Document service and the accessibility profile of services utilising the Council’s accessibility model; and (3) That all the Local Area Committees be consulted on any proposed change in services. 6 Eastleigh RESOLVED – Noted and Agreed None n/a LAC (1) That the policy be supported as a means for prioritizing 30.10.07 existing funding for the Eastleigh Area Bus Network until 2011, as annual funding streams allow, to support services on the strategic network and also the social dividend network of routes; and (2) That the policy be used as a form of assessment when approached for top-up funding for services which are not operated commercially or subsidised by Hampshire County Council or other sources. Services be assessed on the grounds of where a service lies within the adopted policy alongside the cost per head of providing the service and the accessibility profile of services utilising the Council’s Accessibility model. 7 West End 1. Proposals by Go South Coast shows value of 1. Noted, although 1. Policy amended to Parish documents although concerned already out of date; document concentrates take account of Council 2. National Concessionary Fares scheme could affect on connecting nodes service changes viability of services further as well as HCC in terms of rather than particular from Feb 2008; public transport budget and the need for HCC to divert “services” aiming to 2. Policy amended to cash to social care budgets. overcome individual make specific 3. Eastleigh Borough pay £50-£60k pa to support 11 bus service changes; reference to routes in area, mostly jointly with HCC or SCC – 2. Noted, although not relationship of Eastleigh Council-tax payers will be paying more to within terms of concessionary support the non-commercial network which will require reference of policy fares and subsidy; further review of policy under consideration 3. None although concessionary fares clearly have impact upon subsidy and service provision; 3. Policy makes clear it looks to allocate annual (existing) funding rather than a bid for additional 127
128 Appendix 1 Rep Respondent Comments Response Action / Changes / Additional No. Amendment to Policy Comments Document funding. Policy aims to better target funding to main transport generating nodes 8 Bishopstoke • Not surprisingly, it raised a number of concerns such as • Noted and accepted. • None Parish can we rely on the bus companies to produce honest Policy aims to allocate Council cost figures when they were aware a subsidy might be funds in a clear and made and the use of bus concessionary passes but no transparent manner. comment was made which would impact directly of the strategy as drafted. Note was made of the limited resources available and the hope expressed that this would be put to best use according to the data available to you. 9 Southern 1. Welcome the opportunity to respond and wish to 1. Noted and accepted; 1. None; Point 7 – Parishes emphasise that they are willing to become involved in 2. Policy aims to deal with 2. None; Commercial Older any further discussions particularly as they affect older overall stage carriage 3. Policy amended to service Peoples people service provision under make reference to registered on Forum 2. Consider the document does little to address the needs the Transport Act 1985 give definition of former Red and aspirations of older people and services tendered DRT; Rocket B. 3. Members are particularly interested in the investigation which are “socially 4. Policy amended to Tendered of alternative unconventional forms of transport systems necessary” across all make clear the Service along (taxi-cars, community transport, shared cars and service users, not just relationship rest of route demand responsive services) and would be willing to be one specific group; between HCC and although involved in this - particularly as they are likely to affect 3. HCC and EBC have EBC hierarchy; route severed older people they would like an explanation of “demand worked together to 5. Policy amended to from responsive services”. develop unconventional include reference to 24.02.08. 4. Consider that the three hierarchy of services be made transport provision how policy meets Provides common between HCC and EBC as at present they are (taxibus, transport to EBCs corporate linkages in confusing - making it difficult to compare and contrast Hospital etc.) and will strategic objectives; terms of 5. Consider that the bus network strategy should be tied in continue to investigate 6. Policy amended to policy. with the Borough’s present Corporate Strategy & innovative, financially include reference to No other objectives – particularly in relationship to older people viable alternatives importance of multi- services in 6. Concerned that there appears to be no mention of an where practicable; modal and Southern integrated transport system, i.e. bus-to-bus, bus to train 4. Deliberately different transport node Parishes & bus to airport. levels identified to links; affected. 7. Deplore the withdrawal of some of the Solent Blue illustrate different 7. None Line’s Red Rocket services – in particular the service definition of “socially 8. None
Appendix 1 Rep Respondent Comments Response Action / Changes / Additional No. Amendment to Policy Comments Document that links the southern part of the Borough with the necessary” between airport. It is the members’ view that the services have transport authority and not in the past been properly advertised or the Borough Council. timetables widely promulgated. Social Dividend Routes 8. The Forum would welcome a visit by the Transport & highlight level below Development Manager to one of their open meetings. what HCC might consider funding although this could be made clearer; 5. Agreed and Accepted; 6. Agreed and Accepted; 7. Noted. Under the Hants Bus Strategy marketing is the responsibility of operators 8. Noted. 10 Go South 1. It is very pleasing that EBC is taking bus issues this 1. Appreciated and noted; 1. Noted EBC likely Coast (Solent seriously, some districts barely acknowledge sector. 2. Noted, although not 2. Policy amended to concession Blue Line) 2. One area is missing and that cannot be ignored for the within terms of make specific for 2008 likely coming year especially, but also in the long run is reference of policy reference to to be in the concessionary fares. With Hampshire reimbursement under consideration relationship of region of 52- going down as low as 40%, a full minibus of although concessionary concessionary 54p whereas concessionaires no is no longer commercial. fares clearly have fares and subsidy; Southampton 3. It is interesting seeing the unitaries perspective on this. impact upon subsidy 3. Policy amended to for same Southampton and IoW, both have kept their and service provision. make specific period likely reimbursement rates at a higher rate than the districts 3. Noted, although not reference to to be in because they know networks will start to fold if rates are within terms of relationship of region of 36- too low. Given many districts in the Hampshire scheme reference of policy concessionary 40p. are appear disinterested in bus usage it is not surprising under consideration fares and subsidy; the tendered services cost are going up and commercial although concessionary services are slipping. fares clearly have impact upon subsidy and service provision 11 First • Well worded document- and so nice to have a strategy 1. Appreciated and noted; 1. None Hampshire & document hat's manageable in length 2. Noted 2. None Dorset 3. February service 3. Policy amended to • We have no issues with the aims of the document and 129
130 Appendix 1 Rep Respondent Comments Response Action / Changes / Additional No. Amendment to Policy Comments Document look forward to continuing to work in partnership with changes have had take account of you to achieve the aims it sets out. some limited effect on service changes • Concern in terms of potential network reviews by SBL accessibility factors and from Feb 2008 that could put a big hole in the front line/ strategic nodal linkages network. 12 Cllr C 1. Bus companies should be encouraged to use the most 1. Noted; 1. None Thomas environmentally friendly vehicle. 2. Noted. Operational 2. None 2. Need a double decker to carry a few passengers on needs dictate vehicle 3. None busy routes movements and are in 3. Consider Sunday services provided through Dial-a-Ride. the hands of the operators and not local authorities except if explicitly stated in tendered contract; HCC and EBC have worked together to develop unconventional transport provision (taxibus, transport to Hospital etc.) and will continue to investigate innovative, financially viable alternatives where practicable;
Appendix 2
Eastleigh Borough Public Transport Policy – Borough-wide Strategic Bus Network 2008-2011
1. Introduction
1.1 This paper aims to highlight how Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) should allocate its limited financial resources to topping up and subsidising bus services in line with Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2) and its own accessibility criteria.
1.2 The Eastleigh Passenger Transport Area Review was undertaken in early 2007 by Hampshire County Council to help ensure that the range of transport services Hampshire County Council (HCC) supported keeps pace with changing travel needs, provides residents with a sustainable and affordable service and gives good access to essential services.
1.3 Costs within the bus industry are rising more steeply than local authority funding; the pressures are mainly due to increases in driver wages, fuel prices and insurance. These cost increases continue to put the County’s bus subsidy budget under pressure. Additionally both HCC and Southampton City Council (SCC) cut bus service subsidy in 2007.
1.4 This in turn puts pressure on the limited discretionary resources of EBC and gives rise to the opportunity to prioritise previously reactionary piecemeal funding.
1.5 Eastleigh Borough Council aims to create a great quality of life for all local people through the following strategic priorities:
• A Better Environment – A Clean and Green Borough; • A Prosperous Place – Where businesses can flourish and everyone is able to share in prosperity; • A Healthy Community – Active & lively with a spirit of community togetherness and well being.
1.6 Maintaining accessibility by all transport modes to major employment, educational and residential areas is essential to the prosperity of the Borough enabling all local residents’ to access locations by a variety of modes. A clear vision for linking key communities using a well set out strategy will assist overall planning objectives of increasing accessibility to sites by all modes of transport – enabling choice of mode will assist in achieving the vision of a cleaner, greener Borough.
1.7 The strategy aims to meet the strategic priority through influencing policy and planning decisions and also targeting the limited discretionary funding the Council has in terms of supporting local bus services. Whilst this funding is subject to review in 2008 as part of an overall review of transport expenditure the policy, as part of the Borough of Eastleigh Transport Strategy aims to link the need for maintaining strategic links between and through the Borough as well as whatever discretionary funding the Borough Council has over this period – as well as aiming to influence the work of Transport for South Hampshire and the new powers to Local Authorities enabled by the emerging Local Transport Bill.
1.8 The council’s accession accessibility model will also be used alongside this policy to look at the potential effect of service withdrawals and new services to examine the effect of the changing network of services on accessibility. Together the model and policy can best allocate limited financial resource.
2. Current Bus Network
2.1 The majority of bus services in the Borough are operated by Bluestar and most of these are operated commercially without subsidy from local authorities. Maps 1 & 2 at the rear of this document illustrate the current service pattern.
Version 2.3 March 2008 131 Page 1 Appendix 2 2.2 The Go-Ahead Group took control of the former Solent Blue Line in August 2005. Bluestar is the brand name for Go South Coast's key inter-urban and commuter route network into Southampton from Winchester, Eastleigh, Romsey and Hedge End. Bluestar services feature specially branded vehicles bearing a contemporary Bluestar star logo and supported by an interactive website, including stop-by-stop timetables.
2.3 The Red Rocket Concept brand of midibus services based in Eastleigh, Chandler’s Ford and Hedge End commenced in September 2006 with the network taking in additional routes in February and September 2007. However the commercial viability of these services were not proved and services B (Eastleigh- Boyatt Wood circular) and D (Eastleigh-Valley Park- Hiltingbury) were withdrawn in February 2008. The B only had lifespan of 18 months and much of the route covered was on, or very near to existing services 8 & E. In the case of D Hampshire County Council, and Eastleigh Borough Council, in partnership let an emergency contract to extend service C from Fryern Hill to Hiltingbury and Valley Park.
2.4 Solent Blue Line also withdrew Red Rocket C north of Fryern registering a commercial service during the day between Eastleigh and Fryern only. As set out above local authority partners have enabled the service to be extended north. Red Rocket A was also deregistered as being uncommercial. Local authority partners considered this a commercial service and following deregistration, a new operator registered a service between Eastleigh, Hedge End and Botley (although not as far as Hamble). Hampshire County Council, and Eastleigh Borough Council, in partnership let an emergency contract to fill the gap left by the withdrawal and new commercial registration.
2.5 The result of this tender was subject to the provisions of the Transport Act which requires the tendering authority, in the majority of cases to accept the lowest tender. The commercial registering of the A along a limited section of route led to the contract for replacement services being split both in terms of recovering the section of route lost during the day (Hamble to Hedge End) and lost departures not commercially operated by the new operator (evenings and Sundays).
2.6 This set of circumstances has led to there being three operators on one section of route – Black Velvet Travel operating commercially Monday-Saturday daytimes between Eastleigh and Botley via Hedge End with the Eastleigh-Hedge End section provided under contract to HCC (jointly funded with EBC) by First in the evenings and Stagecoach on Sundays. It is the aspiration of EBC that this service can be returned to a through service rather than two separate services at the end of the emergency contract in August 2008.
2.3 In addition to Go South Coast’s network, First Hampshire & Dorset operates an increasing number of services within the Borough including service 16 linking Hamble-le-Rice and Netley with Southampton and service 8A which provides a 20 minute frequency between Hedge End, Dowd’s Farm, The Rose Bowl, West End and Southampton. New service 15, operated under contract to HCC allows connections from Netley and Hamble to Hedge End.
2.4 First also operate service 72 between Gosport and Southampton, which passes through Lowford, service 78 & 79 between Fareham and Southampton, which passes through Windhover and Lowford, and service 80 between Southampton & Fareham via Lowford. Services 72,78,79 & 80 are financially supported by Hampshire County Council. Finally, First operate service 26 between Fareham and Hedge End via Botley.
2.5 Service 65 links Eastleigh with Romsey and Salisbury and is operated by Wilts and Dorset which is also part of the Go-Ahead Group. Two independent operators operate from Eastleigh Bus Station, Brijan operate services to and from Bishops Waltham and Black Velvet Travel commenced operations on the former Red Rocket service A in February 2008 between Eastleigh and Hedge End.
2.6 The County Council has an influential role in improving services that are provided under contract. This creates a visible and integrated network of both commercial and supported services through the provision of high quality infrastructure, especially at interchanges.
2.7 Current legislation (Transport Act 1985) expects bus operators to provide commercial services where possible. The role of local authorities is to analyse the commercial network
132 Version 2.3 March 2008 Page 2 Appendix 2 and tender for socially necessary services. Gaps in service provision may need to be filled at certain times of day or days of the week as well as places which are left completely without commercial services.
2.8 The bus network is dynamic; operators are required to give eight weeks’ notice of changes to commercial services. Withdrawal of a commercial service requires quick action to determine the case for support and arrange a replacement service, if funding is available.
2.9 Cost pressures and declining passenger numbers in rural and some urban areas have led operators to withdraw the worst-performing commercial services. The County Council cut £500,000 from supporting local bus services in 2007. This left much of the Borough without any evening and Sunday services which EBC funded out of its existing public transport budget.
3. Existing Subsidised Bus Network
3.1 The services funded by Hampshire County Council from February 2008 are set out in Table 1. Whilst EBC has no statutory obligation to provide subsidies for local bus services the Council has taken the decision to support certain local services which are deemed socially necessary and do not meet the current criterion set for a County Council Subsidy but may meet other strategic, land use or operational objectives – for example maintaining accessibility. In addition to these direct subsidies the Council also provides top-up funding for certain HCC contracts in the area. The subsidies paid by EBC are set out in table 2.
3.2 EBC is the responsible authority for concessionary fares, although it is proposed that this function is transferred to Hampshire County Council in 2011. From April 2008 the scheme will allow concessionary pass holders to travel on any local bus service in England, those passengers boarding buses within the border of the Borough of Eastleigh will be charged to EBC unlike now where EBC pick up the cost for its own residents only. The level of additional funding for 2008/2009 is expected to be in the region of £305k. Operators blamed the withdrawal of bus services on the reimbursement rate of concessionary fares both locally and nationally – claiming that the reimbursement rate in the pound makes services which were previously commercially viable, no longer so.
3.3 The concessionary fares issue leads to local authorities then subsidising withdrawn services adding an additional burden. There is therefore a connection between the funding EBC contribute to top up government funding in relation to concessionary fares and the level of subsidy pad by the Borough Council to subsidise services. This is to be considered in terms of a review of Borough Council transport expenditure during 2008.
Table 1: Services Funded by HCC (from February 2008)
Operator Service No Contracted Route and Funded Journeys Notes Times (some routes continue without subsidy) Bluestar Bluestar 3 Hedge End – Botley Mon-Sat Eves Eastleigh Area Contract
Bluestar Bluestar 3 Hedge End – Botley Sundays Eastleigh Area Contract
Brijan Tours 7 Southampton – West Mon-Sat alternative Joint funded with End – Bishops Waltham jrnys Southampton City Council. See table 2
Eastleigh Area Contract
Brijan Tours 8 Eastleigh – Botley - Mon-Sat entire Eastleigh Area Contract Bishops Waltham service First Hants & 8A Service extension Rose Mon-Sat New service extended Dorset Bowl – Dowd’s Farm – for 5yrs from 02.09.07. Hedge End First Hants & 16 Southampton - Hamble Sunday Daytime Eastleigh Area Contract Dorset Brijan Tours 17 Bishops Waltham – Mon-Sat entire Petersfield (entire service service)
Version 2.3 March 2008 133 Page 3 Appendix 2 Operator Service No Contracted Route and Funded Journeys Notes Times (some routes continue without subsidy) First Hants & 24 Soton – IBM Hursley Mon-Fri peak Joint funded with Dorset Commuter Service Southampton City Council
Eastleigh Area Contract
First Hants & 25 Boorley – Green – Mon- Sat service Joint funded with Dorset Hedge End - Woolston
See table 2 Stagecoach 46 Winchester – Hiltingbury Mon-Sat entire Winchester Area South - Southampton service Contract
Stagecoach 69 Winchester- Twyford- Mon-Sat: Some Winchester Area South Colden Common- Fair Journeys; Contract Oak- Bishops Waltham- Sundays: all day Fareham First Hants & A* Eastleigh - Hedge End Mon-Sat Eves Joint funded with Dorset 15* Hamble – Hedge End Mon-Sat Daytimes See table 2 Stagecoach A* Eastleigh- Hedge End Sundays Joint funded with South (Sundays)
See table 2 Bluestar Baby Eastleigh – Chandler’s Mon-Sat Daytimes Joint funded with Bluestar C* Ford – Hiltingbury – (section of route Valley Park between Fryern and See table 2 Hiltingbury/Valley Park) Bluestar Baby Eastleigh – Boyatt Wood (Mon- Sat daytime Eastleigh Area Contract Bluestar E – Winchester and eves)
Bluestar Baby Eastleigh- Bishops Mon- Sat service Eastleigh Area Contract Bluestar F Waltham – Waltham Chase Bluestar 507 Valley Park - Toynbee Schooldays Eastleigh Area Contract School Barfoot 542 Park Gate – Hamble Schooldays Eastleigh Area Contract Community Sports College Barfoot 543 Lowford – Netley Infant Schooldays Eastleigh Area Contract & Junior First Hants & 616 Hamble School Service Schooldays Eastleigh Area Contract Dorset Brijan 654 St John the Baptist CE Schooldays Eastleigh Area Contract Primary School Brijan A1 Bishopstoke – Wyvern- Schooldays Eastleigh Area Contract Stoke Park infant and junior school Brijan A2 Wyvern – Fair Oak Schooldays Eastleigh Area Contract Junior - Bishopstoke Sapphire Taxibus Chalvington Road – Mon-Sat Joint funded with Eastleigh Car Share
Eastleigh Area Contract
Sapphire Taxibus Campbell Road – Mon-Sat Joint funded with Eastleigh Car Share
Eastleigh Area Contract * Emergency contract awarded following red rocket service withdrawals. February – August 2008 subject to change in operator and funding partners
Table 2: Services Subsidised by Eastleigh Borough Council (February 2008)
Service Operator Route Journeys Subsidised
Bluestar 2 Bluestar Soton – Fair Oak - Sunday Joint funded with Southampton City
134 Version 2.3 March 2008 Page 4 Appendix 2 Service Operator Route Journeys Subsidised
Council A* First Hants Eastleigh – Hedge End Mon-Sat Eves. Joint and Dorset funded with HCC
15* First Hants Hamble – Hedge End Mon- Sat Daytime. Joint and Dorset funded with HCC
A* Stagecoach Eastleigh – Hedge End Sundays Only. Joint South funded with HCC
Baby Bluestar C* Bluestar Eastleigh – Chandler’s Ford – Mon-Sat Daytimes Hiltingbury – Valley Park (section of route between Fryern and Hiltingbury/Valley Park). Joint funded with HCC.
Baby Bluestar C Bluestar Eastleigh – Chandler’s Ford – Sundays – 5 journeys Hiltingbury – Valley Park each way
Baby Bluestar E Bluestar Eastleigh – Shakespeare Road - Sundays – 5 journeys Boyatt Wood – Otterbourne – Badger each way Farm - Winchester
16 First Hants & Southampton – Woolston - Netley – Butlocks Heath Dorset Butlocks Heath - Hamble Diversion
16/17a First Hants & Soton- Hamble (Mon-Sat Eves) Joint funded with Dorset Southampton City Council 16 First Hants & Soton- Hamble (Sundays) Joint funded with Dorset Southampton City Council 25 First Hants & Boorley – Green – Hedge End - Joint funded with Dorset Woolston Hampshire County Council 56 First Hants & Thursday Eastleigh Market Bus Thursdays (3 journeys Dorset each way) N6 First Hants & Nitebus Service Fri/Sat Nights Dorset Southampton- West End- Botley – Hedge End (Barley Corn)
N16 First Hants & Nitebus Service Fri/Sat Nights Dorset Southampton- Weston – Netley – Hamble – Bursledon - Lowford 501 Bluestar Thornden School service School Service
Taxibus Sapphire Chalvington Road – Eastleigh Car Joint funded with Share Hampshire County Council Taxibus Sapphire Campbell Road – Eastleigh Car Joint funded with Share Hampshire County Council * Emergency contract awarded following red rocket service withdrawals. February – August 2008 subject to change in operator and funding partners
4. Services Subsidised by Eastleigh Borough Council
4.1 EBC subsidises the costs of operating Nitebus Services N6 & N7. Up until September 2004 EBC also operated N5, which was taken over commercially as services Nightstar 1 & Nightstar 2 which replicated the equivalent Bluestar services. In line with new licensing laws introduced in late 2005 additional 0315 departures were introduced on Saturdays in April 2006 and Fridays in September 2006 following a re-tender of the service won by First Hants and Dorset. EBC successfully secured Community Safety Partnership funding towards these services.
4.2 Thursday Market Bus Services were re-tendered in early 2006. The nature of commercial bus service provision made service 58 (Hamble- Hedge End- Eastleigh) unviable and in potential conflict with the Transport Act (1985) and was catered for along most of the route by Service A (formally 9a). Those sections that were not covered by existing commercial services were mopped up by an extension to the route of the 56, which links Eastleigh to Windhover, Fair Oak and Botley. This service will be kept under review to assess the impact
Version 2.3 March 2008 135 Page 5 Appendix 2 of concessionary fares passes on ridership as well as the severance of service A into two principle routes in February 2008.
4.3 From September 2007 EBC took on the responsibility of funding some services previously supported by Hampshire County Council. This included service 16 (Southampton-Hamble) after 1800 seven days a week jointly with Southampton City Council, Evening operation of Red Rocket C (Eastleigh- Chandler’s Ford) and Sunday evening services on Bluestar 2 (Fair Oak – Southampton). The withdrawal of funding from HCC due to overspending of non- highway related departments is disappointing in terms of catering for the overall transport need.
4.4 From the same date EBC ceased funding Friday and Saturday evening service 7a (Bishops Waltham – Southampton) due to low ridership, limited incursion into the Borough and that the majority of passengers boarded within Southampton city boundaries where alternatives exist. EBC also joint funds service 25 (Boorley Green – Hedge End – Woolston) and two taxibus schemes with HCC as well providing certain journeys on services A and C via HCC’s contract.
4.5 As part of the February 2008 service changes service C was enhanced to hourly (from two hourly) between Chandler’s Ford and Eastleigh as was service A on evening s and Sundays to hourly (from two hourly) although this reduced the extent of the route to between Hedge End and Eastleigh only, no longer serving Hamble-Hedge End section. EBC withdrew funding on service C in the evenings resulting in a loss of service (one journey Mon-Thurs, 4 journeys Friday and Saturday) in favour of funding daytime services withdrawn on this route.
5. Quality Bus Partnership Routes & Modal Interchange
5.1 Bluestar Service 1, 2 and 3 along with service 16 are Quality Bus Partnership (QBP) routes on which the local authorities work the service operators to provide good quality services and vehicles along with on-street infrastructure (bus stops, shelters, access kerbs etc) as well as information both at stop and through electronic means including text messaging and real time information.
5.2 EBC works with operators and the County Council in this respect however there are concerns that reduced subsidy from HCC on QBP routes as part of overall budget cuts may affect the viability of the overall service provided. QBP routes need to be of a suitable frequency seven days a week, including evenings and not just at peak times.
5.3 The need to maintain intermodal interchange is supported by the Borough Council and it shall aim to achieve this through new developments at appropriate locations. Specifically such possibilities can occur at rail and bus stations as well as Southampton Airport. Southampton Airport Parkway provides for such intermodal interchange between air, rail, bus, cycle, car and pedestrian modes.
5.4 The strategic route network takes into account the need to maintain and enhance these interchanges which in turn will assist and aid overall accessibility. As part of recent work with operators and others Hedge End Station now also acts as an intermodal transport hub with increased parking, additional bus services calling at the station and bus services timed to link better with rail services.
6. Passenger Transport Area Review
6.1 Within LTP2, Hampshire County Council states that bus industry costs are forecast to continue to rise. This is accompanied by uncertainty over Government revenue funding for bus support. In this climate HCC consider it as crucial that it reviews its current service provision and demonstrates that: • It is achieving value for money; • Subsidy payments are open and transparent; • Spending is undertaken within the context of LTP2 and Bus Strategy objectives; • The optimum balance is achieved between conventional and innovative services; • The relationship between secured and commercial services achieves the best possible efficiency;
136 Version 2.3 March 2008 Page 6 Appendix 2 • Funds are used to address the unmet needs of Hampshire residents.
6.2 The new approach by Hampshire County Council combines practical desk-top inputs based on local knowledge and expertise, with a new model for the County Council that is designed to test Value for Money and to encourage operator flexibility in service procurement. The greater flexibility includes: • Increasing and more effective use of ‘unconventional’ transport such as taxis, Community Transport, shared cars and demand responsive services; • Taking an ‘integrated’ approach in partnership with commercial bus operators; The aim is to maintain the viability and attractiveness of bus services through improving journey times, ease of use and improved coordination; • Marketing and promotional efforts, including ticketing initiatives, to reverse long term passenger loss.
6.3 With the cooperation of the major bus operators, the reviews consider both those services that are financially supported by the County Council and those that are operated on a wholly commercial basis in association with the Council. The model is intended to be an interactive tool to assist the assessment of utility and value for money of different options for public transport services, in terms of both mode and level of service. It will form part of a framework for decisions on resource allocation and will accommodate: • The application of minimum standards of service; • An assessment of service development proposals aimed at increasing public transport use. In so doing, it will not only aid the County Council in securing socially necessary public transport services which are not provided commercially, but also help fulfill a key role in achieving its corporate targets and wider policy objectives.
7. Local Transport Plan & Local Development Framework
7.1 LTP2 identifies a hierarchy of bus services within Hampshire, comprising a Frontline network, a subsidiary network and a social network.
Frontline network
7.2 Strategic services that cater for key interurban links or high-volume urban flows. These usually operate on a commercial basis and carry the majority of passengers. Investment will normally be capital in nature and aimed at meeting patronage growth targets or ensuring a coherent, identifiable and functional network. Many services are likely to be suitable for QBP development and revenue support is envisaged as minimal.
Subsidiary network
87.3 Other regular bus services, often local in nature and either marginally commercial or supported by the County Council. Night services could feature here. Investment is likely to be primarily for revenue support although there may be some capital expenditure where a case can be made, in particular as part of creating a functional countywide network. Support is mainly targeted at addressing social inclusion and, in a number of limited cases, promoting passenger growth. These services may be suitable for re-planning through a Quality Network or Contract approach.
Social network
7.4 Services that are often less frequent in nature and feed into other parts of the network, particularly frontline services. The majority serve rural areas whilst some serve isolated residential areas in a more urban setting. They exist primarily to ensure social inclusion, although their existence may also reduce the need for car use. Such services are almost always supported by the County Council and are not necessarily operated by a conventional bus.
7.5 This policy will contribute to the evidence base in preparing the Local Development Framework (LDF) for the Borough as part of the suite of transport planning document as well as informing the Eastleigh Town Access Plan and Area Action Plans which are part of the LDF.
Version 2.3 March 2008 137 Page 7 Appendix 2
7.6 The policy aims to enhance the role of the Borough Council in dealing with issues emanating from the emerging Local Transport Bill will allow areas such as south Hampshire be declared an Integrated Transport Authority Area (formally known as Passenger Transport Authorities) and further influence and participate the work of Transport for South Hampshire, including allocation of funds.
8. Eastleigh Strategic Network
8.1 Within the context of rising costs of bus operation and the limited resource of the County Council, the way Eastleigh Borough Council funds public transport services needs to be prioritised to achieve overall best value that is in line with the aspirations of the Council but that also supports the aims of the Local Transport Plan 2.
8.2 Regard also has to be made on issue of accessibility by public transport to various areas of the Borough. Such accessibility criterion is applied when assessing applications for new development, including parking provision based on public transport accessibility. To this end the Borough Council and HCC through its planning and LTP framework need to work within budgets to maintain such accessibility.
8.3 Until 2007, the funding of services by Eastleigh Borough Council evolved in a piecemeal manner over time. At the time HCC renewed its subsidies of local bus and transport services in Eastleigh Borough it seemed timely that a criterion for top –up funding provided by limited resources allows for a clear and transparent allocation of funds dependant upon priorities consistent with policy.
8.4 Whilst EBC acknowledges the HCC criterion and supports it the criteria for Eastleigh on this basis applies to revenue funding only for bus services and not the overall public transport infrastructure. Therefore the priority here is on pure bus service provision rather that the overall “package” of service and infrastructure.
8.5 The EBC criteria reflects the HCC criteria in identifying a selection of links that dovetail into the HCC criteria of services EBC considers socially necessary in terms of the social dividend routes. The EBC social dividend routes reflect the HCC social network whereas the strategic network largely reflects the HCC frontline and subsidiary level of service. The difference is that the EBC criteria relates to specific locations the Borough Council consider are required for either linking destinations or being socially necessary.
8.6 EBC does provide for infrastructure improvements alongside the County Council through the Quality Bus Partnership and maintains much of the street infrastructure, including Eastleigh Bus Station. In addition developers contributions and the public transport initiatives budget allows for additional infrastructure to be provided. These funds will continue to be used for this purpose.
8.7 The main priorities in supporting local bus services to, from, within and through the Borough are to maintain connections to main centres of population. The strategic network typically constitutes services operating a regular frequency at or above 1 bus per hour during daytime with additional evening and Sunday services, albeit at a reduced rate. The services are referred to as the Strategic Bus Network for Eastleigh – maintaining connections between nodes, centres of employment, housing and leisure. This means supporting commercial (HCC frontline) services and HCC subsidised services. Where budgets allow EBC can identify funding for service improvements in consultation with operators, HCC and users. This strategic network is highlighted at Table3.
8.8 The identification of a strategic network is not an open chequebook for bus operators or the County Council. EBC sees this network as falling mainly into the frontline network identified by HCC or into the subsidised category and any bid for funding from EBC towards such provision needs to be justified in respect of this policy. EBC should not be disadvantaged due to the fact it makes discretionary provision for bus operation whereas other districts within the County do not. EBC top-up funding is exactly that and is provided to add extra value to HCC funding, not to replace it.
138 Version 2.3 March 2008 Page 8 Appendix 2 8.9 The majority of services in the strategic list provide main links between settlements within the Borough and other desirable nodes, notably Southampton, a major attractor regionally for travel. Modal transfer to other forms of transport than the car can only be achieved through reliable regular linkages by all forms of transport. Routes A & C primarily form north-south connections through the Borough cementing the strategic network.
8.10 Red Rocket E provides an essential link between the Borough and facilities in Winchester including health and shopping facilities and whilst the service may not flourish commercially Eastleigh Borough Council would wish to see this service continue at its present service level as a minimum.
Table 3: Strategic Bus Network for the Borough of Eastleigh
Service No Quality Operator Strategic Connection Daytime Evening Sun Bus P’ship Freq. Freq. Freq. Route? (mins) (mins) (mins) Former Red Eastleigh – Hedge End - Rocket A Hamble
A No Black Velvet 30 - - Travel Eastleigh – Mansbridge – West End – Hedge End – Botley A* No First Hants & - 60 - Dorset Eastleigh – Hedge End
A* No Stagecoach - - 60 Eastleigh – Hedge End
15* No First Hants & 60 - - Dorset Hamble – Hedge End
Baby No Bluestar Eastleigh – Chandler’s 30 1 jrnys 120 Bluestar C Ford – Hiltingbury – (mon-thurs) Valley Park 60 (Fri & Sat Only) Bluestar 1 Yes Bluestar Winchester – 20 60 30 Otterbourne – Fryern Hill – Chandler’s Ford – Bassett - Southampton Bluestar 2 Yes Bluestar Fair Oak – Bishopstoke 15 60 30 – Eastleigh – Swaythling – Southampton Bluestar 3 Yes Bluestar Oaklands Estate – 20 60 60 Hedge End- Thornhill Park Road – Bitterne – Southampton 8A No First Hants & Southampton – Bitterne 20 60 60 Dorset – West End – Moorgreen Hospital – Rose Bowl – Hedge End Station – Dowd’s Farm
16 Yes First Hants & Southampton – 20 60 60 Dorset Woolston - Netley – Butlocks Heath - (30 sat) Hamble
Baby No Bluestar Eastleigh – 60 120 120 Bluestar E Shakespeare Road - Boyatt Wood – Otterbourne – Badger Farm – Winchester 69 No Stagecoach Winchester- Twyford- 60 Partial/ 180 Hampshire Colden Common- Fair irregular Oak- Bishops Waltham- Fareham
72 No First Hants & Southampton – Lowford 60 1 jrny 120 Dorset – Swanwick – Locks Heath – Gosport 80 No First Hants & Southampton – 60 60 - Dorset Windhover – Lowford –
Version 2.3 March 2008 139 Page 9 Appendix 2 Swanwick – Warsash – Locks Heath – Fareham
New - - Eastleigh Town - - - Centre/Southampton Airport Parkway to Chandler’s Ford Link * Emergency contract awarded following red rocket service withdrawals. February – August 2008 subject to change in operator and funding partners
9. Social Dividend Routes
9.1 Social Dividend Routes are classed as those services, which provide an hourly, or less daytime service but with limited evening and Sunday services. These services generally will not fulfil the criteria of HCC funding but provide a social linkage, which should ideally be maintained.
9.2 Such services could consist of services linking communities with shopping and civic amenities, such as outlying estates with poor private mobility or night services which allow younger residents to enjoy a night out with safe, cheap, reliable transport home, encouraging them to remain resident in the Borough whilst enjoying access to leisure facilities within a wider regional context. These services also provide links to outside of the Borough for commuting/ leisure interests.
Table 4: Proposed Eastleigh Social Dividend Services
Ser. No QBP Operator Route Freq Freq Freq Comments Rte Day Eve Sun
7 No Brijan Tours Southampton – West End – 60 - - HCC Eastleigh Bishops Waltham Area Contract
8 No Brijan Tours Eastleigh – Botley – Bishop’s 60 - - HCC Eastleigh Waltham Area Contract
25 No First Hants and Hedge End and Boorley 60/120 - - Part funded by Dorset Green Local Service
26 No First Hants & Hedge End – Botley – 7-8 - - HCC Fareham Dorset Swanwick – Whiteley – jnys area contract Segensworth – Fareham per day Baby No Go South Coast Eastleigh – Stoke Common – 60 on - 3 HCC Eastleigh Bluestar F Bishops Waltham some jrnys Area Contract sectio ns 46 No Stagecoach Winchester – Hiltingbury – 120 - - Southampton
56 No First Hants & Windhover- Lowford- Botley- 3 jrnys - - Funded by Dorset Fair Oak- Bishopstoke- Thu Eastleigh (Thursdays Only) only
65 No Wilts & Dorset Eastleigh- Nightingale 60 - - HCC Romsey Avenue- Templars Way- Area Contract North Baddesley- Romsey
78/79 No First Hants & Southampton – Windhover – 60 - 60 HCC Fareham Dorset Lowford – Swanwick – Area Contract Warsash – Locks Heath – (120) Fareham sat)
N6 n/a First Hants & Nitebus Service - 4 - funded by Dorset Southampton- West End- jrnys Botley – Hedge End (Barley fri & Corn) sat only
N16 n/a First Hants & Nitebus Service - 4 - funded by Dorset Southampton- Weston – jrnys Netley – Hamble – Bursledon fri &
140 Version 2.3 March 2008 Page 10 Appendix 2 Ser. No QBP Operator Route Freq Freq Freq Comments Rte Day Eve Sun
- Lowford sat only n/a n/a Saphhire Campbell Road – Eastleigh n/a n/a n/a Car Share
n/a n/a Saphhire Chalvington Road – Eastleigh n/a n/a n/a Car Share
9.3 The Social Dividend network is subject to funding within budgets available to EBC in terms of supporting services but are secondary to maintaining the strategic network and hence will be regularly reviewed where EBC provides all or some subsidy.
9.4 In terms of meeting transport needs EBC would be willing to support HCC and transport providers in investigation, and where viable supporting alternative transport services identified within LTP2, including demand responsive, taxi car and other schemes. Demand responsive services tend to follow general route patterns that can divert to pick up various users near the route, such schemes include the Cango service in Hampshire. It may be that where traditional bus services once provided a role the changing nature of access to these services mean a less traditional approach may be required that may take the form of a traditional bus service or part of a new type of transport provision.
9.5 Various services within the social dividend network provide local links rather than strategic ones which are important to the communities they serve. For example Service 8 and 25 provide cross Hedge End linkages without which some parts of the community would not be severed.
9.6 The strategic network for the Chandler’s Ford area is provided via Bluestar 1 and C, these linkages increase the limited transport opportunities in this area. Service 65 holds potential for filling the gap left by the withdrawal of D along Chestnut Avenue . 9.7 Stagecoach service 69, which provides local linkages between Twyford, Fair Oak, Winchester/Fareham connecting to other frontline/strategic services.
10. New Services
10.1 The style and pattern of services within Eastleigh has changed considerably over the last few years with an unstable network. On the other hand innovative solutions have been tried to grow the market although service patterns of commercial networks have tended to focus on connection to and from Southampton on the whole. This presents both opportunities and threats. Opportunities in making new sites more accessible to all transport modes including buses and threats in some local nodes being missed out due to the perceived non commercial nature of the services. These latter services could benefit from pump priming initiatives such as the Kick Start programme to extend or amend existing services so that, in time such services grow a market and support themselves.
10.2 The Dowd’s Farm development near Hedge End allows for the development of over 750 dwellings between 2006 and 2011. Developer’s contributions exist to support existing services over a five-year period and as a result of the HCC tender exercise service 8A was extended to serve this development from September 2007 linking the development with Hedge End Station, West End and Southampton.
10.3 In 2006 Eastleigh Borough Council, Southampton University and B&Q joint funded a study examining linking Eastleigh Town Centre/ Southampton Airport Parkway and Chandler’s Ford to assist employees from Chandler’s Ford accessing Southampton Airport Parkway Station as well as students from the University accessing Wide Lane Sports Centre. In addition the study evaluated connecting either end of the route with existing education uses along Chestnut Avenue and residential areas. The study included providing a stand-alone service or connecting to an improved service 65, the now withdrawn red rocket D or extended U1A. This work continues with both businesses and operators in terms of developing a public transport offer that meets the needs of the Chandler’s Ford Commuter Forum as well as the wider travelling public.
Version 2.3 March 2008 141 Page 11 Appendix 2 10.4 The strategic development area to the south of Eastleigh Town Centre is being put forward for development during the period upto 2011 and beyond as part of the Eastleigh Town Centre Action Plan and the largest brownfield site in the South East known as the South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone. Public transport services in the Borough may have to be amended to take into account any new development. Accordingly the Partnership for an Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) work proposing major development up until 2020 near Hedge End of further residential housing will again need the tailoring of public transport services to reflect changing patterns of demand.
11. Vehicle Standards
11.1 Eastleigh Borough Council has assisted in improving overall vehicle standards through involvement in Quality Bus Partnership Schemes such as improved vehicles and marketing on service 16 connecting Southampton and Hamble and involvement in improving infrastructure on Blue Star and Red Rocket Routes identified in Table 3.
11.2 An increase in the number of low floor vehicles would assist the overall attractiveness of buses in the area although it is acknowledged that bus operators try to deliver maximum benefit from limited resources in this respect.
12. Conclusion
12.1 Eastleigh Borough Council has produced this policy to focus the limited discretionary funding towards providing bus services within the Borough. The strategic network aims to, in light of revised HCC funding, changes in the commercial network and the continuing changes in the nature of bus service operation provide clear and transparent guidance as to how public transport support funding will be allocated in the Borough.
Version 2.3 March 2008
Paul Walker Transport & Development Control Manager Eastleigh Borough Council Transportation & Engineering Unit Civic Offices Leigh Road EASTLEIGH Hampshire SO50 9YN Tel: 02380 688278 Fax: 02380 688336 Email: [email protected] www.eastleigh.gov.uk
142 Version 2.3 March 2008 Page 12 Appendix 2
Map 1 - Eastleigh, Chandler’s Ford & Fair Oak Bus Network – February 2008
Courtesy: Hampshire County Council 143 Version 2.3 March 2008 Page 13 144 Appendix 2
Map 2 - Hedge End Area Bus Network – February 2008
k Courtesy: Hampshire County Council
Version 2.3 March 2008 Page 14 Agenda Item 10
CABINET
Thursday 3 April 2008
LOCAL AREA AGREEMENT – PRIORITY 7: USING MATERIAL RESOURCES MORE EFFICIENTLY
Report of the Head of Direct Services
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council formally agrees to “sign up” to the Local Area Agreement – Priority 7.
Summary
The report seeks Cabinet’s approval for sign up to the principle of “Using Materials More Efficiently”, as contained in the Local Area Agreement.
Statutory Powers
Local Government Act 2000
Background
1. A Local Area Agreement (LAA) has been designed to support the delivery of 0 Hampshire’s Community Strategy and the 11 District Community Strategies. The overarching document was endorsed by the LAA Members Board in February 2006.
2. Within the LAA are eight priority outcomes, the seventh of these is “Using Material Resources More Efficiently”. The details relating to this priority were developed after the endorsement of the overall LAA and formal agreement is now sought from authorities across the county. The sign-up document attached as Appendix 1 details the ambitious set for this priority.
Discussion
3. The LAA reflects the Council’s role as a Waste Collection Authority, as a member of the Project Integra Partner and its commitment to the County-wide Materials Resources Strategy. This materials resources approach covers the whole range of Council Services including planning, procurement, premises management as well as environmental services.
145 4. The ambitions in the LAA Priority 7 have been developed jointly with all of the other (non-unitary) Local Authorities in Hampshire; they mirror the Council’s own corporate agenda.
Financial Implications
5. Priority 7 identifies ambitions rather than commitments, as such there are no direct financial implications by signing up. The commitment is to consider the ambitions at the time when projects are formulated – the Council can then decide whether or not the ambitions are affordable.
Conclusion
6. LAAs are seen by the Government as a means of delivering what communities want and this particular priority has been developed within that context, and within the context of the County-wide Material Resources Strategy. It therefore sits comfortably within the Council’s own corporate agenda.
DAVID BURTON Head of Direct Services
Hedge End Depot Botley Road Hedge End Southampton Hampshire S030 2RA
Date: 12 March 2008 Contact Officer: David Burton Tel No: 023 8068 8372 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: One Report No ds102
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:
Hampshire Local Area Agreement “More From Less” – Hampshire’s Material Resources Strategy
146 On headed paper
Sign Up Agreement
The Local Area Agreement is a 3 year agreement between partners in Hampshire and the Government to improve lives and conditions in Hampshire Communities. The Agreement focuses the attention of partners on 8 Priority outcomes drawn from the Hampshire Community Strategy and the 11 District Community Strategies.
The LAA runs from April 06 – March 09. The LAA is an opportunity to strengthen partnership working to deliver real improvement against these priorities. It is also an important means to work with the Government to achieve greater flexibility around funding and to remove barriers to delivery
Agreement to participate in and achieve Priority 7
Use material resources more efficiently
• Reduce construction waste by substitution of recovered material in new build development and major refurbishment
• Increase recycling in the non municipal sector
In respect of the above priority Eastleigh Borough Council formally agrees to deliver a corporate approach to the use of materials through the Local Area Agreement.
Signed………………………………………………………………………………
Position………………………………………………………………………………
Date …………………………………………………………………………………
www.hants.gov.uk/localareaagreement
147 In respect of priority G ‘Use material resources more efficiently’
Specifically our ambitions are to;
1. develop a planning policy in our Local Development Framework, which ensures that all new built development and major refurbishments are built to a common Hampshire wide sustainability specification, including the requirement to use recycled material in construction.
2. use our major capital build programmes as examples of good practice for sustainable building, and the use of recycled materials.
3. deliver increased diversion of waste from landfill, whilst minimising cost to the environment and taxpayer, through the Partner Implementation Programmes within the Project Integra Joint Municpal Waste Management Strategy.
4. Ensure recycling services are available at our major council owned sites.
5. Identify where the corporate procurement of large amounts of materials occurs and work to specify alternatives to increase the proportion of recycled material used.
6. Provide community leadership on this agenda, by influencing partners, contractors, service providers, and commercial tenants, to deliver on this agenda.
And to monitor and ensure progress by
7. Identifying a senior corporate lead responsible for the delivery of the priority area for this target
8. communicating progress and outcomes to staff, Members and wider community.
9. implementing the above within the period of the LAA i.e. by 2009 and reporting on progress every six months, through the LAA performance reporting process.
www.hants.gov.uk/localareaagreement
148 Agenda Item 11
SOCIAL POLICY SCRUTINY PANEL
19th March 2008
CABINET
3rd April 2008
KEYWORKER HOUSING POLICY
Report of the Head of Housing Services
RECOMMENDATION TO THE SOCIAL POLICY SCRUTINY PANEL
The Panel are invited to comment on the proposed policy and it is recommended that they ask Cabinet to approve and adopt the Keyworker Housing Policy.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CABINET
It is recommended, subject to any recommendations made by the Social Policy Scrutiny Panel, that the:
1. Updated Keyworker Housing Policy be approved and adopted by Cabinet.
2. Council only seeks to support bids for funding for Keyworker housing from the Housing Corporation or Government where the location of a scheme is particularly suitable and where the inclusion of intermediate tenures may help create sustainable communities, thereby retaining its own resources for rented units as a priority.
Summary
The Keyworker Housing Policy outlines the problems faced by those on lower incomes in trying to access housing in the Borough of Eastleigh. It outlines the Governments definition of a Keyworker and sets the demand in a local context as well as setting out the basis on which further keyworker accommodation should be supported.
Statutory Powers
Housing Act 1996 as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002 and Local Government Act 1972
149
Introduction
1. Executive approved the original Keyworker Housing Policy on 10th December 2002, with a progress report being made in January 2004. It was felt that the existing policy needed to be reviewed and updated to reflect the latest guidance and practice locally.
2. Eastleigh is an area of high demand for housing and affordability is an issue for many regardless of occupation. It is therefore proposed that priority continues to be given to affordable housing, both social rented and low cost home ownership, for access by all residents of the Borough through Eastleigh Homechoice. Provision for keyworkers should take advantage of specific initiatives developed to address their housing needs or to supplement existing affordable housing development where appropriate.
3. In terms of defining a keyworker it is proposed that the Eastleigh Borough Council policy adopts the national definition and continues to align with it as and when it changes.
Demand for Keyworker Accommodation
4. The Council has transferred all its functions relating to Keyworker or intermediate housing registers to the local Zone Agent, Swaythling Housing Society, who maintain a register of all those interested in such housing across Hampshire. All keyworkers who contact the Council regarding housing needs are signposted to the Zone Agent for registration and for a review of all housing available.
5. Keyworkers as a whole represent less than 3% of current housing need in the Borough (taking a total of need as the Council’s housing register of 5500 applicants and the Zone Agent’s register of 750), and the 10 keyworkers actually employed within the Borough less than 0.2%. It is also apparent that almost 80% of those on the Zone Agent’s register want to live in the Borough of Eastleigh, rather than having any local connection through employment.
Supply of Keyworker Housing
6. Since 2004 there has been significant development within the Borough of over 200 homes for eligible keyworkers utilising Housing Corporation and Government grant funding.
7. Many of Atlantic Housing’s properties were originally developed on a basis of shared ownership for keyworkers, but following the lack of demand and extensive marketing failing to produce any purchasers, most were converted to intermediate rent. Subsequent demand for the rental properties as they become vacant has been very high, with very low average relet times. Open Market Homebuy remains by far the most popular form of homeownership assistance with keyworkers to date.
150
Key Future Priorities
8. The Council will encourage and support the development of new affordable housing on a basis of 65% social rented / 35% intermediate (low cost homeownership and sub market rental). Continuing provision for keyworkers will form part of the intermediate housing.
Financial Implications
9. The Council has limited capital funds to assist in the provision of affordablehousing and the Housing Strategy 2006-2011 identifies priority for these funds to be used to progress rented homes. The Council will not itself subsidise keyworker homes for rent, although will consider the need for keyworker rented homes on a site by site basis as part of the planning requirement for 35% of affordable housing on all developments within the Borough of over 15 units, and will work with the Housing Corporation, Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and developers in progressing any such proposals. Risk Assessment
10. As the policy identifies that any funding support for keyworker housing will be sought through Housing Corporation or Government specific initiatives there would be no direct financial risk to the Council. There may be some risk to the Council and its RSL partners should demand fall and / or properties prove hard to let. This risk has been reduced by a more flexible approach from the Housing Corporation in negotiating changes to tenure.
Conclusion
11. Members are asked to endorse the updated Keyworker Housing Policy, which seeks to utilise specific initiatives developed to address keyworker housing needs to supplement existing affordable housing development where the location of a scheme is particularly suitable and in cases where a mix of tenures will improve scheme sustainability.
12. Eastleigh is an area of high demand for housing and affordability is an issue for many regardless of occupation. It is therefore proposed that priority continues to be given to affordable housing, both social rented and low cost home ownership, for access by all residents of the Borough through Eastleigh Homechoice.
TONY HALL Head of Housing Services
Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire
151 SO50 9YN
Date: January 2008 Contact Officer: Mary Stribling Tel No: 023 8068 8421 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: Keyworker Policy + 3 appendices Report No hs176
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:
Housing Act 1996 as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002 Eastleigh Borough Council Housing Strategy 2006 - 2011
152
EASTLEIGH BOROUGH COUNCIL
KEYWORKER HOUSING POLICY: 2008-11
153 Context
Eastleigh Borough Council adopted its first Keyworker Policy in December 2002. Given the time lapse it is felt appropriate to review the existing policy and update it to reflect the latest guidance and practice locally.
Eastleigh is an area of high demand for housing and affordability is an issue for many regardless of occupation. It is therefore proposed that priority continues to be given to affordable housing, both social rented and low cost home ownership, for access by all residents of the Borough through Eastleigh Homechoice.
The Council will encourage the development of new affordable housing on the basis of 65% social rent and 35% intermediate (low cost homeownership and sub market rent). Continuing provision for keyworkers will form part of the intermediate housing element. As identified in the Housing Strategy 2006 – 2011 the Council will seek to prioritise its own resources to progress rented units. It is felt that provision for keyworkers should take advantage of specific initiatives developed to address their housing needs or to supplement existing affordable housing development where appropriate. The Council does not propose to use its own funds for the provision of keyworker housing.
In terms of defining a key worker it is proposed that the Eastleigh Borough Council policy adopts the national definition and will continue to align with it as and when it changes.
154 EASTLEIGH BOROUGH COUNCIL
KEYWORKER HOUSING POLICY: 2008-11
CONTENTS
Page 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 What is this policy 1.2 Who are keyworkers 2 BACKGROUND 3 2.1 Affordability 2.2 The need for keyworker housing 2.3 Links to other Council priorities 3 THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL CONTEXT 5 3.1 Types of Assistance Available 3.2 Progress with Delivery of Assistance 3.3 Future National and Regional Investment Priorities 4 THE LOCAL CONTEXT 8 4.1 Demand for keyworker accommodation 4.2 Supply of keyworker Accommodation 5 BALANCING THE NEEDS OF KEYWORKERS – KEY FUTURE 11 PRIORITIES 6 FUTURE RESOURCES FOR KEYWORKER ACCOMMODATION 11 7 RISK ASSESSMENT 12 8 MEETING THE DIVERSE NEEDS OF KEYWORKERS 13
APPENDICES 1 Definitions of Eligible keyworkers 2 Homes IN Hants Eastleigh HomeBuy Applicants Analysis by Income, Demand and Demographics 3 Keyworker NAHP Grant Funding 2004-08
1
155 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The rising price of housing in recent years means that significant numbers of first time buyers and workers are unable to buy or rent a home in an area where they work.
This has created the need for a different type of Government assistance; “intermediate” housing such as low cost home ownership to enable people to enter the market through a part share of a property, or intermediate rent, which is below market rents but higher than at the level of social housing rents.
Included in the Governments’ 2003 ‘Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future’ policy document was the launch of an enhanced programme of new housing provision to meet the needs of people known as keyworkers providing essential public services.
1.1 What is this Policy?
The Council agreed a Keyworker Policy in 2002 in response to the growth of the programme of funding for such housing. This policy reviews progress and demand and seeks to replace the previous policy document.
This policy guides local actions, priorities and the assistance we will give to keyworkers in accessing affordable housing within the Borough over the period 2008-11.
1.2 Who are Keyworkers?
The current Government definition of a keyworker is ‘someone employed by the public sector in a front line role in health, education, or community safety delivering an essential public service where there are serious recruitment and retention problems’.
Within this broad definition sponsor Government Departments and police and fire authorities specify the groups at which help should be targeted based on recruitment and retention issues in critical front-line services.
While Eastleigh has previously defined keyworkers locally as, “Someone who lives or works in Eastleigh Borough who is employed in a post that provides an essential public service to the wider community”, evaluation and expansion of keyworker assistance over the last 7 years across the South East has provided a more detailed list of eligibility criteria from central Government.
For the purposes of this policy, the Government’s specified criteria of eligible keyworkers, as amended from time to time, will be that towards which this policy
2
156 will apply. Appendix 1 outlines current eligibility (at the time of the policy being drawn up January 2008) which applies to this policy.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Affordability
The Council regards affordable housing as that which is significantly lower in cost than average for the type of property on the open market locally, such that it can be afforded by households below the income threshold where the cost of housing would be in excess of 25% of gross household income.
A report by the Halifax1, found that the average house price in more or less every town across London and the South East was unaffordable for the typical keyworker, with house price to earnings ratios for keyworkers being the highest in the country, and as much as 9.8 times the average salary of a nurse, as detailed in Table 1.
TABLE 1 – Average House Price: Earnings Ratio For Keyworkers In March 2002 - 2007
Fire Police Ambulance Teachers Nurses Services Officers Staff 2002200720022007 2002 200720022007 2002 2007 North 2.9 5.4 2.1 4.5 2.5 4.5 2.9 6.3 na 4.8 Yorkshire & the Humber 2.9 5.4 2.2 4.4 2.4 4.4 3.0 5.8 na 4.1 North West 3.2 5.4 2.5 4.5 2.7 4.6 3.3 6.2 na 4.4 East Midlands na 6.0 2.8 4.9 3.3 5.2 4.1 6.4 na 5.2 West Midlands 3.5 6.5 3.1 5.3 3.7 5.7 4.3 7.4 na 6.1 East Anglia 5.5 6.6 3.7 5.4 4.1 5.9 4.9 7.2 na 5.5 Wales 3.2 6.6 2.6 4.9 2.9 5.2 3.4 6.6 na 5.6 South West 5.9 8.2 4.3 6.6 4.7 6.7 5.7 8.1 na 6.6 South East 7.1 9.4 5.1 6.9 6.1 7.8 7.1 9.8 na 8.8 Greater London 7.3 9.1 6.9 7.5 6.5 8.3 7.7 10.1 na 9.4 Scotland 3.0 5.2 2.2 3.9 2.6 4.4 3.1 5.4 na 4.5 Great Britain 4.6 6.9 3.4 5.4 3.9 5.9 4.6 7.5 na 6.2
The Halifax survey concluded that all keyworker occupations are likely to struggle to purchase a house apart from in Scotland and that the Government's keyworker schemes are providing some relief, but given recent trends there would clearly be benefits from broadening their reach.
1 Halifax Keyworker Housing Review: April 2007
3
157 2.2 The Need for Keyworker Housing
Given that most people aspire to own their own home 2 affordability of home ownership and housing for keyworkers makes it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain the best staff into essential public services in local areas such as Eastleigh.
There is also an emerging body of evidence that the quality of public services, alongside the range of housing available, is an important factor in the overall quality, economic development and wellbeing of an area.
Research undertaken for the Government 3 found that; • as the knowledge economy grows there will be increasing competition for skills, and business location decisions will take more account of whether an area has the right environment (including housing and good public services such as schools ) to attract skilled workers, while conversely • concentrations of deprivation limit the life chances of people living within them, above and beyond their own personal circumstances – i.e. a poor individual living in a poor neighbourhood experiences worse outcomes than an identical individual living elsewhere.
The research concluded that Housing policy has a key role to play in ensuring that the right environments are created to attract business and skilled workers into an area and avoid potential concentrations of deprivation by ensuring the availability of affordable housing (for keyworkers and others) within communities.
2.3 Links to Other Council Priorities
Assisting with provision of affordable housing to Keyworkers has clear links and relevance to the Council’s agreed strategic priorities as detailed in Table 2 below:
Table 2 Council Strategic Priorities Keyworker Policy Link • A Prosperous Community • Ability to attract and retain the best teaching staff and educational psychologists to deliver high quality schooling and skills development • Developing new high-quality homes, including in those areas in need of physical regeneration • Building mixed tenure developments to create balanced
2 A survey for the Council of Mortgage Lenders in January 2007 revealed that 84 per cent of adults hope to be homeowners in ten years time. CML Housing Finance Issue 01 (2007). 3 Housing, Economic Development and Productivity: Literature Review; DTZ Consulting and Research; Jan 2006
4
158 communities • Supporting recruitment and retention of community safety personnel such as police officers, prison and probation staff to reduce crime and the fear of crime • A Healthy Community • Supporting recruitment and retention of local medical staff such as nurses, social workers and occupational therapists • A cleaner and greener community • Easing mobility, enabling people to live near their places of work, and reducing travelling time and reliance on cars
There are also clear and relevant links to other Council strategies such as the Prosperity Strategy, The Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy, the Social Inclusion Strategy, and the Housing Strategy 2006-11, for which the main priority is to increase delivery of affordable homes for those who are unable to access market housing for sale or rent.
3.0 THE NATIONAL & REGIONAL CONTEXT
3.1 Types of Assistance Available
Since 2001, keyworkers in the South East have been one of the Government’s priority groups for assistance in helping those on modest incomes access affordable housing. The Government offered housing assistance to keyworkers under the Keyworker Living (KWL) scheme in the South East, London and East areas of the country experiencing severe recruitment and retention difficulties.
Since 2004, access to all housing assistance for keyworkers is through designated ‘Zone Agents’. Individual Housing Associations may receive grant funding through the Housing Corporation’s National Affordable Housing Programme and develop properties for keyworkers, but Zone Agents have responsibilities for: • assessing eligibility as a ‘keyworker’, • promoting and marketing any new properties, vacancies for letting and re- sales of shares in shared ownership properties, and • assessing affordability/eligibility and distributing equity loans on behalf of the Government for Open Market Homebuy.
Keyworker Living funding is divided between Open Market HomeBuy (equity loans to purchase properties on the open market), new build products such as New Build HomeBuy (shared ownership of newly built homes) and Intermediate
5
159 Rent (newly built homes where the rent is set at a level between that charged by social and private landlords – typically between 70- 80% of a ‘market’ rent).
Open Market Homebuy: Equity loan schemes are offered to assist applicants to buy a home of choice on the open market, like any other homebuyer thereby extending purchasing power by up to 32%. More details are available through the Homebuy Agent (Swaythling Housing Society).
Newbuild Homebuy: (formally known as shared ownership) is a part buy/part rent scheme, with the option to buy further shares later on. Purchasers normally begin with a 50% share but it is sometimes possible to buy as little as 25%, depending on the overall cost and affordability. Since the introduction of the New Build HomeBuy product in April 2006, specific keyworker only newbuild homebuy schemes are no longer funded. Instead keyworkers access the New Build HomeBuy programme as a priority group alongside other priorities such as social housing tenants and those on Local Authority Housing Registers.
(Clawback Clause – Any keyworker who buys a home with the benefit of these schemes must sell up or repay the loan if they give up their job. There are differing terms depending on the product therefore purchasers must check this prior to entering into any contract.)
Intermediate Rent: gives keyworkers an assured short term tenancy while they remain a keyworker. If they stop being a keyworker, they have to pay for the full market rent of the home and vacate the property within a reasonable time scale.
3.2 Progress with Delivery of Assistance
Since 2001, approximately 25,000 keyworkers nationally have been provided with a home through keyworker housing programmes, the Starter Home Initiative (SHI) and KWL.
As at April 2007, across the South East over 10,000 keyworkers, comprised of 3,143 nurses, 5,129 teachers, 1,677 police officers, 109 fire-fighters and 209 paramedics were assisted with provision of housing for intermediate rent or shared ownership under the KWL programme. Through the SHI, over 8,000, including at least 3,895 health sector workers, 3,196 teachers and 1,321 police staff had received assistance.4
Since 2004, some £155m of grant funding has been invested in Intermediate Rent and Newbuild HomeBuy across the South East, producing over 6,000 new homes. Hampshire and Eastleigh have been large beneficiaries of this funding, with over £60m of funding across Hampshire and £3m in Eastleigh as detailed in Appendix 2.
4 Hansard, 4 Jun 2007 : Column 189W
6
160 Research into the success of the KWL Programme with keyworkers on behalf of the Government in 2006 5 found that KWL is an affordable housing solution for the vast majority of beneficiaries, and that; • Newbuild Homebuy was the least popular of the three options, as it did not offer the same degree of choice as Open Market Homebuy (and partly explains the high number of such properties which were ‘void’ for long periods of time in 2005/06) • Affordability was the main attraction for those who chose Intermediate Rent • Open Market Homebuy was by far the most popular of the three options, with the main motivations for keyworkers in taking up the programme being to become a homeowner, that it represented the most affordable housing option available and the ability to live in their desired area.
Open Market Homebuy contributed to 1.0% of house purchases in the South East, 1.3% of purchases in London and 0.9% of purchases in the East of England in 2004/05.
3.3 Future National and Regional Investment Priorities
The Government’s current target is to assist 30,000 keyworkers through the KWL Programme to find a home between 2005-10, with a further 20,000 to be assisted if this target is to be met.
The South East England Regional Assembly’s draft South East Plan has identified the need for new affordable housing on the basis of 70% social rented: 30% intermediate housing (including Newbuild HomeBuy and Intermediate Rent): equivalent to 7,225 social rented and 2,890 intermediate per annum.
The South East Regional Housing Board has recommended to the Government 6 that this % split is maintained during the 2008-11 National Affordable Housing Programme period. Based on the Regional Housing Boards’ assessment that ‘the region’s acute affordability problem is such that further provision of homes for ‘essential workers’ could be seen as being an essential part of the affordable housing programme’7, it is likely that a significant proportion of new homes in the 2008-11 programme will be targeted at those who are employed, including keyworkers, and need affordable intermediate housing.
5 Evaluation of Keyworker Living; Housing Research Summary Number 233, 2006; DCLG 6 Housing Investment in the Regions Funding Recommendations 2008-11 Letter to Housing Minister from Chair of Regional Housing Board: 28/06/07 7 Regional housing strategy review, February 2007
7
161 4.0 THE LOCAL CONTEXT
Eastleigh has seen a rapid expansion in residential, industrial and commercial development over recent years. Originally a railway town there are now many other industries providing employment to all ages for some 53,100 people. A range of keyworkers are employed or live within the Borough and provide essential public services in neighbouring authorities such as Southampton.
4.1 Demand for Keyworker Accommodation
The Council has transferred all its functions relating to keyworker or intermediate housing registers to the local Zone Agent, Swaythling Housing Society, who maintain a register of all those interested in such housing across Hampshire. All keyworkers who contact the Council regarding housing needs are signposted to the Zone Agent and their website, www.homesinhants.co.uk for registration and for a review of all housing available.
After an inauspicious start in 2004/05, when the lack of demand for keyworker Newbuild Homebuy products meant that hundreds of new homes across Hampshire were left empty for several months (with very little interest in shared ownership or Newbuild HomeBuy from keyworkers while 25% Open Market Homebuy equity loans remained available), the local Zone Agent now holds a register of some 750 people interested in intermediate housing options in the Borough such as Newbuild HomeBuy and Intermediate Rent.
However analysis of those on the Zone Agent’s register for Eastleigh Borough in October 2007 reveals that; • only 23% (172) were eligible keyworkers; • only 1% (10) were eligible keyworkers employed within the Borough of Eastleigh; • only 21% of all people on the register were employed within the Borough of Eastleigh, and of these, only 61% actually lived in the Borough – the remainder living in Southampton (20%) Test Valley (6%), Winchester (5%), Fareham (3%) and other districts within Hampshire.
Keyworkers as a whole therefore represent less than 3% of current housing need in the Borough ( taking a total of need as the Council’s housing register of 5500 applicants and the Zone Agent’s register of 750) , and the 10 keyworkers actually employed within the Borough less than 0.2%. It is also apparent that almost 80% of those on the Zone Agent’s register want to live in the Borough of Eastleigh, rather than having any local connection through employment. This position reflects that Keyworkers do not necessarily wish to live in the area where they work and therefore seek to purchase a property within a reasonable travelling distance which is allowed under the Homebuy Agent rules. Therefore Eastleigh with its good transport links is well placed to be attractive for keyworkers who are working in surrounding areas.
8
162
Appendix 3 details the breakdown of all demand from those registered with the Zone Agent as wanting to live in the Borough by average incomes, size of households and property required, revealing the majority on average incomes of less than £25,000.
The Council’s 2004 Housing Needs Survey found that almost £140,000 was the average lower quartile price for first time buyers in the Borough, which, allowing for inflation of circa 10% p.a over the subsequent three years will now in all probability be at least £182,000. Open market housing is therefore clearly unaffordable for the majority of those on the Zone Agents register – with an average earnings to house price ratio of at least 7.2 – and there remains high demand for affordable intermediate housing in the Borough for keyworkers and others.
4.2 Supply of Keyworker Accommodation
Since 2004 there has been significant development within the Borough of over 200 homes for eligible keyworkers utilising Housing Corporation and Government grant funding.
As at October 2007, Atlantic Housing have developed some 80 rented homes (predominantly 2 bedroom flats) for keyworkers, plus 18 new build units specifically for NHS workers in Chandler’s Ford alongside over 30 affordable home ownership properties, while Swaythling Housing Society have developed some 31 intermediate rent and over 100 affordable home ownership properties for which keyworkers were eligible.
Many of Atlantic Housing’s properties were originally developed on a basis of shared ownership for keyworkers, but following the lack of demand and extensive marketing failing to produce any purchasers, they were converted to intermediate rent and all bar two houses in Chandlers Ford (which were sold on a shared ownership basis) are let on that basis. Subsequent demand for the rental properties as they become vacant has been very high, with very low average relet times.
Open Market Homebuy remains by far the most popular form of assistance with keyworkers to date. Table 3 details the popularity of this programme in Hampshire as a whole, and reveals 12 purchases by keyworkers employed in the Borough in the 2006-08 programme – education and police staff being the majority of those assisted.
9
163 Table 3 – Open Market HomeBuy across Hampshire
Homebuy Open Market Purchase 2006-08 Completions By LA Area 5th Sept 2007
Please note that Keyworkers are linked to the areas they work in and serve (Housing Corporation report format) and not to where they live or buy
LA LA Area Education NHS Staff Prison Probation workers Police Fire Non-KW* Totals Basingstoke 14 11 0 0 1 1 0 12 39 Eastleigh7 1 0 0 141923 East Hants 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 14 Fareham 6 2 0 1 0 4 0 2 15 Gosport 5 1 0 0 040212 Hart 6 0 0 0 00028 Havant 7 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 13 Isle of Wight6 3 0 0 120113 New Forest8 3 0 0 010921 Portsmouth21340 1 281875 Rushmoor 10 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 17 Southampton 27 32 0 2 2 9 0 23 95 Test Valley4 0 0 0 210310 Winchester10124 1 031536 Totals 135 102 4 5940 4 92 391
* Non Keyworker purchasers are predominantly RSL or LA tenants and will therefore release homes for rent within the LA area
Source: Swaythling HS; Oct 2007
By contrast, only 26% of Swaythling Housing Society’s affordable homes developed since 2004 in the Borough have been sold to keyworkers, although the majority of these were again to education and police staff.
However, it would appear from the Zone Agents register for the Borough that Newbuild HomeBuy has recently increased in popularity, with over 48% of those on the register in October 2007 stating a preference for Newbuild Homebuy products. This may be the result of Open Market Homebuy becoming less affordable than Newbuild Homebuy, with shares in a property of as little as 25% available compared to the 75% mortgage or purchase required for Open Market HomeBuy. Also, keyworkers are no longer restricted to specific new build, Homebuy developments.
10
164 5.0 BALANCING THE NEEDS OF KEYWORKERS – KEY FUTURE PRIORITIES
While the Zone Agents register indicates there is an unmet demand from keyworkers for affordable housing within the Borough, the Councils’ Housing Strategy 2006-11 identifies and sets the priorities for all housing tenures in the Borough, with the top priority being providing new homes within sustainable communities for those who are unable to access market housing for sale or rent.
With a housing register of those seeking affordable rented accommodation within the Borough of over 5,500 and growing, and while the demand for keyworkers represents around 3% of this, the Council’s priority in terms of affordable housing for the period until 2011 will be new social rented accommodation.
The Council will encourage and support the development of new affordable housing on a basis of 65% social rented: 35% intermediate. Continuing provision for keyworkers will form part of the intermediate housing.
6.0 FUTURE RESOURCES FOR KEYWORKER ACCOMMODATION
The Council has a limited capital fund to assist in the provision of affordable housing, which is comprised of the receipt from sale of its housing stock to Atlantic Housing in 1996, Right to Buy receipts from the sale of Atlantic Housing secure tenancies, and developers commuted sums in lieu of direct contributions towards affordable housing on sites which have been developed.
The Council’s priorities for use of its capital receipts are as set out in the Housing Strategy 2006-11, in that remaining capital receipt and available commuted sums, combined with Registered Social Landlord (RSL) subsidy and recycled grant, will be used to progress rented homes on:
1. Local Plan/ strategic sites 2. Land owned by EBC 3. S106 sites (all sites capable of accommodating 15 or more dwellings) 4. Windfall sites under the threshold for affordable housing provision or additional units to the normal provision on sites above the threshold on S106 sites 5. Additional units on RSL asset management sites above the number of properties demolished /replaced or sites that have not been developed previously such as garage forecourts or open space areas.
The Council will not itself subsidise keyworker homes for rent, although will consider the need for keyworker rented homes on a site by site basis as part of the planning requirement for 35% of affordable housing on all developments within the Borough of over 15 units, and will work with the Housing Corporation, RSL’s and developers in progressing any such proposals.
11
165
Any development of keyworker rented housing would, however; 1. only be considered by the Council on the basis that keyworker housing would be desirable due to the particular location of the site or to achieve a sustainable tenure mix within a development 2. need to deliver weekly rents at a maximum of 80% of the average local market rents, and 3. need to rely on grant funding being made available through the Housing Corporation or other Government department, or be undertaken on a nil grant basis.
The Council also expects other public organisations to enter into dialogue regarding the opportunity to provide an element of keyworker housing on the disposal of any land they hold. Where the organisation disposing of land has a need for keyworker accommodation, this should be provided in addition to the 35% affordable housing element required.
As a general principle the Council will not subsidise any Newbuild Homebuy properties with its own capital receipts.
7.0 RISK ASSESSMENT
One risk in providing keyworker housing is that it will not prove attractive to the keyworkers it is aimed at. This proved to be the situation with a number of schemes specifically built for low-cost home ownership with the result that properties were left empty for unacceptable periods. This was recognised nationally as a problem with the scheme and RSLs were allowed to convert homes for sale into properties for Intermediate Rent. The programme now offers more flexibility in that Newbuild HomeBuy schemes are open to others, not just keyworkers, which should reduce future risk.
A further risk is that if Eastleigh Borough decides not to provide any future keyworker housing while it remains a part of the Government and regional housing programme, funding opportunities may be lost to other Boroughs. Some future sites might be particularly suitable for an element of keyworker housing, especially in Eastleigh town centre. The Council will need to monitor approvals for keyworker development carefully to maximise benefit while minimising loss to the general needs rented programme.
12
166 8.0 MEETING THE DIVERSE NEEDS OF KEYWORKERS
The Council will work with the Zone Agent and partner RSLs to regularly monitor awareness and satisfaction with accessibility, take up, and effectiveness in operation of the Zone Agent’s register, together with keyworker housing allocated or purchased. Such monitoring will take into account satisfaction and demographic issues of keyworkers by ethnicity, disability and other equality issues.
It is expected that joint work will eventually be carried out with our PUSH (Partnership for Urban South Hampshire) partner authorities in assessing these issues.
The Council will, however, carry out a diversity impact assessment and ensure that its publicity of the housing options for all keyworkers is effective.
(Please note that the “assistance available” and “eligibility criteria” detailed in this policy reflects the situation at the time of the policy being drawn up. It is acknowledged that assistance on offer and eligibility criteria is subject to change and therefore it is proposed that this policy will align with any subsequent changes.)
January 2008
13
167 This page is intentionally left blank
168 KEYWORKER POLICY 2008-11 Appendix 1
ELIGIBLE KEYWORKERS*
(*please note this information is subject to change and therefore the most up to date information can be obtained from the Zone agent or from their website HomesinHants.co.uk)
1. Health workers (NHS staff including Social Workers etc)
All applicants must be permanent employees of:
o NHS Primary Care Trusts o NHS Trusts o Health Protection Agency o NHS Ambulance Trusts o NHS Mental Healthcare and Social care Trusts o The National Blood Transfusion Service o NHS Direct o NHS Professionals Special Health Authorities o NHS GP surgeries o NHS Dental Practices, which have been awarded NHS Body status. Where dental practices provide NHS services via a contract, the NHS will provide a letter confirming their status as an NHS Body. Priority groups for assistance o Hants County Council nurses
Within these employer organisations key workers must be:
Nurses Nursing staff in general including Midwives Cancer Service Cancer Care Assistants Staff Cancer services staff, particularly therapeutic radiographers Diagnostic Staff Diagnostic support staff including diagnostic radiographers, microbiologists, rehabilitation engineers and bio-medical scientists Health Care Only those working within a clinical role Assistants Mental Health Mental health professionals e.g. mental health nurses and professionals graduate workers in primary care Allied Health Social workers Professionals Occupational therapists Chiropodists Physiotherapists Clinical staff working within the Orthoptics field Clinical staff working within the Dietetics field Clinical staff working within the Prosthetics and Orthoptics fields Arts Therapists Paramedics Psychologists
Hs176 Page 1 of 5
169 KEYWORKER POLICY 2008-11 Appendix 1
Psychotherapists Radiographers Pharmacists Speech Therapists Dentists Provided they work wholly for the NHS (priority should not be given to dentists over other NHS staff) Qualified Nursery Must be qualified Nurse Research Nurses May be employed by a university but has an honorary contract with a local Primary Care Trust - if pension paid by the NHS then they are eligible Hampshire County Provide nursing care in Hants County Council new facilities Council Nurses Pharmacists Pharmacists
Health workers working for private health care companies cannot be assisted.
2. Teachers, including FE teachers (not private sector)
All applicants must be employed by a Local Education Authority and be a qualified teacher in maintained primary and secondary schools including:
o City Technology Colleges o City Academies o Schools for children with special needs o Pupil referral units o Hospital based teachers or peripatetic teachers employed by an LEA o Non-maintained schools for children with special needs where the pupils are LEA funded o Qualified nursery nurses employed by an LEA
Further Education Colleges
All applicants must:
o be employed as a teacher on a permanent contract of employment o be employed in an FE sector institution (general FE college; sixth form college; art, drama & performing arts college; agriculture and horticulture college; tertiary college) or a non-FE sector independent specialist college providing further education for persons with learning difficulties and/or disabilities; or employed in an FE teaching post in a Higher Education Institution (HEI) in England; and receiving funding from the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) o qualified in line with, or at the time of application are attending, a course leading to an FE teaching qualification, as defined by the Further Education Teachers' Qualifications (England) Regulations 2001 - including Schools-based Qualified Teacher Status
Hs176 Page 2 of 5
170 KEYWORKER POLICY 2008-11 Appendix 1
Notes Teachers employed by private employed agencies and/or on a contract for service are not eligible. Examples of institutions, which do not fall within the scope of the programme are; adult and community learning providers; external institutions, non FE college prison education providers; dance and drama schools; work-based learning providers and Ufi hubs.
3. Police officers - 'operational' and 'operational support' staff
'Operational' and 'Operational Support' staff as below:
o Operational includes all frontline staff - Officers, Police Community Support Officers, Civilian Investigators o Operational Support includes - Station Enquiry Staff, Detention Officers, Scientific Services and Scenes of Crime Staff, Control Room Staff, Intelligence Analysts
4. Prison officers and some Prison Service staff (Winchester only)
Applicants must work in Winchester Prison and must also be from one of the following disciplines:
a. Prison Officers and related grades b. Nursing Staff c. Operational Support Grades (OSGs) d. Industrials e. Instructional Officers
If you work for another prison outside of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, you will need to contact the Zone Agent for area in which you work.
5. Probation Officers, Senior Probation Officers and Probation Service Officers (Trainee Probation Officers for Intermediate Rent only)
Permanently employed as a:
a. Senior Probation Officer b. Probation Officer c. Probation Service Officer d. Trainee Probation Officer (Intermediate renting only)
6. Armed Forces Personnel
MoD personnel qualify where they have completed their basic training and are one of the following:
Hs176 Page 3 of 5
171 KEYWORKER POLICY 2008-11 Appendix 1
a. Regular service personnel (ie. regular service personnel, including Military Provost Guard Service, in the Navy, Army and Air Force) b. Clinical staff (with the exception of Doctors and Dentists) c. Uniformed staff in the Defence Fire Service
The following group will qualify for Intermediate rent schemes only:
d. Full time Reserve Service (Full Committment)
7. LA Social workers (qualified)
Only fully qualified social workers that have attained the recognised professional Social Worker degree/diploma are entitled.
Unqualified social workers, those undergoing initial training and other staff employed in Social Services Departments (other than Occupational Therapists and educational psychologists) are not eligible.
8. Connexions Advisers
Connexions Personal Advisors provided that they are employed by a local authority or a Connexions Partnership. Connexions Personal Advisors employed by private or voluntary sector organisations are not eligible.
9. LA Occupational Therapists
Only qualified Occupational Therapists are entitled. Those who are unqualified, those undergoing initial training and other staff employed in Social Services Departments (other than social workers and educational psychologists) are not eligible.
10. LA Educational Psychologists
Only qualified educational psychologists.
11. LA Planners & National Park Authority Planners
Permanently employed by an LA or National Park Authority as a Planning Officer.
12. LA Speech & Language Therapists
Only qualified educational speech and language therapists.
Hs176 Page 4 of 5
172 KEYWORKER POLICY 2008-11 Appendix 1
13. LA employed clinical staff (eg nurses)
14. LA Rehabilitation Officers for the visually impaired
15. Qualified nursery nurses employed by an LEA or NHS
16. Uniformed staff in Fire & Rescue Services
Uniformed Staff Fire Service staff of all grades.
17. Environmental Health Officers/Practitioners
Qualified Environmental Health Officers/Practitioners who work in a local authority, government agency, NHS or other public sector agencies AND who hold either an EHRB Certificate of Registration or an EHRB Diploma in Environmental Health.
18. Traffic Officer Staff of the Highways Agency Traffic Officer Service
All applicants must be in the following safety critical roles:
a. Supervisor (On road and Off road) b. Traffic Officer c. RCC Operator
AND employed by one of the following employers:
• Southampton City Council • Portsmouth City Council • The Hampshire Constabulary • Hampshire County Council • Hampshire Probation Service • Winchester Prison Service • HM Forces • A Local Planning authority in Hampshire • An NHS Trust in Hampshire • Isle of Wight Council • Hampshire Fire Service • Isle of Wight Fire Service
Hs176 Page 5 of 5
173 This page is intentionally left blank
174 Eastleigh Borough Council Keyworker NAHP Grant Funding 2004-08 Appendix 2 Keyworker Policy 2008-11
Intermediate market Rent (2) Homebuy Newbuild (3) SHG (4) OPS (5) RCGF (6) SHG (4) OPS (5) RCGF (6) (£) (3) (£) Total Homes (£) (£) (£) Total Homes S East 30,192,594 1,045,131 205,275 31,443,000 1,664 115,905,027 3,452,587 5,865,971 125,223,585 4,783 2004-06 Hants 6,191,303 239,131 156,274 6,586,708 319 29,476,494 785,834 812,584 31,074,912 1.135 Eastleigh 558,794 159,131 156,274 874,199 45 2,189,599 223,334 17,584 2,430,517 139 S East 5,624,814 0 31,000 5,655,814 269 70,727,449 4,373,709 1,533,500 76,634,658 3,871 2006-08 Hants 1,029,500 0 0 1,029,500 42 20,936,957 2,082,005 434,000 23,452,962 1,060 Eastleigh 0 0 0 0 0 17,603 0 0 17,603 25 S East 35,817,408 1,045,131 236,275 37,098,814 1,933 186,632,476 7,826,296 7,399,471 201,858,243 8,654 Totals Hants 7,220,803 239,131 156,274 7,616,208 361 50,413,451 2,867,839 1,246,584 54,527,874 2,195 Eastleigh 558,794 159,131 156,274 874,199 45 2,207,202 223,334 17,584 2,448,120 164
(2) Includes Keyworker Intermediate Market Rent (3) Homebuy Newbuild - assistance to households (inc KW’s) to part-purchase a newly-built home (4) SHG - Social Housing Grant (5) OPS - Other Public Subsidy (6) RCGF - Recycled Capital Grant Fund
Source: Housing Corporation 175 Hs176 This page is intentionally left blank
176 177 178 EXTRACT FROM THE SOCIAL POLICY SCRUTINY PANEL MINUTES, 19 MARCH 2008:
Keyworker Housing Policy
Mary Stribling, the Research and Development Manager, invited Members to comment on the proposed policy for Keyworker Housing.
Firstly Mary pointed out that there was an error on page 64 of the report, last line of second paragraph ‘….below market rents but no higher than…..’ should read ‘…below market rents but higher than ….’
She then went on to explain that the Policy outlined the problems faced by those on lower incomes and trying to access housing in the Borough. The Policy had been in place since 2002 with the last progress report made in 2004 and was in need of review to reflect the latest guidance and practice locally.
Eastleigh was an area of high demand for housing and affordability was a problem for many, regardless of occupation. It was proposed that priority continue to be given to affordable housing, both social rented and low cost home ownership, for access by all residents in the borough through Eastleigh Homechoice. Provision of Keyworker housing should take advantage of specific initiatives to address their housing needs or to supplement existing affordable housing development where appropriate. It was proposed that the Council’s policy adopts the national definition and continues to align with it as and when it changes.
The Chair thanked Mary Stribling and Tony Hall.
It was AGREED that the Keyworker Housing Policy be recommended to Cabinet for approval.
179 This page is intentionally left blank
180 Agenda Item 12
SOCIAL POLICY SCRUTINY PANEL
19th March 2008
CABINET
3rd April 2008
ACCESSIBLE HOMES STRATEGY 2008 - 2011
Report of the Head of Housing Services
RECOMMENDATION TO THE SOCIAL POLICY SCRUTINY PANEL
The Panel are invited to comment on the proposed strategy including the recommendations and resulting action plan. It is recommended that subject to any comments they ask Cabinet to approve and adopt the Accessible Homes Strategy and action plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CABINET
It is recommended, subject to any recommendations made by the Social Policy Scrutiny Panel, that the:
1. Accessible Homes Strategy be approved and adopted by Cabinet.
2. The action plan for the strategy is agreed.
Summary
The Accessible Homes Strategy outlines the problems faced by those with mobility related disabilities in accessing suitable housing in the Borough of Eastleigh. It highlights the already high and increasing costs associated with adaptation works carried out to existing homes, sets the overall issue against the context of current legislative and regulatory framework and recommends progress towards the provision of lifetime homes and wheelchair accessible housing.
Statutory Powers
Housing Act 1996 as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002 and Local Government Act 1972
Introduction
1. There are currently an estimated 10 million disabled people in Britain, of which 1.2 million are wheelchair users. In Eastleigh 16% of all households contain
181 people with limiting disabilities. The Communities and Local Government Disability and Equality Scheme, December 2006 highlights that disabled people, and households containing a member with a long-term disability, continue to face long term disadvantage in accessing suitable housing.
2. To assist those with specific needs Eastleigh Borough Council commits in the region of £500,000 per annum (for circa 100 cases p.a. at an average cost of £5,000 per adaptation) to its Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) programme which seeks to make adaptations to existing homes to enable residents to stay put.
3. As well as assisting in the DFG process our Specialist Housing Occupational Therapist (working between the Council and Social Services) is working with Registered Social Landlord (RSL) partners to ensure that where properties have previously been adapted, preference when they are advertised is given to an incoming tenant who would make use of those adaptations.
Key Future Priorities
4. The DFG programme and effective use of existing adapted properties is work that is ongoing but it is recognised that consideration needs to be given to new homes that are built and ensuring they meet future needs. Research suggests that the cost of building new homes to Lifetime Homes or Wheelchair Accessible design standards from the outset, would largely be offset by the benefits these homes would bring.
5. Whilst it is not possible to introduce a requirement immediately for all new homes to be built to Lifetime Homes Standards or Wheelchair Accessible Design Standards it is suggested that consideration needs to be given to this area and if appropriate details of Eastleigh Borough Council’s future vision to be incorporated in the Core Strategy planning document. This links to Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) that Government expects “Development Plans should promote development that creates socially inclusive communities ….and also it further states the needs of all the community, including particular requirements relating to age, sex, ethnic background, religion, disability or income need to be taken into account in Plan policies.
6. Having considered both existing and new housing provision Section 8 of the Strategy sets out the recommendations and Appendix 4 details the resultant Action Plan that follows these recommendations to move this strategy forward.
Financial Implications
7. The policy recommendations the Strategy and the resulting action plan should all be capable of being undertaken from within existing revenue resources. The capital costs of meeting Lifetime Homes standards and fully wheelchair accessible standards will mainly be met by the landowner and developer under the development process and by the RSL where affordable housing is involved.
Risk Assessment
182 8. The risk in requiring Lifetime Homes and fully wheelchair accessible provision is that the extra costs involved, together with other requirements placed on developers, will reduce the development proposals that come forward and therefore housing delivery numbers.
9. There may be some capital cost to the Council of adapting temporary homeless accommodation. This has not yet been quantified but would be submitted for approval to Cabinet at a later date with a proposal to fund this from the existing housing capital receipt.
Equality and Diversity Impact Assessment
10. An impact assessment of the strategy has been carried out and there are no adverse issues highlighted. The assessment will be available on the Council’s website following approval of the Strategy.
Conclusion
11. Members are asked to endorse the accessible homes strategy and action plan which seek to promote more accessible housing across the Borough.
TONY HALL Head of Housing Services
Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN
Date: 19 February 2008 Contact Officer: Mary Stribling Tel No: 023 8068 8421 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: Strategy + 4 appendices Report No hs178
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:
Housing Act 1996 as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002 Eastleigh Borough Council Housing Strategy 2006 - 2011
183 This page is intentionally left blank
184 EASTLEIGH BOROUGH COUNCIL
DRAFT
Accessible Homes Strategy 2008-2011
CONTENTS
Page 1 INTRODUCTION 3 The Need for a Strategy 3 Aims of the Strategy 4 Relevance to other Council Strategies 4
2 THE LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT 5 Disability Discrimination Act 5 Disability Equality Duty 6 Planning Policy 6 Code for Sustainable Homes 7
3 LIFETIME HOMES 7 What are Lifetime homes 7 The Benefits of Lifetime Homes 8
4 WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE HOMES 9 What are Wheelchair Accessible Homes 9
5 THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL CONTEXT 9 New Homes 9 Building for life 9 English Partnerships 10 The Housing Corporation 10 South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) 10 South East Regional Housing Strategy 10 The London Plan 10 National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society 11 Existing homes 11 Review of Disabled Facilities Grant 11 Decent Homes 12 Accessible Housing Registers 12 Homelessness and Housing Advice 13
6 THE LOCAL CONTEXT 14 Supply of Accessible Housing 14 New Homes 14 Existing Homes 14
Demand for Accessible Housing 15 Housing Register/Homechoice 15
Hs178 Page 1 of 19 185 Homelessness 15 Concealed Households 16 Older Persons Aspirations 16
Supporting People 16
7 CONCLUSIONS 16
8 RECOMMENDATIONS 17
9 CONSULTATION 18
10 MONITORING AND REVIEW 19
APPENDICES 1 2005 DDA Definitions of Disability 2 Lifetime Homes Criteria 3 Wheelchair Accessible Homes Criteria 4 Action Plan
186 Hs178 Page 2 of 19 1. INTRODUCTION
The Need for a Strategy
There are currently an estimated 10 million disabled people in Britain, of which 1.2 million are wheelchair users, 4.6 million are over state pension age and 700,000 are children. In Eastleigh, 16%1 of all households contain people with limiting disabilities - 11% of whom are wheelchair users. This equates to around 2% of households in the Borough containing wheelchair users. 42% of households residing in social housing contain people with limiting disabilities, while some 18% of new tenancies each year within housing associations are held by households where at least one member has a disability and 3% contain wheelchair users.2
Research indicates that nationally there is a shortage of 300,000 fully wheelchair accessible properties to meet current and projected housing need3, while only 23% of all new Housing Corporation funded social housing in 2006-08 is being built to accessible Lifetime Homes standards; 9% being built to wheelchair accessible standards.
While everyone at some point will experience some form of limited mobility – perhaps through a sudden crisis such as an incapacitating accident, injury or illness besetting a household member - disabled people, and households containing a member with a long term disability, continue to face long term disadvantage in accessing suitable housing and are more likely to live in non-decent housing4.
We also face a significantly ageing population, with national and local projections showing that over the next 30 years the population aged 65 years and over will rise by 70 per cent and those aged 85 or over will increase by 149 per cent.
There is evidence that the current lack of development of suitable homes for older people is leading to their being unable to move. This in turn is leading to under- occupation of family homes; blocking up the supply chain; reducing flexibility and movement in the private and social housing sectors, and contributing to rising house prices5.
The percentage of households with long term limiting disabilities increases with the age of the household,6 as does the need for adaptations to their existing homes, while the capacity for adaptation of existing homes is limited or requires extensive and expensive works. The process of seeking and obtaining adaptations to enable them to remain in their home is lengthy with an average delay of 12 months; the quality of life of those affected can suffer during this time while health and social services can incur costs in the interim through hospitalisation, placement in extra care homes, or additional domiciliary care.
1 Housing Needs Survey, 2002/2004 2 Disability Equality Scheme and Action Plan: Housing Corporation: Dec 2006. 3 Ackroyd, J (2003); Where do you think that you are going? John Grooms: London 4 Communities and Local Government, Disability Equality Scheme, Dec 2006 5 The future of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Making a rating mandatory; DCLG July 2007 6 Older Person’s accommodation Strategy 2004-07, Eastleigh BC
Hs178 Page 3 of 19 187
The cost of minor works by landlords and Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) funded adaptations to existing homes is also high and rising; • The largest local housing association, Atlantic Housing, currently spends £122,000 p.a. on minor alterations for circa 300 tenants per year such as hand and grabs rails, over bath showers and lever taps • DFG funding costs in excess of £430m per year nationally, and £0.5m in Eastleigh for circa 100 cases p.a. at an average of £5,000 per adaptation • The Council’s 2004 Housing Needs Survey identified a continuing increase in the need for adaptations, and • The Council’s private sector house condition survey in 2005 identified an estimated need for adaptations in 4,000 households across the Borough (10% of all stock) at a cost of £7.2m – an average of £1,800 per property.
Conversely, research suggests that the cost of building new homes to Lifetime Homes or Wheelchair Accessible design standards from the outset, which would ensure that all new homes are accessible for the disabled and flexible enough to meet the need of whatever comes along in life, equates to an average increase of only £550 per unit, and any additional costs compared to the overall benefits to the economy of doing this would be broadly in balance. 7
There is therefore a social, demographic and economic need to ensure that all new and refurbished homes are more accessible, suitable and better able to adapt to the needs of their occupants at different stages of their life, alongside improving the scope of refurbishments to maximise accessibility when meeting decent homes standards.
Aims of the Strategy
The aims of the strategy are to: • Highlight the current legislative and regulatory framework for accessible homes for the disabled • Provide detail on the types of and benefits of accessible homes • Examine the national, regional and local context and needs for accessible housing, and • Seek to influence the Local Development Plan to ensure delivery of suitable accessible homes within the Borough.
The definition of disability for the purposes of this strategy is that used in the Disability Discrimination Act, which covers a wide range of disabilities from people with Alzheimer’s and arthritis to those with learning disabilities, depression, diabetes, cancer etc. The definition is detailed at Appendix 1.
Relevance to other Council Strategies
The strategy has an impact upon and bears direct relevance to one of the Council’s key corporate priorities – A Healthy Community, alongside detailed objectives contained within the: • Housing Strategy: 2006-11 • Older Persons Accommodation Strategy 2004-07
7 The future of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Making a rating mandatory; DCLG July 2007
188 Hs178 Page 4 of 19 • Disability Strategy 2006 • Equality Strategy 2006 • Social Inclusion Strategy 2005-07
2. THE LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 ( DDA)
The Disability Discrimination Act (1995) was introduced in order to improve opportunities for disabled people. It set out to end discrimination against a person because they experience disability, and to ensure that organisations would make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to ensure that the person can access services.
However, over the course of the following decade, many indicators showed that ending discrimination hadn’t yet happened, e.g; • The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that four out of 10 families with disabled children experienced homes which were cold, damp and / or in poor repair 8 • The English House Condition Survey found that o 25 per cent of all households in non-Decent Homes included someone who is long term ill or disabled9, and o 1.5 million people were in need of accessible accommodation, with 329,000 living in completely unsuitable housing10. • A survey of physically disabled people in England and Wales conducted by John Grooms in 2003 found that: o 20% had difficulty moving around their house or getting in and out of their front door o 24% felt that they were prisoners in their own home due to poor access and location o 40% felt that their housing situation made them unnecessarily dependent on other people.11 • Between 1997 and 2004 in England the overall numbers of households accepted to be priority homeless (by local authorities) due to physical disabilities increased by 24 per cent, whereas those accepted as in priority need due to mental health problems rose by 65 per cent,12 and • A 2003 Joseph Rowntree Foundation study found that most young disabled people wanted to leave their parental home in their teens or twenties, and that the principal barrier they experienced was inadequate housing choices.13
As the Disability Rights Commission highlighted, “Historically, the way in which houses have been built, and housing services have been run, has failed to address the needs of disabled people as part of the wider community. Because buildings and programmes have been designed in a way which excludes disabled people, they are
8 York University, 2002, The housing needs of disabled children: The national evidence, Joseph Rowntree Foundation 9 Department for Communities and Local Government, 2002, English House Condition Survey 10 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003 / 2004, Survey of English Housing 11 Ackroyd, J (2003) Where do you think that you are going? John Grooms: London 12 Department for Communities and Local Government statistics for 2005 13 Dean, Jo, 2003, The housing aspirations of young disabled people in Scotland, Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Hs178 Page 5 of 19 189 instead often catered for by ‘special’ services. Too often this has resulted in disabled people finding themselves trapped in poor housing conditions, completely unsuitable to their needs”14.
Disability Equality Duty 2006 (DES)
The Disability Equality Duty was introduced as a result of perceived failures of the DDA. However, it is not about more individual rights; instead it is about improving public authorities’ policies and services as a whole for all disabled people.
The general duty requires every public authority, when carrying out its functions, to have due regard to the need to: • promote equality of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled people • eliminate unlawful discrimination against disabled people • eliminate harassment of disabled people that is related to their disabilities • promote positive attitudes towards disabled people • encourage participation by disabled people in public life • take steps to take account of disabled peoples’ disabilities, even where that involves treating them more favourably than others.
‘Due regard’ means that organisations should give due weight to the need to promote disability equality in proportion to its relevance.
In the context of Housing Strategies, expectations are that local Councils as part of their enabling role should set out a long term vision of housing for disabled people; a statement of housing-related targets and objectives; show how its proposals for the local area are consistent with the national, regional and sub-regional policies for disabled people, and how the wider priorities can be translated and implemented at the local level.15
Planning Policy
Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) is the government’s statement setting out the over-arching principles for sustainable development within which all planning authorities should be operating. The Government has detailed in Planning Policy Statement 1 their expectations that, ‘Development Plans should promote development that creates socially inclusive communities… Plan policies should …seek to reduce social inequalities and take into account the needs of all the community, including particular requirements relating to age, sex, ethnic background, religion, disability or income’.16 It is now a requirement for Design and Access Statements to be submitted for most planning applications to include access for disabled persons. The Council has a disabled access group that leads on these issues.
14 A guide to the Disability Equality Duty and Disability Discrimination Act 2005 for the social housing sector; DRC,;2006 15 A guide to the Disability Equality Duty and Disability Discrimination Act 2005 for the social housing sector; DRC; 2006 16 DCLG (2005) Planning Policy Statement 1- Paragraph 16 “Delivering Sustainable Development”
190 Hs178 Page 6 of 19
The Code for Sustainable Homes
The Code for Sustainable Homes was introduced in England in April 2007 following extensive consultation with environmental groups and the home building and wider construction industries, and is currently a voluntary code for all except publicly funded housing (which must achieve three star ratings) but with plans to make it mandatory for all on a phased basis between 2008 and 2016.
The Code measures the sustainability of a new home against categories of sustainable design, rating the ‘whole home’ as a complete package out of a possible 104 ‘credits’. There is currently no requirement to adopt the Lifetime Homes standards (which form part of the health and well-being category and account for 4 credits out of the 104) in the Code – it is entirely up to the developer to decide where to focus their effort in acquiring points.
However, Ministers said in the Government response to Kate Barker’s report on Housing Supply that they considered Lifetime Homes standards important, would monitor take-up, and did not rule out regulation if it proved necessary. They have now indicated their intention to make Lifetime Homes a mandatory element of the code. The basis for this being that; • Consultations with disabled people in formulating the Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) Disability Equality Scheme identified improving housing opportunities as a key priority outcome • The home building market is not reacting as quickly as necessary to meet dramatic demographic changes highlighted in the introduction to this strategy, and • Including Lifetime Homes standards as an essential element in the Code for Sustainable Homes will achieve their aim of delivering sustainable communities and form an important element of their forthcoming Strategy for Housing for an Ageing Population.
3. LIFETIME HOMES
What are Lifetime Homes
Lifetime Homes standards were developed in the 1990s as a set of sixteen criteria which together make a dwelling easier to use and adapt as a family’s needs change over time, and are suitable for older people and for the vast majority of disabled people, as well as the non-disabled person. Lifetime Homes are built with accessibility and adaptability incorporated at the design stage, with inbuilt flexibility to ensure that should the occupant's needs change, the homes are cheaper to adapt and there is minimal disruption to the occupant.
The full criteria and a comparison with Part M of the Building Regulations alongside Housing Corporation Scheme Development Standards are detailed at Appendix 2.
Some, such as a requirement for a level threshold and provision of a downstairs WC are already incorporated in the Building Regulations.
Hs178 Page 7 of 19 191 The Benefits of Lifetime Homes
The benefits of Lifetime Homes have been evaluated over the past decade and are summarised below, in that they can result in; • A reduced need to move into residential care • Savings in home/domiciliary care costs; as Lifetime Homes may reduce the need for some of this home care • Savings in Supporting People costs • Savings in health care costs: Where people cannot be discharged because of difficulty of securing places in residential or nursing homes, or they cannot return home the health service bears additional costs • Reduced costs of rehousing disabled people • Savings in the costs of minor adaptations: Minor adaptations are generally those costing less than £500, in the main currently paid for by social landlords • Reduced costs of removing adaptations: When a home switches from use by a disabled person to an able bodied person adaptations may have to be removed • Real quality of life benefits for disabled people and carers • Long-term community benefits: the fact that older and disabled people may not have to move unless they choose to, adds to the social cohesion of a community . The table below details the anticipated savings of adopting Lifetime homes across the country as a mandatory element of all new build homes.
Table 1: Summary of benefits and costs of Lifetime Homes
Benefits Costs
Reduced cost of adaptations to dwellings for Increased costs of building all homes disabled people (£49.6m per year) to Lifetime Homes Standards (£92.9m per year)
Reduced need to move into residential care Effect on value of properties (£5.6m per year)
Savings in home care costs (£21.5m per year)
Savings in health care costs
Reduced costs of rehousing disabled people
(£2.5m per year)
Savings in the costs of minor adaptations
(£10.6m per year)
Savings in administrative costs (£2.7m per year)
Reduced costs of removing adaptations
TOTAL: £92.5m TOTAL: £92.9m
192 Hs178 Page 8 of 19 Source: The future of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Making a rating mandatory; DCLG July 2007 It is recognised that there is still debate around the true cost of lifetime homes provision as this could vary depending on site constraints, design and the impact of the required standard.
4. WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE HOMES
What are Wheelchair Accessible Homes?
Wheelchair accessible homes, built to the standards detailed in The Wheelchair Housing Design Guide, 2nd edition, 200617 are different to Lifetime Homes. Wheelchair accessible homes allow either immediate occupation by a wheelchair user or easy adaptation when the need arises.
Whilst Lifetime Homes and wheelchair accessible housing have some features in common, there are important differences that will almost certainly make the footprint of a unit designed to be wheelchair accessible different to other residential units, included in which is the need for a covered carport to facilitate access to a vehicle.
The full criteria are detailed at Appendix 3.
5. THE NATIONAL & REGIONAL CONTEXT
New Homes
Requirements for Lifetime and Wheelchair Accessible Homes standards are key emerging features in the national policy context for development and funding of new homes.
Building for Life
Building for Life is a joint initiative between CABE, the Civic Trust and the House Builders Federation to promote design excellence and celebrate best practice within the house building industry. The Building for Life standard is the national benchmark for well-designed housing and neighbourhoods in England. It is awarded to new housing projects that demonstrate a commitment to high design standards and good place making.
Accessibility is included in 20 key criteria which new housing projects are measured against. Criteria 15 of the building for life standard is whether internal spaces and layout allow for adaptation, conversion or extension.
CABE also believe that as a minimum, an adequate supply of new housing should be designed to “Lifetime Homes” standards18 and that everyone should have the opportunity of living in a decent well designed home which is capable of meeting their needs throughout their lives.19
17 ‘Wheelchair Housing Design Guide’ by Stephen Thorpe, 2006 edition, available from www.brepress.com 18 Planning Policy Statement 3 –Housing CABE’s response to the governments consultation 19 Code for sustainable homes CABE’s response to the governments consultation
Hs178 Page 9 of 19 193
English Partnerships
English Partnerships (EP) is the national regeneration agency helping the government to support high quality sustainable growth in England. As a major landowner (and as a facilitator for the purchase and re-use of surplus public sector land) EP seek to promote homes that are flexible and adaptable.
House builders purchasing land from EP are required to adopt Lifetime Homes as a minimum standard (which is enforced by a legal agreement).
The Housing Corporation
The Housing Corporation fund and regulate the provision of affordable homes in England. In practice, 23% of housing currently funded by the Corporation meets Lifetime Homes standards, and the Housing Corporation uses development standards that already include many Lifetime Home and wheelchair housing standards as noted in Appendix 2.
The Corporation has made clear in its Disability Equality Strategy20 that it intends to review incorporation of all the Lifetime Homes criteria into its designs standards by Dec 2007, increase the numbers of Lifetime Homes built in its 2008-11 National Affordable Housing Programme and ensure that all housing funded by them is compliant with Lifetime Homes standards from 2011 onwards.
South East England Development Agency (SEEDA)
SEEDA is the Government funded agency set up in 1999 responsible for the economic and social development of the South East of England. SEEDA works with partner organisations to invest in a range of economic and social development programmes – including land for new homes.
SEEDA has committed to establish performance standards for its own development projects which will incorporate adoption of Lifetime Homes standards.21
South East Regional Housing Strategy
The 2006 regional housing strategy identifies that homes should be built to Lifetime Homes standards where appropriate and that the needs of those with disabilities should be met in new and existing developments. Eastleigh Borough Council will seek to work with its PUSH partners to produce a co-ordinated approach to accessibility issues.
The London Plan
All Local Authorities across London have begun to implement planning requirements for all new homes on the basis of the London and Sub-Regional Strategy Support Studies report, 22 which provided detailed information about the barriers experienced by different groups of disabled people both inside and outside their homes, and
20 Disability Equality Scheme and Action Plan 2006-09; Housing Corporation: Dec 2006 21 SEEDA - Disability Equality Scheme 2006-2009 04/12/06 22 London and Sub-Regional Strategy Support Studies GLA, Association of London Government, London Boroughs August 2005
194 Hs178 Page 10 of 19 highlighted that they are twice as likely to be living in unsuitable housing as non- disabled people.
All 30,500 new homes or conversions that are needed in London every year, as identified in the London Plan, are to be built to Lifetime Homes Standards, with 10% of them being built to wheelchair accessible housing standards. The 10% requirement for wheelchair accessible homes “should be applied to both market and affordable housing, should be evenly distributed throughout the development, and cater for a varying number of occupants.”23
National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society
The government have consulted on this strategy24 which is due for publication in early 2008, with a vision of setting ‘a new direction of travel with housing, neighbourhoods and communities which are inclusive, attractive and sustainable for an ageing population. Older people’s housing options will be planned, integrated and sustained as part of the mainstream’,
Stated aims of the strategy include increasing: • The numbers of inclusive, mainstream and specialist housing appropriate for older people in areas of under-supply • The percentage and numbers of people over 80 living safely in own homes, and • The percentage of Lifetime and Inclusive (i.e. wheelchair accessible) homes.
Existing Homes
Review of Disabled Facilities Grant
The Government have recognised that the existing Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) Programme needs updating and improving. In 2004 an interdepartmental review of DFG was established to consider what changes were necessary and an independent review of the programme from the University of Bristol commissioned.
The Bristol Report in 2005 identified a number of problems and challenges facing the DFG programme, including delays in processing applications and works, and made recommendations to the Government on how to improve the programme. The Government implemented the recommendation to exempt children’s cases from means testing straight away. This means that families needing to adapt their homes to care for a disabled child are no longer subject to means testing.
The Government has considered the recommendations in the Bristol Report alongside recent policy developments and following consultation, have indicated their proposals to improve the grant system to: • Increase the maximum limit of DFG to £30,000 to reflect the increased costs of carrying out DFG work • Put a recoverable charge on portions of grant above £5,000 but limit this to a maximum of £10,000
23 Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment’ Implementation Point 13: Wheelchair Housing; GLA 2004 24 National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society; A Pre Strategy Document; DCLG; May 2007
Hs178 Page 11 of 19 195 • Transfer the limited amount of Social Housing Grant available to housing associations through the Housing Corporation for funding adaptations to DFG, and • Make access to the garden a specific purpose for which a grant must be approved.
However, they have indicated further work is required to clarify how recommendations will work effectively between partner agencies involved, and that once this further work is complete and the future funding position for DFG is known (in particular increased costs likely from the recommendations) they will announce a package of changes to improve and raise the quality of support provided through DFG.
Decent Homes
Decent Homes is a programme and target set by the government in 2002 to bring all social housing into a decent condition and increase the proportion of private housing in decent condition occupied by vulnerable groups by 2010. Social Housing landlords have spent billions in recent years in order to bring properties up to the specified reasonable standards of repair, facilities and services and thermal comfort.
In order to meet the Disability Equality Duty, decent homes work and asset management strategies of which they are an integral part should improve accessibility standards and remove barriers for disabled people within homes and external environments, and investments should deliver demonstrable improvements towards disability equality.25
However, research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation with several social housing providers has suggested that implementation of the Decent Homes Standards has been a missed opportunity for increasing accessibility of properties and may inadvertently make accessibility worse.26
Accessible Housing Registers
The concept of a Disability or Accessible Housing Register, which aims to match accessible properties to the individual needs of disabled people, was established in the 1990s, and local authorities and voluntary agencies in many areas of the country set up their own versions of a register. Registers have already been developed in Bradford, Reading, Liverpool, Edinburgh, and Glasgow and, of late across the whole of London.
These large authorities estimate that they have saved anything between £200,000 and £800,000 per year through having such registers from not 'unadapting' empty properties and reducing delay in discharging people who need accessible properties from hospital or institutional care.27
25 A guide to the Disability Equality Duty and Disability Discrimination Act 2005 for the social housing sector; DRC; 2006 26 Implementing Decent Homes Standards: How Housing Associations are addressing accessibility issues; JRF; 2006. 27 Accessible Housing Registers: Helping you comply with the law and provide a better service; John Grooms; www.johngrooms.org.uk/ourview.asp
196 Hs178 Page 12 of 19 In order to comply with the Disability Equality Duty, housing organisations have been strongly recommended to develop Disability Housing Registers to maximise disabled people’s housing choice.28
The Audit Commission inspect local authorities and social housing providers to ensure quality services are being delivered to agreed standards (Key Lines of Enquiry). One of the key requirements for an ‘excellent’ service within the Audit Commission’s Key Line of Enquiry 7’ Allocations and Lettings’ supports the establishment of Accessible Homes Registers.
The requirement is for local authorities to 'have an allocation policy that records, collects and takes account of individual's needs and support requirements in order to match their needs with appropriate housing’, and ‘knows, records, analyses and monitors information about the ethnicity, vulnerability and disability of service users and uses it to ensure services are delivered appropriately and to prioritise resources.’
Homelessness & Housing Advice
The government have encouraged a wide range of measures to prevent homelessness and halve the number of households in temporary accommodation by 2010, and are committed to build on the findings from the Social Exclusion Unit’s 2004 Breaking the Cycle report which highlighted the importance of delivering homelessness solutions for older and disabled people.29
Priorities to prevent homelessness including provision of housing advice, maximising Housing Benefit take-up, tenancy sustainment schemes, mediation services, sanctuary schemes for victims of domestic violence, and rent deposit schemes to help people access the private rented sector will impact on disabled people. This especially given the evidence (outlined earlier) of the increased number of homeless acceptances by local authorities of households containing a disabled member in recent years and the potential problem of ‘hidden homelessness’; people with mental health conditions or learning disabilities who want to leave institutions or the parental home to live independently.
In particular, given that accessible private rented housing is almost non-existent (Scope 2001) and that the reliance of disabled people on the social sector has grown as the place where accessible housing is located,30 there are challenges in relation to the use of the private sector to resolve homelessness.
28 A guide to the Disability Equality Duty and Disability Discrimination Act 2005 for the social housing sector; DRC; 2006 29 Sustainable Communities: settled homes; changing lives; A strategy for tackling homelessness: ODPM; March 2005. 30 Build for Equality; John Grooms’ submission to The Disability Debate; www.johngrooms. .org.uk/ourview.asp
Hs178 Page 13 of 19 197 6. THE LOCAL CONTEXT
Supply of Accessible Homes
New Homes
Although one of the recommendations from the Borough’s 2002 Housing Needs Survey was to incorporate targets for new homes being developed to Lifetime Homes standards, this was not taking forward on a universal basis. Neither Lifetime nor Wheelchair Accessible Homes standards are currently specific objectives contained within the Local Plan or Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Borough. Policy 62BE of the Local Plan requires the needs of people with impaired mobility to be taken into account in the design and layout of public access to buildings.
The standards have, however, been applied on a scheme by scheme basis with new affordable housing. All homes on the redevelopment at the Gardens by Atlantic Housing are Lifetime Homes compliant and those to be developed on Velmore are expected to meet 80% of Lifetimes Homes criteria in keeping with current Housing Corporation Scheme Development Standards.
Existing Homes
Currently around 9% of all dwellings in the Borough are adapted, with just under a third of these found in the social rented sector.31
There are also some 34 Supporting People funded accommodation based units of housing for people with learning disabilities , and 1400 sheltered housing units throughout the Borough, although their accessibility and adaptability in Lifetime or Wheelchair Accessible Homes standards has not been fully assessed.
The Council receives some £330,000 per year by way of DFG funding from central government towards the cost of DFG’s on the basis of the current 60/40 central/local government split, and subsidises this to the tune of £220,000 per year from its own capital fund. A government funded Home Improvement Agency, Intouch, works in the Borough to assist, amongst other key areas of maintaining disabled people in their homes, with applications and specifications of works for DFG funded grants.
Of the circa 100 DFG funded adaptations carried out each year, 50% (approximately £250,000) of adaptations are on Atlantic Housing’s existing stock: the majority of which entail adaptations through the provision of level access showers and stair lifts, but which also include ground floor extensions.
The combined current spend between the Government, the Council and Atlantic Housing per annum within the Borough on adaptations to make existing homes more accessible is some £650,000 – at an average cost of £2,600 per property/household.
The Council has been proactive in pursuing improvements to the quality, availability and value for money of DFG’s, through; • Employing a dedicated Occupational Therapist on a part time basis to ensure better strategic outputs and speed of assessment
31 Older Person’s accommodation Strategy 2004-07, Eastleigh BC
198 Hs178 Page 14 of 19 • Offering relocation grants where they are more appropriate and better use of money than adaptations, and • To assist homeowners stay in their own homes the Council has participated in the establishment of the Southern Home Loans scheme; offering secured loans for home owners to improve or adapt their properties. Eligible works include ramping, widening ground floor doors and adapting ground floor WC compartments.
A recent survey found that 92% of adaptations carried out between 2003-05 were still being used for the purpose they were intended for.32 The Council have also recently agreed with Atlantic Housing to co-ordinate refurbishment work with known adaptation requirements, with the costs apportioned appropriately and shared between the DFG fund and Atlantic Housing, resulting in efficiencies and savings for both the Council and Atlantic Housing.
There is, however, no formal register of all currently Accessible Housing in the Borough or surrounding areas, although the Council’s part time Occupational Therapist has developed effective partnerships with key stakeholders to establish details of all known accessible new build and adapted properties, and uses these to ensure where possible that accessibility features are maximised by households who require them.
Atlantic Housing holds manual details of all DFG funded works undertaken to their properties, and is in the process of ensuring these are reflected in their IT database and available as an accessible housing register of their stock to all their staff and partners over the course of 2007-08.
Demand for Accessible Homes
Housing Register/Homechoice
The Council’s part time Occupational Therapist works with Housing staff to identify and make contact with applicants who register and provide details of their disability.
Approximately 5% (275) of the current 5,500 applicants have been identified as needing accessible housing because of a household member with disabilities, while 1.5% (83) need wheelchair accessible housing.
Homelessness
The Council does not currently monitor priority need homeless acceptances robustly enough to accurately assess the numbers with disabilities as defined in Appendix 1, in that priority need acceptances are primarily monitored by categories such as households with dependent children, pregnancy, 16-17 year olds etc., which does not capture for example whether households with dependent children were homeless because of a household member’s disability or not.
The national trends of increasing acceptances due to disability cannot therefore be demonstrated, but within the narrow definitions in use, in the 5 years from 2002-07, 4% (18) of homeless acceptances were due to physical disability, while 10% ( 45) were due to mental illness.
32 Study into the Effectiveness of Major Adaptations in Eastleigh; Eastleigh Borough Council Housing Services; April 2007.
Hs178 Page 15 of 19 199
Concealed Households & Needs
The Council’s Housing Needs Survey identified 2,906 concealed households, of which 92% were adult children of existing households – based on a definition of people who cannot afford to be in the housing market and are currently living with another household. Given that nationally 1 in 7 households contain people with a disability, as many as 415 of these households may have some need for accessible accommodation, although further work is required to correlate and substantiate this.
Older Persons Aspirations
The results of research in 2006 jointly commissioned by the Council into older people in Eastleigh’s aspirations found that most do not wish to face moving from family homes until compelled by circumstance, but the most popular option if they were to move would be two bedroom accessible accommodation. The conclusions of the research were that as population forecasts show significant increases in older people, and especially those over 85 in the Borough, a matching increase in availability of appropriate housing and accessible services to meet a wide variety of needs is necessary.33
Supporting People
Hampshire County Council’s Supporting People strategic objectives are to move towards more flexible delivery of support through floating support models and to redress the current imbalance of focus on learning disabilities by ensuring greater access to and availability of services for people with physical disabilities and mental health issues.
However, their Strategic Review of Disability in 2006-07 has concluded that although the majority of services provided in Eastleigh are accommodation based services for people with learning disabilities, they remain strategically relevant and continue to meet the needs of individuals and objectives of stakeholders.
7. CONCLUSIONS
There is a compelling social, economic and demographic case for implementing Lifetime and Wheelchair Accessible Homes standards across all forms of new housing in the Borough, and ensuring that refurbishment of existing housing stock takes accessibility issues into account.
Current and future needs for accessible housing at the national and local level, widespread adoption of the standards across government, regulators, funders of housing and local authorities in response to these, and rising awareness of the issues through the Disability Equality Duty are apparent.
Implementing Lifetimes Homes standards once they become an established requirement would not significantly increase development costs for either social housing providers or private builders as they would be planned in from the outset, but will potentially have a significant impact upon the future cost and quality of service for
33 Bleak Housing: Needs and Aspirations in Retirement: Eastleigh Southern Parishes Older People’s forum May 2007.
200 Hs178 Page 16 of 19 DFG funded adaptations to existing stock, and improve the quality of life for those who need adaptations to continue to live independently in their own home. Homes built to accessible standards with minimal requirements for adaptation will ensure that scarce DFG funding can go further and assist more people.
The direction of travel of both government policy and the country’s demographic profile suggests that mandatory Lifetime Homes standards are inevitable in the near future, alongside ensuring that a percentage of new homes are wheelchair accessible.
In complying with the Disability Equality Duty, the Council is expected to show how its proposals for the local area are consistent with the national, regional and sub- regional policies for disabled people, and how the wider priorities can be translated and implemented at the local level.
The Council could adopt a selective approach to Lifetime Homes or wheelchair accessible housing as it has to date by focussing on the standards being applicable to affordable housing only but this could be subject to challenge on their consistency with the national, regional and sub regional policies for disabled people.
The adoption of a planning need for all new homes to meet Lifetime Homes Standards; for 3 % of these to be Wheelchair Accessible, and of an expectation that refurbishments and improvements to existing stock take into account Lifetime Homes Accessibility issues will, however, meet this requirement. It should be noted that 3% wheelchair accessible housing has been selected as a target as this should meet current need and assist in meeting the backlog in demand.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Consult on and adopt a policy within the Borough’s Local Development Framework core strategy and Supplementary Planning Documents that: “Developers should seek to ensure all new housing will be built to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards, providing homes that are adaptable, flexible, convenient and appropriate to changing needs. 3% of this housing to be built to Wheelchair Accessible standards”. Any policy adopted will need to take account of the practicality of delivering these standards both in terms of individual site issues and changing legal requirements eg through Building Regulations. In terms of meeting targets site location and type of development proposed may necessitate consideration of a higher target.
2. Consult on and adopt a minimum policy that: “‘All new affordable housing will be built to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards, providing homes that are adaptable, flexible, convenient and appropriate to changing needs. 3% of this housing will be built to Wheelchair Accessible standards’. Concern has been expressed that any extra costs in meeting these standards will not be reflected in market value. This is likely to be the case until there is a mandatory requirement across all sections. Until then standards for low cost home ownership properties will be negotiated on a site by site basis.
3. Consult and work with RSL partners with stock in the Borough to develop a protocol which will ensure that the principles of inclusive design are adopted throughout their asset management and refurbishment functions – to ensure
Hs178 Page 17 of 19 201 essential lifetime homes issues such as level thresholds are incorporated into works alongside communal area improvements where practical.
4. Work with RSL and local authority partners within the PUSH area to adopt and develop a sub regional ‘Accessible Housing Register’ of properties and those in need of accessible housing.
5. Work with RSL and local authority partners within the PUSH area to identify existing properties which could most easily be made accessible through adaptation – to provide a wider choice of properties which may be better for family and support networks and would mean that they would not be subjected to long delays.
6. Ensure that all temporary accommodation utilised for homeless households or individuals is reviewed and that further wheelchair provision is made available. To meet government targets it is intended that 25 units in total of temporary accommodation should be available by April 2010. In practice, some existing properties are unlikely to be adaptable; therefore the aim will be to provide 3 properties accessible to wheelchair users, an increase from the current one.
7. Require Portsmouth Housing Association to give priority under the Private Sector Leasing scheme to private sector landlords who will allow basic adaptations such as stair lifts, grab rails, hoists, some showers and ramps to be fitted.
8. Identify, keep and promote records of additional private sector accommodation which is suitable for disabled people as either temporary or settled accommodation.
9. Enhance the level of information both recorded and analysed in relation to homelessness-prevention, application, acceptance and refusals, to identify the levels of disabled people using the services and those being classed as ineligible, not homeless, intentionally homeless or having no local connection etc.
Following on from these recommendations an action plan has been drawn up and is attached as Appendix 4.
9. CONSULTATION
A number of internal Council Units have been consulted over the production of this strategy, in particular the Planning Policy and Regeneration Unit and the Development Control Unit as progress with a number of the policy recommendations relies on their eventual incorporation within the Local Plan as part of a Supplementary Planning Document.
Externally to the Council, the strategy proposals have been discussed with partner housing associations as they will deliver most of the affordable new build housing and their stock accounts for around 50% of the DFG spend. Hampshire County Council Social Services, the local Health and Wellbeing Partnership Board, and a number of private developers have also been consulted.
202 Hs178 Page 18 of 19
10. MONITORING AND REVIEW
Progress against the strategy recommendations will be reviewed annually- taking into account key questions and monitoring questions identified in ‘A guide to the Disability Equality Duty and Disability Discrimination Act 2005 for the social housing sector; DRC, 2006’
Hs178 Page 19 of 19 203 This page is intentionally left blank
204 Appendix 1 Disability Discrimination Act 2005 definition of disability
When is a person disabled?
A person has a disability if he has a physical or mental impairment, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
What about people who have recovered from a disability?
People who have had a disability within the definition are protected from discrimination even if they have since recovered.
What does ‘impairment’ cover?
It covers physical or mental impairments; this includes sensory impairments, such as those affecting sight or hearing.
Are all mental impairments covered?
The term ‘mental impairment’ is intended to cover a wide range of impairments relating to mental functioning, including what are often known as learning disabilities.
What is a ‘substantial’ adverse effect?
A substantial adverse effect is something which is more than a minor or trivial effect. The requirement that an effect must be substantial reflects the general understanding of disability as a limitation going beyond the normal differences in ability which might exist among people.
What is a ‘long-term’ effect?
A long-term effect of an impairment is one:
• which has lasted at least 12 months, or
Hs178 – Appendix 1 1 205 • where the total period for which it lasts is likely to be at least 12 months, or
• which is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected.
Effects which are not long-term would therefore include loss of mobility due to a broken limb which is likely to heal within 12 months and the effects of temporary infections from which a person would be likely to recover within 12 months.
What if the effects come and go over a period of time?
If an impairment has had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities but that effect ceases, the substantial effect is treated as continuing if it is likely to recur; that is if it is more probable than not that the effect will recur.
What are ‘normal day-to-day activities’?
They are activities which are carried out by most people on a fairly regular and frequent basis. The term is not intended to include activities which are normal only for a particular person or group of people such as playing a musical instrument, or a sport to a professional standard or performing a skilled or specialised task at work. However, someone who is affected in such a specialised way but is also affected in normal day-to-day activities would be covered by this part of the definition. The test of whether an impairment affects normal day-to-day activities is whether it affects one of the broad categories of capacity listed in Schedule 1 to the Act. They are:
• mobility
• manual dexterity
• physical co-ordination
• continence
• ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects
• speech, hearing or eyesight
Hs178 – Appendix 1 2 206 • memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand, or perception of the risk of physical danger.
Hs178 – Appendix 1 3 207 What about treatment?
Someone with an impairment may be receiving medical or other treatment which alleviates or removes the effects (though not the impairment). In such cases, the treatment is ignored and the impairment is taken to have the effect it would have had without such treatment. This does not apply if substantial adverse effects are not likely to recur even if the treatment stops (i.e. the impairment has been cured).
Does this include people who wear spectacles?
No. The sole exception to the rule about ignoring the effects of treatment is the wearing of spectacles or contact lenses. In this case, the effect while the person is wearing spectacles or contact lenses should be considered.
Are people who have disfigurements covered?
People with severe disfigurements are covered by the Act. They do not need to demonstrate that the impairment has a substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
Are there any other people who are automatically treated as disabled under the Act?
Anyone who has a diagnosis of HIV, cancer or multiple sclerosis is automatically treated as disabled under the Act. In addition, people who are registered as blind or partially sighted, or who are certified as being blind or partially sighted by a consultant ophthalmologist, are automatically treated under the Act as being disabled. People who are not registered or certified as blind or partially sighted will be covered by the Act if they can establish that they meet the Act’s definition of disability.
What about people who know their condition is going to get worse over time?
Progressive conditions are conditions which are likely to change and develop over time. Where a person has a progressive condition he will be covered by the Act from the moment the
Hs178 – Appendix 1 4 208 condition leads to an impairment which has some effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, even though not a substantial effect, if that impairment is likely eventually to have a substantial adverse effect on such ability.
Are people with genetic conditions covered?
If a genetic condition has no effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, the person is not covered. Diagnosis does not in itself bring someone within the definition. If the condition is progressive, then the rule about progressive conditions applies.
Are any conditions specifically excluded from the coverage of the Act?
Yes. Certain conditions are to be regarded as not amounting to impairments for the purposes of the Act. These are:
• addiction to or dependency on alcohol, nicotine, or any other substance (other than as a result of the substance being medically prescribed)
• seasonal allergic rhinitis (e.g. hay fever), except where it aggravates the effect of another condition
• tendency to set fires
• tendency to steal
• tendency to physical or sexual abuse of other persons
• exhibitionism
• voyeurism
Also, disfigurements which consist of a tattoo (which has not been removed), non-medical body piercing, or something attached through such piercing, are to be treated as not having a substantial adverse effect on the person’s ability to carry out normal day-to- day activities.
Hs178 – Appendix 1 5 209 This page is intentionally left blank
210 Appendix 2
The Lifetime Homes standards
The table below sets out the full Lifetime Homes standards for reference. Homes that meet all the standards are entitled to be designated 'Lifetime Homes'. They will also meet the Part M Building Regulations, the relevant parts of the Housing Corporation Scheme Development Standards as indicated in the table.
Lifetime Homes standards Specifications and dimensions which meet Lifetime Housing Corporation Homes standards Scheme Development Standards compliance (3rd Edition) (E=essential, R=recommended)
1 Where there is car parking The general provision for a car parking space is 2400mm 1.1.3.4 E (requires actual adjacent to the home, it should be width. If an additional 900mm width is not provided at the provision at the outset capable of enlargement to attain outset, there must be provision (e. g. a grass verge) for rather than provision for 3300mm width enlarging the overall width to 3300mm at a later date later enlargement)
2 The distance from the car It is preferable to have a level approach. However, where the 1.1.3.2 E parking space to the home should topography prevents this, a maximum gradient of 1: 12 is (but covers natural be kept to a minimum and should permissible on an individual slope of less than 5 metres or 1: surveillance, not distance) be level or gently sloping 15 if it is between 5 and 10m, and 1: 20 where it is more than 10m.* Paths should be a minimum of 900mm width
3 The approach to all entrances See standard 2 above for the definition of gently sloping relevant parts of 1.3.1.1 E should be level or gently sloping 211 Hs178 – Appendix 2 1 212
4 All entrances should: The threshold upstand should not exceed 15mm 1.1.1.12 E a) be illuminated relevant parts of 1.3.1.2 E b) have level access over the threshold and c) have a covered main entrance
5 a) Communal stairs should Minimum dimensions for communal stairs 1.4.1.5 E provide easy access and Uniform rise not more than 170mm b) where homes are reached by a Uniform going not less than 250mm lift, it should be fully wheelchair Handrails extend 300mm beyond top and bottom step accessible Handrail height 900mm from each nosing
Minimum dimensions for lifts 1.2.1.44 E Clear landing entrances 1500x1500mm 1.2.1.45 E Min. internal dimensions 1100x1400mm Lift controls between 900 and 1200mm from the floor and 400mm from the lift’s internal front wall
6 The width of the doorways and Doorway clear opening width Corridor/ passageway width 1.3.1.2 E hallways should conform to the (mm) (mm) 1.3.1.3 E specifications in the next column . 1.3.1.4 E 750 or wider 900 (when approach is head- on) 750 1200 (when approach is not head- on) 775 1050 (when approach is not
Hs178 – Appendix 2 2 head- on) 900 900 (when approach is not head- on)
The clear opening width of the front door should be 800mm. There should be 300mm to the side of the leading edge of doors on the entrance level
7 There should be space for A turning circle of 1500mm diameter or a 1700x1400mm 1.3.1.12 R turning a wheelchair in dining ellipse is required areas and living rooms and adequate circulation space for wheelchair users elsewhere
8 The living room should be at 1.3.1.10 R entrance level
9 In houses of two or more 1.6.3.6 R storeys, there should be space on 1.3.1.11 R the entrance level that could be used as a convenient bed- space
10 There should be: The drainage provision for a future shower should be provided 1.3.1.5 E a) a wheelchair accessible in all dwellings 1.3.1.9 R entrance level WC, with 1.6.3.6 R b) drainage provision enabling a Dwellings of three or more bedrooms shower to be fitted in the future For dwellings with three or more bedrooms, or on one level, the WC must be fully accessible. A wheelchair user should be able to close the door from within 213 Hs178 – Appendix 2 3 214
the closet and achieve side transfer from a wheelchair to at least one side of the WC. There must be at least 1100mm clear space from the front of the WC bowl. The shower provision must be within the closet or adjacent to the closet (the WC could be an integral part of the bathroom in a flat or bungalow)**
Dwellings of two or fewer bedrooms In small two- bedroom dwellings where the design has failed to achieve this fully accessible WC, the Part M standard WC will meet this standard
11 Walls in bathrooms and toilets Wall reinforcements should be located between 300 and 1.6.3.1 E should be capable of taking 1500mm from the floor adaptations such as handrails
12 The design should incorporate: There must be a minimum of 900mm clear distance between 1.3.1. 6 E a) provision for a future stair lift the stair wall (on which the lift would normally be located) 1.6.3.6 R b) a suitably identified space for a and the edge of the opposite handrail/ balustrade. through- the- floor lift from the Unobstructed ‘landings’ are needed at top and bottom of ground to the first floor, for stairs example to a bedroom next to a bathroom
13 The design should provide for a Most timber trusses today are capable of taking a hoist and 1.6.3.2 E reasonable route for a potential tracking. Technological advances in hoist design mean that a 1.2.1.31 R hoist from a main bedroom to the straight run is no longer a requirement bathroom
Hs178 – Appendix 2 4 14 The bathroom should be Although there is not a requirement for a turning circle in designed to incorporate ease of bathrooms, sufficient space should be provided so that a access to the bath, WC and wash wheelchair user could use the bathroom basin
15 Living room window glazing People should be able to see out of the window whilst seated. 1.4.1.1 E should begin at 800mm or lower Wheelchair users should be able to operate at least one 1.2.1.32 R and windows should be easy to window in each room open/ operate
16 Switches, sockets, ventilation This applies to all rooms including the kitchen and bathroom 1.3.1.14 R (switches, door and service controls should be at handles and thermostats a height usable by all (i. e. at 900- 1200mm) between 450 and 1200mm from 1.3.1.15 R (sockets at the floor) 450- 600mm)
* Providing there are top, bottom and intermediate landings of not less than 1.2m excluding the swing of doors and gates. ** But please note that it is important to meet the Part M dimensions specified to each side of the WC bowl in entrance level WCs (diagrams 10a and 10b). The Lifetime Homes standards for houses of three bedrooms or more require full side transfer from at least one side of the WC.
215 Hs178 – Appendix 2 5 This page is intentionally left blank
216 Appendix 3
Wheelchair Housing Standards
Wheelchair Housing, i.e. housing specifically designed to meet the needs of wheelchair users, should be built according to the guidance available from ‘Wheelchair Housing Design Guide’ by Stephen Thorpe, 2006 edition, available from www.brepress.com (ISBN 1860818978, code ep70, £40.00) and should incorporate the following key features: Approach • Level or gently sloping route to all external entrances, and to external facilities such as storage, parking, binstore, garden and clothes drying area. • Paths slip resistant and smooth, minimum width 1200mm. • Ramps to be avoided. • Path gateways to provide minimum 850mm clear opening width. • Good cover at point of transfer from vehicle to wheelchair. Parking • Located adjacent to the front entrance • Under cover • 3.6metres wide • Located beside a 900mm wide path connecting the front door, parking bay and the adjacent road Entrance • Entrance to be covered and well lit. • Entrance landing to be level, and min 1500x1500mm • All external doors to give 800mm clear opening and to have accessible thresholds. Internal circulation • Corridors minimum 900mm wide, 1200mm wide where 90° turn necessary and 1500mm wide where 180° turn necessary. • Internal doorways to give minimum 775mm clear opening width and to have level thresholds.
Hs178 – Appendix 3 1 217 • Provision for storage and recharging of battery-operated wheelchair. • Minimum turning space inside entrance 1200x1500mm • Rooms all on one level or accessible by wheelchair accessible lift. Where lift required, to comply with BS5900 (1991). • Bedrooms, living rooms and dining rooms with adequate space for wheelchair users to turn through 180° with furniture in place i.e. turning circle 1500mm or ellipse 1800x1400mm. • Main bedroom to bathroom connected by full height knockout panel, or other means. • Suitable provision for future hoist to run between main bedroom and bathroom. • Kitchen layout provides effective and appropriate space for use by a wheelchair user. Clear manoeuvring area minimum 1800x1400mm. • Bathroom layout ensures independent approach/transfer to and use of all fittings, including manoeuvring space clear of fittings. • Extra space in bathroom for both bath and shower with at least one to be fully installed. Shower area to be wheelchair accessible with floor drain. • Suitable controls of mains water stopcock, gas and electric main consumer units. Suitable isolating valves to sink, washing machine etc. • Glazing line in living/dining/bedrooms no higher than 800mm above room floor level.
Hs178 – Appendix 3 2 218 Appendix 4
Action Plan Lead Post Target Date Evidence Protocol with RSL Partners on Asset Management and Housing OT Winter 2008 Adoption of Protocol refurbishment and main RSL Partners
Seek to work with Planning Policy on Core Strategy / LDF Research and Winter 2009 % of Lifetime Homes documents to include ambitions of Accessible Homes Development Manager To prepare Core % of Wheelchair * Indicators on build will Strategy Homes only apply after policy adopted
Establishment of Accessible Homes Register across Housing Needs Manager Spring 2010 Establishment of PUSH area and Register Housing OT
List of existing properties most suitable for adaptation Housing OT Spring 2009 Completed list
Review of temporary accommodation to provide further Housing Needs Manager Spring 2010 Adaptation of 2 provision accessible to wheelchair users and further properties Housing OT
Records of suitable Private Sector accommodation Senior Housing Adviser Start collating from List of suitable for disabled people Spring 2008 accommodation
219 Hs178 – Appendix 4 - Action Plan 1 This page is intentionally left blank
220 EXTRACT FROM THE SOCIAL POLICY SCRUTINY PANEL MINUTES, 19 MARCH 2008:
Accessible Homes Strategy 2008-2011
Mary Stribling, the Research and Development Manager, invited Members to comment on the new strategy and make any recommendations prior to the report being presented to Cabinet on 3 April 2008.
It was pointed out to Members that there was an error on page 39 of the report, fifth paragraph, ‘……..Lifetime Homes Standards; for 10%’ should read ‘‘……..Lifetime Homes Standards; for 3%’.
Mary went on to give a brief overview of the new strategy which outlined the problems faced by those with mobility related disabilities in accessing suitable housing in the Borough. It highlighted the already high and increasing costs associated with adaption works carried out to existing homes, set the overall issue against the context of current legislative and regulatory framework and recommended progress towards the provision of lifetime homes and wheelchair accessible housing.
A variety of issues were raised including:
What representations had been made to the Government regarding provision of lifetime homes in the private sector? Mary explained that the Government was currently indicating that they would make lifetime homes mandatory from 2013 if not taken up on a voluntary basis by developers.
Is the Council working with the Housing Association with regards to re- lets with stair-lifts? Mary explained that stair-lifts were now classed as equipment and it was hoped that they would eventually be held in stock. Old ones could also be renovated and re-used where necessary.
Owner / occupier houses also need adaption. It was also pointed out that 80% of the Borough was owner/occupied and that any housing adaptions or advice that could be provided would be very helpful.
It was suggested that ‘Advice Days’ should be run more often and locally to residents.
It was AGREED that the Accessible Homes Strategy and Action Plan be presented to Cabinet for approval.
(NOTE: One member of the Eastleigh Southern Parishes Older People’s Forum spoke on this item).
221 This page is intentionally left blank
222 Agenda Item 15 CABINET
Thursday 3 April 2008
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PROGRAMME – 4 YEAR STRATEGY –
APPROVAL OF SCHEMES
Report of the Corporate Director (CFO) and the Head of Financial Services
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Cabinet:
(1) approve funding of £18,000 in 2008/09 for refurbishment of one pair of WC facilities at Wessex House Small Business Centre to be funded from surplus revenue generated by the centre in 2007/08;
(2) approve funding of £10,000 for a feasibility study for improvements to the open space at Lawn Road, Eastleigh to be funded from Developers Contributions;
(3) subject to Eastleigh Local Area Committee approval on 8 April 2008 to finance the £3,500 maintenance costs from 2009/10 onwards, approve funding of £145,000 to work with the Grantham Green Community to develop a local open space. Project to be financed from Developers Contributions;
(4) approve funding of £128,000 in 2008/09 and £39,000 in 2009/10 to deliver the continuing rollout of COMPASS programme;
(5) approve funding of £20,000 in 2008/09 to finance the acquisition of a Capita e-payment system;
(6) note the approval of schemes granted since 1 December 2007 (Appendix A);
(7) recommend to Council the changes to the Prudential Indicators (Appendix B) and
(8) unless stated otherwise to approve funding for the above from sums identified to fund the CIP e.g. Capital Receipts.
Summary
The Council’s 4 Year Community Investment Programme Strategy was first approved in April 2002. Since then reports have been submitted to the Cabinet on a regular basis seeking approval for schemes to progress. The Cabinet approved a revised Community Investment Strategy on 10 December 2007 which updated the programme for 2007/08 to 2011/12.
223 Statutory Powers Section 15 of the Local Government Act 2003. Section 151 and 153 of the Local Government Act 1972. Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.
Background
1. On 18 April 2002 Council approved a 4 Year Strategy for the Community Investment Programme (CIP). Details of schemes comprising the Strategy were approved by the Executive on 10 December 2002, since when reports have been submitted to the Cabinet on a regular basis approving individual schemes. At its meeting on 10 December 2007 Cabinet approved the revised strategy for 2007/08 to 2011/12.
2. A further purpose of the update reports to the Cabinet is to provide regular information on the progress of the CIP and of the approvals given since approval of the last revised CIP as detailed in Appendix A. The reports also indicate any amendments to the Prudential Indicators as required under the capital financing legislation (Appendix B).
Approvals
Wessex House Small Business Centre WC Facilities - £18,000
3. In March 2007 Wessex House produced a programme to refurbish the WC facilities to maintain standards and the attraction of Wessex House as a Small Business Centre and to enhance the building as a Council asset. The works were to be progressively funded from surplus revenue, with the first pair of WCs on the third floor being refurbished in May 2007. This would be reviewed year on year with works being dependent on the income generated.
4. The programme for 2008/09 includes a further pair of WC refurbishment at an estimated cost of £18,000. The Infrastructure Programme Board has approved this expenditure subject to funding. The latest projection for 2007/08 suggests that additional income in the year will be sufficient to cover the costs and therefore it is recommended that approval be give for the works to proceed. There are no additional revenue funding issues as a consequence of this expenditure. An enhanced standard of cleaning will be achieved by the standards of fitting and finish provided.
Lawn Road Open Space - £10,000
5. Cabinet approval for funding of £10,00 to undertake a feasibility study to improve the open space at Lawn Road is sought, to be funded as follows:
Source of Funding Cost £ Developers Contribution OS F/05/53397 – Unigate Dairy 4,000 Developers Contribution OS 38930 Kitewood Estates, Consort 6,000 House Total 10,000
6. The exact nature of the improvements will be determined by public
224 consultation in the near future with a view to commencing the construction work in September 2008.
Grantham Green - £145,000
7. Following extensive public consultation it is believed the wishes of the community are understood and are encompassed in the project described below.
8. The project aims to improve the landscaping of the large open space and will include surface improvements to provide a junior football pitch, sculpting of some areas to provide mounds to add interest to an otherwise flat area and the planting of semi- mature trees around the perimeter of the site. The project will also include the provision of a fully inclusive and accessible play area with a variety of exciting and challenging play equipment with associated impact absorbing surfacing, fencing, gates, seats, litter bins and signage.
9. Some tree planting has already taken place but the majority of the work is scheduled for completion later in the year.
10. A summary of the works, to be funded by Developers Contributions is detailed below:
Nature of Works Costs £ Surface improvements and equipment for junior football pitch 5,000 Installation of play area and adventure play area including safety 100,000 surfacing and fencing Street furniture, seats, litter bins and signage 10,000 Additional landscaping of site 20,000 Management costs including maintenance costs for first year 10,000 Total 145,000
Source of Funding £ Developers Contribution OS 9749/8 156 Desborough Road 500 Developers Contribution OS 39655/1 156 High Street 500 Developers Contribution DC 4771/124 Pirelli Site 6,000 Developers Contribution DC Z/4771/121Pirelli Site 138,000 Total 145,000
COMPASS - £128,000 in 2008/09 and £39,000 in 2009/10
11. At their meeting on 2 April 2007 Cabinet approved COMPASS staffing for 2007/08. Resources are now required in order to deliver the continuing rollout of COMPASS programme comprising business re-engineering, CRM and electronic document and records management to the Council’s service units.
12. Business Analysts will be deployed to address issues in the Civic Office reception, the Town Centre Office, ‘Quick Win’ projects, and Phase 2 of Direct Services Customer Relationship Management (CRM) implementation with regards to Streetscene. The Project Co-ordinator will continue to project manage the procurement and implementation of the Electronic Document and Records Management system (EDRM) and will also support reporting
225 developments using the CRM and other Council systems
13. The EDRM project is currently evaluating tenders and a preferred supplier will be selected shortly. There is no resource available for this currently without an extension to the current contract which expires on 25 April 2008.
14. A table of costs is detailed below:
2008/09 2009/10 £ £ Programme Co-ordinator 38,000 39,000 Business Analysts (2) 90,000 - Total 128,000 39,000
Purchase of E-Payment System - £20,000
15. The Council’s e-payment processing is currently provided by Barclaycard. After 1 June 2008 this system will no longer be able to process transactions where a cardholder calls the Council to make payment over the telephone. This change is due to tighter security requirements being introduced throughout the financial services industry for processing card data. A new replacement system is essential as the current system will not be able to be used for the transaction method described above.
16. Following assessment of quotations received from a number of e-payment system providers, Capita PLC can provide the Council with a system that will enable internet and intranet payment processing, as well as enhancements to the current touch tone telephone payment system. Their proposed system will also enable the Council to surcharge the cost of credit card payments it receives if surcharging is required in the future. The one-off setup cost of this development is £20,000. This development is an invest-to-save scheme, with the set up cost being recovered during the proposed 5 year term of contract.
17. The system proposed by Capita will reduce card processing risk and will comply with payment card industry standards to a greater degree than the current e-payment system configuration.
Financial Implications/Risk Assessment
18. Financing the CIP is dependent on the sale of assets and the receipt of Developers’ Contributions. It is important that schemes are only approved when it is clear that the funding is available. This requirement includes revenue implications for which budgets must be identified before the schemes can progress.
19. The changes to the Indicators resulting from changes to the Strategy as a result of the schemes in this report are shown in Appendix B. A full Risk Assessment is attached in Appendix C.
Conclusion
20. The implementation of the Capital Strategy is progressing and this report seeks approval for the following additional capital expenditure:
226 • £18,000 in 2008/09 for refurbishment of one pair of WC facilities at Wessex House Small Business Centre to be funded from surplus revenue generated by the centre in 2007/08
• £10,000 for a feasibility study for improvements to the open space at Lawn Road, Eastleigh to be funded from Developers Contributions
• subject to Eastleigh Local Area Committee approval on 8 April 2008 to finance the £3,500 maintenance costs from 2009/10 onwards, approve funding of £145,000 to work with the Grantham Green Community to develop a local open space. Project to be financed from Developers Contributions
• £128,000 in 2008/09 and £39,000 in 2009/10 to deliver the continuing rollout of COMPASS programme
• £20,000 in 2008/09 to finance the acquisition of a Capita e-payment system
NICK TUSTIAN MARTIN MURPHY
Corporate Director (CFO) Head of Financial Services
Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hants SO50 9YN
Date: 11 March 2008 Contact Officer: Nick Tustian Tel No: (023 8068 8002) e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: Two Report No: fs298
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based, and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:-
Section 15 of the Local Government Act 2003 Section 151 and 153 of the Local Government Act 1972 Community Investment Programme 2001/02 to 2003/04 – Council 18 April 2002 Community Investment Programme – 4 Year Strategy – Executive 10 December 2002 Community Investment Programme – 4 Year Strategy – Executive 13 February 2003 Community Investment Programme Strategy Review and Approval of Schemes – Executive 12 February 2004 Community Investment Programme –Strategy Review and Approval of Schemes – Executive 10 February 2005 Community Investment Strategy Programme – Strategy Review and Approval of
227 Schemes – Cabinet 3 April 2006 Community Investment Strategy Programme – Strategy Review and Approval of Schemes – Cabinet 10 December 2007 Community Investment Programme – Approval of Schemes – Cabinet 10 January 2008 Community Investment Programme – Approval of Schemes – Cabinet 7 February 2008 Community Investment Programme – Approval of Schemes – Cabinet 6 March 2008
228 Appendix A
CIP – 4 YEAR STRATEGY APPROVALS OF SCHEMES GRANTED SINCE 1 DECEMBER 2007
Scheme £
1. Cabinet 10 December 2007
Introduction of permit holder parking in residential roads to the south 17,000 and north of Chestnut Avenue.
2. Cabinet 10 January 2008
Retention of Public Arts officer post on a permanent capitalised 35,000 basis. 5,700 Travel Plan initiatives at the Civic Offices to encourage sustainable travel to and from the site and for work related journeys.
3. Cabinet 7 February 2008
To undertake agreed measures to mitigate the potential ecological 54,300 impact of the development of South Street, including measures to be implemented by the Council on its land at Lakeside Country Park.
‘Let’s Go Play’ projects to be financed by the BIG Lottery Children’s 219,000 Play Programme.
4 x Outdoor floodlit tennis courts, associated seating area and 270,000 temporary office accommodation at Fleming Park Leisure Centre including staff time to be funded by £70,000 developers contributions.
4. Cabinet 6 March 2008
Private Sector Housing Budgets 756,000
Waste Collection Ramp, Oak Road, Southampton 6,600
On-line licensing system 25,000
SHSEZ land acquisition 159,000
Swaythling Housing Society grant towards ground rent of affordable units in Southampton Road, Eastleigh 14,000
229
Appendix B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 (1) Extract from budget report Probable Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Outturn Capital Expenditure £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Previously approved (6/03/08) 6,831 11,135 18,292 15,200 6,005 3,339 Revised 6,831 11,176 18,482 15,240 6,005 3,339
Ratio of financing costs to net revenue stream % % % % % % Previously approved -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Revised -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3
The following amounts are zero as the Council is not planning to have a negative position regarding NET borrowing
Net borrowing requirement £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Previously approved brought forward 1 April 0 0 0 0 0 0 carried forward 31 March 0 0 0 0 0 0 in year borrowing requirement 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net borrowing requirement Revised brought forward 1 April 0 0 0 0 0 0 carried forward 31 March 0 0 0 0 0 0 in year borrowing requirement 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital financing requirement as at 31 March Previously approved 6,350 6,198 6,051 5,911 5,778 5,652 Revised 6,350 6,198 6,051 5,911 5,778 5,652
Annual change in capital financing requirement Previously approved (1,855) (152) (147) (140) (133) (126) Revised (1,855) (152) (147) (140) (133) (126)
Incremental impact of capital investment decisions £ p £ p £ p £ p £ p £ p on the Council Tax Previously approved 0 0 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Revised 0 0 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS
(2) Treasury Management Prudential Indicators
Authorised limit for external debt Previously approved borrowing 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 other long-term liabilities 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Total 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000
230 Revised borrowing 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 other long-term liabilities 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Total 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000
Operational boundary for external debt Previously approved borrowing 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 other long-term liabilities 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Total 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000
Revised borrowing 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 other long-term liabilities 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Total 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000
Upper limit for fixed rate interest rate exposure % % % % % % Previously approved 100 100 100 100 100 100 Revised 100 100 100 100 100 100
Upper limit for variable rate interest rate exposure % % % % % % Previously approved 100 100 100 100 100 100 Revised 100 100 100 100 100 100
Upper limit for total principal sums invested >364 days % % % % % % Previously approved 13,000 13,500 14,000 14,500 14,500 14.500 Revised 13,000 13,500 14,000 14,500 14,500 14,500
Maturity structure of fixed rate borrowing during 2007/2008 Upper Lower Limit Limit Limit % % % under 12 months 100 100 100 12 months and within 24 months 100 100 100 24 months and within 5 years 100 100 100 5 years and within 10 years 100 100 100 10 years and above 100 100 100
Note - the Council has no Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and therefore all indicators refer to non-HRA amounts
231 232
Appendix C
CIP – RISK ASSESSMENT
Please note: The probability (prob) and impact (imp) of identified risks adversely affecting the Budget are each addressed on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = medium, 4 = high and 5 = very high.
Risk 2008/09 Prob Imp Comments (i). Final cost and timescale will be different 5 2 Given the nature and complexity if the from that detailed in the Report. schemes it is inevitable that cost and timescales will be different from originally anticipated. However schemes will be managed in accordance with Prince 2 and impact will be minimised
(ii). Additional borrowing to finance the CIP 4 3 The sale of assets is crucial to the delivery of due to lack of Capital Receipts. the 5 Year CIP Strategy. The timing of the receipts is however uncertain and therefore there will be an inevitable shortfall in funding. However, the overall financing of the programme is kept under constant review to ensure it is delivered within available finance. (iii). The revenue implications of schemes 2 4 Financial Regulations require that no CIP will result in a budget pressure that scheme can be approved until the revenue cannot be afforded. implications have been assessed and a source of finance identified. (iv). Prudential Code requirements will be 1 3 A report approving CIP schemes is compromised submitted to Cabinet each month. This includes a re-assessment of the Prudential Code requirements. The limits are also reviewed and updated annually. To date the requirements of the Code have been monitored and never been exceeded.
Agenda Item 17
Document is Restricted
233 This page is intentionally left blank
236