Hewdon Consulting
. ..
Buckinghamshire County Council Aylesbury Vale District Council Aylesbury Vale Advantage Buckinghamshire BuckinghamshireInfrastructure study Phase 1: Aylesbury Vale
Colin Buchanan 45 Notting Hill Gate London W11 3PB T 020 7309 7000 Final report: Appendices E [email protected] January 2008 LONDON BRISTOL CARDIFF EDINBURGH GLASGOW MANCHESTER NEWBURY BELFAST DUBLIN GALWAY
TRANSPORT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING URBAN DESIGN ECONOMICS MARKET RESEARCH Appendices contents
Appendix 1 Responses from service providers Appendix 2 Validation tables Appendix 3 Non-growth related factors influencing service provision Appendix 4 Community Infrastructure Levy; précis of Government statement Appendix 5 Extract from Chelmsford BC Tariff SPD Consultation Draft (2007) Appendix 5 Issues raised by Southern Arc consortium
Appendix 1: Responses from service providers
Service provider contacts
Service Contact Response Health Acute John Summers No Primary Richard Mills Yes Mental health Harold Caldwell Yes Education Higher Education Susan Jones No Further Education Andy Nobbs Yes Secondary Stephen Bagnall Yes Primary Stephen Bagnall Yes Extended hours Stephen Bagnall Yes Special schooling Stephen Bagnall Yes Adult Jon King Yes Emergency services Police Peter Smith Yes Fire Jeremy Williams Yes Ambulance Lisa Dawson No Community facilities Open space Mathew Partridge and Ian Yes Barham Nature reserves Catherine Whormsley Yes Playing pitches / MUGAS Mathew Partridge and Ian Yes Barham Children’s play areas Mathew Partridge and Ian Yes Barham Community centres Mathew Partridge and Ian Yes Barham Sports centres and swimming pools Mathew Partridge and Ian Yes Barham Arts / heritage / entertainment Mathew Partridge and Ian Yes Barham Shortfall in existing sports and Mathew Partridge and Ian Yes leisure provision Barham Allotments Ian Barham Yes Community development Tracy Aldworth No Town centre public realm Beryl Kemplen No Libraries Elaine Collier Yes Crematorium and burial grounds Mathew Partridge Yes Museum and archive Yes – archives Roger Bettridge only Wendover Woodland Park Rob Gazzard Yes Social care Adult social care Rachel Rothero Yes Youth and community services Full response Alix Simpson and Chris Garcia awaited Children and young people Stephen Bagnall Yes Waste Refuse collection and recycling (includes new vehicle and depot David Smedley Yes and recycling points) Waste disposal Martin Dickman Yes Affordable housing Anna Gordon Yes Inward investment Tracy Aldworth No Transport Road projects A meeting was held with Bucks Yes CC’s transport section and the
study team on the 3rd December. Rail projects As above Yes
Appraisal of Infrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: VALE OF AYLESBURY PCT
AVA schedule ref SH1 Date
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Richard Mills Higher Education Position Director of system reform Transport Telephone no 01494 552241 Health X Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care PCT X NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth X Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. Specifically, can you specify what is meant by MKSM and the rest of the district (second paragraph of the method/formula section)?
We use the LA ONS projections in line with all NHS bodies
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?
• Services based on individual needs and choices (with the needs of the patient being paramount) using clinically proven protocols • Use of workforce and buildings productively • Localise where possible, centralise where necessary (bringing care closer to home when appropriate but having the right specialisms available in hospitals when needed) • Integrated care and partnership working (between health and social care for example) to maximise the contribution of the entire workforce • Prevention being better than cure (in a whole range of circumstances from diabetes to heart disease) as well as health promotion • Focus on health inequalities and diversity
Question 3: Is there any spare capacity within existing GP surgeries?
Yes, but extra capacity required to meet projected needs
Question 4: In your previous comments you mentioned that requirements for new health centres will depend on where new housing growth will be located. Can you look at the enclosed maps and refine your answer?
Colin Buchanan, London v1
No maps enclosed, but, if part of new development with appropriate critical mass this will be achievable
Question 5: Where is the ratio of typical population per GP derived? Is it the local average or a national figure? Similarly, a multiplier of 2.3 persons per household has been used but this is below the average household size for Aylesbury in 2001 (2.51) and higher than the projected figure for 2026 (2.20); are you able to confirm the source for this figure?
1 GP per 1800 pop was the average figure used nationally for planning. However, this is less relevant now that primary care services are provided by a wider skill mix, eg specialist nurses providing some services previously provided by GPs etc Happy to use your projected multiplier for households
Question 6: There is no mention of dental services, are you able to provide any information about likely future requirements?
NHS provision will need some additional expansion, say just an additional surgery
Question 7: Does the PCT encourage the multi-use of facilities, for example, to provide community meeting space or activities that have a health and leisure benefit, such as, yoga; or is this an issue for practice partners?
Yes we do
Question 8: How does a community hospital operate vis-a-vis acute hospitals and health centres, and is it reasonable to anticipate a new community hospital given the Government’s move towards rationalisation of hospital services into larger centres?
We wish to develop intermediate care services (between acute hospitals and primary care0, but would be looking for a flexible solution – perhaps an extended health centre, rather than a traditional community hospital Question 9: Are the capital cost provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?
Capital costs will have been a current values – but likely to be open to quite a wide variation
Additional notes and comments
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of I nfrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust
AVA schedule ref SH3 Date
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Higher Education Position Transport Telephone no Health x Email Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care PCT NHS Trust x Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth x Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards x Other Use of standardised formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. OBMH’s five-year Integrated Business Plan uses population data for Buckinghamshire (to 2011), sourced from Buckinghamshire County Council. Data for this period for Aylesbury Vale are as follows:
Aylesbury Vale 2006 2011 % change pop change 0-19 43,500 42,800 -1.6% -700 20-64 100,500 105,400 4.9% 4,900 65+ 23,400 27,000 15.4% 3,600 total 167,400 175,200 4.7% 7,800 Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years? • Meeting improved national standards for inpatient care (privacy, dignity) • Continuing to develop and invest in community mental health services • Maintaining sufficient concentration (critical mass) of inpatient services to sustain required 24- hour staffing whilst providing rotas which meet employment standards (i.e. European Working Time Directive as interpreted by UK Government) Question 3: Could you please provide details of the plan to redevelop the Manor House Hospital in terms of likely costs and improvement in services provided? Subject to option appraisal and further assessment, but expect at this stage to have co-located inpatient facilities for adults and older adults (replacing services offered across four sites). These will offer single rooms and en-suite facilities. Energy efficiency will be improved, with current flat- roofed, single-storey buildings on the Manor House site replaced. Costs are estimated at circa £34m. Question 4: Could you please ask your colleagues to quantify the growth needed in terms of ratios per head of population and what that might translate into in terms of staff and accommodation? No decisions have yet been made about future bed numbers – this will form part of our business case development process early in 2008. Demographic and epidemiological data indicate that the level of mental ill-health amongst older people (65+ and particularly 75+) will increase, whilst care for younger adults will depend more on community staff and services than inpatient provision. Lengths of inpatient stay for 18-65- year-olds with acute mental illness have reduced significantly as community services have been enhanced.
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Future property requirements will include: • An inpatient base for the county (at Manor House, as above) • An acute day hospital and base for ‘crisis’ services – close to but probably not on the hospital site • Local bases for community teams, including one in Aylesbury – not on the hospital site, offering office accommodation and some consulting rooms in which to see outpatients • Access to consulting rooms in GP surgeries and community centres • Co-location of some services with non-‘mental health’ services for a relevant client group (e.g. potential location of ’early intervention’ staff with youth services) • Office accommodation for non-patient teams (service management, training, etc.).
Question 5: Can you please detail capital and revenue costs and their likely sources? For capital cost can you indicate whether they are normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? Envisaged capital cost for Manor House redevelopment of £34m, normalised to 2007/08. Once licensed as an NHS Foundation Trust, this sum is planned to come from a combination of Trust sources (an existing capital programme funded from surpluses and property sales) and external borrowing. Property /land sales will need to be sold with the benefit of planning consent which maximises value for the NHS.
Additional notes and comments
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of Infrastructure Requirements Aylesbury Vale District Summary Sheet
Service Provider AYLESBURY COLLEGE
AVA Schedule SE2 Date
Contact (please state) Service (tick box) Name Andy Nobbs Higher Education Position Head of Resources Transport Telephone No. 01296 588570 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Affiliation (tick box) Education and Schools BCC Community Facilities Aylesbury Vale DC Waste PCT Social Care NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population Growth Fire/Rescue Services Housing Projections Forestry Commission New Legislative Requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of Standardised Formula
Question 1. Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. How has demand been measured?
From urban growth agenda for Aylesbury Vale South East Plan.
Question 2. What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?
Increase in population, provision for new business coming into the area, Government skills agenda and priorities including the increase in compulsory schooling from 16-18 (from 2013), 14-19 agenda and employer engagement.
Question 3. Some of the needs set out in the schedule appear to be a result of existing deficits, does your estimate of future needs (ie new 14-16 Vocational Centre [Phase 3 New Build], College Nursery, post-16 Construction Centre, post-16 Further Education Centre [Phase 4 New Build], all Weather Playing Field, post-16 Six From Centre) take into account population and/or planned housing growth? If so, what new or expanded facilities are required to meet future population growth?
The developments take into account population and housing growth. The future needs have been revised: University Centre, Vocation Centre, Innovation Centre, LDD Residential Centre, Day Nursery.
Question 4. Has existing capacity (if any) being discounted from existing needs?
Yes. We are currently operating at capacity.
Question 5. Are land costs included or excluded from capital costs?
All the developments are planned on existing land.
Question 6. Capital Expenditure (£34,000,000) Can you provide more details as to the size and type of facility proposed? For example, the size and type of libraries, laboratories, lecture theatres, sports facilities, etc.
Revised capital expenditure (£62,328,000) attached.
Question 7. Recurring Expenditure (£210,000,000 over 20 years) Could you provide more detail on the basis of your budget? For example, detail on the build up source, base date, uplift applied, etc.
Estimated at 5 % of capital as attached.
Future Developments at Aylesbury College Estimated build costs excluding VAT
Residential centre for students with learning Aylesbury Vale difficulties for Total square Student University Vocational Innovation Buckinghamshir
Assumptions No.of"rooms" Students Squaremetres metres capacity Centre centre Centre e Day nursery Total £ £ £ £ £ Teaching rooms 30 50 3 4500 1500 13500000 Support Space 4500 11250000
Teaching rooms 25 20 3 1500 500 4500000 Workshops 25 20 6 3000 500 12000000 Support space 4500 11250000
Incubator centre 10 100 1000 100 2500000
Teaching rooms 2 12 6 144 12 432000 Living rooms 2 12 6 144 12 360000
Residential accommodation 12 1 6 72 12 720000 Staff accommodation 150000
Day Nursery 250 60 625000
Sub total 24750000 27750000 2500000 1662000 625000 56662000
Sustainability cost uplift 10% 2475000 2775000 250000 166200 62500 5666200 Total 27225000 30525000 2750000 1828200 687500 63,015,700
Operating costs 1,361,250 1,526,250 137,500 91,410 34,375 3,116,410
Operating costs assumed % 5% £ Teaching space fully equipped 3000 Workshops, fully equipped 4000 Support space 2500 Residential space 10000 Future Developments at Aylesbury College Estimated build costs excluding VAT
Aylesbury Vale LDD University Vocational Innovation Residential
centre centre Centre centre Day Nursery Total
Square metres 9000 9000 1000 360 250 19610
Estimated build Costs 27,225,000 30,525,000 2,750,000 1,828,200 687,500 63,015,700 Capacity 1500 1000 100 12 60 2672
Partners
Learning and Skills Council yes yes yes Higher Education Funding yes South East Development Authority yes yes Aylesbury Advantage yes yes yes yes Aylesbury Vale District Council yes yes yes yes Aylesbury Vale enterprise Hub yes Bucks County Council yes yes
Bucks Life Long Partnership yes Bucks Upper Schools yes North Bucks 14 to 19 partners yes BCC Special Schools yes University of Bedfordshire yes Bucks New University yes
Life Long Learning Network yes saved in new Aylesbury Training Group yes build/college plans Local busineses yes Appraisal of I nfrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: Children and Young People Service
AVA schedule ref LS8 & LE1-LE6 Date 7.11.07
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name S.BAGNALL Higher Education Position DIVISIONAL MANAGER Transport Telephone no 01296-383527 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools x Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities BCC x Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care x NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth x Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections x Forestry Commission New legislative requirements x Private Sector New Standards x Other Use of standardised formula x
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. I think they have all been done on 21,200, but in general the number has changed over time and the number used on individual pieces of work done by various individuals is not always clear. Source: latest documents available to us usually via AVDC or BCC planning Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years? 2004 Children Act and associated Every Child Matters programme 2006 Education & Inspections Act Question 3: Are the capital costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? Are land costs included within the capital costs? Are you now in a position to identify revenue costs related to the provision of this service, particularly in relation to the period 2006-2011? The costs in the documentation supplied are usually current costs at time estimate was made i.e. they are not indexed for future inflation. Land costs are not included, assumed to be provided by developer at nil cost. Yes revenue costs can now be estimated but this has not been done yet Question 4: Can you provide details of the formula for calculating future need and provide details of the types of facility and care and the numbers of additional children & young people? See attached paper summarising the Children and Young People’s Portfolio position dating from August 2007. Additional notes and comments FACILITY/INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL REVENUE Unit Cost Total 8 New Primary Schools with 5,250,000 42,000,000 PRO RATA DEDICATED 420 Nursery Places SCHOOLS GRANT RECEIVED 2 New Upper Schools 25,000,000 50,000,000 FROM CENTRAL 1 New Grammar School 25,000,000 25,000,000 GOVERNMENT IN LINE WITH 660 6 th Form Places ? THE NUMBER OF PUPILS ON Special School Provision 8,000,000 ROLL Residential Provision 1,000,000 1,000,000 566,000 Respite Provision 1,000,000 1,000,000 525,000 Family Centre 1,000,000 1,000,000 389,000 3 Children’s Centres 750,000 2,250,000 £615,000 using DCSF model B [1 per 800 U 5’]
Colin Buchanan, London v1 FINAL SUBMISSION
Children and Young Peoples Service Response Core Strategy Development and Allocated Sites Development Plan
Introduction
This paper seeks to advise the County Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council of the challenges and opportunities in relation to the Core Strategy and Allocated Sites Development Plan documents for growth in Aylesbury. The document considers the following issues:
1. The Portfolio approach to Development 2. Capacity in the nursery sector 3. Capacity in the primary sector 4. Capacity in the secondary sector 5. Capacity for 16 plus education 6. Impact on Special Education provision 7. Impact on Children’s safeguarding 8. Impact on selective education 9. Location of growth 10. How Children and Young People’s Portfolio can support the agenda
The Children and Young People’s Portfolio approach to Development
1. New residential development is likely to result in an increased demand for school places, either because the scale of development itself or through the cumulative effect of a number of smaller developments. Where existing facilities do not have sufficient capacity or require improvements to meet the extra demands placed upon them developers will be expected to provide or contribute to new facilities or make a contribution towards improvements of existing ones.
2. Contributions will be sought from all developments of 4 dwellings or more, (net additional) and in cases where they are too small to provide part or all of the facility required, will be pooled with other contributions until such time as the required works can be carried out.
3. For developments in excess of 500 dwellings, an assessment will be made of the need to secure additional accommodation for pupils with special educational needs.
4. We recognise, however, that not all residential developments will create a need for school places. Therefore Section 106 contributions will not be sought from:
• one-bedroom dwellings; • developments exclusively for students; • sheltered or elderly housing;
Chris Munday 13.08.07 FINAL SUBMISSION
• other specialist housing where it can be demonstrated that the accommodation will not be occupied by children.
5. Affordable housing schemes can generate higher than average numbers of school age children. However, to ensure that these houses remain affordable, Buckinghamshire County Council is willing to accept educational contributions equivalent to private housing.
Calculating Developer Contributions From New Developments
1. The additional pressure new residential developments in Buckinghamshire will place on educational facilities is assessed by Buckinghamshire County Council. Where developer contributions are required, they will be calculated from the number of children likely to be generated by the development and the costs of providing additional places.
2. The methodology to derive the generation rates has come from an analysis of small area information from the 2001 Census and has now been incorporated into the Education Places section of the Wycombe District Council Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for Developer Contributions (adopted April 2007). The SPD can be viewed in full at www.wycombe.gov.uk and is intended to act as a model approach to securing developer contributions towards future education provision for the other Buckinghamshire District Councils.
3. The methodology established in the Wycombe SPD sets out that, on average, new dwellings are likely to generate pupils at the following Pupil Generation Rates:
2-Bed Flats For Pre-School/Nursery No. of dwellings x 0.02 pupils generated x Places £11,325 = £ per dwelling For Primary Places No. of dwellings x 0.13 pupils generated x £11,305 = £ per dwelling For Secondary (11-15) No. of dwellings x 0.05 pupils generated x Places £17,274 = £ per dwelling For Secondary (16+) Places No. of dwellings x 0.01 pupils generated x £18,544 = £ per dwelling
2-3 Bed Houses and 3-Bed Flats For Pre-School/Nursery No. of dwellings x 0.04 pupils generated x Places £11,325 = £ per dwelling For Primary Places No. of dwellings x 0.27 pupils generated x £11,305 = £ per dwelling For Secondary (11-15) No. of dwellings x 0.18 pupils generated x Places £17,274 = £ per dwelling
Chris Munday 13.08.07 FINAL SUBMISSION
For Secondary (16+) Places No. of dwellings x 0.04 pupils generated x £18,544 = £ per dwelling
4/4+ Bed Houses and Flats For Pre-School/Nursery No. of dwellings x 0.05 pupils generated x Places £11,325 = £ per dwelling
For Primary Places No. of dwellings x 0.35 pupils generated x £11,305 = £ per dwelling
For Secondary (11-15) No. of dwellings x 0.25 pupils generated x Places £17,274 = £ per dwelling For Secondary (16+) Places No. of dwellings x 0.06 pupils generated x £18,544 = £ per dwelling
4. BCC will use Basic Need (BN) cost multipliers, which represent a cost per pupil for building new accommodation and are adopted by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) for determining capital allocation to local authorities. They are based on the weighted average of two separate multipliers, one for new schools and one for extensions to existing schools. The latest cost multipliers are available form the DfES and will be kept under review by BCC.
5. For major developments (ones where the expected yield of children is in excess of 210 of primary school age or 420 aged 11-16 and the County Council was not able to expand existing provision on existing sites) the developer would be expected to meet the full costs of providing a new school of an appropriate size within the development site, and to contribute towards the capital costs of equipping the school.
6. For other developments, the developer would be expected to contribute towards the costs of providing additional places in existing schools, (if expansion is feasible), which might include the costs of acquiring land for expansion if the site falls below the size indicated in Government guidance. Contributions will be calculated on the basis of the above Pupil Generation Rates per dwelling multiplied by the cost of provision per pupil.
Methodology in this paper
To assess the level of children’s services provision required to meet the demands for the growth in Aylesbury Town the following methodology has been used.
1. Identified communities in Buckinghamshire in which there is 40% affordable housing
Chris Munday 13.08.07 FINAL SUBMISSION
2. Using school census data established the Household Occupancy rates for various children’s services in those areas 3. Modelled the impact of those household occupancy rates against a development similar to Fairford Leys 4. Reviewed the findings
Capacity in the nursery sector
The County Council has a duty to ensure that sufficient sustainable childcare provision is available to enable working parents to work. There is also a duty to ensure the free provision of childcare for 15 hours for 3 and 4 year olds. The Aylesbury developments will increase the requirements for childcare and for free early years places. It is not possible to establish a formal estimate, as the nature of the properties proposed in the new development has not been set out in the documentation. Although using the information gathered from the modelling work suggests an estimated need for an additional 420 nursery places .
Capacity in the primary sector
The County Council has undertaken some modelling of the impact on capacity within the primary sector.
Analysis of the whole of the primary sector suggests for Aylesbury Town a level of surplus places of 3%. The audit commission recommend, for enabling parental choice, a level of surplus places of 5%. The levels of surplus or deficit are not uniform across Aylesbury Town. On this basis this is insufficient primary school places in Aylesbury to meet the needs of a growing population.
Using the model of development based on the existing development in Fairford Leys the primary pupil generation rate will be 3255 pupils and require eight new primary schools with 2 forms of entry (each would require a 50 place nursery)
Our conclusions are that there are significant issues in relation to the development of sufficient primary places in Aylesbury town. It would not be appropriate to consider the needs solely of the growth areas as there will be an impact on the community as a whole. There is a need, therefore, on the basis of the proposed developments to establish a clear Aylesbury Town education plan which considers the nature, number and positioning of schools required by the Town including the growth areas.
Capacity in the Secondary sector
The County Council has undertaken some modelling of the impact on capacity within the secondary sector
Chris Munday 13.08.07 FINAL SUBMISSION
Analysis of the whole of the secondary sector suggests for Aylesbury Town a level of deficit places of 5%. The audit commission recommend, for enabling parental choice, a level of surplus places of 5%. The levels of surplus or deficit are not uniform across Aylesbury Town or amongst the school types (Grammar or Upper). On this basis this is insufficient secondary school places in Aylesbury to meet the needs of a growing population.
Using a model of development based on the existing development in Fairford Leys the secondary pupil generation rate will be 2100 upper school students requiring two new upper schools with 6 forms of entry (each would require a 180 place sixth form) and 945 grammar school students requiring one grammar school 1 with 5 forms of entry (and a 300 place sixth form)
Our conclusions are that there are significant issues in relation to the development of sufficient secondary places in Aylesbury town. It would not be appropriate to consider the needs solely of the growth areas as there will be an impact on the community as a whole. There is a need, therefore, on the basis of the proposed developments to establish a clear Aylesbury Town education plan which considers the nature, number and positioning of schools required by the Town including the growth areas.
Capacity for 16 plus education
The County Council has undertaken some modelling of the impact on capacity within the tertiary sector
The stay on rates in our schools is different. grammar schools have an approximate rate of 98% at 16 plus whereas upper schools are significantly lower at 43%. It is, therefore, necessary to plan for approximately 1.2 forms of entry in Buckinghamshire’s post 16 pupil numbers.
Our estimates suggest therefore a need for an additional 660 sixth form places across Aylesbury Town
Our conclusions are that there are significant issues in relation to the development of sufficient tertiary places in Aylesbury town. It would not be appropriate to consider the needs solely of the growth areas as there will be an impact on the community as a whole. There is a need, therefore, on the basis of the proposed developments to establish a clear Aylesbury Town education plan which considers the nature, number and positioning of schools required by the Town including the growth areas.
1 Please see note on selective education
Chris Munday 13.08.07 FINAL SUBMISSION
Impact on Special Education Provision
The County Council has also analysed the possible impact of growth on Special Education provision in the town. The modelling suggests an impact of an additional 210 children with statements of special educational need (some of whom may require special school provision) and 1365 non-statemented children with some level of special educational need.
The County will need to consider the impact of this level of special educational need in relation to special school provision.
Impact on Children’s safeguarding
The County Council has also analysed the possible impact of growth on safeguarding provision in the town. The modelling suggests an impact of an additional 576 children in need of whom 33 will be children looked after, 34 would be children with disability and 8 children on the child protection register.
This level of looked after children would require additional residential provision as modelling suggests that the number requiring that type of provision is 7. for looked after children and additional respite capacity for children with disability. The modelling would also suggest the need for a children’s safeguarding infrastructure including family centre provision.
Impact on selective education
It is important for the district council to be aware that increased growth in the population creates an impact on the selective education system policy of the County Council. Selective education is well regarded by the residents of the County and may have an impact on inward migration into Bucks. The County Council can not increase the number of grammar school places in Buckinghamshire. Growth will, therefore, impact on the number of places available to students. It is anticipated that some of these issues will be able to be managed by a reduction in the number of places taken by students from neighbouring authorities but it is unclear, from the documents provided the level of impact.
Location of growth
The area proposed for growth in Aylesbury town in the Brownfield sites and the southern arc does create some challenges for the portfolio.
Brownfield sites It is difficult to assess the impact of growth from the brown field sites in Aylesbury town as it is not clear how many pupils would be generated from those developments. The focus in the centre of Aylesbury is key and there is a need to consider the quality of schools in the centre of the town. There is a
Chris Munday 13.08.07 FINAL SUBMISSION need to ensure the provision of high quality education provision in the centre of town. The development of an Aylesbury plan for school places will assist in mitigating risks established through the expansion on brownfield sites.
Southern Arc The lack of clarity around the southern arc does make comments difficult to make. It is important to note that the southern part of Aylesbury has more schools with an established deficit of places in comparison to the north where there is more surplus. The arc plan, which appears to move away from creating new “communities”, is difficult from an educational perspective as certainly primary provision sits better in local communities.
How Children and Young People’s Portfolio can support the agenda
The section of the report will consider the Core Strategy Policy Framework and how the Children and Young People’s portfolio can assist in its implementation of the preferred policy options.
Sustainable Growth
1. The County Council is committed to ensuring that new school buildings meet the BREEM Excellent standard. This will ensure that the carbon footprint is neutral for school developments 2. The development will require us to consider the impact of children from outside of Buckinghamshire in other growth areas applying for places in Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools. As stated previously the County Council can not, under the present legislative framework develop additional Grammar school places.
Quality of Life
1. As identified earlier the County Council Children and Young People’s portfolio will require development contribution to secure sufficient infrastructure to meet the needs of the new communities. This will include additional nursery places, primary and secondary places as well as an infrastructure to support children in needs and their families
2. All of our services are fundamentally important to support social cohesion. We are concerned that the present proposal may lead to an overall problem in the centre of Aylesbury in relation to school places, with those places being less attractive to families and leading to a possible development of “sink” schools. We would like to work closely with the District Council in establishing an Early Years and School Place Plan for Aylesbury in 2007/08
Somewhere to live
Chris Munday 13.08.07 FINAL SUBMISSION
1. The County Council Children and Young People’s Portfolio accept the need for affordable housing and welcome the development. We would want to ensure that sufficient of this housing is allocated to key workers including teachers, social workers and other members of the children’s workforce.
2. The METAS service in Children and Young People’s Services works closely with Gypsy and Traveller groups and maintains a positive relationship with the community as does our social work service. We have happy to offer support from the services in the development of an appropriate policy.
Somewhere to work and shop
1. The growth in Aylesbury and the subsequent development of additional early year and school places together with additional requirements for children’s safeguarding will create additional employment for the area. The level of employment can not be fully quantified at this stage.
Chris Munday 13.08.07 Appraisal of I nfrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: Primary Schools, Nursery and Secondary school Provision BCC
AVA schedule ref LE6 Date 8 Nov 2007
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name John King Higher Education Position Asset Manager Transport Telephone no 01296 382956 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities X BCC X Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care PCT NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth X Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections X Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. All figures have been provided by The Research Team, Policy Support, Buckinghamshire County Council and now come under Strategic Planning, Planning and Development
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years? The BCC Medium Term Plan and housing/population growth. The BCC Property Strategy and Property Review to be completed in the summer of 2008.
Question 3: Can you please specify if you have spare capacity in nursery, primary or secondary schools at an aggregate level? Not applicable
Question 4: Have you now got enough information to discuss likely sources to cover revenue costs for primary school and nursery provision? Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? Not applicable
Question 5: Have you now got enough information to discuss likely sources to cover revenue costs for school provision? Not applicable
Colin Buchanan, London v1
Question 6: Have you now developed a formula to calculate capital costs related to ‘extended school’ provision and how have the scale of costs (£500,000 for early years and £3.5m for post-16) been calculated? Will demand for extended school activities also be generated by existing populations and if so is that included in the figures provided? Not applicable
Question 7: Can you clarify the methodology used to calculate costs for special needs secondary education and extended school facilities, and the costs involved? Not applicable
Question 8: Can you please provide additional information with regard to deficit/spare capacity in existing provision for adult education? In the southern area of Aylesbury Vale, there is a deficit in daytime provision. For the whole of the Aylesbury area, there are at present only 7 adult classrooms. They are far from ideal and are already at capacity. The infrastructure is over capacity. The requirements of new housing cannot be accommodated in the present facilities. Question 9: It is unclear whether a new ALC facility will be required or whether existing facilities can be expanded, can you clarify providing the formula for calculating the additional need. Within the AV area, there is a deficit in daytime provision. Most ASL is in schools that can’t be used during the day. The expansion of existing schools has risks such as segregation between pupils and adults, infrastructure and the threat of Foundation or Academy status not withstanding the lack of ground space. Daytime ASL on school sites is always best avoided unless a different arrangement can be developed.
Additional notes and comments I can provide more information or empirical data for Q’s 8 & 9 but more time is required.
Adult Community Learning (ACL) is now called Adult Safeguarded Learning (ASL)
Please see the other attached document which is the Culture and Learning Section 106 Policy Statement.
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of Infrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet Service Thames Valley Police , Property Services Provider: AVA schedule SO31 Date 7/11/07 ref Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Peter Smith Higher Education Position Strategic Manager Transport Telephone no 01865 293863 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services √ Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care PCT NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police √ Population growth √ Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections √ Forestry Commission New legislative √ * requirements Private Sector New Standards √ * Other Use of standardised √ formula * as and when relevant Question 1: Can you please revise your capital and revenue costs estimates in light of changes contained in the Panel’s Report for the SE Plan growth for an additional 300 dwellings in AV that will be allocated to settlements other than Aylesbury? Capital costs based upon the draft South East Plan EiP Panel Report allocation of 21,500 new homes between 2006 and 2026 and current @ 17/8/07. Should the growth figures be revised, as expected, the cost estimate will need to be reviewed. The cost should be index linked. Allowance for land cost included.
1. COST OF GENERAL OFFICE ACCOMMODATION (non specialist)
Item Data 1 Number of Dwellings in Thames Valley Police Area 896,706 2 Divide by total Thames Valley Police Officers/Thames Valley Police Staff 7741 3 No of Dwellings per Staff Member is (1) ÷(2) = 115.84 4 Number of New Households forecast 21,500 5 New Staff Members required, therefore is (4) ÷ (3) = 185.60 6 Total non-specialist accommodation , M 2 115,836 7 Non specialist accommodation per member of staff, M 2 is (6) ÷ (2) = 14.96 8 New non-specialist accommodation needed, therefore, is (5) x (7) 2,777.36 9 Current cost of non-specialist accommodation, per M 2 is £3,438 10 Cost of non-specialist office accommodation for new households is (8) x (9) = £9,547,170
2. COST OF CUSTODY FACILITIES (specialist)
Item Data 11 Number of Households in Thames Valley Police Area 896,706 12 Total Custody Facilities in Thames Valley Police Area, M 2 5,276 13 No of Households per M 2 Custody Facility (11) ÷ (12) 169.96 14 Number of New Households forecast 21,500 15 Total new Custody Facilities needed, therefore is (14) ÷ (13) M 2 126.50 16 Cost of Custody Facilities per M 2 £6,094 17 Cost of Custody Facilities for new households is (15) x (16) £770,864
Colin Buchanan, London v1
3. MISCELLANEOUS CAPITAL COSTS PER POLICE OFFICER
Item Data 18 One off start up costs per Police Officer £10,085 19 Ratio Police Officers 0.57 20 Number of Police Officers (see 5 above) 105.67 21 Total £1,065,632
4. MISCELLANEOUS CAPITAL COSTS PER PCSO
Item Data 22 One off start up costs per PCSO £6,916 23 Ratio PCSO 0.07 24 Number of PCSO (see 5 above) 12.71 25 Total £87,886
5. MISCELLANEOUS CAPITAL COSTS PER POLICE SUPPORT STAFF MEMBER
Item Data 26 One off start up costs per Police staff member £4,665 27 Ratio of police staff 0.36 28 Number of Police staff (see 5 above) 67.23 29 Total £313,630
30 Total – costs for development of new households (10 + 17 +21+ 25 + 29) excluding £11,785,182 VAT
An increase of £164,444 in capital terms. 100% attributed to growth. The revenue cost figure previously given is very much a broad indication. 2 3 additional staff does not significantly impact of this broad figure. No change to the £12m per annum needed at this stage. Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years? The police have several processes that capture relevant data and information and assess it strategically. See the attached document. Annually there is a formal Force Strategic Assessment which involves senior & other relevant staff. Key issues are reviewed and their impact and priority assessed. That then feeds into the Strategic Plans and Delivery Plans for the force and by department, and budget. There are more frequent informal scanning exercises carried out that pick up on new issues, and a more formal internal report is prepared annually as part of the Strategic Assessment process. It covers drivers and issues such as: Politics : eg national policing priorities, reforms (eg reduced bureaucracy), politics, PSA’s, the assessment of policing and community safety (APACS), LAA’s, community engagement. Environmental and socio demographics : eg population change, housing, transport (more congestion, major facilities), leisure/night time economy (hardening of town centres), Olympics, prison overcrowding Technology (eg an increase in IT crime) Legislation (eg Counter Terrorism Bill) Economic (eg funding) There are therefore always a number and range of issues that will impact on us to varying degrees. The intention to embed neighbourhood policing as a Government led strategy will ensure the need for more neighbourhood offices to deliver community based policing as growth takes place, together with expanded facilities to house more staff generated by an increased number of crimes & incidents. Reviews of working practices/reduction in bureaucracy and any changes in the use of technology to allow more remote working, if implemented, may affect how we deliver services, but it is not envisaged that this will have a significant impact on existing property provision in terms of releasing capacity. We will continue looking to improve use of our resources and partner working where possible. Periodic reviews need to be undertaken to ensure that changes can be and are made as needed.
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Question 3: Do capital costs include land costs and are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? Yes land cost is allowed for. Inflation is not allowed for so they will need indexing. The index date would be 17 August 2007 Question 4: In your previous comments you mentioned that requirements for new police stations will depend on where new housing growth will be located. Can you look at the enclosed maps detailing growth in the next 5 years and refine your answer? We are about to prepare a local policing strategy for 6 of our 16 LPA areas. Aylesbury Vale is one of the priority areas and we envisage that being finalised by mid December. We are in the process of agreeing internally a standardised approach to assessing the impact of growth at a local level to quantify the impact and identify specific projects arising from it where we can, and where the available site specific data permits that. Our Aylesbury Vale Local Policing Area have prepared an outline strategy for dealing with local based need, but this is indicative only at this stage as it was produced in advance of, and needs to be tested through, the process outlined in our response to Q6 below. It does not for instance reflect police needs beyond the neighbourhood level such as investigation and support functions where there is expected to be the need for expanded or new facilities. Nor does it reflect the likely outcome of the rest of district site allocations due out in 2008. It has identified the need for the re classification of one station, and new facilities: • response teams (essentially uniformed officers in vehicles) being based out of Winslow (currently Buckingham), Aylesbury and Wendover • neighbourhood teams in north, centre and south of the District as spokes from the three hubs above • Aylesbury (centre hub) could potentially see the need (subject to funding being identified) for new offices in Berryfields, Hale leys, Watermead covering the north part of the town, covered in response terms from Aylesbury station • The southern growth arc could see response cover from Wendover with neighbourhood teams in Wendover, and 3 in the approximate positions around Stone/Bishopstone, Stoke Mandeville/Weston Turville. I would anticipate that they would be within new local centres within each of the 3 proposed MDA’s • The north area could be covered from Winslow with response and neighbourhood teams based there with separate existing neighbourhood offices in Waddesdon and Wing, with Buckingham downgraded to a neighbourhood only location, requiring relocation As stated this is an outline of a potential but incomplete strategy which I would envisage being complete around mid December 2007 Question 5: Can you clarify if PCSOs are community support officers. If not what does PCSO stand for and are community support officers likely to be employed within an expanded Aylesbury and would that be an additional cost to the TVPA? Yes, Police Community Support Officer (PCSO). They are an important element of neighbourhood policing in most cases forming the larger element of local neighbourhood teams. For instance, a team may have a Sergeant, 2 Police Constables and 4 PCSO’s. PCSO revenue funding is not straightforward at present, with some government funding and some local external revenue funding. Post 1/4/08 I understand (I am checking this) the government funding falls away falling onto TVPA together with any external partner funding it can secure. I understand Aylesbury does have some PCSO positions revenue funded by AVDC and Bucks CC, but am awaiting an internal response confirming the position. Question 6: In the section Usual source of funding capital costs it states, Any capital expenditure attributable to the new developments should be funded from the developments through planning obligations . How is expenditure attributable to the new developments? Assessing the impact of growth is a new area for the police service. Very few forces have a standardised approach to it. We are currently preparing a standardised template to assess the impact of growth at a local level. To date we have adopted the approach used by some police forces and which is shown in the AVA Infrastructure Schedule provided. In essence we have looked at what we have now in terms of staff, property, other infrastructure (eg communication systems – Airwave masts, ANPR) and staff set up capital costs, relate that back to housing growth to produce a space and staff need which is costed. This assumes that the current ratios are projected forward. The more refined approach we are reviewing now looks to identify LPA level ratios and impacts and try to differentiate between housing and non housing generated crime/incidents, consider trends and whether Colin Buchanan, London v1 current ratios are applicable going forward and if not adjust them, review whether there is capacity in buildings locally, and to project forward. We are currently re considering the most appropriate measure of growth – housing numbers or population. If population, should it be ONS, locally generated projections (more than twice ONS) or through the common use by other service providers of household multipliers (eg if 2.4 phh now dropping to 2.1 is 2.25 appropriate to use?)? If population based, there may well be an additional impact arising from the disproportionate increase in housing stock relative to population increase – ie more opportunity for crime and therefore more incidents. In the absence of a local strategy, all we have is the high level approach already adopted. This effectively flags up that growth will impact on our service, and a high level cost estimate of that need based on housing growth and the assumption of current ratios being maintained going forward. It is possible that the local review will result in a different financial outcome and it is possible that on specific developments, co location opportunities will reduce the need/cost. Question 7: Under what circumstances would co location with other organisations be acceptable? Co location is definitely an option we would be keen to explore. It will reduce space needs through shared common facilities, and may lead to service delivery improvements. It is more likely to be appropriate at a local neighbourhood level in local or neighbourhood centres, although sector police stations or at least some functions may be able to co locate at that higher level. District level and higher serving facilities are unlikely to be able to be shared for operational reasons. Other service needs need to be mapped for synergies and operational suitability (ie no conflict in “customer” base). We have already approached Bucks CC with a view to commence discussions on co location opportunities, and will do so at District level as well. In the absence of identified opportunities we are stating our full requirement. Question 8: Can you explain the assumptions that link population growth with increases in incidents? Historically crime and incidents are recorded as a proportion of population – eg recorded crime per 1000 population. This is an established national form of reporting and covers a range of crime types publicly and periodically reported. Our base assumption is that current crime levels and ratios will be projected forwards to allow for population growth. It is probably not practical to be any more precise, although I am considering whether, when assessing the impact of growth, it is appropriate to make adjustments to some current ratios where we consider that is warranted. The danger is that sometimes these trends are short term and can be influenced by a number of factors – eg changing government crime reporting requirements, new initiatives, changes in process. Regular review would be needed. Other trends may be as a result of circumstances that are not yet officially fully recognised (eg immigrant population numbers and their impact on certain crime types) Additional notes and comments I am awaiting some internal responses (@7/11/07) to some of the issues raised above. I will advise if any amended responses are needed. See the attached ATLAS pro forma response issued on behalf of the SE Region forces. This will provide some background to our strategic assessment and other relevant processes. I am envisaging the Local Policing strategies to have a structure along the lines of that attached. A summary of what neighbourhood policing is about is attached for information. To address your additional questions;
Capital Expenditure (£11,620,000) Could you provide more detail on the source of the data used for calculating the police requirements? For example, how are facility requirements calculated in regards to household growth? Attached spreadsheet. Following through the process shows simply that the total manpower is divided into the total floorspace and applied to the new manpower need. The resultant floorspace need is then costed per sqm Could you provide more detail on the robustness of the projected growth projections? The housing figures as from the SE Plan. The growth impacts on staff and floorspace are based on current ratios to houses and police staff at force level respectively. Colin Buchanan, London v1 Could you provide more detail on the scope and costing of exclusions (CCTV, etc.)? CCTV is not included as its usually provided through Local Authorities in partnership with the Police. We don’t anticipate allowing for Automatic Vehicle Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) at this stage although that may become a future requirement as it is rolled out. Operational training seems to be considered a revenue cost, so until/if that changes it is excluded. The non residential property allowance is proving difficult to quantify for us – ie the impact of employment uses cf housing. We are exploring that with the current Local Policing reviews but it may not be possible to identify a formula based approach to it. It would be significantly less than the housing allowance which itself may reduce slightly to accommodate it.
Recurring Expenditure (£240,000,000 over 20 years) Could you provide more detail on the robustness of police structure assumptions? Unclear what is asked for here. The revenue approach is indicative only and from recollection it makes allowance for staff , equipment and property running costs. If you can let me know what exactly you need, I’ll check it. Could you provide more detail on the scope and costing of exclusions (Training, non residential allowances, etc.)? There are no exclusions from this revenue cost section. We highlighted that it is indicative only for the reasons stated in the final box of the previous form.
Colin Buchanan, London v1 One Off set up costs as calculated for Strategic Regeneration Projects
One Off Start Up Costs Police Officers Detail £ Notes Uniform & Protective Equipment 1,000 Includes Body Armour Patrol Car 2,020 on absorption costing Cost of recruitment 515 IPLDP Probationers 3,500 excl c£54k for outsourced training + yr1 salary IT Equipment 1,277 Furniture 1,000 mileage and subs wastage 773 allowance for re-advertising/training through aborted recruitment Total 10,085 One-off Start Up Costs Support Staff Detail £ Cost of Recruitment 515 Uniform & Protective Equipment 100 nominal Staff Training/Induction 1,000 IT Equipment 1,277 Furniture 1,000 mileage and subs nominal wastage 773 Total 4,665 One-off Start Up Costs PCSO's Detail Uniform & Protective Equipment 773 Cost of Recruitment 515 Initial training 2,578 IT Equipment 1,277 Furniture (desk, chair, two drawers & cupboard/locker) 1,000 mileage and subs wastage 773 6,916
05/12/2007 Police capital costs.xls Start Up Costs MW
Social Infrastructure Planning as part of new communities – Information Proforma
Please return to [email protected] by 10th September 2007
NAME Peter Smith, Strategic Manager SERVICE Thames Valley Police .
1. What service plans does your Strategic Plan & Annual Policing Plan, supported by the service have? Force Delivery Plan.. These must reflect the priorities in the Home Office’s National Community Safety Plan currently covering the period 2006-09 as well as local issues. Each operational Basic Command Unit and main support service has an annual delivery plan. 2. How often are these service The Strategic Plan has historically been reviewed every plans reviewed? year but refreshed every three years. New legislation will result in the Three Year Strategic plan being refreshed annually from 2008 onwards. The new Three Year Strategy will also replace the Annual Policing Plan as each refreshed Three Year Strategy will contain a detailed plan for the first of the three years. Underpinning Delivery Plans will continue to be fully refreshed annually. All plans are subject to a quarterly review to assess progress against the plan and whether any changes in environment and thus direction or activity need to be made. 3. What period do these service Strategic and Policing plans 3 years. Currently 2005 to plans cover? 2008. Delivery plans 1 year.
4. What guidance exists to advise No specific Home Office, Association of Police Authorities you how to factor in (APA) or Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) housing/population growth into guidance. Most forces source their own population and those plans (at Departmental housing growth data and assess its impact usually through level or equivalent) its Strategic Planning & Corporate Development sections and regular Strategic Assessment process which aligns operational and business planning. 5. How do these service plans The service plans deal principally with operational issues relate to the physical provision of and priorities. Most forces will have an estates or property facilities or wider estate strategy that is reviewed periodically with engagement of management strategies the operational, support functions and Police Authority through property committees or forums. As best practice this should also be considered as part of the Strategic Assessment process and should be reviewed in the light of the findings of the Strategic Assessment which leads to production of the Three Year Strategy and Delivery Plans. Property provision and strategies historically are not usually covered specifically in service plans, although some forces may seek inclusion of a new property strategy where that reflects a particular change in strategic direction and/or requires high level recognition. Specific property or infrastructure (eg ANPR cameras) provision Unit 7/8 Kent House 81 Station Road Ashford TN23 1YS T 01233 651733 F 01233 651701
may be referred to as part of a broader strategic operational issue, such as the rollout of neighbourhood policing and the need to provide accommodation for that. 6. How does your service plan take a) Usually following internal, or potentially external, account of the following: research highlighting an issue such as significant a) changes in local population and population changes and housing growth, the demographics as a result of new Strategic Assessment process will review the housing proposals; impact of any trends or significant changes and b) changes in service requirements seek strategic solutions to address those, and (service levels, funding reflect them in service plans. Property solutions settlements, technology); should then follow on, aligning with identified service needs. Police forces are always looking to improve their internal processes, to introduce more structured and analytical approaches to external changes such a population and housing growth. Improved partnering arrangements with key external organisations, engaging with the planning process and maximising opportunities to access developer contributions for new facilities, and regularly reviewing the structure of its Community & Diversity Officer function to adapt to changes in community demogaphics and cultural profile are examples reflected in delivery plan actions. b) Policing & Delivery Plans are reviewed annually and other strategic documents, and partnership arrangements, will also be reviewed periodically to take account of changes. Police authorities and service departments regularly monitor budgets and availability of and any changes in funding sources or settlements and assess the availability and impact of new technology 7. How do these service plans Currently there is no established relationship to the town relate to the statutory town planning process. It is up to each individual force to planning process? In particular ensure it is aware of spatial planning documents and how does town planning processes, and to engage with local planning authorities currently help your service (LPAs) as necessary. LPA engagement of police delivery & service plan authorities has historically either not taken place, or has objectives? been directed at the wrong contact level ie usually too low in the rank hierarchy or the wrong specialism.
As there is no current link, the statutory town planning process does not help our service delivery. We end up either trying to catch up or failing to be reflected altogether. This is compounded by a reluctance of many LPAs to recognise and accept that the police have a justification and need to be involved, particularly on provision of infrastructure and access to developer contributions.
Early engagement in the town planning process, both at Unit 7/8 Kent House 81 Station Road Ashford TN23 1YS T 01233 651733 F 01233 651701
policy and development control levels, would greatly assist in our local and strategic planning. It would indicate the nature, scale, location and timing of growth.
Community safety is a key national and local political issue, and translates to our involvement in designing out crime and identifying the potential need for social/community infrastructure. The latter is typically the requirement for local neighbourhood facilities, but also provision for associated and support facilities and equipment such as for custody cells, major crime teams, roads policing bases, ANPR and CCTV systems, vehicles etc that may be located away from development sites. Depending on the impact of new development on our resources, both site specifically and incrementally, there may be the need for a step change in police property provision in the locality or area as a result of new development, such as provision of a new hub police station or expanded premises.
It is important to note that S17 Crime & Disorder Act 1998 requires all local authorities and other agencies to consider crime and disorder reductions and community safety in the exercise of all its duties and activities – including spatial planning. The police are required under the Police Act 1996 to secure and maintain an efficient and effective force. LPAs should therefore facilitate the objectives of other legislation where land use considerations arise. The consistent under emphasis of community safety throughout LDF documents and some development control processes is clearly contrary to this duty, and also the emphasis given in most Sustainable Community Strategies, and other guidance such as PPS1 (infrastructure provision and safety generally), Safer Places: The Planning System & Crime Prevention (ODPM 2/04) and now the Green Paper emphasizing good design, safety and a strategic approach to local infrastructure provision with the need to involve all service providers that impact on infrastructure. 8. How would you like those 1. Recognition . It should be recognised by LPA’s in planning new housing growth to planning policy, and developers in general that take account of the requirements community safety is a key issue and that we are of your service – this can be both concerned with (a) ensuring new development the planning case officer dealing design prevents crime as far as possible through with a major application and adoption of Secured By Design Award Scheme scheme promoter/developer? principles to design out crime for both new units (private as well as affordable) and surrounding external areas, parking provision and the public realm ( http://www.securedbydesign.com/ ; http://www.britishparking.co.uk/index.php?path=2, 64 ) (b) provision of new, enhanced or expanded Unit 7/8 Kent House 81 Station Road Ashford TN23 1YS T 01233 651733 F 01233 651701
police facilities to address operational policing needs arising from the development. It is in the interests of developers to address community safety, particularly on larger schemes. Police accommodation is typically provided for at different levels ranging from force HQ’s to Area HQs, hub/small town police stations, neighbourhood offices and some lower level contact points, with a range of ancillary facilities such as custody cells, criminal justice suites or centres, workshops, storage, training and offices. For LPA’s if community safety is not allowed for appropriately, the additional development will put existing police resources under pressure, and our ability to provide an effective police service could be undermined. This will put at risk the sustainable community agenda sought by government. 2. Early and effective engagement . This would be at early pre-application and master planning stages involving our Crime Prevention Design Advisors/Architectural Liaison Officers on design & CCTV issues, and, typically, our property department on strategic infrastructure requirements. LPAs may be given a single point of contact initially in some cases. Where Planning Performance Agreements are used, we would want to be engaged as a key stakeholder and participant along with other community safety providers such as the fire and ambulance services. 3. Prioritisation of and allowance for any identified police infrastructure in site design/layout, use of planning conditions, and agreement of s106 contributions. Application of either a standard formulaeic approach to planning obligations (where available) or site specific negotiation following a local assessment by the police of net capacity shortfall and, by all parties, any viable opportunity to co-locate and/or share space within a community “facility” or centre. 4. Design & Access Statements . Specified compliance with CABE guidance on addressing community safety 5. Planning policy & development control process formul ation & review. Opportunities to reflect community safety issues, and in our case, specifically the police, 9. What are the barriers which may • Recognition of community safety as a key issue be stopping this happening and throughout and to an appropriate level within how might these be resolved? LDFs & Design & Access Statements. Planning Unit 7/8 Kent House 81 Station Road Ashford TN23 1YS T 01233 651733 F 01233 651701
policy needs to accept that as community safety is a key issue in sustainable community strategies, spatial policies need to reflect our requirements for design and infrastructure. Development control processes should be tightened up to avoid superficial or no reference to addressing designing out crime. That community safety within LDFs is related to both design and infrastructure, not just design • That the police (& other emergency services) should automatically be consulted and effectively engaged on emerging policy and significant planning applications at every key stage from a design and infrastructure perspective. We’re working on that locally with some success where specific contacts within police forces are being appointed or nominated to address LDF issues, but its not automatically coming through, particularly on LDFs. Often LPAs, where the police are on a stakeholder register, address consultation at the wrong level (eg Crime Prevention Design Advisor or local Inspector). Often only design and CCTV issues are picked up in development control procedures. LPAs consultation/engagement strategies need to be tightened up to specifically and automatically include the police, and the approporiate police contact(s) need to be identified by Community Engagement officers under a generic “emergency services” category and included on consultation registers and within SCI’s. Where police forces have nominated contacts for planning issues they should proactively notify LPAs as well.. Many police forces will not have internal specialists or potentially other available internal resource capacity (eg within property departments), so ideally proactive inclusion of appropriate generic policy wording to address community safety issues in LDFs & development control policies and processes by all LPAs should be encouraged, rather than rely on individual forces having capacity to identify and react every time to several documents within each LPA. This would release more police staff time for core duties and ensure consistency. • That our justification to claim for s106 funds is often questioned and/or given low priority against the standard district/borough/county items despite community safety consistently being a key issue in Sustainable Community Strategies. This appears to be partly due to a lack of understanding of our funding position. There are no capital funds available to police forces from Unit 7/8 Kent House 81 Station Road Ashford TN23 1YS T 01233 651733 F 01233 651701
central government for new infrastructure. • That the definition of “infrastructure” in LDF’s and existing planning obligation documents (SPG) is often worded too narrowly, often needing us to argue under “community facilities”. The definition should be expanded to include, alongside other examples, “facilities for the emergency services”and where policies are worded to an extent where they can be interpreted (if not specific)to include the emergency services, those services should actively be encouraged to respond to applications. • Where there is not even a catchall policy phrase, for instance in Local Plans, that gives us a peg to seek contributions, such a policy should be pursued whenever the opportunity arises • That planning obligation/developer contribution SPDs may not be reviewed regularly enough to allow us access, or amend requirements, where SPDs are already in place. The potential for annual review of infrastructure needs and amendment of schedules or formulae addressing contributions should be sought • That Secured By Design principles are often not mentioned, or only superficially, with discretionary requirements in Design & Access Statements with applications to show how development addresses community safety and crime reduction. There is clear evidence (ABI report 2006 Securing the Nation - attached) that adopting SBD reduces certain crimes potentially significantly, and saves cost in a wide sense.
Unit 7/8 Kent House 81 Station Road Ashford TN23 1YS T 01233 651733 F 01233 651701
LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY POSSIBLE PLANNING OBLIGATION PRESENTATION FORMAT (Police)
There is no set way to present these planning obligation requirements except that they must focus on legitimate requirements and costs that are attributable to the development itself whether directly (eg need for new neighbourhood police office on site) or indirectly (add to need for off site provision whether locally, or beyond the immediate neighbourhood – eg custody, HQ support).
However, the basic requirements are:
1. Policy context – Police should fall within “community” or “social” infrastructure provision. Justification for seeking contributions.
2. Overview of policing with reference to for example :
a. approach to service delivery – organisation structure, range of services b. crime profiles and performance indicators c. trends and any scope for change d. hierarchy/types of premises
Tier 1 – Neighbourhood police (NP) office (stand alone or co-located) Tier 2 – Sector Station Tier 3 – Local Policing Area HQ Station Tier 4 – Basic Command Unit HQ Station Tier 5 – Force HQ Support Specialist Independent Enquiry Point (eg part of a library if we set up any)
3. Which developments should contribute ?
a. Generic types – eg all housing and commercial uses b. Thresholds – eg 1 or more dwellings and 100 sqm + non housing. c. Outline basis of contribution d. Any cross boundary issues
4. What type of facility is typically needed & whether provided on site or off site
a. Local policing (district level) impact on site and off site b. BCU (county level) impact c. Force wide impact d. Staff and operational equipment items (vehicles, query CCTV?) e. Staff have a property and set up cost
5. How the contribution is calculated . Ideally:
a. relevant ratio, cost (property and set up costs) & then apportion. We may need to do by LPA, BCU, Force wide for different functions.
b. formula approach per dwelling by type (1 bed to 5 bed with weighting for particular demand generators?). Population impact can be converted to dwelling cost.
c. formula approach per employee for non housing use if feasible. This is more problematical d. emerging use of spreadsheet calculators to consolidate several formula depending on developer scheme input
6. list of identified current and proposed projects requiring a contribution – ie how will the money be spent?
7. We expect Local Planning Authorities to review their planning obligations documents at regular intervals ranging from annually to a maximum of 5 yearly.
8. The introduction of a statutory planning charge (a “tariff”) may alter how we present our local needs. Consultation is expected on that within 6 months, coming into effect within 2-3 years.
Appraisal of I nfrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service
AVA schedule ref SO32 Date 5th Nov 2007
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Des Williamson Higher Education Position Director of Risk Management Transport Telephone no 01296 744405 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care PCT NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. South East Plan BCC(2006)Population Projections 2001-2026 Regional Housing and Employment figures: Aylesbury Vale April 06 (AVA) District housing trajectories (2007) Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years? • Fire and Rescue Service Act 2004 • Civil Contingencies Act 2004 • Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 • The Fire and Rescue Service National Framework 2006-08; including: o New Dimensions Programme o CLG FiRe Control Project o CLG Firelink Project o CLG FiRe Buy Programme o Integrated Personal Development Plans • Government requirements regarding cashable and non-cashable efficiency savings • Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire Authority Integrated Risk Management Plan Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service (BFRS) is duty bound to deliver services, as defined in statute and according to Fire Authority Policy and Priorities and identified by the Community Risk Profile and detailed in Community Plans. These services are bound by financial constraints and the risks and pressures are compounded by population/housing growth. In addition, BFRS is required to deliver, by statute and local and national stakeholders, increasingly proactive services to achieve enhanced community safety. Some of this service delivery and organisational support is being undertaken in partnership with other service providers and voluntary organisations. Question 3: Is the cost of securing water supplies including hydrants at £12.90 per dwelling based on local costs or is this a national figure? This is a local figure derived from a development of 1200 houses. Question 4: Is the fire service responsible for the installation of sprinkler systems or do developers and building owners have to fund installation? Similarly, are developers or the fire service responsible for the provision of fire hydrants within new development areas?
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Sprinklers : Developers/owners are responsible for the installation of these systems where there is a requirement under Planning or Building Regulations. This Fire Authority advocates that planning authorities should require sprinkler systems be fitted to homes and other buildings that are intended to be occupied or be put to a use that is vulnerable from fire.
Hydrants : Developers are responsible for the funding of hydrants in all non-residential developments. As an example of current developments, Wycombe District Councils’ Developer Contributions SPD identifies hydrants as a cost to be borne by developers of dwellings above a threshold of four (+) dwellings. BMKFA advocates that planning conditions for the installation of hydrants are considered by LPA’s which will improve the safety of our communities and remove any residual financial burden from BFRS.
Question 5: The preferred options stage of AVDC’s core strategy locates growth to the south of Aylesbury (see attached map). Does this make it easier to determine future infrastructure requirements? Should the Southern Growth arc be realised, then this information helps to confirm the assumptions made in relation to future BFRS costs and requirements as submitted to Aylesbury Vale Advantage. Detailed mapping and analysis is currently being undertaken by this Authority. However, in order to more accurately determine the exact requirements necessary to 2026, we will need much more specific information on housing locations, density and anticipated occupancy groups.
Questions 6: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? The costs provided are normalised, base year 2007/08
Question 7: Can you explain the relationship between population growth and increase in facilities. Is it based on existing ratios of population or is there a correlation between growth and service provision? The figures submitted are based upon existing ratios and spatial use. However, BFRS requirements are not solely related to population growth but also factor population density, traffic movements and economic expansion; factors that are likely to affect the communities’ risk profile. The resource requirements to maintain, or preferably enhance, the Fire Authority’s contribution to reducing risk in the community, as the built environment, population and associated risk profiles increase, will ultimately be determined, for operational Response, by evidence underpinned by sophisticated geographical computer-modelling, and by pro-rata workload modelling for Community Safety Prevention and Protection intervention requirements. [The answer to Q.5 applies] Additional notes and comments
Computer-modelling based on the government approved Fire Service Emergency Cover (FSEC) system, has demonstrated conclusively that the fire and rescue service premises at Stocklake in Aylesbury, and supported some distance away by Waddesdon and Haddenham, will not meet the Fire Authority attendance times for current and proposed new build areas at Weedon Hill, Berryfields, Ashton Clinton Road, and the major infrastructure “arc” to the south of Aylesbury.
The modelling suggest that an additional new fire station will be required to the south west of Aylesbury (modelled from “Hartwell”) in order to maintain Community Safety Standards.
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of Infrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: AVDC and Bucks CC
AVA schedule ref LO1a, LO1b, LO1c, LO1d and LO1e Date 23/11/07
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Catherine Whormsley Higher Education Position Green Infrastructure Officer Transport Telephone no 01296 382992 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities X BCC X Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care PCT NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth X Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections X Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. The figures were sourced from AVDC Forward Plans Division as follows: 2006-2011 7800 2011-16 7000 2016-21 7900 2021-26 8500
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?
We will be producing a green infrastructure strategy to serve the greenspace needs of Aylesbury Vale population and to protect and enhance the local environment and ecosystems.
Question 3: In your previous comments on Local Natural Reserves you mentioned that requirements for local nature reserve will depend on the directions of growth and the assets available. Can you look at the enclosed maps detailing growth in the next 5 years and refine your answer?
See Matthew Partridge answer
Question 4: In your comments on Improved Access to Major Open Space and Corresponding Facilities, you mention that there may be an element of double calculating in the figures listed. Can you check their source and validate these figures?
See Matthew Partridge answer
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Question 5: Many of the costs provided are from 2005 are you able to update these?
I was not involved in the original costing therefore I am unable to update this.
Question 6: The set up cost of £9,000 per ha to create a local nature reserve and the cost of £2,500 per ha per year for maintenance, can confirm if this is normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? As far as I know the costs were estimated in 2006 and are due for an update next year.
Question 7: Can you clarify if the capital costs in LO1e include land costs. Also, the costs of £2.1m for improvements major areas and £14m for canal improvements, are these normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? The costs for Wendover Woods and Canal Corridors are not included because they are owned by Forestry Commission and British Waterways.
Additional notes and comments I have recently started the post as Green Infrastructure Officer at Buckinghamshire County Council. Phil Bowsher has left and he was the original contact for these questions. I have tried to answer the questions as well as I can with no previous knowledge of the schedule. I have noticed that Phil Bowsher worked with Matthew Partridge and John Byrne at AVDC on this work therefore the answers should be the same as those at AVDC.
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of I nfrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: AVDC
AVA schedule LO3 Playing pitches / MUGAs Date 5.11.07 ref
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Matt Partridge Higher Education Position Head of Leisure Transport Telephone no 01296 585181 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment
Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities x BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC x Social Care LEA Affordable Housing PCT NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections x Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from.
Population Increases 7800 – 2006/11 7000 – 2011/16 7900 – 2016/21 8500 – 2021/26 Total Growth 32,000 population
Figures provided by AVDC Forward Plans Division
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?
Need to provide green spaces and play provision with new housing developments. To encourage greater healthy activity, and increased participation in sport.
Question 3: Can you detail the relationship between population growth and additional facilities.
The additional facilities requirement is based on the Aylesbury Vale Playing Pitch Strategy 1999, and the AVDC SPG on Sport & Leisure Facilities.
Question 4: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? Are the updated costs per head available yet?
Colin Buchanan, London v1
Capital Costs Normalised – based upon initial 2004 figures. Will need to be indexed & refined depending upon location of facilities and ability to co-locate with other facilities.
Revenue costs Normalised – based upon 2005 actual costs for the management of sports pitches. This figure includes grounds maintenance, litter clearance, monitoring. The 2007/08 uplift is 6.38%
Additional notes and comments
Additional questions from Donald Chambers, 5.11.07 1 Could you provide more detail on the source of the data used for sports facilities? For example, how are facility requirements calculated in regards to household growth? The additional facilities requirement is based on the Aylesbury Vale Playing Pitch Strategy 1999, and the AVDC SPG on Sport & Leisure Facilities.
2 The provision of land is not included in the budget. Could you provide more detail on how/where/by whom the land will be provided? Not in a position to answer this at present. In the past, land for facilities has been provided either on site as part of the development, or a contribution received from developers for off site provision.
3 Could you provide more detail on the basis of your budget for each element? For example, on the build, up, source, base date, uplift applied etc. Revenue costs are based on current grounds maintenance contract which was let in 2005. Current uplift rate is cumulative 6.38%.
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of I nfrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: AVDC
AVA schedule LO4 Comunity Halls Date 5.11.07 ref
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Matt Partridge Higher Education Position Head of Leisure Transport Telephone no 01296 585181 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment
Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities x BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC x Social Care LEA Affordable Housing PCT NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth x Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections x Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised x formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from.
Population Increases 7800 – 2006/11 7000 – 2011/16 7900 – 2016/21 8500 – 2021/26 Total Growth 32,000 population
Figures provided by AVDC Forward Plans Division
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?
The need to provide greater community engagement & to provide a tailored service to individual community groups. Where possible to encourage community ownership and management of new facilities.
Question 3: Can you explain how the number of community halls has been calculated and how you have calculated the cost of £600,000 per hall?
Figures identified from Leisure Facilities Audit which identified the need for 1 community centre per Aylesbury Cluster Group - on average every 7000 residents. – 32,000 increase in population = 5 new Community Centres.
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Cost per hall based upon capital build estimates for hall to meet Sport England Specification for Community Hall as set out in Supplementary Planning Guide for Sport & Leisure Facilities. The figures are based upon outline estimates for the construction of a Community Centre withn 18 x 17m main hall, second hall, foyer, kitchen, lounge, office, storage, car parking toilets and changing areas as per Sport England Guidance Note
Question 4: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?
Capital Costs Normalised – based upon initial 2004 figures. Will need to be indexed & refined depending upon location of centre and ability to co-locate with other facilities.
Revenue costs Normalised – based upon 2007 actual costs for the management of Existing Community Centres in Aylesbury. This figure includes staff/caretaking costs, utilities costs, rates, repairs & maintenance, cleaning, refuse collection etc.
Question 5: Can you explain the relationship between land fill tax and community services funding, please?
Landfil Tax only available for facilities within 10 miles of Landfill Sites at Calvert & Newton Longeville. Not appropriate for Aylesbury Southern Growth Arc.
Question 6: Would the Council consider multi-functional premises with other service providers, and are there examples of shared buildings? Yes – Berryfield Community School. Quarrendon & Meadowcroft Community Centre & Playcentre. – We would prefer a multi-functional facility if these could be provided.
Additional notes and comments
The provision of land is not included within these figures, we would expect the developers to provide the land for all community facilities as part of their outline proposals.
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of I nfrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: AVDC
AVA schedule LO5 Swimming pools and dry sports centres Date ref
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Matt Partridge Higher Education Position Head of leisure Services Transport Telephone no 5181 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities x BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC x Social Care LEA Affordable Housing PCT NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth X Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections X Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards X Other Use of standardised X formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from.
Population Increases 7800 – 2006/11 7000 – 2011/16 7900 – 2016/21 8500 – 2021/26 Total Growth 32,000 population
Figures provided by AVDC Forward Plans Division
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?
Sport England guidelines which identify that there should be a multi-purpose sports centre with at least 3 sporting facilities within 20 minutes drive time in rural areas or 20 minutes walk time in urban areas for the whole population. Achievement of these targets will form part of the assessment process for local authorities and will support the levels of funding generated as part of the annual Central Government Award.
The importance of accessing local services, to support other key agendas such as Health Improvement, Community Safety, Active Lifestyles will all increase as will the focus on providing excellent sporting opportunities in the lead up to the London 2012 Olympics & Paralympics.
There is likely to be a growth in the private sector provision, particularly in the budget sector, the local authority services need to be flexible to meet changing customer needs and address gaps in provision and increasing expectations of service delivery.
Colin Buchanan, London v1
Question 3: What additional facilities or improvements / expansion of existing facilities will be required as a result of population growth, and what formula is used to calculate need?
Please see above. The formula for the calculation of new facilities was specified within the Supplementary Planning Guide for Sport & Leisure Facilities produced by Aylesbury Vale District Council. The development of this document was supported by the Sport England Kitbag Model which identifies the appropriate level of swimming pools, sports halls and all weather pitches for individual communities.
In support of the Southern Growth Arc, e envisage that the major developments will be the continued enhancement of existing sporting facilities, primarily at Stoke Mandeville Stadium and at Aqua Vale, but also at a number of school and educational facilities which are currently under utilised.
Question 4: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?
The capital costs are normalised and based upon the National Playing Fields Cost Guide for Sport 2003 (using the South East weighting). These figures are to be updated in 2008.
The revenue costs are based upon the current 2007/08 revenue costs for the two Major leisure centres owned by Aylesbury Vale District Council, namely the Swan Pool & Leisure Centre in Buckingham and the Aqua Vale Centre in Aylesbury. The current annual revenue cost of these two facilities is £838,400. The revenue costs indicated in the infrastructure requirements are based upon the percentage growth in the local population over the current base population 168,100 i.e. The uplift is based upon the 5 year population predictions, but could be applied on an annual basis, depending upon more detailed population predictions.
32,000/168,100 x £838,400
Additional notes and comments
We have not included land costs for this element of the infrastructure requirements as it would be anticipated that this would be provided directly by any developer and would be specific to the individual facility requirement.
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of I nfrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: AVDC
AVA schedule LO8 Arts and entertainment complex Date ref
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Matt Partridge Higher Education Position Head of Leisure & Cultural Services Transport Telephone no 01296 585181 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities x BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC x Social Care LEA Affordable Housing PCT NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth x Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections x Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards x Other Use of standardised formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from.
Population Increases 7800 – 2006/11 7000 – 2011/16 7900 – 2016/21 8500 – 2021/26 Total Growth 32,000 population
Figures provided by AVDC Forward Plans Division 2007
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?
The key drivers will be the closure of the Aylesbury Civic Centre in 2008, the opening of the New Aylesbury Theatre in 2009 and the further establishment of the Queens Park Arts Centre, especially if it is able to secure a leasehold on its current premises.
Looking externally, the arts and entertainment provision will need to remain reactive to competition from alternative facilities, primarily in London, Milton Keynes, High Wycombe and Oxford as well as new planned facilities in Hemel Hempstead.
Further lifestyle choice & technology development will enable further entertainment choices to be provided both at home and elsewhere, the provision of live entertainment will need to develop to meet these changing requirements and to address members of our community who are unable to independently access the new arts and entertainment complex. Question 3: Can you detail the relationship between population growth and the new arts & entertainment complex and how the cost per head has been calculated. The cost per head has been calculated based upon the AVDC Supplementary Planning Guidance for Sport Colin Buchanan, London v1 & Leisure Facilities and based upon the initial estimated costs associated with the Waterside Theatre Project. The new arts and entertainment complex would provide services for the whole community, including the new growth areas. The venue would be the host for a wide variety of community arts and entertainment activities and the new communities would be expected to contribute to these activities as well as the development of existing facilities to enable them to be used more intensively to meet the needs of the growing population.
Question 4: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?
The capital costs are normalised, based upon the initial 2004 estimates for the Waterside Theatre Complex, these figures are to be reviewed in 2008.
The revenue costs are normalised and based upon the current estimates for the Management of the Waterside Theatre Complex appropriately proportioned to the population growth.
Additional notes and comments
Both the Weedon Hill & Berryfield Developments have contributed to the annual community arts programme within the Waterside Theatre Development, this contribution has been based upon the population growth predicted by these two facilities.
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of I nfrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: AVDC
AVA schedule LO9 Shortfall in existing sport and leisure provision Date ref
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Matt Partridge Higher Education Position Head of Leisure & Cultural Services Transport Telephone no 01296 585181 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities x BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC x Social Care LEA Affordable Housing PCT NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth X Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections X Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards X Other Use of standardised X formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from.
Population Increases 7800 – 2006/11 7000 – 2011/16 7900 – 2016/21 8500 – 2021/26 Total Growth 32,000 population
Figures provided by AVDC Forward Plans Division
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?
Increasing Participation Performance Driven Greater Partnership Working Between Public Private Sector Widening Access for the Whole Community London 2012 Olympics Opportunities Use of Leisure to support wider agendas – Health, Community Safety, Community Cohesion, Tackling Fear of Crime, Young People
Question 3: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base
Colin Buchanan, London v1 year has been used?
Not Applicable – Figures taken from Aylesbury Vale District Council Supplementary Planning Guide for Sports & Leisure Facilities and informed by Leisure Facilities Audit and Needs Assessment undertaken on behalf of Aylesbury Vale District Council.
The shortfall has been calculated by assessing current provision against the ideal level of provision for every community area in Aylesbury Vale this is based on the following facilities and service areas:-
Community & Village Halls Parks & Open Spaces Playgrounds Playing Pitches and Pavilions Other outdoor sports facilities Indoor sports centres and swimming pools Arts and entertainment facilities Facilities for young people
The matrix of requirements issued as the appendix to this note (attached) were used as the basis for this assessment. This basis is currently being used to support the AVDC Ready Reckoner, also attached, which underpins the current levels of developer contributions. These figures were initially calculated in 2004, the total cost of providing this infrastructure for Aylesbury Vale was calculated to be £171,356,562 with the shortfall being calculated to be £59,000,000 (approximately 34% of the ideal provision), this was based upon both the level and quality of existing facilities.
Additional notes and comments
All expenditure has been spread over annual increments as we would seek all development to contribute to this shortfall. This funding will then be used by AVDC, in partnership with our partners to address the shortfall in the most efficient and cost effective manner.
No land element has been requested for this element of the infrastructure requirements, this will be addressed as part of the individual facility requirements.
The revenue contribution associated with this element of the infrastructure requirements has not yet been fully assessed. This will be the subject of further analysis by AVDC Officers before April 2008
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of I nfrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service AVDC – (Aylesbury Town Council) Provider:
AVA schedule LO10 Allotments Date 8.11.07 ref
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Matt Partridge Higher Education Position Head of Leisure & Cultural Services Transport Telephone no 01296 585181 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities x BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC x Social Care LEA Affordable Housing PCT NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth x Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. Population Increases 7800 – 2006/11 7000 – 2011/16 7900 – 2016/21 8500 – 2021/26 Total Growth 32,000 population
Figures provided by AVDC Forward Plans Division
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?
Smaller garden sizes, further development of flats with communal garden spaces. A desire for organic foods.
Question 3: Where does the ratio of 7 plots per 1,000 pop derive from?
This is the national guideline as identified by the National Playing Fields Association.
Question 4: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?
Colin Buchanan, London v1
Both the capital and revenue costs are based upon current operational costs and are normalised.
Question 5: Why are the set up costs of allotments higher than normal open space?
The initial rotivation of plots, fencing, sheds & water supplies all increase the initial set up costs..
Additional notes and comments
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of Infrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet Service Provider: BCC CULTURE AND LEARNING: Libraries AVA schedule ref LS1 Date 5th November 2007 Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Elaine Collier Higher Education Position District Operations Manager Transport Wycombe South Bucks Telephone no 01494 671713 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities √ BCC √ Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth √ Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections √ Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised formula √ Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from? South East Plan, provided by BCC Section 106 Officer
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years? A library service review, commissioned by members, is currently in progress and will set the strategic vision for service delivery. Other drivers include GC2C, Pathfinder and service delivery from community hubs Question 3: In your previous comments you mentioned that capital and revenue requirements for new facilities will depend on how much housing goes in each location. Can you look at the enclosed maps detailing growth in the next 5 years and refine your answer? In Berryfields a branch library co located in the school. We do not expect to provide separate static buildings. A branch library would only be considered if it was the intention to co locate in schools or other community facilities. Mobile library visits will also be considered Question4: Can more detail be provided on how additional floor space has been calculated? Please see attached tariff
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Question 5: Are the capital costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? Normalised, based on RICS Quarterly Review of Building Prices based on 4 th Quarter 2005 2006 Additional notes and comments
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of Infrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: BCC CULTURE AND LEARNING: MUSEUMS AND ARCHIVES
AVA schedule ref LS3 Date 23 Nov. 2007
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Roger Bettridge Higher Education Position County Archivist Transport Telephone no 01296 383013 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities YES BCC YES Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth YES Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections YES Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised formula YES
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from? NB. The figures given in the schedule v12 under LS3 all relate to the County Museum. The archive service is provided solely by the Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies (CBS), to which all information given below relates.
We are working on the basis of 19,200 new houses between 2001-2026, as given on the AVA website. Allowing for 2.4 persons per household, this projects a population increase of 46,080.
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?
• Implementation of The National Archives inspection report on CBS, 2007, requiring provision of additional strongroom space for archive holdings and additional facilities for all our operations. • Requirement of Milton Keynes Council, for whom we provide the archive service under an SLA, for their own archive repository, including space for additional records generated by Milton Keynes growth agenda. • Pathfinder project for closer working between the County and District Councils. • Increased use of records in digital form, though little or no diminution of the accrual of records in paper or other hard-copy formats is predicted and electronic records generate their own additional costs. .
Question 3: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?
Capital costs are based upon MLA South East’s ‘Development of a Tariff for Archive Provision in the South East Region’ (‘In Brief’ document, March 2007). The Aylesbury Vale growth agenda will increase demand for our services in terms of customers and of the volume of records generated by AVA itself, by services such as schools and hospitals and by the additional population.
At 4th quarter 2006 prices, the recommended tariffs are:
£18 per person in new housing (ie. £43.20 per new dwelling with 2.4 persons), at 5 square metres per 1,000 persons, at £3,600 per square metre for construction cost (ie. building and fit-out costs) for archive buildings.
On the basis of the figures assumed in Question 1 above, a total of £829,440 in construction costs will be Colin Buchanan, London v1 required at 2006 prices solely to meet the additional demand generated by the AV growth agenda, regardless of the other drivers for new archive provision, as in Question 2 above. This does not include land costs or cost of parking provision.
Using the same formula, a new archive facility for the whole of Buckinghamshire, excluding Milton Keynes, at the current population of 479,000 would require 479 x 5 square metres, ie. 2,395 square metres x £3,600 per square metre, ie. £8.622 million.
Question 3: Please detail how the figure of £1.5 million for extending and enhancing the existing Museum Resource Centre at Halton has been calculated, and how is the capital cost able to be spread evenly over 20 years?
Not applicable to archives, as figures provided in Schedule v12 relate to the County Museum only.
Question 4: Are you now in a position to address revenue costs? No
Additional notes and comments
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of Infrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: Forestry Commission
AVA schedule ref LO1f Date 01/11/07
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Rob Gazzard Higher Education Position Recreation and Transport Development Manager Telephone no 01420 23666 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment ov.uk Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities X BCC X Waste Aylesbury Vale DC X Social Care LEA Affordable Housing PCT X NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth X Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections X Forestry Commission X New legislative requirements X Private Sector X New Standards X Other X Use of standardised formula X
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from.
All sources are from AVA:
Aylesbury Urban Area (Bucks CC) Rural Areas (Rest of District) (Bucks CC) Total Aylesbury Vale District Council (Bucks CC) Total Projected Completions (AVA) Total Population (AVA) Increase in population within AVA Growth Area (Buck CC)
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?
The Forestry Commission works to deliver A Strategy for ‘England’s Trees Woodlands and Forests’ http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/rddteam/pdf/0706forestry-strategy.pdf The FC key drivers will focus on deliver of the above strategy. Please see attached business plan
Question 3: Can you clarify if land costs are included within the capital costs provided.
Please see attached business plan
Question 4: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?
Colin Buchanan, London v1
Normalised
Question 5: The park is unable to sustain its current visitor levels, can you clarify what additional infrastructure is required to meet existing visitor demand and demands from future growth?
Please see Business Plan
Additional notes and comments
Colin Buchanan, London v1 SOCIAL CARE FOR ADULTS AND OLDER PEOPLE
SOURCE Rachael Rothero Service Manager – Strategic Commissioning [email protected]
PROJECT Direction of travel for Social Care:
Before setting out the national drivers, it s important to highlight the housing requirements of the population referred to in this paper are a joint duty of the housing and social services. The national policy agenda is to meet the needs of people with a disability through mainstream housing provision with an increased focus on the home ownership and assured tenancies. The County Council will have to work closely with the District Council to ensure that the housing needs of people referred to in this infrastructure bid are met.
It is also important to note that where Social Services has undertaken recent re-provision programmes to ensure we are commissioning the right models of support and capacity, the County Council has had to offer significant capital support to ensure that housing providers were in a position to develop the capital infrastructure requirements. It is hoped that the capital requirements set out in this bid will be met to ensure that services can be developed to meet the needs of people identified in this report over the next 20 years.
National strategy and key messages in terms of infrastructure bid across all adult social care services is based on the national direction for Community Services set out in the White Paper ‘ Our Health, Our Care, Our Say’. Infrastructure requirements for Adult Social Care have reflected this direction where people should be supported to retain their independence in their own homes for as long as possible. It is recognised that whilst based on existing model of service delivery the numbers of people needing to be placed in residential and nursing will increase dramatically and more than double by 2020. The challenge is to reduce the demand for residential care and nursing care by developing alternative models of service. The White Paper sets out the following changes in terms of models of service delivery Change approach in terms of model of service provision. • Supporting more people at home, reducing admission to residential care/ nursing home and reducing delayed hospital discharges • Increase of individualised budget- people can remain in own home longer • Benefits of assistive technology in helping people retain their independence in their own home • More home based schemes will be established providing intensive care which will enable us to respond more flexibly to people needs as they changes over time by establishing a distinction between the accommodation and the support/ care that someone needs to enable them to continue to live in their own home. This will include supported living models of care, Extra Care Housing, more Choice Based Letting for Supported Housing , home based support in people’s own home • Greater range of Early Intervention support services to delay that point at which people present as meeting the Fair Access to Care eligibility criteria. • All community infrastructure to be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act and new housing built to the Lifetime Homes standard
TOTAL The building of supported living units for Physical and Sensory Disability, Learning CAPITAL Disability, Mental Health and Extra Care and Nursing beds to meet the needs of the COSTS predicted increase in the adult population as a result of the AVA development by 2026 will result in an additional estimated £5.5 million.
All community infrastructure requirements will need to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act.
PHASING
Cumulative 2011 2016 2021 2026 TOTAL Older 3 extra 3 extra 5 extra People care care care £773,460 (Based on 1 nursing 1 nursing 3 nursing scenario @ @ @ two) £420,120 £420,120 £773,460 PSD 5 special 11 special 19 special 28 special needs needs flats needs flats needs flats flat @ @ @ @ £3,408,300 £608,625 £1,338,975 £2,312,775 £3,408,300
Learning 3 special 3 special 6 special Disability needs flat needs flat needs flat £730,350 @ @ @ £365,175 £365,175 £730,350 MH 1 special 1 special 2 special 2 special needs needs needs flats needs flats £243,250 flat@ flat@ @ @ £121,725 £121,725 £243,450 £243,450 Day Care Day care Day Care Day Care across all across all across all care care care £314,600 groups @ groups @ groups@ on a £314,600 £314,600 £314,600 recurrent basis Total £5,469,360
METHOD The methodology to calculate the ASC capital infrastructure requirements is based upon an AND increase in the population of Aylesbury Value by 2026 as a result of the additional houses in FORMULA the Aylesbury Value Advantage (AVA) proposal compared against the ONS sub-national USED TO population figures. The difference between the two population projections give use the basis CALCULATE of the growth for the purposes of the bid. COSTS It is important to note however that until the South East Plan is adopted in Autumn 2008 that the capital infrastructure requirements for Adult Social Care are based upon the most conservative scenario in terms of growth of 21,200 new dwellings by 2026. If there are an additional 2,700, 5,000, or 7,500 houses built on top of this then the model below will have to be scaled up to ensure that we have the infrastructure in place to meet this additional need.
Population forecasts by age groups Aylesbury Vale, 2007 – 2026 based on the AVA projections based on scenario 1. (21,200 new homes)
Age 2007 2011 2016 2021 2026 Actual % difference difference 2007/2026 2007-2026 0-19 43780 43139 43138 43219 44555 775 2%
20- 101400 106060 109379 114157 117415 16015 16% 64
65+ 23967 27171 31766 34911 39149 15183 63%
All 169147 176370 184284 192287 201119 31972 19% ages
Source: Buckinghamshire County Council Strategic Planning
DATA CORRECT AS AT 2ND APRIL 2007.
1. The above figures are partly based on the housing proposals of the draft South East Plan, which will not be finalised before Autmun 2008, so may accordingly change in due course;
2. The figures for Aylesbury Vale District do not take into account the additional homes related to the expansion of Milton Keynes into Aylesbury Vale, as proposed in Milton Keynes Partnership’s Draft Long-Term Growth Strategy for the City. That Strategy assumes the construction of 7,500 homes in the Newton Longville area in the 2021-26 period (ave.1500 pa) However the scale of that provision has been contested by both Bucks CC and Aylesbury Vale DC, who have jointly put forward counter proposals for only 2,700 homes (ave.540 p.a.) in that area. The finally agreed level of provision will not be known until the new South East Plan is adopted, in 2008.
Cumulative increase in adult population numbers from a 2007 baseline based on the County Council projections
Age Band 0-19 20-64 65+ Total
2007 0 0 0 0
2011 -641 4660 3204 7,223
2016 -642 7979 7799 15,137
2021 -561 12757 10944 23,140
2026 775 16015 15182 31,972
Population forecasts by age groups Aylesbury Vale, 2007 – 2026 based on ONS 2004 sub-national population figures. (re-released 2007)
Age 2007 2011 2016 2021 2026 Actual % difference difference 2007/2026 2007-2026
0-19 44100 43200 42500 42100 42300 -1800 -4%
20- 103100 104600 105000 106200 105800 2700 3% 64
65+ 24000 26700 31500 34900 39000 15000 63%
All 171200 174500 179000 183200 187100 15900 9% ages
Cumulative increase in adult population numbers from a 2007 baseline based on ONS 2004 sub-national population figures. (re-released 2007) Age Band 0-19 20-64 65+ Total
2007 0 0 0 0
2011 -900 1500 2700 3300
2016 -1600 1900 7500 7800
2021 -200 3100 10900 12000
2026 -1800 2700 15000 15900
Actual difference between ONS 2004 based on sub-national populations projections and BCC growth projections based on scenario 1. by 2026
Age Actual total difference by 2026 0-19 2,255
20-64 11,615
65+ 149
All ages 14,019
Cumulative difference between ONS sub-national populations and County Council growth projections Age 2007 2011 2016 2021 2026
0-19 -320 -61 639 1,119 2,255
20-64 -1,700 1,460 4,379 7,957 11,615
65+ -33 471 266 11 149
All ages - 2,054 1,870 5,284 9,087 14,019
Adult Care Services (20-64 years) The following demand assumptions across all of the care groups have been taken from the 10 year needs analysis ‘Identifying the Housing Needs of Social Care Groups in Buckinghamshire’ developed in partnership between the four District Council’s and Adult Social Care. This covers accommodation requirements for people who have needs relating to their learning disability, mental health, physical disability and old age.
National models have been deployed to project future demand for accommodation and applied to Aylesbury Vale growth based on scenario 1, an increase of 21,200 dwellings.
People with Physical and Sensory Disabilities (18-64 ) The estimate of housing demand is based on a population projection model. It assumes that 2.9 people with a severe disability per 1,000 population will need wheel chair accessible housing in the future The 10 years needs assessment identifies that we will need 8 new units per year produced in Aylesbury Vale between 2006-11 and 10 new units per year beyond. This will mean that by 2026 we will need 190 units of wheel chair accessible units for people with a severe physical disability .
General Growth requirements for Aylesbury Vale based on ONS census mid year estimates 2002-2004
Years Aylesbury Vale Accumulative total 2006-2011(units per year) 8 40 2011-2016(units per year) 10 90 2016- 2021(units per year) 10 140 2021-2026 (units per year) 10 190
Forecast additional growth for Aylesbury Vale
2.4 beds per 1,000 population growth – difference is 11,764 for adults and older adults which will require a further 28 units of wheel chair accessible housing by 2026.
2007 2011 2016 2021 2026
Increase in -1,733 1,931 4,645 7,968 11,615 population Cumulative difference adult and older adult Extra Beds 0 5 11 19 28 Accumulative Cumulative 608,625 1,338,975 2,312,775 3,408,300 Capital Cost (£)
This is based on a special needs flat costing £121,725 at 2006 prices based on the PSSRU benchmarks
People with Learning Disabilities 18-64 Based on the Housing Needs Assessment, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report referred to in the LGA Future Needs Report states that a reasonable target to bridge the gap between needs and services is 50 places for a population of 100,000. This equates to 48 new units of accommodation per annum for Buckinghamshire and 17.2 units in Aylesbury Vale per year 17.2 units per year between period 2006-2011 and 17.4 units per year until 2026.
General Growth requirements for Aylesbury Vale
Years Aylesbury Vale Accumulative total 2006-2011(units per year) 17.2 86 2011-2016(units per year) 17.4 173 2016- 2021(units per year) 17.4 260 2021-2026 (units per year) 17.4 347
Forecast additional growth for Aylesbury Vale The model assumes 0.5 units of supported living for people with a learning disability we will require a further 6 units to meet the demands of the additional Aylesbury Vale growth.
2007 2011 2016 2021 2026
Increase in -1,733 1,931 4,645 7,968 11,615 population Cumulative difference adult and older adult Extra Beds 0 1 3 3 6 Accumulative Cumulative 121,725 365,175 365,175 730,350 Capital Cost (£)
This is based on a special needs flat costing £121,725 at 2006 prices based on the PSSRU benchmarks.
People with Mental Health Needs
None of this projected demand requires specialist housing. The current plans for remodelling the former Fremantle Trust services allow for the development of specialist accommodation on the existing sites. The future projected demand is for mainstream housing from either the social rented or private rented sectors. In some cases it may be possible to develop shared ownership for some individuals.
General Growth requirements for Aylesbury Vale
Years Aylesbury Vale Accumulative total 2006-2011(units per year) 35 between 2006/08 70 28 between 2008/11 56 2011-2016(units per year) 28 126 2016- 2021(units per year) 28 238 2021-2026 (units per year) 28 346
Forecast Additional Growth for Aylesbury Vale
MH beds required are 1 per 4,500 of the population. Therefore the growth is not sufficient to result in any further capacity requirements over and above the baseline for Aylesbury Value based on the ONS future demand. 2007 2011 2016 2021 2026
Increase in -1,733 1,931 4,645 7,968 11,615 population Cumulative difference adult and older adult Extra Beds 0 1 1 2 2 Accumulative Cumulative 0 121,725 121,725 243,450 243,250 Capital Cost (£)
This is based on a special needs flat costing £121,725 at 2006 prices based on the PSSRU benchmarks.
Older Peoples Services (65+ years) In contrast the growth of the population of those of 65 years or older is predicted to increase by 63% by 2026 with an even bigger increase in the 75 year old plus group. However the difference between scenario 1 of the AVA and the ONS mid year estimates is very small, which means that whilst our overall requirements in Aylesbury Value by 2026 is considerably higher if demand follows demographic change based on 63%, the actual capital infrastructure requirement is small assuming that the underlying capital requirements for the 63% are dealt with. .
Lang and Buisson when projecting future demand and supply of care homes have indicated that underlying demand will track demographic change and can be calculated by applying current 2007 rates to projected future populations. This approach is consistent with the one adopted by Wanless in the 2006 review. There is an expectation that there will be a substitution of residential care with alternative community based models of care. It is difficult at this stage to forecast what impact these community cased models of care will have on the future requirements for residential care and nursing care. For the purposes of this infrastructure bid there are two scenarios set out below. Based on Laing and Buisson we will need:-
• 19.4 units of nursing care per 1,000 population based on England average
• 32.7 units of residential care per 1,000 population.
In scenario one, we would develop residential care and nursing that meets these requirements. In scenario two our residential care capacity would be substituted by Extra Care. It is more likely that we will require a capital to support the delivery of the Extra Care model as this is consistent with the Extra Care Strategy that has been supported by the County Council and the four District Councils.
Scenario One: Older People Residential and Nursing Care Capital Cost Forecasts, Aylesbury Vale, 2006 – 2026
This means that we will need an additional 5 units of residential care for older people and 3 nursing beds to meet the additional demand based on the AVA growth
2007 2011 2016 2021 2026
Increase in -33 471 266 11 149 population
Extra Beds 0 0 3 3 5 Residential (cumulative) Extra Beds 0 0 1 1 3 Nursing (cumulative)_ Cumulative 0 0 219,780 219,780 439,560 Capital Cost (£)
This is based on a room in a residential/nursing unit costing £54,945 at 2006 prices based on the PSSRU benchmarks.
Scenario Two: Older People Extra Care and Nursing Care Capital Cost Forecasts, Aylesbury Vale, 2006 – 2026
If we were to substitute the 5 residential care beds with an Extra Care model of service delivery which is likely to be the case our capital requirements for Older People would be set out in the table below
2007 2011 2016 2021 2026
Increase in -33 471 266 11 149 population
Extra Care 0 0 3 3 5 Flats (cumulative) Extra Beds 0 0 1 1 3 Nursing (cumulative)_ Cumulative 0 0 365,175 365,175 608,625 Capital Cost 54,945 54,945 164,835 (£) 420,120 420,120 773,460
(Source Unit of Extra Care Housing = £121,725 based on 2006 prices Rm in Nursing Home £54,945 on 2006 prices)
Day Care Provision Based on the CIPFA – IPF 2006/07 benchmarking we will require the following levels of day care per 1,000 population across the care groups based on an adult population size of 11,765 by 2026. 22 people will require some form of day care based on current patterns of services and eligibility criteria.
Care Group Per 1,000 Numbers of people requiring day care based on AVA growth Older People 6.9 1 Learning Disability 0.9 11 Mental Health 0.6 7 Physical and Sensory 0.3 3 Disability Total 22
PSSRU 2005/06 identified that the capital component of day care unit cost is around £11 per day. Assuming 5 day/ 52 week occupancy ASC will require a further £314,600 per year capital on a recurrent basis.
Conclusion This report sets out Social Care capital requirements based on the projected growth in population as an outcome of the AVA associated developments. It is important to note 1) that projections around the overall growth in Aylesbury Vale will require significant growth in accommodation and support services generally and the capital requirements associated with this will need to be addressed in partnership between the District Council, County Council and Housing Corporation. 2) The capital infrastructure requirements in this report are based on scenario 1 growth of 21,200 dwellings in Aylesbury Vale. Agreement to increase housing through the finalisation of the South East Plan will require a remodelling of this bid based on a scaling up of the capital infrastructure in order to respond to demand. 3) PSSRU unit cost benchmarks for capital are based on a national average land value. It is important to note that this element of the unit cost will have to be scaled up to reflect the land value in Buckinghamshire.
LS6 Adult Social Care – Revenue Cost
Usual Source It is assumed that the additional revenue funding required to meet the growth associated with of Revenue the AVA development will be built into the government funding formula once the additional Funding population increase is taken into account . The capital requirements will need to be supported with revenue funding to pay for the care/support costs of the placements Additional Additional Care Management capacity would be required to ensure we undertake out Comments statutory requirements under the NHS Community Care Act 1990 Ratio currently is 1 Care Manager per 3,300 population. We will therefore require an additional 3.5 WTE Care Manager to meet the growth requirements at £147,000 (includes 25% on-costs)
Appraisal of Infrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: Youth & Community Services
AVA schedule ref LS7 Date 6.11.07
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Please see comments Higher Education below Position Transport Telephone no Health Email Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from.
I provided statistics in relation to the number of homeless young people my team had seen in a year. I provided no population projections, however, I would expect to see a parallel rise in the number of homeless young people proportional to any increase in population.
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?
I do not feel this applies as it would be inappropriate for Community and Youth Engagement to take the lead with this project. We would suggest either AVDC or YMCA.
Question 3: Are you able to quantify the revenue costs for a new purpose built hostel? Are the capital costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?
I am assuming “normalised” means they are only relevant for that year and that they may change (most likely increase) as time progresses. My understanding in this circumstance is that it is normalised from 2004 YMCA figures.
Question 4: Capital Expenditure (£2,500,000) Could you provide more detail on the source of the data used for Youth and Community Services requirements? For example, how are facility requirements calculated in regards to household growth? Could you provide more detail on the basis of your budget for each element? For example, detail on the build-up, source, base date, uplift applied, etc. Could you justify and validate the use of a funding split? Could you justify and validate the provision of land budgeted at no cost?
Recurring Expenditure The revenue costs require evaluation. Has this issue been addressed?
Colin Buchanan, London v1
Using the YMCA as a model – the hostel expanded over future years in regards to household growth and built move on flats to provide move on accommodation from the hostel.
I have never worked with the budget so would be unable to ascertain how each elements is affected.
I do not know about how the funding split was decided upon.
Land has been given by AVDC in the past for projects such as this for no cost.
I cannot comment on the Recurring Expenditure.
Additional notes and comments
As previously mentioned: I am not the correct person to contact and will not lead on this project, I was merely asked to provide statistics of homeless young people presenting to my Housing Team annually.
Liz Lawrence (our former Head of Service) and myself are named here because Liz was the lead for Housing for the Youth Strategy 2003-7 and I provided her with figures of homeless clients in order to support our claim a hostel is needed.
It should be noted that Community and Youth Engagement are not the appropriate Service to lead this project. I would expect AVDC (presumably with a partner such as the YMCA - and they have met to discuss the idea before) to take this forward. I apologise but I do not have an alternative contact name.
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of I nfrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: Dry waste recycling points
AVA schedule ref LS43 Date
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name David Smedley Higher Education Position Head of Environment Services Transport Telephone no 01296 585149 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities BCC Waste X Aylesbury Vale DC X Social Care NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from?
Based on total of 21,200 properties split as follows 2006-11 (4,900) 2011-16(5,500) 2016-21 (5,500) 2021-26 5,300 However I am not suggesting a direct correlation between the number of dwellings and the number of recycling sites, but rather an estimate of 2 sites per time period. Hence we are looking at total 6-8 sites dependant on the feasibility of fitting them in at suitable locations. These were the figures provided when the initial consideration was given to waste management and is the same as those used for growth for refuse collection rounds etc (see LS41)
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?
The key drivers for recycling collection is the need to reduce the amount of waste to landfill to meet the Landfill Allowance trading Scheme targets (LATS) which have been agreed as part of the Joint Municipal Waste Strategy for Bucks and to meet AVDC recycling BVPI target currently 30%
Question 3: Can you explain how the figure for £15,000 per site has been reached?
This is very much an estimate based on the most simple underground facility being installed at the time of construction of a development it therefore assumed no underground problems. The figures is however somewhat out of date and a figure of £20,000 per site is perhaps more realistic, it will however depend very much on ground conditions (i.e. no diversion services) and other works being carried out at the same time.
Question 4: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?
Colin Buchanan, London v1 The capital costs are based on current costs they have not been indexed for future years
Revue costs are an estimate from 2005/6 and have not been indexed for future years Additional notes and comments
Currently all AVDC recycling sites are above ground and are simple an cheap to install, with the new development we are looking to use underground sites which are far less intrusive, however if that is not possible we will look for above ground sites which will simply require screening. All site are provide to supplement the household collections schemes for recyclates which will be provided to all properties.
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of Infrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: Waste Disposal
AVA schedule ref SO4 Date 9 Nov 07
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Martin Dickman Higher Education Position Waste Mgmt Service Mtg Transport Telephone no 2850 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. The figures used are derived from Table 1: Housing figures by District in the submitted South East Plan – March 06.
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years? The main drivers for change are legislative – landfill directive, fiscal - landfill tax and Policy – managing waste more substantially by Recycling and composting more and recovering energy from the waste.
Question 3: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? Normalised – 05/06 base year.
Question 4: In relation to Project 1 (North Bucks), can you please explain how the figure of £1.5 million per annum for revenue costs has been generated? This is the total yearly cost for composting green and kitchen waste collected by AVDC and BCC and represents the expected gate fee (£50pt) x total yearly tonnage (30ktp).
Question 5: Can you please outline the key points of the business case for Project 3 (EfW Plant)? • Current and planned recycling and composting activity will not be sufficient to meet long term LATS targets post 2011, although the recycling and composting rate should reach 50%. By then Colin Buchanan, London v1
• The Treatment of residual waste will be required to meet these longer term LATS targets.
• The Technical and Financial appraisal undertaken indicated that EFW would provide the best technical and financial solution.
Additional notes and comments
Colin Buchanan, London v1 Appraisal of I nfrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet
Service Provider: Affordable Housing
AVA schedule ref LH1 Date 7.11.07
Contact (please state) Service (tick box)
Name Anna Gordon Higher Education Position Strategic Housing Manager Transport Telephone no 01296 585161 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Yes Social Care NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections Yes Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised formula
Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. Affordable housing projections based on % of growth figures provided by the Planning Division.
Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years? Grant funding Broader base of providers Housing Corporation Sustainability Code
Question 3: Are the subsidy costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?
They are based on a calculation to produce an average subsidy level for the 2006-11 period, using a base year of 2006. Grant levels have been adjusted downwards to take account of the Housing Corporation’s desire to see efficiency gains on s106 sites, which is presumed to continue throughout the next 20 years. Looking across such long time horizons obviously introduces uncertainty about how social housing grant will be applied by the new Homes and Communities Agency.
Question 3: Are you now in a position to discuss revenue costs related to the provision of this service, particularly in relation to the period 2006-2011?
The main revenue cost associated with affordable housing is Supporting People funding. This is funded by central government and is to assist people with supported housing needs to remain in their tenancies.
Question 4: Given that the annual rate of delivery for affordable housing for the period 2001 to 2006 was 85 Colin Buchanan, London v1 units per year (2007 housing needs update) how realistic are the levels of affordable housing required? What will be the impact of the Panel Report in the South East Plan reducing affordable housing to 35 from 40 percent?
It will produce an estimated reduction in subsidy required of c £31m.
Question 5: Is the requirement for a new women’s refuge a result of population growth or a need to replace an existing facility? If the former, what is the calculation used? Based on population growth. The calculation is based on the number of rooms/places (1 per household) per 10,000 population. Current provision is 11 rooms for 167,400 population; resulting in an existing shortfall of 6 rooms, without taking account of any population increase.
Additional notes and comments
Colin Buchanan, London v1 AYLESBURY VALE DISTRICT COUNCIL
Review of calculations of the subsidy requirements needed to deliver affordable housing arising from 21,200 new homes between 2007 and 2021.
Property Type Subsidy matrix
The calculations passed to me at the initial briefing meeting on 18th January provide a breakdown of the indicative grant levels required for various types and tenures. The unit costs (excluding on-costs, being the price an RSL would be expected to pay a developer on a s106 site) range from £987/m2 for large houses to £1,240/m2 for 1 bedroom flats. These appear to cover typical build costs, although there could still be wide variations as to what RSLs could pay on one site to the next.
The grant for rented units is fixed at 45.6% of this cost figure, and the LCHO/Homebuy figure is 50% of the rented grant. My initial reaction is that these seem somewhat arbitrary figures, although I understand they have been derived from known levels for Berryfields MDA. If they are compared with allocations made in the NAHP, the rented grant seems low while the LCHO/Homebuy high.
My alternative assessment, based on an analysis of NAHP allocations, gives the following indicative figures:
Property Property Property Unit Cost to Typical Grant Typical Grant type by Unit Size Unit Size RSL without required required for bedroom m2 m2 on-costs For rented shared size (from AVDC) (rounded) units ownership units 1B2PF 51-55 51 63,750 29,325 8,798 2B3PF 61-65 61 76,250 35,075 10,523 2B4PF 71-75 71 85,200 38,340 11,502 2B4PH 76-80 76 87,400 41,800 12,540 2B4PH 81-85 81 93,150 44,550 13,365 3B5PH 86-90 86 94,600 45,150 13,545 3B5PH 91 91 91,000 47,775 14,333 4B7PH 120 120 120,000 59,400 17,820
Total Subsidy Requirements: Method 1 - Refined version of AVDC’s subsidy calculations
If we assume AVDC’s estimated levels of subsidy are correct, but apply the subsidy required for each unit type according to the affordable dwelling mix needed to address housing needs on different sites in JHA’s HNS (Table 6.13), we produce a slightly different result. This would produce average grant of £33,800 for rented and £16,900 for LCHO.
The following total subsidy figures result from this method, using a split of 80% rented and 20% for LCHO/Homebuy. They only cover subsidised affordable housing (ie excluding low cost market units in the tables, as these are unsubsidised) for 30%, 35% and 40%:
2007 -11 2011-16 2017 -21 2021-2026 2007-2026 30% 44,741,483 50,220,031 50,220,031 48,393,848 193,575,394 35% 52,198,396 58,590,037 58,590,037 56,459,490 225,837,960 40% 59,655,310 66,960,042 66,960,042 64,525,131 258,100,525
Calculations behind these figures are provided in Appendix A.
I note that the Council’s levels of subsidy keep constant throughout the 20 year period. While in the early years this may be appropriate (reflecting the Treasury’s expectations that further efficiency gains are possible) I don’t think it is likely over such a long period. We have to consider the impact of the Code for Sustainable Homes, which could increase procurement costs considerably. But notably, the Housing Corporation has indicated it does expect to see a reduction in the levels of grant going into new schemes, possibly subsidised further by RSLs’ contributions through recycled capital grant and from their Disposal Proceeds Funds.
As far as the figures in the table are concerned, I feel there are two ways of addressing this. The figures could be re-run, adding say 3% annual inflation from year 3 onwards, or the figures could be qualified as being at present day levels, with no allowance for inflation or efficiency gains. For the purposes of simplicity, the latter is taken to apply to all figures in this report.
Total Subsidy Requirements: Method 2 - Using NAHP allocations
The NAHP allocations provide a further guide to the likely levels of grant that might be available in future. However, there are wide variations between schemes and between RSLs/non-RSLs. Taken together, average grant levels for the 2006-8 programme are as follows:
Rented LCHO 2006-7 £42,207 £8,703 2007-8 £42,843 £12,300
There were some schemes included in these figures that distort the overall numbers:
· If Aylesbury New Lodge is excluded, the 2006-7 average rented grant rises to £58,743 · If the nil-grant Moreton Rd scheme is excluded, average 2006-7 LCHO grant rises to £15,775 · If the nil-grant Princes Mary scheme is excluded, average 2007-8 LCHO grant rises to £13,667
Whilst many RSLs and non-RSLs are now providing new build shared ownership without grant, it is fair to allow some subsidy for providing such units for these calculations. With this in mind, the figures have been re-run using average levels of:
Rented LCHO £42,500 £12,500
The following total subsidy figures result from this method. Again, they only cover subsidised affordable housing for targets of 30%, 35% and 40%:
2007 -11 2011-16 2017 -21 2021-2026 2007-2026 30% 53,655,000 60,225,000 60,225,000 58,035,000 232,140,000 35% 62,597,500 70,262,500 70,262,500 67,707,500 270,830,000 40% 71,540,000 80,300,000 80,300,000 77,380,000 309,520,000
Calculations behind these figures are provided in Appendix B. As before, there is no allowance for inflation or efficiency gains.
Conclusion
The first method produces figures that are very close to the Council’s. Overall, the amount of subsidy required to deliver the affordable housing programme could range from £194m (about £10m per year) to £310m (or over £15m a year), depending on what target level of provision is finally agreed.
Richard Broomfield Portfolio Development Consultancy 25th January 2007 METHOD 1 APPENDIX A
Period: 2007 -11 2011-16 2017 -21 2021-2026 2007-2026 Number homes to be provided 4,900 5,500 5,500 5,300 21,200 Number affordable homes @ 30% 1,470 1,650 1,650 1,590 6,360 Number affordable homes @ 35% 1,715 1,925 1,925 1,855 7,420 Number affordable homes @ 40% 1,960 2,200 2,200 2,120 8,480
Rented units (80% of total affordable) Average grant per dwelling 33,818 33,818 33,818 33,818 TOTAL Subsidy required @ 30% 39,770,190 44,640,009 44,640,009 43,016,736 172,066,946 35% 46,398,555 52,080,011 52,080,011 50,186,192 200,744,770 40% 53,026,920 59,520,013 59,520,013 57,355,649 229,422,594
LCHO units (20% of total affordable) Average grant per dwelling 16,909 16,909 16,909 16,909 TOTAL Subsidy required @ 30% 4,971,292 5,580,022 5,580,022 5,377,112 21,508,448 35% 5,799,841 6,510,026 6,510,026 6,273,297 25,093,190 40% 6,628,390 7,440,029 7,440,029 7,169,483 28,677,931
Total subsidy required 30% 44,741,483 50,220,031 50,220,031 48,393,848 193,575,394 35% 52,198,396 58,590,037 58,590,037 56,459,490 225,837,960 40% 59,655,310 66,960,042 66,960,042 64,525,131 258,100,525 METHOD 2 APPENDIX B
Period: 2007 -11 2011-16 2017 -21 2021-2026 2007-2026 Number homes to be provided 4,900 5,500 5,500 5,300 21,200 Number affordable homes @ 30% 1,470 1,650 1,650 1,590 6,360 Number affordable homes @ 35% 1,715 1,925 1,925 1,855 7,420 Number affordable homes @ 40% 1,960 2,200 2,200 2,120 8,480
Rented units (80% of total affordable) Average grant per dwelling 42,500 42,500 42,500 42,500 TOTAL Subsidy required @ 30% 49,980,000 56,100,000 56,100,000 54,060,000 216,240,000 35% 58,310,000 65,450,000 65,450,000 63,070,000 252,280,000 40% 66,640,000 74,800,000 74,800,000 72,080,000 288,320,000
LCHO units (20% of total affordable) Average grant per dwelling 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 TOTAL Subsidy required @ 30% 3,675,000 4,125,000 4,125,000 3,975,000 15,900,000 35% 4,287,500 4,812,500 4,812,500 4,637,500 18,550,000 40% 4,900,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,300,000 21,200,000
Total subsidy required 30% 53,655,000 60,225,000 60,225,000 58,035,000 232,140,000 35% 62,597,500 70,262,500 70,262,500 67,707,500 270,830,000 40% 71,540,000 80,300,000 80,300,000 77,380,000 309,520,000 .Buckinghamshire infrastructure study Questions raised by Donald Chambers, Colin Buchanan 5 November 2007
Capital Expenditure (£189,585,563 to £252,780,750 plus infrastructure)
• Could you provide more detail on the source of the data used for Affordable Housing requirements?
The figures in the table on page 98 are estimates of the Public subsidy required to deliver AVDC’s affordable housing programme over the next 20 years.
Grant figures derived from analysis of NAHP allocations for 2006-8 (excluding nil grant schemes). This gave a mid-point, adjusted average grant for the first 5 year (2006-11) block of £40,375 per rented unit and £11,875 per LCHO unit.
These were then applied on across subsequent 5 year blocks, reducing over time by 10%, 20% and 25% to reflect downward pressure on average grant levels, to take account of the Housing Corporation’s desire to see less grant per unit provided (the table was produced in advance of the HC’s NAHP 2008-11 Prospectus, which included annual efficiency targets of 6.5% to 8.5% for rented homes, and 5% to 7% for LCHO – page 42). The resultant grant levels were as follows:
AH % 2007 -11 2011-16 2017 -21 2021-2026 2007-2026 Number homes to be provided 4,900 5,500 5,500 5,300 21,200 Number affordable homes @ 30% 1,470 1,650 1,650 1,590 6,360 Number affordable homes @ 35% 1,715 1,925 1,925 1,855 7,420 Number affordable homes @ 40% 1,960 2,200 2,200 2,120 8,480
Savings on 08/09 grant levels 100% 90% 80% 75% Rented units (80% of total affordable) Average grant per dwelling 40,375 36,338 32,300 30,281 TOTAL Subsidy required @ 30% 47,481,000 47,965,500 42,636,000 38,517,750 176,600,250 35% 55,394,500 55,959,750 49,742,000 44,937,375 206,033,625 40% 63,308,000 63,954,000 56,848,000 51,357,000 235,467,000
Savings on 08/09 grant levels 100% 90% 80% 75% LCHO units (20% of total affordable) Average grant per dwelling 11,875 10,688 9,500 8,906 TOTAL Subsidy required @ 30% 3,491,250 3,526,875 3,135,000 2,832,188 12,985,313 35% 4,073,125 4,114,688 3,657,500 3,304,219 15,149,531 40% 4,655,000 4,702,500 4,180,000 3,776,250 17,313,750
Total subsidy required 30% 50,972,250 51,492,375 45,771,000 41,349,938 189,585,563 35% 59,467,625 60,074,438 53,399,500 48,241,594 221,183,156 40% 67,963,000 68,656,500 61,028,000 55,133,250 252,780,750
• Could you provide more detail on the basis of your budget for each element? For example, detail on the build-up, source, base date, uplift applied, etc.
See above
• Could you provide more detail regarding the basis on which Affordable Housing sites are provided by developers at "no cost" to BCC. Often the provision of these types of facilities attract a Tariff reduction for the developer thus could be construed as a "cost". Are you aware of this being the case in this instance?
A ‘Tariff reduction’ has not been applied since a tariff is not AVDC policy and in any case would exclude provision of affordable housing.
I:\13862X_Buckinghamshire Infrastructure Study\STUDY\Service users responses\Transport questions response.xls 1
Infrastructure requirements based on submissions to SEERA for the Sub-Regional Investment Works, as shown in the AVA Schedule of Infrastructure (August 2007)- with CB comments FUNDING STATUS / BCC response PROJECTS PERIOD COST (£m) Comments SOURCE SCHEME DEVT A413 Wendover Road Corridor & Gyratory Improvements 15 Why is this required directly as a part of then Aston Clinton Road MDA? Not required directly for the AC Rd MDA. Developer will be putting Shouldn't main improvements be on Aston Clinton Road itself which will in measures. AC Rd and bus priority measures will be put in place provide main access to the MDA? as a part of the Aylesbury Transport Strategy. LTP or DfT / Aston Clinton Road MDA will comprise housing (120) & employment. Do we No - see AVDC Focus car based traffic movements from south & south-east on high quality SEERA (via know the GFA of the employment element? corridor, enabling development of public transport corridors on southern radial Major Proposed for we only received a transport assessment a few weeks ago - officers 2016-26 routes. This will enhance transport connectivity for employment growth at Aston Scheme Bid) investigation Do we approximately know how many trips this MDA site is likely to generate? unavailable at present time to provide info. Clinton Road MDA (supported by £6.2m GAF funds) and housing growth options / Developer This is prodominately a traffic corridor BCC will take into account south of Aylesbury. ALONGSIDE GROWTH (linked to PPTC Contributions the needs of peds and cyclists on this corridor. Plans for cycles are strategy) off the main corridor and ped crosings will be signalised. Will be easier to achieve balance between the diferent modes through the Do the improvements of the A 413 include cyclists and pedestrians facilities implementation of UTMC. enhancement? A4146 Fenny Stratford Bypass Estimated figure developed from past experience 15 What is the cost figure based on? LTP or DfT / SEERA (via capacity issues may include dualling of the route but the exact requirements haven't been developed as these would have to be Improvements to link north of SHLW bypass to improve capacity on existing link 30% attrib to Major Proposed for 2016-21 What do the capacity improvements include? tailored to the development on the edge of MK. (see LTP2 - future as part of MK to Aylesbury strategic route (identified in MKSM SRS), providing growth = 4.5 Scheme Bid) investigation plans, section 5 - Major schemes for more detail) access to development areas on SW fringe of MK, increasing connectivity / Developer (supporting MK to Aylesbury express bus) and increasing productivity. PRIOR TO Contributions Do we know the number of junctions involved/ length of the sections of the Likely to same as existing number i.e. 3 although too early to say GROWTH MK growth) bypass to be improved? for definite as scheme has not been developed (due for implementation in 2016-2021) MAJOR A418 route improvements (Wing & Rowsham sections) 77 What is the cost figure based on? Detailed assessment of a road scheme ROAD Development of a dual carriageway from Hulcott crossroads to Improvements to link south of SHLW bypass to improve capacity & journey times What do the capacity improvements include? LINKS – LTP or DfT / A505. (see LTP2 - future plans, section 5 - Major schemes for as part of MK to Aylesbury strategic route (identified in MKSM SRS), focussing car more detail) SUB SEERA (via Under based traffic movements on high quality corridor, protecting the environment in 2011-21 1/3 attrib to length - approx 11kms REGIONAL Major investigation settlements on other routes, linking Aylesbury & Luton / Dunstable / Houghton growth = 26 number of junctions still to be determined - up to 4? Scheme Bid) Do we know the number of junctions involved/ length of the sections of the Regis & Leighton / Linslade growth areas, increasing connectivity (supporting MK bypass to be improved? to Aylesbury express bus), increasing productivity & enhancing local accessibility. ALONGSIDE GROWTH. A421 Tingewick to MK Upgrade Estimated figure developed from past experience - see TR What is the cost figure based on? 50 Scheme to be determined but proposals for on-line dualling. (see Online improvements to route in Bucks to improve capacity & journey times as LTP or DfT / Under 2016-21 What do the capacity improvements include? LTP2 - future plans, section 5 - Major schemes for more detail) part of MK to Oxford (M40) strategic route (identified in MKSM SRS) increasing Attrib to MK SEERA (via investigation connectivity (supporting MK to Oxford coach) & productivity. ALONGSIDE growth Major Do we know the number of junctions involved/ length of the sections of the no appraisal of the scheme has been done - again too early to say GROWTH Scheme Bid) bypass to be improved? Aylesbury Link Roads 50 See LDF allocated site document map 1 How many new Links? Are these new links? Potentially 2 new link roads needed plus below. 100% attrib to details of the link roads are unknown at the moment and are Do we have any more information regarding width, length, number of Provide links between either A41 East & A418 West (supporting employment growth = 50 subject to modelling and proper business case appraisal LTP / junctions along this link? growth at Aston Clinton Road MDA, housing growth options south of Aylesbury, & Under focusing car based traffic movements on high quality corridor enabling cross- 2011-26 Developer No - if the growth of Aylesbury goes to the south the link roads will investigation Are these improvements associated with the Berryfields and Weedon Hill sites, town movements) or between A418 North East & A41 West (supporting housing Contribution link the A418 (Oxford Rd) with A41 (Aston Clinton Rd) which will be accessed from the A41 the A 413 respectively? growth options north of Aylesbury, & focussing car based traffic movements on (linked to PPTC high quality corridor enabling cross-town movements). Both reinforce strategy) Do we know the GFA of the employment element of the sites or the traffic See AVDC for details development of public transport corridors on key radial routes. (Subject to AVDC generation anticipated? LDF development) ALONGSIDE GROWTH What is the Cost Figure based on? Figure is estimated based on past schemes Is this a new Link? yes - see LDF site allocations plan (easter link, stocklake link) A418 route improvements (Hulcott Crossroads to Aylesbury with A41 Link) 50 Do we have any more information regarding width, length, number of junctions details of the link roads are unknown at the moment and are along this link? subject to modelling and proper business case appraisal This is predominately a traffic corridor BCC will take into account MAJOR Does this link include pedestrians, cyclist and public transport facilities? If yes the needs of peds and cyclists on this corridor. Plans for cycles are ROAD Improvements to link from Hulcott to A41 Aston Clinton Road to improve capacity LTP / Under please advise off the main corridor along Broughton lane and anyped crossings LINKS – & journey times as part of MK to Aylesbury strategic route (identified in MKSM 2011-26 Developer investigation will be signalised to fit in with UTMC. SUB SRS) increasing connectivity (supporting employment growth at Aston Clinton (linked to PPTC Contribution What is the cost Figure based on? REGIONAL Road MDA & MK to Aylesbury express bus), focussing car based traffic strategy) Estimated figure developed from past experience - see TR movements on high quality corridor, protecting the environment in settlements on other routes, enabling development of public transport corridor on A41 and existing A418, increasing productivity, tackling congestion & enhancing local accessibility. PRIOR TO GROWTH General
Capital Expenditure (£144,000,000 to AV) • Alignment and scope of roadworks. • Basis of apportionment of budgets. Recurring Expenditure • Any commuted sums required? I:\13862X_Buckinghamshire Infrastructure Study\STUDY\Service users responses\Transport questions response.xls 2
LTP / Estimated from previous experience with Aylesbury Vale Parkway 5 What is the cost figure based on? Developer Proposed for New additional station 2016-26 Contribution / investigation New station in Aylesbury to improve access for potential housing growth options 100% attrib to Which line will this station service? Has network rail been contacted for advise This is not determined as yet. Talks are happening with Chiltern (subject to AVDC LDF development). OTHER growth = 5 CR & LR regarding cost? Estimated from advice from chiltern rail/ network rail. Cost is rough Route upgrade - Aylesbury to High Wycombe estimate and further work is needed to establish a realistic cost. 80 What is the cost figure based on? DfT / CR & Proposed for 2016-26 Track & signalling upgrade to rail link to enhance connectivity (potential for MK to LR investigation Chiltern Rail are progressing investigative work on possible RAIL HW route via EWR) & productivity (linked to North South transport links study 30% attrib to extension to the EWR Aylesbury Spur further south to High Has network rail been contacted for advise regarding cost? identified below) OTHER growth = 24 wycombe, and then London
Steer Davis Gleave has been developing the GRIP 3/4 study for East-West Rail – Western Section: Oxford to Bedford 64 for Aylesbury theis scheme. The EW rail consortium is in constant contact with spur Developer Network rail for this scheme. Under 2006-16 Contribution / Has network rail been contacted for advise regarding cost? Strategic rail route linking Bedford to Oxford and Aylesbury (via MK) to improve investigation 90% attrib to CR & LR connectivity, enhance travel choices & support housing & employment growth in growth = 58 MKSM growth areas (identified in MKSM SRS). ALONGSIDE GROWTH (134 for Oxford General
Capital Expenditure (£100,000,000 to AV) • Alignment and scope of proposed railworks. • Civils works required. • Extent of signalling interfaces / fringe works. • Basis of rate build-ups. • Extent of Network Rail, TOC / FOC buy-in and compensation requirements. Recurring Expenditure • Who will operate the station(s)
Aylesbury Primary Public Transport Corridors (PPTCs) 17 This is a rough estimate after development of one of the corridors What is the cost figure based on? with developer contributions from Berryfields. This has then been LTP / TIF / factored up to cover the 5 other corridors. GAF / CIF / Provisionally 2006-21 bus priority measures on each corridor including signalisation and Improvements to A413 (N), A41 (SE), B4443, A418 (SW) & A41 (W) to provide Developer approved some congestion management measure including junction public transport priority and services on key radial routes, supporting sustainable Contribution What improvements measures are proposed? imporvements. travel, improving accessibility & creating public transport capacity for housing & employment growth. ALONGSIDE GROWTH Development of initial business case and costings by consultant 8 Aylesbury Urban Traffic Management & Control (UTMC) What is the cost figure based on?
LTP / TIF / Development of urban traffic management control by linking GAF / CIF / Under OTHER 2006-16 signals, VMS, dynamic car park signing, improved travel 50% attrib to Developer investigation information thourgh web etc to improve travel choice, encourage What improvements measures are proposed? Integrated traffic management & information system to manage demand for growth = 4 Contribution modal shift and manage the town's increased traffic. transport network & enhance public transport priorities across town centre, providing information to road users to make informed travel choices, increasing connectivity & sustainability. OTHER Park & Ride services for Aylesbury 17 provisionally 5 P&R sites - see the Aylesbury strategy How many Park and Ride sites LTP / TIF / estimated figure fior previous experience and work done on the GAF / CIF / Provisionally What is the cost figure based on? parkway P&R 2011-21 100% attrib to Provision of new Park & Ride sites and services on all key radial routes to reduce Developer approved growth = 17 car journeys to town centre linked to development of PPTCs, supporting Contribution P&R site with car parking and infrastructure for buses. Developer to sustainable travel, improving accessibility for housing & employment growth. What improvements measures are proposed? subsidise bus services from developments. Decision need to be OTHER made which services serve P&R. General
Capital Expenditure (£38,000,000 to AV) • Alignment and scope of roadworks. • Scope of Traffic Management Scheme(s). • Size / location of Park-and-Ride facilities • Basis of apportionment of budgets. Recurring Expenditure • Any commuted sums required? • Operation of Park-and-Ride facilities? • Operation of traffic management facilities?
Total cost £582 million based on current best estimates, of which c£300 million is attributable to growth in other areas (such as MK) or existing Total cost that could reasonably be attributable to AV growth is £282 million
Further queries
1 Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. Housing numbers from AVDC/ south east plan 2 What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years? 3 I:\13862X_Buckinghamshire Infrastructure Study\STUDY\Service users responses\Transport questions response.xls 3
The Aylesbury Transport strategy takes into account the amount of growth in the number of houses and jobs and subsequently the vast majority of the infrastructure needs are as a result of the growth. Without the growth, there would be some increase in traffic levels, though marginal and therefore the infrastructure needs would be To what extent are the transport infrastructure projects a result of housing and population growth within Aylesbury Vale district, and are there other factors that result in the requirement for additional infrastructure? far less. Aylesbury Transport Strategy is about freeing up road capacity within the town to enable the additional traffic as a result of the growth to access the town itself, through modal shift and intercepting traffic on the outskirts of the town and re-directing onto 4 Can park and ride facilities be related to growth within AVDC, especially when the majority of the growth is to be located within Aylesbury town? other roads such as the new link roads, . 5 Can you clarify whether the new additional station in Aylesbury is in addition to the Aylesbury Vale Parkway station, which has recently secured funding? Separate from Aylesbury Parkway This is an aspiration shared by all and has been recently endorsed 6 Is the upgrading of the line between Aylesbury and High Wycombe a County Council aspiration or are Network Rail and / or Chiltern Railways considering upgrading the route. Similarly, is the rail industry actively exploring by the Panel Report on the South-East Plan the potential for running services from HW to MK? 7 No mention of the essential costs associated with the new east to west link between Berryfields and Weedon Hill as shown in the AVDLP proposal map 8 No mention of the essential costs associated with the improvements to the Aston Clinton Road which will provide access to the AY15 MDA site. 9 No mention of the essential costs associated with the improvements to the Bister Road MDA development which provides access to the AY15 MDA site. 10 To the north west of Aylesbury (next to site AY16) is a potential mixed housing / employment development. Do we have any more information about it? There is no mention regarding cost for access and infrastructure improvements associated with this development. Buckinghamshire Infrastructure Study Phase One Final Report
Appendix 2
Validation tables
Validation table (excluding transport)
Service Service AVA Methodology in AVA schedule Linked to Validation comments Cost estimates Validation comments area provider ref. housing in AVA schedule growth?
Health
Acute Buckinghamshi SH2 Buckinghamshire Hospital Trust state that no No response received from Buckinghamshire Hospital Trust none N/A re Hospital additional secondary (acute) infrastructure is Trust not required for the following reasons: 1. Births are projected to decrease to 2016 and then rise to existing levels by 2026, thus all maternity service can be provided through existing facilities with refurbishment and re-organisation. 2. Sub-19 age group is projected to decrease, thus exiting paediatric services can meet demand. 3. Population projected to increase by 7% to 2026. Current model of provision is anticipated to reduce outpatient requirements by 25% (patients treated at either primary level or not required to attend outpatients). 4. In patient capacity at Stoke Mandeville was planned using population projections to 2016.
Primary Buckinghamshi SH1 Population to GP ratio of 1,950 and four GPS yes PCT used ONS population projections for AV, because these are the projections used by the NHS in £15.6m capital Projected capital expenditure re PCT per health centre to calculate future GP / general. £6m revenue appears low, health centre health centre needs. cost of £2m valid for 2006. PCT makes the point that the ratio of population to GP is becoming less relevant because of changing Would expect higher The community hospital is based on the skills mix, for example, nurses are undertaking tasks that previously GPs undertook. No indication of what allowances for the later catchment population for Thame Hospital thresholds likely to be used in the future, but Buckinghamshire PCT appear to be working on the basis of periods. one health centre per 8,000 population. Construction cost for Anticipate that an additional NHS dentist will be required; the majority of dentist care is private. community hospital in period 2021-2026 is lower than current The PCT are considering the option of providing an “extended health centre” rather than a traditional (2007) rates. community hospital which probably explains why the capital costs they provide are low. Davis Langdon in-house data would suggest £1,800 - £2,000/m2 at current prices.
Mental Oxfordshire & SH3 None provided No indication The trust have confirmed that their business plan for the period to 2011 is based on Bucks CC population No cost Anticipate substantial health Buckinghamshi that housing data of 4.7% (7,800 persons) increase 2006 to 2011. This is the same rate of growth set out in Table 2 of estimates are revenue savings through re Mental growth is the AVA schedule of infrastructure. provided consolidation of services at Health being used to redeveloped Manor House Partnership plan future Work has commenced on the redevelopment of the Manor House hospital site in order to co-locate site and improved energy Trust service inpatient services for adults and older adults (currently these services are provided across four sites). efficiency of new buildings. requirement No decisions have yet been made about future bed numbers – this will form part of the business case DL unable to validate this development process early in 2008. Demographic and epidemiological data indicate that the level of estimate, unclear if mental ill-health amongst older people (65+ and particularly 75+) will increase, whilst care for younger refurbishment and some new adults will depend more on community staff and services than inpatient provision. Lengths of inpatient build or demolition and new stay for 18-65-year-olds with acute mental illness have reduced significantly as community services have build. been enhanced. Future property requirements will include: • An inpatient base for the county (at Manor House, as above) • An acute day hospital and base for ‘crisis’ services – close to but probably not on the hospital Envisaged capital cost for site Manor House redevelopment • Local bases for community teams, including one in Aylesbury – not on the hospital site, offering of £34m, normalised to office accommodation and some consulting rooms in which to see outpatients 2007/08. Once licensed as • Access to consulting rooms in GP surgeries and community centres an NHS Foundation Trust, • Co-location of some services with non-‘mental health’ services for a relevant client group (e.g. this sum is planned to come potential location of ’early intervention’ staff with youth services) from a combination of Trust sources (an existing capital Validation table (excluding transport)
Service Service AVA Methodology in AVA schedule Linked to Validation comments Cost estimates Validation comments area provider ref. housing in AVA schedule growth?
• Office accommodation for non-patient teams (service management, training, etc.). programme funded from surpluses and property sales) and external borrowing. Property /land sales will need to be sold with the benefit of planning consent which maximises value for the NHS.
Education
Higher Bucks New SE1 Cost for project amount to £3,000 per square No No response received from Bucks New University Cost of Estimated build cost appears Education University metre per student based upon 1350 students. £4,050,000 is for reasonable at 2011. DL in- (formally Bucks construction house data predicts tender Chiltern costs. Cost of price inflation at 26% over University providing period 2007 – 2011. College) furniture and I.T. Noted land costs excluded. for 15 rooms approx £500,000. Total costs would be in the region of £4,550,000. Excludes land cost (anticipated to be in the region of £1m at current prices). No revenue costs provided.
Further Aylesbury SE2 Building costs based on current costs of Yes, related Future needs have been revised because a number of the facilities originally identified are to meet existing Total capital cost: New costs provided: Education College Aylesbury College Phase 1 (completion 2006) to the needs. £34,000,000. Capital expenditure and Phase 2 (completion 2007) new build Aylesbury Revenue costs estimated at £63,015,700 projects. Formula based on estimates from Vale South Drivers of change include: increase in population, new businesses coming into the area, Government skills around £10.5 (break down provided in building project architects using industry East Plan, agenda including the increase in compulsory schooling from 16 to 18, 14-19 agenda and employer million per annum Table 3.5). Revenue costs: standard cost per square metre formula. Cost although no engagement. at today’s prices. 210,000,000 over 20 years of current project scrutinised by LSC Capital direct (estimated at 5% of total Funds Committee prior to funding being relationship. Remains unclear what is related directly to population growth and what is aspirational to improve the capital cost). approved for current project. College’s product offer or meet changes in the demand for education services. Timescale for amended requirements unclear. Unit costs for the Vocational Centre and Day Nursery are robust if constructed in Period 2006-2011.
Other requirements will require indexing for inflation through to construction date.
Secondary Bucks CC LE2 The methodology to derive pupil generation Yes 2,675 secondary school students requiring 3 new secondary schools. The calculation of pupil numbers Capital costs: Capital cost per school has rates from new housing development is based and schools excludes the need within Weedon Hill and Berryfields MDAs £67,300,000. The been revised to £21m for two on an analysis of small area information from service provider of the schools and £25.3 for the 2001 Census. The Department of has indicated that the one remaining. Education and Skills (DfES) have published The original schedule set out a requirement for two additional secondary schools based on the pupil at this stage it Basic Need cost multipliers representing a generation rates used in the Wycombe SPD on developer contributions. Subsequently, the Strategic has not been Cost at present day prices. cost per pupil for building new school Planning Section of the County Council have undertaken their own, more detailed assessment of pupil possible to Cost for future schools accommodation, and the County Council generation using the dwelling mix in recent developments in Aylesbury. Using these figures a third identify revenue requires indexing for inflation applies these for determining capital secondary school is required. costs. Pro rata through to spend periods. allocations. Estimates of surpluses/deficits in However; the demographic projections produced by the CC and Manchester University indicate that there dedicated existing schools based on work undertaken will be limited growth in the numbers of students in the period to 2026. If these population projections are schools grant for the School Organisation Plan; however, correct, there would be a requirement for very limited additional secondary school capacity. Locations of received from Validation table (excluding transport)
Service Service AVA Methodology in AVA schedule Linked to Validation comments Cost estimates Validation comments area provider ref. housing in AVA schedule growth?
converting demand for secondary schools schools to reduce the need to travel might be an issue. Central places into new schools is complicated by the Government in difficulty of providing additional grammar line with number schools places and the lack of capacity in of pupils on roll. existing grammar schools.
Primary Bucks CC LE1 Same as above Yes Pupil generation rate projected to be 3255 and will require 8 new primary schools with nursery provision. Capital costs: Capital Costs increased to a In original schedule stated 6 schools required with a further 2 schools possibly required depending on £48,000,000. No total of £48,000,000 for 8 location of development. revenue cost new primary schools at provided £6,000,000 each. The original schedule set out a requirement for six additional primary schools based on the pupil generation rates used in the Wycombe SPD on developer contributions. Subsequently, the Strategic Costs are stated as at Planning Section of the County Council have undertaken their own, more detailed assessment of pupil present day prices. generation using the dwelling mix in recent developments in Aylesbury. Using these figures a further two Require indexing for inflation primary schools are required. through spend periods.
The calculation of pupil numbers and schools excludes the need within Weedon Hill and Berryfields MDAs
The demographic projections produced by the CC and Manchester University indicate that there will be limited growth in the numbers of pupils in the period to 2026. If these population projections are correct, there would be a requirement for minimal additional primary school capacity, but new schools would be required to provide primary schools close to place of residence.
Extended Bucks CC LE4 / 5 None provided Partially, 660 sixth form places calculated (formula not provided) and these would be accommodated within Capital costs of Service provider unable to hours extended secondary schools. The work undertaken by the Strategic Planning Section of the County Council £10m but no confirm how these costs school indicates 608 sixth form students. Both these figures are likely to be incorrect because of the revenue costs derived and stating that the facilities are Government’s proposed changes to the education system whereby 16 – 18 education becomes provided costs are included within the to be compulsory. costs of a new build school. extended to the whole Other extended school facilities are planned to be provided as an integral part of new school buildings. school The capital costs of providing extended school facilities are included within the capital costs for new population. schools.
Special Bucks CC LE3 None provided Yes Growth in Aylesbury Vale anticipated to generate 210 additional special needs places (formula not £16 although only Service provider has schooling provided); this is equivalent to one new school. £8m attributable confirmed these costs. to future growth. Costs are stated as at present day prices. Spend period 2016-21. Should be indexed for inflation.
Adult Bucks CC LE5 None provided Partially, also Evening facilities can often be provided within schools or other community facilities, but there is also a LSE has Costs are present day. driven by need for day facilities and these have to be in a dedicated building. Existing day facilities in Aylesbury do calculated build Should be indexed for anticipated not have the capacity to deal with existing demand and therefore a new day education facility is required. costs as £2,100 inflation. employer A new day facility is being provided at the Berryfields development, and is based on a need for 100sqm sqm. 1,850sqm requirements per 1000 dwellings. Applying this formula across Aylesbury there is a need for 1,850sqm of dedicated floor space would to upskill or adult education floor space across the district (this excludes the Berryfields development where space is total £3.9m. re-skill to be provided). workers.
Emergency services
Police Thames Valley SO31 Thames Valley Police pro-rataed existing staff Partially It is apparent that there is not an agreed formula for projecting future need and there is no advice from Capital costs of Office and custody facility Constabulary and facilities against housing numbers within Central Government or the various police authorities for factoring in population growth to service £11.62. costs are robust at present their area. They then projected existing ratios development plans. day prices. forward to 2026 using the housing figures Capital costs Unclear when spend occurs. supplied to them. The approach taken appears sensible, but does not take account of changes in priorities or crime rates. have been Subject to annual review. The method for calculating future crime rates is based on the way crime is recorded which is as a modified to take proportion of population. account of the Validation table (excluding transport)
Service Service AVA Methodology in AVA schedule Linked to Validation comments Cost estimates Validation comments area provider ref. housing in AVA schedule growth?
300 additional The methodology used is based of currently levels of provision across the whole of the Thames Valley houses in the area and is not based on Buckinghamshire or Aylesbury characteristics. However, Thames Valley Police panel report. are about to begin preparing local policing strategies for a number of their LPA areas, one of which will be cost of non- Aylesbury. These will provide a more detailed assessment of need and future policing methods. specialist office accommodation Provision of future services is also determined by national priorities and local crime levels. Socio-economic is £3,438/sqm, status of population influences level of policing required. total cost is £9,547,170. Aylesbury is a small part of the wider Thames Valley area and will be considered within this wider context. cost of custody facilities is £6,094/sqm, total cost is £770,864 start up capital costs per officer £10,085, total cost £1,065,000 start up capital costs per community support officer £6,916, total £87,886 start up capital costs per support staff £4,665, total £313,630 total capital costs £11,785,182
Fire Buckinghamshi SO32 None provided but appears that service Yes Sprinkler systems are the generally responsibility of developers although the fire service is responsible for Capital and revenue costs re Fire and standards are set by the Fire and Rescue installing systems in households identified as being vulnerable. Installation of hydrants is now being quoted here are for period Rescue Services Act 2004 passed on to developers. Capital costs of 2006-2011. These present £6.85m and day values are carried Computer-modelling based on the government approved Fire Service Emergency Cover (FSEC) system, revenue costs of through to the period 2021- has demonstrated that the fire and rescue service premises at Stocklake in Aylesbury, and supported by £15.2m 2026 without the application Waddesdon and Haddenham, will not meet the Fire Authority attendance times for current and proposed of inflation indices. new build areas at Weedon Hill, Berryfields, Ashton Clinton Road, and the major infrastructure “arc” to the south of Aylesbury.
The modelling suggests that an additional new fire station will be required to the south west of Aylesbury in order to maintain Community Safety Standards. The decision has not been taken by the fire authority as to whether a new fire station will be provided.
Ambulance South Central SO33 Assume that emergency incidents will Yes No response received from South Central Ambulance Trust, but the South Central Ambulance Trust Capital costs of Capital and revenue costs Ambulance increase at 7.5% of population growth. No extends to includes Hampshire and it is likely that planning for future service provision will be within this £575,000 and quoted here are for period Trust new build required but additional emergency wider context rather than being Aylesbury specific. revenue costs of 2006-2011. These present vehicles required and an additional rest £2.75m day values are carried facility for crews. through to the period 2021- 2026 without the application of inflation indices.
Community facilities
Open space Aylesbury Vale LO1a/b/ Standards used are those set out in “Planning Yes The validation process grouped the different open space categories together because it was considered Total capital The £2.8m capital cost for DC & BCC d/e for Sustainable Communities – A Green that the breakdown by open space size was too detailed for this exercise. costs for open Wendover Wood can be Infrastructure Guide for Milton Keynes and space totalled removed from these figures, the South Midlands”. this document is based The period 2006 to 2011 has not been included in the calculation of need because it is assumed that need £25,127,200. reducing capital costs to on national best practice and standards. will be met through the existing committed sites. £22,327,200. Of this figure Revenue costs £14m is for opening up canal Validation table (excluding transport)
Service Service AVA Methodology in AVA schedule Linked to Validation comments Cost estimates Validation comments area provider ref. housing in AVA schedule growth?
The need for a 500+ha open space can be met through improvements to Wendover Wood and therefore totalled £11.3m corridors to public access. LO1e (major open space of 500+ha) is double counting because Wendover Wood is included within the schedule as a separate matter and is controlled by the Forestry Commission and not the District Council. Capital and revenue costs quoted here are for period The canals are in the ownership of British Waterways and it is not known what funding options are 2011-2016. available to them to contribute towards the £14m costs. Land costs excluded. Costs for all periods are based on 2005 actual costs. Due to be reviewed in 2008. Total spend requires the application of inflation indices through to 2026.
Nature Bucks CC LO1c Standard used is 1ha per 1,000 population as Yes Locations for nature reserves will be identified through the ecological constraints mapping undertaking by Capital costs total Capital and revenue costs reserves set out in “Planning for Sustainable AVDC Forward Plans Division. Ideally nature reserves will be linked through appropriate green £210,600 quoted here are for period Communities – A Green Infrastructure Guide infrastructure. 2011-2016. for Milton Keynes and the South Midlands”. Revenue costs at Land costs excluded. this document is based on national best The period 2006 to 2011 has been discounted because it is assumed the need for that period will be met £117,000 per practice and standards. through existing commitments. year £9,000 per hectare. Exact scope of work unverifiable, rate appears low.
Playing Aylesbury Vale LO3 Based on the adopted AVDC SPG on Sports Yes There is an inconsistency in the population figures quoted. A total population of 32,000 is quoted but the Capital costs total Method of calculation of pitches / DC and Leisure Facilities. the guidance reflects five year figures total 31,200. £6.66m. capital costs unverifiable in MUGAS Sport England’s facilitators demand estimator quantum terms. for sports pitches. Revenue costs total £125,000. Capital and revenue costs quoted here are for period 2011-2016. Land costs excluded. Figures based on 2004 data, to be reviewed in 2007. No application of inflation indices.
Children’s Aylesbury Vale LO2 Need calculated on the basis of the adopted Yes The number of facilities contained within the AVA schedule was based on the minimum provision set out in Capital costs total Method of calculation of play areas DC AVDC SPG on Sport and Leisure Facilities. the SPG for sport and leisure facilities. £1.9m capital costs unverifiable in quantum terms. There is an inconsistency in the population figures quoted. A total population of 32,000 is quoted but the Revenue costs five year figures total 31,200. total £65,000 a Capital and revenue costs year. quoted are for period 2006- 2011. Land costs excluded. Figures based on 2004 data, to be reviewed in 2007. No application of inflation indices.
Community Aylesbury Vale LO4 Methodology not provided but states that Yes Capital costs total Cost per hall based on 2004 centres DC normally expected that developments of 300 A point of clarification was sought regarding the reference in the AVA schedule to landfill tax effecting £3m. figures Normalised. units or more provide a community centre. funding. AVDC have confirmed that the landfill tax is available for community facilities within a 10 mile Insufficient quantum to verify radius of landfill sites (Calvert and Newton Longville). cost, suggest £800- £1,000k for period 2006-2011. There is an inconsistency in the population figures quoted. A total population of 32,000 is quoted but the five year figures total 31,200.
Sports Aylesbury Vale LO5 Based on adopted AVDC SPG Sport and Yes There is an inconsistency in the population figures quoted. A total population of 32,000 is quoted but the Provision of Swimming Pools centres and DC Leisure Facilities. This in turn is informed by five year figures total 31,200. and Dry Sports Centres swimming the Sport England standards in the planning Capital costs are based on a pools sports kitbag. Service provider anticipates being able to improve facilities at some schools in future to increase provision. “cost per head” of anticipated population growth. Validation table (excluding transport)
Service Service AVA Methodology in AVA schedule Linked to Validation comments Cost estimates Validation comments area provider ref. housing in AVA schedule growth?
This implies that a certain sum of money is available in any one period for construction of swimming pools and/or Dry Sports Centres. Difficult to validate what could be constructed.
Capital costs are normalised and based on National Playing Fields Association cost guide for sport 2003. These figures are to be updated in 2008.
Subsequent periods Not inflation indexed.
Arts / Aylesbury Vale LO7 None provided yes There is an inconsistency in the population figures quoted. A total population of 32,000 is quoted but the Capital costs total Provision of additional Arts heritage / DC five year figures total 31,200. £477,120. Centre facilities and entertainme expansion of existing nt A public art strategy for the town is due to be developed during 2008. AV and MK have been selected by Revenue costs facilities Arts Council Couth East as a priority area. total £5,700 per Capital costs are based on a annum. “cost per head” of Local information / interpretation of heritage considered an integral aspect of the growth agenda. anticipated population growth. The SPG for Sport and Leisure Facilities identifies a minimum of four arts workshop areas, including This implies that a certain wetroom and kiln, should be provided. sum of money is available in any one period for provision A shortage of arts centres was identified in the Local Facilities Audit and Needs Assessment for AV. arts centre facilities. Difficult to validate what could be Construction work has already commenced on the Waterside Theatre complex. provided.
Capital and revenue costs quoted here are for period 2006-2011. Land costs excluded. Figures based on 2004 data, to be reviewed in 2007. No application of inflation indices.
Shortfall in Aylesbury Vale LO9 Based on the 2004 leisure facilities audit No Shortfalls are not related to growth. Total capital existing DC which identified shortfalls in provision. The costs of £59m of sports and proposal put forward in the schedule is for all which 16.55% is leisure new developments to contribute the equal to £9.4m. provision equivalent of 16.5% of the total cost to meet the identified shortfall. This is based on the Revenue costs 2006 to 2026 additional population being have not been equal to 16.5% of the total 2026 population. calculated.
Allotments Aylesbury Vale LO10 7 plots per 1,000 population. Plots to be Yes The ratio of 7 plots per 1,000 population is from the National Playing Fields Association. Capital costs total Provision of 224 allotment DC provided on sites of 120 plots with a total area £240,000 plots over period 2011-2026 of 3ha. There is an inconsistency in the population figures quoted. A total population of 32,000 is quoted but the Capital and operational are five year figures total 31,200. Revenue costs based on current costs but given as £10,000 first provision occurs in per annum for Period 2011-2016. Costs each 120 plot appear robust at current site. prices
Capital and revenue costs are based on current operating costs and are Validation table (excluding transport)
Service Service AVA Methodology in AVA schedule Linked to Validation comments Cost estimates Validation comments area provider ref. housing in AVA schedule growth?
normalised.
Community Aylesbury Vale LO11 None provided Partially. Also No response received from AVDC Capital costs of Capital costs are included development DC includes £600,000 are within shortfall in existing improvement No details of infrastructure but the schedule provides capital costs but not identifiable what the capital given for sports and leisure provision, s to existing costs relate to. refurbishing therefore nil capital costs. facilities and parks within shortfalls in It is apparent that that the identified need is double counting the identified shortfall in existing sports and existing areas. provision. leisure provision (L09). Revenue costs are given as the Identify requirement for 5 community development workers and one team leader, but there is no cost of additional justification for these additional staff. community workers and a project development fund. Total revenue costs of £260,000 per annum
Town centre Aylesbury Vale LO12 Costs are based on known costs of the No No response received from AVDC but public realm improvements are not related to growth. Capital costs total Capital costs are based on public realm DC Kingsbury refurbishment and other costed £4.9m recent work, no detailed works. designs for refurbishment Revenue costs work available. Allowances total £60,000 per appear reasonable. annum. Capital costs will be depended on the scale of works undertaken and the quality of materials and contractors used.
Capital and revenue costs quoted here are for period 2006-2011.
Libraries Bucks CC LS1 For communities with a catchment population Yes The standard for library provision within Buckinghamshire is 32sqm per 1,000 catchment population. This Capital costs total Capital costs at 2006 prices. below 5,000 a mobile service will be provided standard is the same as the one used by Hampshire and is slightly above the MAL SOUTH EAST £5.2m £3,210 / sqm, total £5.2m. if there is clear demand; standard of 30.2sqm. Cost derived from RICS For communities with a catchment population quarterly review of of between 5,000 and 7,500 a mobile or The library service does not anticipate providing further separate static buildings, but will incorporate static building prices. branch library will be provided; collections within multiuse buildings, for example, Berryfields MDA will have a static collection within the Communities with a catchment population school. Capital costs provided are over 7,500 a static library will be provided. based on extensions to existing floor areas. Unit rate of £3,210 is valid at 2006 prices
Crematoriu Aylesbury Vale LS2 None provided Partially Site for a new crematorium is indicated within the Aylesbury Allocated Sites DPD preferred option. Capital cost of Provision of new m and burial DC £3m to provide a crematorium and cemetery grounds With growth being concentrated at Aylesbury it makes sense to locate a new crematorium at the town new crematorium Capital cost allowance of rather than people having to travel to Milton Keynes or Amersham. plus £200,000 for £3.3m appears reasonable a cemetery. at 2006 prices. The capital cost provided in the AVA No revenue costs schedule is acknowledged to provided. be arbitrary Validation table (excluding transport)
Service Service AVA Methodology in AVA schedule Linked to Validation comments Cost estimates Validation comments area provider ref. housing in AVA schedule growth?
Museum Bucks CC LS3 None provided No No response received from Bucks museums service but response received from Bucks County Archivist. Capital costs of Phased extensions / and archive 1.5m for improvements to Halton Additional Museum museum floor £1.5m cost at 2Q 2005 space. No prices spread over four A ratio of 5sqm per person for archive space has been used. This is derived from Museums, Archives and revenue costs spend periods. Libraries South East’s tariff document March 2007. provided. Difficult to validate due to lack of scope.
Archive floor space costed at £3,600sqm. which is robust at 2007 prices.
If capital expenditure is spread application of inflation indices required.
Wendover Forestry LO1f None provided Partially but Wendover Wood has a sub-regional role, with approximately 2.7m people living within a one hour drive Capital costs total Work to be undertaken in Woodland Commission also related radius. The wood is identified in the Bucks green infrastructure strategy as a strategic countryside access £4.3m four phases over the four Park to improving hub for the Aylesbury growth area. The existing facilities are unable to cope with current visitor numbers, spend periods. facilities for thus a proportion of the costs are related to meeting existing demand. Revenue costs Costs based on previously existing over the 20 years completed schemes. Base users. are projected to date of current figures not be £7m indicated. Cost of Phase 1 works appear reasonable at current prices. Assumed Phase 2 capital cost is £750k. Apparent error in costs for Phases 3 and 4.
Aylesbury BCC and none none – this scheme has been added to the No Creation and enhancement of strategic access links (footpaths and cycle paths) and corridors providing £10m Scheme is at a very early strategic AVDC schedule subsequent to the validation managed recreational links for the population of the expanded Aylesbury town with the Vale and the stage only being proposed access process national/sub-regionally important areas of the Chilterns and the Bernwood Forest. Where possible based for investigation. network on existing features (e.g. watercourses and canals). Includes enhancement of Aylesbury and Wendover Arms of the Grand Union Canal, providing Green Infrastructure links between Aylesbury, Leighton- Linslade, Milton Keynes and Aylesbury and Wendover.
This scheme includes improvements to the Aylesbury and Wendover arms of the Grand Union Canal the costs of which are included in LO1e, therefore the costs provided to us of £24 have been reduced to £10m.
Social care
Adult social Bucks CC LS6 Assumed growth in service demand will be in- Yes The demographic projections for AV indicate that the largest growth will be in the 65+ population, which Total capital cost Capital costs for special care line with population growth. will place increasing demands on services for the elderly. In response to this, new models of care are of £5,500,000 needs flats are based on a For the 20 to 60 yr old population projected to being investigated and the government in the CSR07 has agreed to investigate the area of elderly care. unit cost of £122K at 2006 be a 16% increase in demand for adult social Revenue costs of prices. Nursing unit room care services above existing levels. £2m costed at £55K at 2006 prices. The current ratio of elderly care beds is 903 places per 100,000 population
Youth and Bucks CC LS7 None provided Partially. Anticipating a parallel increase in homeless young people as population growth, but no ratio provided, and Capital costs total Stated construction cost community There is an need is not quantified. £2.5m equates to £1,880/m2. This services existing is reasonable at current shortfall in No revenue costs 2007 prices. Recommend service provided inflation index to 2011. provision. Validation table (excluding transport)
Service Service AVA Methodology in AVA schedule Linked to Validation comments Cost estimates Validation comments area provider ref. housing in AVA schedule growth?
Cost assumes 50% funding from other service providers.
Children and Bucks CC LS8 Based on appraisal of the proportion of Yes It is projected that there will be 576 additional children in need of whom 33 will need to be looked after; 34 Capital costs of AVA schedule had a capital young looked after children, children on the child children likely to have a disability; and 8 children on the child protection register. £1.5m but cost of £1.5m equally spread people protection register, children in need and revenue costs not over the four spend periods. social care children with a disability. provided. Response to validation questions dated 7.11.07 shows increased provision totalling £3.0m. Spend profile not indicated.
Costs are normalised at 2007 prices.
Waste
Refuse Aylesbury Vale LS41/42 3 large refuse collection vehicles required for Yes, although Vehicle requirements will be influenced by type of development (high density development requires small Capital costs for Costs appear robust at collection DC /43/44 every 7,500 properties based on current influenced by vehicle rather than large ones, increased recycling would change the type of vehicles required and the new vehicles total current prices. and service patterns. Requirement for small changes in location of waste disposal points is important in determining the amount of down time for a vehicle £2m. Revenue Some capital and all recycling vehicle to serve high density urban recycling travelling to / from the waste disposal point. costs for operating costs are spread (includes development. patterns. collection over the four spend periods new vehicle services total at current rates. Inflation and depot £1.97m indices should be applied. and New depot required to house additional AVDC looking to share facilities with Bucks CC waste services for the new depot to reduce costs. recycling vehicles because existing site does not have New depot points) spare capacity. capital costs total Land costs of new depot not There is no direct correlation between population growth and the number of recycling points. Location of £7.5m included because it is No methodology provided for recycling points recycling points is a matter of opportunity in being able to identify suitably located sites. AVDC is intending assumed these will be offset but eight recycling points required. to provide recycling points that are underground to reduce visual intrusiveness. by selling existing depot. Capital costs of Original cost estimates were dry recycling for £15,000 per site but points total these have increased to £100,000 to £20,000, although they £120,000 depend on ground conditions and would be cheaper if Provision directly related to growth. surface recycling points were used. Each new house would require a wheelie bin and recycling basket. Flats require a Unclear why revenue costs communal facility. differ from LS41 and clarification required that Capital costs of there is not double counting refuse taking place. receptacles totals £1m .
Revenue costs total £106,000
Waste Bucks CC SO4 None provided Partially. Also Three projects identified within the schedule all three have a catchment that is wider than Aylesbury town. Total capital Capital costs are normalised disposal to meet Project one – North Bucks compost processing facility is proposed to be a design, build and operate costs of the three for the base year 2006/07. changes in scheme funded by a private operator. Therefore, funding should not be sought through developer projects that is legislation contributions. attributable to Of the capital costs, 50 % requiring Project two – two household recycling centres. Funding committed for one site at Aston Clinton and the growth is £8.5m are attributed to the existing greater second centre is to replace an existing centre at Buckingham, and is not required as a result of growth. of which £7m is population, thus £56.1m recycling of Project three – energy from waste plant, required to replace existing landfill contracts for the whole of to be sourced attributable to growth. rubbish and Buckinghamshire which expire in 2009 and 2012. This project is a county wide facility and the requirement from BCC. reduced use is only partially linked to growth. No revenue costs of landfill. given The above three schemes are required regardless of growth and the CC waste management section estimate that project 1 is 30% attributable to growth, project 2 20% and project 3 5%. Validation table (excluding transport)
Service Service AVA Methodology in AVA schedule Linked to Validation comments Cost estimates Validation comments area provider ref. housing in AVA schedule growth?
Affordable Aylesbury Vale LH1 Uses the MKSM and draft RSS percentage of Yes It is not possible to determine at this stage how many units will come forward on sites of less than 15 units Provide the level Land cost which not able to housing DC 40% and calculates provision at a rate of and the approach taken is considered acceptable in the circumstances. Since the AVA schedule was of public subsidy value at a general level. 30%. Acknowledges that this applies only to compiled, the Panel Report into the RSS has been published and this has reduced the percentage of at 30 and 40 Public subsidy required is sites over 15 dwellings, but the figures affordable housing to 35% on sites of 15 or more units. At 35% a global figure of 7,525 affordable units percent delivery. calculated to be provided are a general percentage across the would be built. However, until the final version of the RSS is published AVDC will require 40% affordable The figures are £252,800,000. board. housing in accordance with their adopted SPD. £189.6M at 30% Revenue costs not provided. and £252.8m at Main revenue cost is The figures provided within the AVA schedule and revised to take account of the Panel Report are in 40%. Supporting People funding reality higher than the market will deliver. However, changes to the delivery mechanisms available to local which is a central authorities, likely to be contained in the Housing and Regeneration Bill, could potentially result in greater The only revenue government fund. delivery from other sources. The estimate of affordable housing, although higher than likely delivery, also cost to the fails to reflect the fact that there is an existing backlog of affordable housing in the district of 6,889 Council is for Estimate of costs not households. supported possible to validate. housing projects Subject to population growth, No provision has been made for supported housing. Increasingly the needs of the elderly and those with and these have central government policy disabilities are being provided for in their own homes. not been etc. over the period. calculated.
Inward Aylesbury Vale SO2 No methodology provided Partially, but No real justification for additional staff or why funding should come from developers. No capital costs investment DC continued but additional support revenue costs of required for £145,000 per existing annum. businesses.
Transport
Road ST1 See Table 3.5 projects
Rail projects ST1 See Table 3.5
Costs considered to be either too low or too high Costs considered reasonable Unable to verify costs Transport validation table
PROJECT Desired Scheme Scheme Potential Funding Status Validation Categorisation design construction Status (Objectives) Date of costs (£m) costs Funding completion sources A413 Wendover Road 2016-2026 Costs to Costs of LTP / No funding Proposed for The Aston Clinton Road MDA will be completed by year 2016. If the Corridor & Gyratory take constructing or Developer Sources investigation. primary purpose of this upgrade is to facilitate access to the ACR MDA this Improvements scheme implementing contributions secured for scheme must be a priority for completion by that date. Urgency will be To focus car based traffic through scheme design work. reinforced if first phase of Southern Arc development takes place east of Requested movements from south & from being Aylesbury to Marylebone railway line. south-east on high quality an idea to corridor, enabling point where Further studies will be required to identify the nature of works required. development of public constructio Unclear when these are programmed to take place or how they will be transport corridors on n or funded. southern radial routes. implementa Required to enhance tion can connectivity for employment commence growth at Aston Clinton Road MDA and housing growth to the south of Aylesbury.
A4146 Fenny Stratford 2016-2021 Unknown Unknown LTP or RFA Uncommitted Proposed for No modelling has been undertaken to test level of traffic increase and no Requested Bypass Major Investigation work on costs yet undertaken. To improve capacity on Scheme Bid existing link as part of MK to Aylesbury strategic route (as identified in MKSM SRS). Provides access to development areas on SW fringe of MK. Will facilitate MK to Aylesbury express bus service.
A418 route improvements 2011-2021 £0.5m £77 Million DfT (Major Uncommitted Under The Council has consulted on four viable route options, two for the Required (Wing & Rowsham Scheme Bid) Investigation Rowsham section and two for the Wing section. A decision expected in (Identified as strategic sections) September/ October 2007 has been delayed. Further work will be priority in MKSM SRS) To improve capacity and required to conclude the anticipated level of traffic flows which will be journey times between using these proposed links in order to determine their size, and hence Aylesbury and MK,Luton / establish a more robust cost figure. This could take another 18 months. Dunstable / Houghton Regis A do minimum option has yet to be assessed and although a public & Leighton / Linslade growth transport study has been undertaken, the benefits of alternative measures areas. have not been assessed.
The local authority will be required to fund 10% of the scheme ( at present estimated to be £8m). This funding is not currently available. There is a considerable risk that the project may not be completed to coincide with the development of the allocated MDAs. If the funding is not found for developing the project to its next stage then, at present there is no prospect of it being funded through the normal channels in the next decade. The long term timescale of developing and implementing the total project (part 1 and part 2) means that it is not going to succeed against the criteria associated with CIF bids (especially the requirements to have a higher degree of confidence that the project will be delivered within two years). Aylesbury Eastern Link £0.5m £50m DfT (Major This link is assumed in all Bucks CC traffic modelling of growth options for Required Road (A41 East – A418 Scheme Bid) Aylesbury. Too late to secure developer funding from Aston Clinton MDA. North East) CIF funding eligibility would be dependent upon the County completing the Transport validation table
PROJECT Desired Scheme Scheme Potential Funding Status Validation Categorisation design construction Status (Objectives) Date of costs (£m) costs Funding completion sources Link between Aston Clinton work required to take progress to a Major Scheme Bid. and A418 is required to take pressure off of the A41 which Current guidance on S106 planning obligations is not supportive of funding is constrained and not able to such early stage design work where there is no clear prospect of timely accommodate significant implementation from developer contributions. growth in traffic levels.
A421 Tingewick to MK 2016-2021 Unknown £50 Uncommitted Under No formal appraisal of the case for improvement and the form it should Required Upgrade Investigation take has yet been made. (Scheme identified in Online improvements to route MKSM SRS). to improve capacity & journey Initial preliminary estimate costs required improvements at around £48m times as part of MK to Oxford (at 2005 prices in the Bucks LTP). Further studies are required to finalise (M40) strategic route this figure.
Timescales for the design and approval processes make it unlikely that construction could start until 2013 or later. Aylesbury Southern Link 2011-2026 £50m GAF Uncommitted Under Required to provide access to housing development to south of Aylesbury. Essential (Subject to Road (feasibility) Investigation One option is to build link road in stages related to the phasing of the LDF Adoption) Provide link between A41 Southern Growth Arc. East & A418 West Developer Uncommitted The link road will have to cross two rail lines and the Council have (supporting employment Contributions commenced negotiations with Network Rail regarding the costs of bridging growth at Aston Clinton Road the rail lines. MDA, housing growth to the south of Aylesbury)
A418 route improvements 2011-26 Unknown Under Required (Hulcott Crossroads to Investigation (identified in MKSM Aylesbury with A41 Link) SRS)
To increase capacity & journey times as part of MK to Aylesbury strategic route.
New additional railway 2016-2026 Unknown £5m DfT Uncommitted Proposed for Chiltern Rail is considering upgrading the Princes Risborough Line. Requested station on Princes Chiltern Investigation Network Rail’s position on this proposal is unknown. Risborough Line Railways New station in Southern Developer Growth Arc to improve Contributions access to Southern Growth Arc
Route upgrade - Aylesbury Requested to High Wycombe Track & signalling upgrade to rail link to enhance connectivity (potential for MK to HW route via EWR) & productivity (linked to North South transport links study identified below) Transport validation table
PROJECT Desired Scheme Scheme Potential Funding Status Validation Categorisation design construction Status (Objectives) Date of costs (£m) costs Funding completion sources East-West Rail – Western 2008-2016 Unknown £64m Developer Uncommitted Under The GRIP 2 report March 2007 costed the Aylesbury Spur at £64m The Required Section: Aylesbury Spur Contributions Investigation cost benefit ratio (DBR) for the Oxford to MK section of the route falls (MKSM SRS and Strategic rail route linking / Chiltern (GRIP 4) away significantly from 2.7 to 1.3 and 1.0 with the inclusion of the Panel Report for South Bedford to Oxford and Railways Aylesbury spur. This is not improved by the inclusion of developer East Plan). Aylesbury (via MK) to contributions. improve connectivity, enhance travel choices & As the majority of the scheme funding will come from the private sector, support housing & East West Rail does not appear in the recent Government White Paper employment growth in MKSM “Delivering a Sustainable Railway” but it is mentioned in the DfT Thames growth areas. Valley Regional Planning Assessment for the Railway (June 2007).
The EiP Panel Report gives support to the implementation of East West Rail.
Work is currently under way to develop the operating and business case for the overall Oxford – MK section of E-W Rail. This work is due for completion by the end of 2007.
Aylesbury Primary Public 2006-21 £17m Provisionally Design work has already commenced and construction is now well Essential (committed) Transport Corridors approved underway. The fourth and final phase will be completed by Autumn 2008. (PPTCs) Improvements to A413 (N), A41 (SE), B4443, A418 (SW) & A41 (W) to provide public transport priority and services on key radial routes,
Buckinghamshire Infrastructure Study Phase One Final Report
Appendix 3
Non-growth related factors influencing service provision
Service area Service provider AVA ref. Non-growth related factors that will result in changes to service provision Health Acute Buckinghamshire SH2 No response received Hospital Trust Primary SH1 • Services based on individual needs and choices (with the needs of the patient being paramount) using clinically proven protocols • Use of workforce and buildings productively • Localise where possible, centralise where necessary (bringing care closer to home when appropriate but having the right specialisms available in hospitals when needed) Buckinghamshire PCT • Integrated care and partnership working (between health and social care for example) to maximise the contribution of the entire workforce • Prevention being better than cure (in a whole range of circumstances from diabetes to heart disease) as well as health promotion • Focus on health inequalities and diversity Mental health Oxfordshire & SH3 • Improved standards for inpatient care (privacy, dignity); Buckinghamshire Mental • Continued investment in community mental health services; Health Partnership Trust • Maintaining critical mass of inpatient services to sustain 24hr staffing whilst meeting EU and UK regulations on employment standards. Education Higher Bucks New University SE1 No response received (formally Bucks Chiltern University College) Further • New businesses locating in the area and employer engagement Aylesbury College • Government’s skills agenda and training priorities Secondary LE6 • As LS6 BCC • Demographic issues. • The BCC Property Strategy and Property Review to be completed in the summer of 2008. Primary • As LS6 BCC • Demographic issues. • The BCC Property Strategy and Property Review to be completed in the summer of 2008. Extended hours SE2 • Increase in population • Provision for new businesses coming into the area BCC • Government skills agenda and priorities including the increase in compulsory schooling from 16-18 (from 2013) • 14-19 agenda • Employer engagement Special schooling LE3 • 2004 Children Act and associated Every Child Matters programme BCC • 2006 Education and Inspections Act Adult BCC LE6 • None identified Emergency services Police SO31 • Annual Force Strategic Assessment • Strategic Plans and Delivery Plans • National Policies, political reforms, PSAs, assessment of policing and community safety (APACS) • LAAs Thames Valley • Community Engagement Constabulary • Environmental and socio-demographics • Technology (increase in IT crime) • Legislation (e.g. Counter Terrorism Bill) • Economics (funding) Fire SO32 • Fire and Rescue Service Act 2004 • Civil Contingencies Act 2004 • Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 • The Fire and Rescue Service National Framework 2006-08; including: New Dimensions Programme Buckinghamshire Fire o CLG FiRe Control Project and Rescue o o CLG Firelink Project o CLG FiRe Buy Programme o Integrated Personal Development Plans • Government requirements regarding cashable and non-cashable efficiency savings • Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire Authority Integrated Risk Management Plan Service area Service provider AVA ref. Non-growth related factors that will result in changes to service provision • Requirement to initiate proactive services to achieve enhanced community safety. Ambulance South Central SO33 No response received Ambulance Trust Community facilities Open space LO1a/b/d/e • The need to provide green spaces and play provision with new housing developments AVDC/BCC • The need to encourage greater use of open space • The need to encourage more healthy activity Nature reserves AVDC/BCC LO1c • As LO1a/b/d/e Playing pitches / LO3 • The need to provide green spaces and play provision with new housing developments AVDC MUGAS • The need to encourage greater healthy activity and increased participation in sport Children’s play areas AVDC LO2 • As LO1a/b/d/e Community centres LO4 • The need to provide greater community engagement and to provide a tailored service to individual community groups. AVDC • Where possible to encourage community ownership and management of new facilities Sports centres and LO9 • Increasing participation swimming pools • Performance driven • Greater partnership working between public private sector AVDC • Widening access for the whole community • London 2012 Olympics • Use of leisure to support wider agendas – health, community safety, community cohesion, tackling fear of crime, young people Arts / heritage / LO7 & LO8 • Public art strategy for Aylesbury Vale which is due to be produced during 2008 entertainment • Queens Park Arts Centre are looking to purchase the freehold of their site which would give them greater security to develop a range of services • AV and MK have been selected as apriority area for the Arts Council of the South East. AVDC • Aylesbury Civic Centre to be closed in 2008 with a new theatre opening in 2009 • Competition from other settlements, such as, Milton Keynes, High Wycombe, Oxford, London and new planned facilities in Hemel Hempstead. • Public demands
Allotments LO10 • Smaller garden sizes AVDC • Increased development of flats • Desire for organic food Community LO11 AVDC development Town centre public LO12 AVDC realm Libraries LS1 • Library service review BCC • GC2C, Pathfinder and service delivery from community hubs Crematorium and burial LS2 AVDC grounds Museum and archive BCC LS3 Wendover Woodland LO1f • Implementing Defra’s “A strategy for England’s trees, woods and forests” Forestry Commission Park Social care Adult social care Youth and community LS7 • none identified – would need to speak to partners AVDC services Children and young LS8 • 2004 Children Act and associated Every Child Matters programme BCC people • 2006 Education and Inspections Act Waste Refuse collection and LS41 / 42 / • Key driver for recycling collection is the need to reduce the amount of waste to landfill to meet the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme targets (LATS) which have been recycling (includes new 43 / 44 agreed as part of the joint municipal waste strategy for Bucks and to meet AVDC recycling best value performance indicator of 30%
vehicle and depot and recycling points) Waste disposal SO4 • Changes in legislation – landfill directive BCC • fiscal – landfill tax Service area Service provider AVA ref. Non-growth related factors that will result in changes to service provision • policy – managing waste more sustainably by recycling and composting more and recovering energy from waste. Affordable housing LH1 • Grant funding BCC • Broader base of providers • Housing Corporation Sustainability Code Inward investment Transport Road projects BCC Rail projects BCC ST1
Appendix 4: Community Infrastructure Levy
The Government published a statement on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in January 2008. A summary of the document is provided below.
Legislative Framework The Planning Bill provides the legislative framework for a CIL and allows for the preparation of Regulations to explain the detail of the new regime and how the process will work. The Regulations will be flexible when drawn up to allow for subsequent changes when it is placed into practice.
The CIL Regulations will ensure a number of safeguards to ensure accountability and transparency that were lacking in the past system of developer contributions and existing legislative framework. This includes the procedure on setting the charges, monitoring the use of CIL, accounting separately for CIL receipts and a requirement to report how the money is collected and spent. The Bill enables the Regulations to specify what should happen when an infrastructure project which is intended to receive CIL is no longer requires to be funded.
Setting the CIL To set the CIL, Authorities will have to produce a comprehensive statement on infrastructure need which is embedded within the development plan system to ensure independent testing of proposals and consultation to ensure support and deliverability. Therefore, this process breaks the link between providing a contribution to mitigate against the impact of development to a needs assessment.
Setting CIL will be a two step process: 1. Identification of infrastructure need and how much it will cost 2. Calculation of what contribution each development should make to the cost. Authorities charging the CIL should have regard to the following: Regional Economic Strategy and infrastructure plans of the area items that are likely to enable, facilitate or mitigate the impact of development in the area the likely yield and likely development viability only include items that would occur within the period covered by the development plan the level of funding likely to be available from other sources prioritise pieces of infrastructure likely to make the biggest contribution to enable development. The authority should also produce a draft charging schedule setting out the rate and or formula of determining how the levy might be calculated. There may be a case for varying charges based on local conditions.
Regulations for determining the amount of CIL to pay could be based on the likely increase in the value of land as a result of planning permission to ensure the viability of the development is not affected by CIL payments as well as taking into account of financial contributions such as affordable housing.
CIL as a funding source for Infrastructure CIL will contribute to the cost of infrastructure needed to support the development or an area but is not to be used as a general expenditure or the remedy for pre-existing deficiency unless aggravated by new development. It can also be used on both new infrastructure provision and enhancing existing infrastructure to increase capacity.
The forthcoming Regulations will set out what is defined as ‘infrastructure’ which will be wide enough to encompass both social and environmental infrastructure. Affordable housing may also be included within this definition, although negotiated obligations should continue to provide for affordable housing to be delivered on site. It is noted that there is a need to ensure that there is no reduction in affordable contributions as a result of CIL. However, although CIL is not currently including affordable housing there is the flexibility to include it if evidence later shows that it is necessary.
The new Regulations may help with forward funding of projects by including the option to attribute CIL to expenditure which has already been incurred or the option of reserving CIL receipts that may be incurred in the future to allow for timely delivery of infrastructure.
Bodies such as the Environment Agency and the Highway Authority will be able to receive finding from the CIL revenue.
It is envisaged that CIL will make a significant contribution to providing infrastructure, although it will not be able to meet the entire cost of major infrastructure projects. Therefore infrastructure planning needs to take into account all funding streams available to the Authority.
Secretary of State Powers The Secretary of State will have the power to ‘call in’ if it is considered that the spending of the CIL is inappropriate, and can cap charges of CILL although these powers will be used as a last resort.
The Role Of Planning Obligations The CIL will not replace Section 106 contributions and that Authorities can opt not to use CIL to fund infrastructure. Section 106 will be retained as the legal underpinning for negotiated agreement. The Government intend to focus obligations on three areas, subject to consultation: 1. Non-financial, technical or operational matters. 2. Site specific impacts that the developments have on the immediate area which need mitigation i.e. access roads, on site archaeology or the protection of endangered species found on the site. 3. Ensure that there is sufficient affordable housing. Further Consultation
There is still a great deal of uncertainty on how the CIL will be delivered and how the charges will be set and therefore subsequent rounds of consultation will be undertaken on these matters including how to incorporate sub-regional infrastructure and in determining the amount of CIL to pay. Appendix 5: Extract From Chelmsford BC Tariff SPD Consultation Draft (2007)
An Outline Business Case (OBC) should be established through the requirements of (a)-(g) as set out below, should form an OBC for the scheme to show. This is to ensure that schemes are deliverable and justify an application for development finance from Planning Contributions to provide new or enhanced infrastructure. 2. The OBC will need to demonstrate what other appropriate sources of funding may be available, and service providers will be expected to commit to pursue such applications in a timely and proper manner. The timetable and monitoring arrangements must allow for the LPA to be kept informed of the making and progress of such applications and to make representations where appropriate in support of such applications. A) Infrastructure must be a scheme that arises from an operational or enabling need required to deliver the objectives of the Spatial Strategy. B) Infrastructure schemes must be an identified project programmed for delivery by Service Providers (which is either fully evaluated or where feasibility and evaluation is in progress and the scheme has an “in principle” approval). This should include how the scheme is to be financed and the basis of apportionment between Planning Contributions and other sources. C) There is an agreed programme within a specified timeframe to fulfil criterion (b) which includes identifying the realistic target by which there is expected to be a contractual commitment within an appropriate timescale to meet the implementation requirements of the Plan (to be identified in consultation between the service provider and the LPA). In the case of Community Infrastructure it is expected the projects will form part of an approved programme, which will meet these requirements. If Contributions may be allocated between competing or alternative schemes depending on the progress of implementation or to take account of future changes of circumstances, then this must be identified and specifically agreed with the LPA. D) It is demonstrated how the scheme arises from and meets the demands of new development; and/or to the extent that it is a modification or extension to an existing scheme or is necessary to deal with an existing deficiency that it is deliverable within an appropriate timescale to meet the Plan, including that it meets eligibility criteria in terms of priority and access to required supplementary or other principal funding. E) The application is accompanied by a written justification from the service provider demonstrating the need for the infrastructure scheme and for the extent of Planning Contributions sought, and confirmation that the service provider is able and willing to justify the case in DC development control terms at a hearing, appeal or inquiry required. F) The revenue implication and adequate funding resources are identified. G) There is an agreed monitoring and implementation framework, which comply with the principles of the Business Case Planning. Appendix 6: Issues raised by Southern Arc Consortium
The study team met with representatives of the Southern Arc Consortium on 8 January 2008. The study team presented the emerging findings of the Infrastructure Study. A number of initial comments were made, as follows: Need for clarification on the significance of the potential cashflow gap and whether it necessitate the need for forward funding. If so how could forward funding be secured, and which organisation would take on the role of banker (as English Partnerships have done in Milton Keynes)? The need for an Area Action Plan for the Southern Arc was questioned. A Supplementary Planning Document would be the preferred process providing greater speed and enhanced flexibility. The LDF Core Strategy will need to include sufficient detail off which an SPD can hang. A strategic business plan in itself will not be sufficient. There is a need to differentiate between costs for the Southern Arc and the rest of Aylesbury. Clarification sought as to whether developer charges would apply to retail and employment uses. Confirmation that that infrastructure costs for the Arc will need to be known in full upfront to enable gross to gross equalisation between landowners. Support for a Section 106 based approach that would allow for different solutions to infrastructure provision (i.e. in-kind versus pooled contributions). Support for the need for any approach to be flexible enough to deal with the transition towards a Community Infrastructure Levy.
. . . Buckinghamshire County Council BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire infrastructure study
Colin Buchanan 45 Notting Hill Gate London W11 3PB Interim report T 020 7309 7000 E [email protected] November 2007
TRANSPORT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING URBAN DESIGN ECONOMICS MARKET RESEARCH LONDON BRISTOL CARDIFF EDINBURGH GLASGOW MANCHESTER NEWBURY BELFAST DUBLIN GALWAY