Enquiries to: Kelly Baxter Direct Dial: 024 7637 6204 Direct Email: [email protected] Date: 1st September 2020

Dear Sir/Madam,

A meeting of the CABINET will be held on Wednesday 9th September, 2020 at 6.00p.m.

Due to Government guidance on social-distancing and the Covid-19 virus this meeting will be held VIRTUALLY AND LIVE STREAMED. Public and press can follow the decision making online at www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/virtual-meeting.

Public participation will be by written submissions or orally through invitation to the meeting either via the internet, or by telephone, utilising MS Teams. Public participation will be arranged by Committee Services.

Members of the public wishing to make comments or representations via a written submission are asked to do this electronically by e-mailing [email protected] by no later than 12 noon on the working day before the date of the meeting, and identify the agenda item(s) that their submission(s) relate(s) to. All written submissions should take no longer than 3 minutes to present and will be read out by an officer of the Council.

Members of the public wishing to make an oral submission to the meeting are asked to notify Member and Committee Services of this by e-mailing [email protected] by no later than 12 noon on the working day before the date of the meeting. Access to the meeting will then be arranged by Committee Services. All oral submissions should be no longer than 3 minutes.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 1

Please note that meetings are recorded for future broadcast.

Yours faithfully,

BRENT DAVIS

Executive Director – Operations

To: Members of Cabinet

Councillor J.A. Jackson (Finance and Civic Affairs (Leader)) Councillor N.J.P. Phillips (Planning, Development and Health (Deputy Leader)) Councillor I.K. Lloyd (Arts and Leisure) Councillor J. Sheppard (Central Services and Refuse) Councillor C. Watkins (Housing and Communities)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 2 AGENDA

PART I

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. MEETING PROTOCOL

To advise the meeting participants of the procedure that will be followed by the Members of the committee.

2. APOLOGIES - To receive apologies for absence from the meeting.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

To receive declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary and Other Interests, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Declaring interests at meetings If there is any item of business to be discussed at the meeting in which you have a disclosable pecuniary interest or non- pecuniary interest (Other Interests), you must declare the interest appropriately at the start of the meeting or as soon as you become aware that you have an interest.

Arrangements have been made for interests that are declared regularly by members to be appended to the agenda (Page 7). Any interest noted in the Schedule at the back of the agenda papers will be deemed to have been declared and will be minuted as such by the Committee Services Officer. As a general rule, there will, therefore, be no need for those Members to declare those interests as set out in the schedule.

There are, however, TWO EXCEPTIONS to the general rule:

1. When the interest amounts to a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is engaged in connection with any item on the agenda and the member feels that the interest is such that they must leave the room. Prior to leaving the room, the member must inform the meeting that they are doing so, to ensure that it is recorded in the minutes. 2. Where a dispensation has been granted to vote and/or speak on an item where there is a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, but it is not referred to in the Schedule (where for example, the dispensation was granted by the Monitoring Officer immediately prior to the meeting). The existence and nature of the dispensation needs to be recorded in the minutes and will, therefore, have to be disclosed at an appropriate time to the meeting.

Note: Following the adoption of the new Code of Conduct, Members are reminded that they should declare the existence and nature of their personal interests at the commencement of the relevant item (or as soon as the interest becomes apparent). If that interest is a Disclosable Pecuniary or a Deemed Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, the Member must withdraw from the room.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 3 Where a Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest but has received a dispensation from Audit and Standards Committee, that Member may vote and/or speak on the matter (as the case may be) and must disclose the existence of the dispensation and any restrictions placed on it at the time the interest is declared.

Where a Member has a Deemed Disclosable Interest as defined in the Code of Conduct, the Member may address the meeting as a member of the public as set out in the Code.

Note: Council Procedure Rules require Members with Disclosable Pecuniary Interests to withdraw from the meeting unless a dispensation allows them to remain to vote and/or speak on the business giving rise to the interest.

Where a Member has a Deemed Disclosable Interest, the Council’s Code of Conduct permits public speaking on the item, after which the Member is required by Council Procedure Rules to withdraw from the meeting.

4. MINUTES - To confirm the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on the 22nd July, 2020. (Page 10)

5. PUBLIC CONSULTATION – Members of the Public will be given the opportunity to speak on specific agenda items or have their submitted statement read by an officer of the Council, if notice has been received.

6. NEXT STEPS ACCOMMODATION PROGRAMME (NASP) a report of the Director – Regeneration and Housing attached (Page 19)

7. PROPOSAL FOR THE ALLOCATION OF WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (WCC) HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION GRANT a report of the Director – Regeneration and Housing attached (Page 25)

8. REDEVELOPMENT OF BYFORD COURT – a report of the Director – Regeneration and Housing attached (Page 34)

9. ANNUAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT 2019/20 a report of the Executive Director – Resources attached (Page 41)

10. GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND CAPITAL PROGRAMME QTR 1 BUDGET MONITORING – a report of the Executive Director – Resources (Page 59)

11. UPDATED STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT a report of the Director – Democracy, Planning and Public Protection attached (Page 79)

12. DRAFT NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY CHARGING SCHEDULE – a report of the Director – Democracy, Planning and Public Protection attached (Page 110)

13. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME – a report of the Director – Democracy, Planning and Public Protection attached (Page 285)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 4 14. NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH – SPORT ENGLAND “FACILITIES PLANNING MODELS” a report of the Director – Leisure, Recreation and Health attached (Page 306) 15. BRITISH CYCLING – STAGE TWO APPLICATION - a report of the Director – Leisure, Recreation and Health attached (Page 357)

16. NBBC - LEISURE PROCUREMENT STRATEGY – a report of the Director – Leisure, Recreation and Health attached (Page 372)

17. REPORT OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE EMERGENCY WORKING PARTY – a report of the Executive Director – Operations (Page 407)

18. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANELS

None

19. ANY OTHER ITEMS - which in the opinion of the Chair of the meeting should be considered as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances (which must be specified).

20. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS RECOMMENDED that under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item, it being likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information of the description specified in paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act.

21. NBBC - LEISURE PROCUREMENT STRATEGY – a report of the Director – Leisure, Recreation and Health

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 5

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

Delivering our Future 2019 – 2031

Vision: To aim to achieve the greatest improvement in quality of life in Warwickshire by 2031

Background: The ‘Delivering Our Future’ plan outlines how Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council will achieve its vision and ambitions over the next 12 years. It aims to do this by focusing and aligning its delivery to the themes and priorities outlined within this document.

Theme one: Transformation – We want to take the Borough forward to reach its full potential, we want to create and develop opportunities to deliver the following priorities:

Priority one: Economy and business – building on our strong economic record, growing our economy, capitalising on our strengths, promoting our Borough, telling our story Priority two: People – promoting skills and improving health within our communities, empowering and supporting our employees to deliver excellent services for residents Priority three: Housing and communities – enabling housing development to match our aspirations for the Borough; building homes, investing in safe, empowered, sustainable communities Priority four: Technology – maximising the opportunities presented by technology for our communities and services

Theme two: Collaboration – achieving more by working together - We recognise the importance of working with others to deliver our vision and recognise that collaboration needs to be central to our work. Our areas of focus will be:

Priority one: we will work with our communities Priority two: we will work with our partners, businesses, suppliers Priority three: we will work with our employees and elected members

Theme Three: Investment – making the most of what we have - We want to build and enhance what we have already. We want to encourage investment within the following priorities:

Priority one: Getting the most from our assets – from our people, land and property Priority two: Maximising funding – identifying and securing funding opportunities, being creative, maximising income streams Priority three: Managing our resources – maintaining our robust financial management arrangements to deliver efficient, economic and effective services Priority four: Promoting a sustainable, green economy; minimising our carbon footprint Priority five: Empowering our communities to make the most of their resources Priority six: Environment – cherishing our physical environment; enhancing our built environment and open spaces, maximising the value of our green spaces, improving our infrastructure

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 6 Agenda Item 3 Cabinet – Schedule of Declarations of Interests 2020/21

Name of Disclosable Pecuniary Other Personal Dispensation Councillor Interest Interest

General Granted to all members of the dispensations Council in the areas of: granted to all - Housing matters members - Statutory sick pay under under s.33 of Part XI of the Social the Localism Security Contributions and Act 2011 Benefits Act 1992 - An allowance, payment given to members - An indemnity given to members - Any ceremonial honour given to members - Setting council tax or a precept under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 - Planning and Licensing matters - Allotments - Local Enterprise Partnership J.A Jackson Any matter relating to the Unite the Union Dispensation to speak and employment policies and vote on matters that do not procedures of Nuneaton & relate specifically to her Bedworth Borough husband’s contract of Council or any matter employment. relating to the contractual arrangements with Sport & Non Executive Director with Dispensation to speak and Leisure Management Ltd. Nuneaton and Bedworth vote Community Enterprises Limited Representative on the following Outside Bodies: • Coventry, Warwickshire & Hinckley and Bosworth Joint Committee • District Leaders • Local Government Association • Local Enterprise Partnership • West Midlands Combined Authority I. Lloyd Non Executive Director with Dispensation to speak and Nuneaton and Bedworth vote Community Enterprises Limited. Representative on the following Outside Bodies: • Nuneaton & Bedworth Sports Forum

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 7 Name of Disclosable Pecuniary Other Personal Dispensation Councillor Interest Interest

• Camp Hill Urban Village and Pride in Camp Hill • Poor’s Piece Charity • Committee of Management of Hartshill & Nuneaton Recreation Group N. Phillips Employee of DWP Member of: NABCEL – to speak and vote • A5 Sterling Group on any matter where (Council the Council or Representative) Cabinet is asked to • Nuneaton Labour CLP approve any funding • The Fabian Society arrangement; grant; • The George Eliot or other legal Society instrument with the • The PCS Union company but this • Nuneaton Credit Union dispensation shall not apply where any Non-Executive Director Non-Executive with Nuneaton and Director benefits Bedworth Community from the Enterprises Limited. arrangements in a personal capacity. Representative on the following Outside Bodies: • A5 Member Partnership • PATROL Joint Committee • Warwickshire Health & Wellbeing Board • Building Control Partnership Steering Group J. Sheppard Partnership member of the Hill Top and Caldwell Big Local.

Director of Wembrook Dispensation to speak and Community Centre. vote on any matters of Borough Plan that relate to the Directorship of Wembrook Community Centre Member of the Management Committee at the Mental Health Drop in. Champion for Safeguarding (Children & Adults)

Representative on the following Outside Bodies: • Local Government Superannuation Scheme Consultative Board • Warwickshire Direct Partnership

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 8 Name of Disclosable Pecuniary Other Personal Dispensation Councillor Interest Interest

• Warwickshire Waste Partnership • West Midland Employers • Nuneaton Neighbour Watch Committee C.M Watkins Landlord of a privately Representative on the rented property following outside bodies: • Nuneaton and Bedworth Home Improvement Agency. • Nuneaton and Bedworth Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership. • Safer Warwickshire Partnership Board. • Warwickshire Housing Support Partnership. • Warwickshire Police and Crime Panel.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 9 Agenda Item 4

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

CABINET 22nd July, 2020

A meeting of Cabinet was held on Wednesday 22nd July, 2020. Due to government guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic this meeting was held virtually at various remote locations and live streamed.

Present

Councillor J.A Jackson (Finance and Civic Affairs (Leader)) Councillor N.J.P. Phillips (Planning, Development and Health (Deputy Leader)) Councillor I.K. Lloyd (Arts and Leisure) Councillor J. Sheppard (Central Services and Refuse) Councillor C.M. Watkins (Housing and Communities)

PART I – PUBLIC BUSINESS

CB7 Declarations of Interest

RESOLVED that the Declarations of Interest for this meeting are as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

CB8 Minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 24th June 2020, be approved and signed by the Chair.

CB9 General Fund, Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and Capital Programme Outturn 2019/20

The Executive Director – Resources submitted a report to Cabinet detailing the final outturn position for 2019/20 for the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account budgets and the 2019/20 Capital Programme spend and financing. The report also included an updated Capital Programme for 2020/21 to take account of slippage from the previous year.

RESOLVED that

a) the outturn position for 2019/20 for the General Fund, HRA and Capital Programmes be noted;

b) the earmarked reserve balances (as detailed in section 4 onwards of the report and Appendix B of the report) be approved;

c) the updated General Fund and HRA Capital Programmes for 2020/21 as attached at Appendix E of the report be recommended to Council for approval; and

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 10 d) due to the timescales involved with approving the Statement of Accounts for 2019/20, this report be marked not for call in.

Speakers: Councillor K. Kondakor

Options To request further information on the outturn position

Reasons The Council must achieve a balanced budget each year

CB10 Submission of Final Business Case to Future High Streets Fund

The Director – Regeneration and Housing submitted a report to Cabinet outlining the work undertaken to date to complete the Final Business Case. The report also sought Cabinet’s approval to submit the Final Business case as summarised in Section 4 of the report in line with the deadline of 31st July 2020.

RESOLVED that

a) the content of the Final Business Case as summarised in Section 4 of this report be approved;

b) the submission of the Final Business Case by 31st July 2020 be approved by Cabinet;

c) delegated authority be given to the Director – Regeneration and Housing, to make any minor amendments that may be necessary to the Final Business Case; and

d) the report be marked not for call in due to the Government’s timescales involved for submission of the Final Business case.

Speakers: Councillor K. Kondakor Councillor K. Wilson

Options To reject the recommendations with no submission made, due to the timescales.

Reasons To enable the Council to comply with the requirements of the Future High Streets Fund Programme and compete for funding to support the regeneration of Nuneaton Town Centre.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 11 CB11 Strategic Risk Register Review

The Governance, Risk Management and Performance Officer submitted the Council’s Strategic Risk Register for review. This is submitted on a quarterly basis and brought to Cabinet for approval when a significant change(s) is/are made to the register.

RESOLVED that report be noted.

Speakers: Councillor K. Kondakor

Options Note the report and request amendments/improvements

Reasons Effective risk management arrangements are maintained.

CB12 Local Plan Review

A report was submitted to the Local Plan Committee held on the 1st July 2020 by the Director – Democracy, Planning and Public Protection on the Local Plan Review. The report updated the committee on the progress made since the previous report in January 2020 and outlined the process to be taken forward in respect of the Borough Plan review. From this, recommendations were agreed to be put forward to Cabinet for consideration.

Speakers: Councillor K. Kondakor

RESOLVED that

a) subject to the publication of the revised Government guidance, a revised Local Development Scheme with a clear timetable for the review be reported to Cabinet by the end of September 2020, together with a first draft of the list of policies that will be suggested for review;

b) the work through the Joint Committee on a sub-regional basis be endorsed; and

c) the financial implications of abortive work be noted.

CB13 Evidence Base and Planning for the Future

A report was submitted to the Local Plan Committee held on the 1st July 2020 by the Head of Planning on the Evidence Base and Planning for the Future. The report detailed documents that were used in the development of the Borough Plan and would now need to be updated with a new evidence base. In addition, it outlined the changes to Planning Policy and future government legislation which may have an impact on this. From this, recommendations were agreed to be put forward to Cabinet for consideration.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 12 Speakers: Councillor K. Kondakor

RESOLVED that

a) where new evidence is required to feed into the Supplementary Planning Documents, Development Plan Documents or other work the Council is progressing then an end date commensurate with being able to fit in with a review of the plan be encouraged;

b) no further work on the evidence base be undertaken until the method for calculating Housing Needs and other policy changes are clearer so that work undertaken is not done so prematurely; and

c) further reports be made to the committee on the changes to the planning regime.

CB14 Recommendations from Overview and Scrutiny Panels

Monitoring of the Grounds Maintenance Contract – Internal Overview and Scrutiny Panel – 11th June 2020

Speakers: Councillor K. Evans Councillor K. Wilson

Councillor Glass – Chair of the Internal OSP presented a recommendation to Cabinet regarding the Monitoring of the Grounds Maintenance Contract report which detailed the performance of the contract provider Glendale Grounds Maintenance. The performance information included the results of a satisfaction survey which listed a nil return as a positive response. The panel wished to recommend that the Council cease to recognise a nil return as a positive response to provide a more accurate picture of performance.

RESOLVED that Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council cease to recognise a nil return on a ground’s maintenance satisfaction survey as a positive response.

CB15 Devolution White Paper

The Executive Director – Resources and Executive Director – Operations submitted a report to Cabinet seeking approval for the Borough Council to jointly commission, with a number of the other Warwickshire local authorities and suitable consultants, to undertake a review of the Local Government structures within the County. The results, and any recommendations, from this review is to be used for submissions to Central Government in proposing any changes necessary. This report arises as the Government intends to publish a White Paper in the autumn on further devolution to regions, as set out in the Queen’s Speech delivered before Christmas. It has been widely reported that in considering the devolution and “levelling-up” agenda there will be a need to reform Local Government, especially in two-tier areas.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 13 RESOLVED that

a) the Borough Council participates in the review of Local Government in Warwickshire as set out in the report;

b) the Executive Directors be given delegated authority, in consultation with the Leader of the Council to agree the final brief for the review;

c) the Council contribute to the cost of the review, up to a maximum of £30k, to be funded from the Financial Planning Reserve;

d) the Leader of the Council be appointed as the Borough Council’s Elected Member representative on any working group to consider this work across the County or region; and

e) this report be marked not for call in on the grounds of urgency.

Speakers Councillor K. Kondakor Councillor K. Wilson

Options To ask for further information

Reasons To enable the Council to be able to respond in a balanced, objective and well informed manner to the anticipated Autumn devolution White Paper.

CB16 Exclusion of Public and Press

RESOLVED that under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item, it being likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information of the description specified in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act.

CB17 Town Centre Urban Regeneration Update

The Director – Regeneration and Housing submitted a report to Cabinet detailing the current activities being undertaken by the Council to progress the Transforming Nuneaton Programme.

RESOLVED that

a) the expenditure totalling £375k, funded from the Investment Properties Capital Programme budget to progress the Abbey Quarter Development proposals to masterplan stage be approved;

b) the progress in relation to 4.3 of the report be noted; and

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 14 c) the report be marked not for call in, due to the timescales involved to progress the matter to masterplan and subsequent planning permissions in a timely manner to support both the progress of the Transforming Nuneaton Programme and support the ongoing economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Speakers: Councillor K. Kondakor Councillor K. Wilson

Options To reject the recommendations

Reasons To enable the Council to progress the regeneration of the Abbey Street Quarter and place the Council in an excellent position to compete for funding to support the regeneration of Nuneaton Town Centre.

Chair

PUBLICATION DATE: 27th July, 2020

DECISIONS COME INTO FORCE: 4th August, 2020

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 15 Cabinet – Schedule of Declarations of Interests 2020/21

Name of Disclosable Pecuniary Other Personal Dispensation Councillor Interest Interest

General Granted to all members of the dispensations Council in the areas of: granted to all - Housing matters members - Statutory sick pay under under s.33 of Part XI of the Social the Localism Security Contributions and Act 2011 Benefits Act 1992 - An allowance, payment given to members - An indemnity given to members - Any ceremonial honour given to members - Setting council tax or a precept under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 - Planning and Licensing matters - Allotments - Local Enterprise Partnership J.A Jackson Any matter relating to the Unite the Union Dispensation to speak and employment policies and vote on matters that do not procedures of Nuneaton & relate specifically to her Bedworth Borough husband’s contract of Council or any matter employment. relating to the contractual arrangements with Sport & Non Executive Director with Dispensation to speak and Leisure Management Ltd. Nuneaton and Bedworth vote Community Enterprises Limited Representative on the following Outside Bodies:  Coventry, Warwickshire & Hinckley and Bosworth Joint Committee  District Leaders  Local Government Association  Local Enterprise Partnership  West Midlands Combined Authority I. Lloyd Non Executive Director with Dispensation to speak and Nuneaton and Bedworth vote Community Enterprises Limited. Representative on the following Outside Bodies:  Nuneaton & Bedworth Sports Forum

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 16 Name of Disclosable Pecuniary Other Personal Dispensation Councillor Interest Interest

 Camp Hill Urban Village and Pride in Camp Hill  Poor’s Piece Charity  Committee of Management of Hartshill & Nuneaton Recreation Group N. Phillips Employee of DWP Member of: NABCEL – to speak and vote  A5 Sterling Group on any matter where (Council the Council or Representative) Cabinet is asked to  Nuneaton Labour CLP approve any funding  The Fabian Society arrangement; grant;  The George Eliot or other legal Society instrument with the  The PCS Union company but this  Nuneaton Credit Union dispensation shall not apply where any Non-Executive Director Non-Executive with Nuneaton and Director benefits Bedworth Community from the Enterprises Limited. arrangements in a personal capacity. Representative on the following Outside Bodies:  A5 Member Partnership  PATROL Joint Committee  Warwickshire Health & Wellbeing Board  Building Control Partnership Steering Group J. Sheppard Partnership member of the Hill Top and Caldwell Big Local.

Director of Wembrook Dispensation to speak and Community Centre. vote on any matters of Borough Plan that relate to the Directorship of Wembrook Community Centre Member of the Management Committee at the Mental Health Drop in. Champion for Safeguarding (Children & Adults)

Representative on the following Outside Bodies:  Local Government Superannuation Scheme Consultative Board  Warwickshire Direct Partnership

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 17 Name of Disclosable Pecuniary Other Personal Dispensation Councillor Interest Interest

 Warwickshire Waste Partnership  West Midland Employers  Nuneaton Neighbour Watch Committee C.M Watkins Landlord of a privately Representative on the rented property following outside bodies:  Nuneaton and Bedworth Home Improvement Agency.  Nuneaton and Bedworth Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership.  Safer Warwickshire Partnership Board.  Warwickshire Housing Support Partnership.  Warwickshire Police and Crime Panel.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 18 Agenda item:6

Cabinet

Report Summary Sheet

Date: 14th October 2020

Subject: Next Steps Accommodation Programme (NASP)

Portfolio: Housing and Communities

From: Director- Regeneration and Housing

Summary: The Government announced a bidding opportunity, and released the prospectus, to secure funding for local projects under the NSAP at the end of July 2020. The deadline for submissions was 20th August 2020. This report is to seek approval for the proposal submitted to Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) for funding from the NSAP, should we be successful.

Recommendations To note the proposal that has been submitted to MHCLG.

Options:

1. To note the proposal

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 19 Reasons: 1. The Council will be able to support more rough sleepers toward living in their own accommodation independently as a result of the funding we may receive for this proposal.

Consultation undertaken with Members/Officers/Stakeholders Director- Regeneration and Housing, Executive Director- Resources, Portfolio Holder- Housing and Communities, WCC, PH, P3

Subject to call-in:

Yes

Ward relevance; Borough wide

Forward plan: No

Delivering Our Future Theme: 2- Collaboration- achieving more by working together

Delivering Our Future Priority: 2- Partners- we will work with our partners

Relevant statutes or policy: Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 NBBC Allocation Policy

Equalities Implications: This funding will enable some of the most vulnerable people in our communities to receive the support they need to secure and sustain accommodation

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 20

Human resources implications: none

Financial implications: NBBC will receive ring-fenced grant funding of £180,000 Capital, and £131,308 Revenue (comprising of £34,500 for the support worker, and the remainder partial repayment of lost subsidy mitigating some of the loss to the General Fund) with which to deliver the proposal detailed in the report. Health Inequalities Implications: It is well documented that rough sleepers have poor physical and mental ill- health, in part due to their transient and rough sleeping life-style, but also because of the lack of access to primary and secondary health care when they need it due to being NFA. This proposal will address this issue with the support provided.

Section 17 Crime & Disorder Implications: There are times when rough sleepers are considered to be committing Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB). This may be because they are begging, or because of their addictions to alcohol or drugs that results in inappropriate behavior. This proposal will seek to address these issues and therefore reduce ASB in the community.

Risk management implications: none

Environmental implications: The removal of rough sleepers from our Borough will serve to improve the environmental impacts of seeing rough sleepers in our built environment areas.

Legal implications: The proposal helps the Council to deliver its duties under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017

Contact details:

Head of Strategic Housing- Jane Grant 02476376483

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 21 AGENDA ITEM NO.6

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Cabinet -

From: Director- Regeneration and Housing

Subject: Next Steps Accommodation Programme (NSAP)

Portfolio: Housing and Communities ( C Watkins)

Delivering Our Future Theme:

Delivering Our Future Priority:

Purpose of Report

1.1 The Government announced a bidding opportunity, and released the prospectus, to secure funding for local projects under the NSAP at the end of July 2020. The deadline for submissions was 20th August 2020. 1.2 This report is to seek approval for the proposal submitted to Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) for funding from the NSAP, should we be successful.

2. Recommendations

2.1 To note the proposal that has been submitted to MHCLG.

2.2 That if the bid is successful, relevant income and expenditure virements are approved in order for the funding to be spent within the required time period.

3. Background

3.1 On 24 May, the Secretary of State announced £161 million for 20/21 to deliver 3,300 units of longer-term, move on accommodation. Organisations wishing to bid for the £161 million must clearly demonstrate in their proposal how the funding will be used to bring forward long-term, move-on accommodation. The £161 million for this financial year is split into £130 million capital funding and £31 million revenue funding.

3.2 On 24 June, the Secretary of State announced £105 million to be used for immediate support for local authorities. The funding can cover a

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 22 range of interventions, from moves into the private rented sector, to extending or procuring interim accommodation such as hotels or student accommodation and supporting individuals to reconnect with friends or family. Organisations wishing to bid for the £105 million must clearly demonstrate in their proposal how the funding will be used to rapidly support those in COVID-19 emergency accommodation. The £105 million is revenue only and to be utilised in 20/21

3.3 The Next Steps Accommodation Programme comprises both the £105 million and the £161 million for 20/21 although different considerations will apply to the assessment of each

4. Body of Report

4.1 NBBC submitted a proposal for both Capital and Revenue funding from the NSAP before the deadline for bids on 20th August 2020.

4.2 The Capital bid of £180,000 is for the acquisition of 2 x 1 bed flats that will be used as Step Down self-contained accommodation for former rough sleepers occupying temporary homelessness accommodation. This Grant has to be spent by the end of March 2021. There is adequate headroom within the current HRA Capital Programme for this additional spend to be accommodated without requiring an increase to the overall programme total.

4.3 The Revenue funding bid is made up of two parts:

a) Funding to mitigate the subsidy loss to the council for placements of rough sleepers in to temporary accommodation (B&Bs). This funding can be backdated to 1st July 2020 and runs until 31st March 2021. We are only able to claim for up to 12 individuals due to the number of rough sleepers we have counted in previous years. The amount totals £96,808

b) Funding of £34,500 to enable P3 to recruit to a dedicated support worker to support up to 12 former rough sleepers placed in to temporary accommodation as part of the NSAP.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The NSAP proposal detailed above, would be a welcome addition to the existing services the Council employs to support rough sleepers and those at risk of rough sleeping in the borough, not least because it will enable the council to offer more intensive support for those in temporary accommodation, while also mitigating the costs of doing so to the councils general fund.

5.2 At the time of this report we do not yet have a timescale for a decision and response to our submission from MHCLG.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 23

6. Appendices (none)

7. Background Papers ( none)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 24 Agenda item:7

Cabinet

Report Summary Sheet

Date: 9th September 2020

Subject: Proposal for the allocation of Warwickshire County Council (WCC) Homelessness Prevention Grant

Portfolio: Housing and Communities

From: Director- Regeneration and Housing

Summary: WCC have awarded NBBC with a Grant of £200K with which to deliver a homelessness prevention initiative, over a 2 year period.

Recommendations: 1.That the proposal for the allocation of Warwickshire County Council (WCC) Homelessness Prevention Grant, contained within this report, be approved. 2. To approve income and expenditure virements of £200,000

Options: 1. Approve the allocation of the Grant as per the recommendation

2. That the proposal be rejected and further consideration take place to propose an alternative initiative

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 25 3. That the proposal be amended as per Cabinet instruction

Reasons: The proposed initiative will significantly assist in the prevention of homelessness for one of the Council’s highest reasons for homelessness in the Borough:- Loss of private rented accommodation by way of a S.21 Notice.

Consultation undertaken with Members/Officers/Stakeholders

Portfolio Holder Housing and Communities

Director Regeneration and Housing

WCC (Public Health)

Subject to call-in: Yes

Ward relevance: Borough wide

Forward plan: Yes

Delivering Our Future Theme: 2

Delivering Our Future Priority: 1

Relevant statutes or policy: Homeless Reduction Act 2017

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 26

Equalities Implications: None

Human resources implications:

Recruitment to a new post :- Landlord Liaison Assistant x 2

Honorarium to be paid to Landlord Liaison and Development Officer for management of these posts for a fixed 2 year period.

Financial implications: Grant of £200k from WCC for the purpose of preventing homelessness by way of an initiative already approved by WCC, at no anticipated additional costs to NBBC. This allocation and proposal is for a 2 year period. There has been an allowance within the costings approved by WCC to cover any potential redundancy costs at the end of the 2 year period, and to allow for the 2 year fixed term honorarium payment as mentioned above. Health Inequalities Implications: None

Section 17 Crime & Disorder Implications: None

Risk management implications: None

Environmental implications: None

Legal implications: Compliance with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 27

Contact details:

Jane Grant- Head of Strategic Housing Services- 02476376483

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 28 AGENDA ITEM NO.7

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Cabinet - 9th September 2020

From: Director- Regeneration and Housing

Subject: Proposal for the allocation of Warwickshire County Council (WCC) Homelessness Prevention Grant

Portfolio: Housing and Communities (C Watkins)

Delivering Our Future Theme: 2

Delivering Our Future Priority: 1

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek approval for the allocation of a £200k grant from WCC, for the proposal detailed in the this report, to assist the council deliver a homelessness prevention initiative for the private rented sector.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That the proposal for the allocation of WCC grant funding, be approved for the purposes as detailed in this report

2.2 To approve income and expenditure virements of £200,000

3. Background

3.1 WCC have worked in partnership with NBBC, and the other District and Borough Councils in the County, for the past few years, on the prevention of homelessness agenda. Public Health and WCC are keen to see the health and wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable residents in Warwickshire be improved, and have determined that the prevention of homelessness is a key mechanism for achieving this aim.

3.2 During 2019 WCC approved the allocation of £200k to Stratford on Avon, and Warwick District Councils to assist with projects within their respective areas for tackling homelessness.

3.3 WCC made the same award to NWBC earlier this year, and sought proposals from Rugby Borough and NBBC to enable the same one

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 29 off payment, thus ensuring all District and Boroughs have benefitted from a Grant toward homelessness prevention. 3.4 It is well documented, and reported that there are likely to be even more Section 21 Notices being served on private tenants, as a result of the impact of COVID19 on unemployment and the economic downturn. The loss of accommodation through the inability to pay market rents is anticipated to be high, as Landlords have been restricted through temporary Government legislation from taking court action. This has now been relaxed and Courts are preparing for an influx of possession applications.

4. Body of Report

4.1 The proposal, as attached in Appendix A, is for a fixed-term, 2 year role, for 2 positions that will operate within the Housing Solutions Service as dedicated private rented sector liaison Officers. They will be called Landlord Liaison Assistants, and will report to the existing Private Sector Landlord Liaison and Development Officer, who in turn reports to the Housing Solutions Manager.

4.2 The remit of the role will be to proactively engage with local Landlords, and Letting Agents, as well as private sector tenants, who are facing potential homelessness. The purpose will be to explore all available options to prevent homelessness and sustain the tenancies.

4.3 In addition to the above, the role will work closely with the CBL team, to identify potential private tenants registering on NBBCHomes, that have indicated they are struggling with their private rented accommodation.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The proposal as detailed above and in the appendix attached, will greatly assist and enhance the services delivered by the Housing Solutions Team to prevent homelessness in the Borough.

5.2 The opportunity to deliver a new initiative to further prevent homelessness, via a grant from WCC is to be welcomed and our thanks and appreciation recorded accordingly, along with the agreement to update WCC on progress and outcomes achieved as as result of their funding award.

6. Appendices

Appendix A Preventing Homelessness- WCC grant opportunity

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 30 7. Background Papers (if none, state none)

APPENDIX A

Preventing Homelessness- WCC Grant Opportunity Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council July 2020

1. Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Context

Though there is a rough sleeping population within the borough, this has been significantly Reduced following the award for 2019/20 of MHCLG grant funding to open a Rough Sleeper Hostel, with support on site for 5 individuals at a time. In addition there are a further 5 spaces of temporary accommodation supported by the project by way of floating support. 10 former rough sleepers therefore currently benefit for this service. For 20/21 we have secured additional funding to continue with the above and also provide 5 units of ‘Move On’, ‘Step Down’ self- contained housing for those ready to move out of the RSI project into independent accommodation, supported by a support provider similarly to a Housing First type model.

The Housing Solutions Team of 6 FTE Officers manage a case load of on average 60 households at any one time- some at prevention stage, many at relief stage and some at Full Duty stage awaiting allocation of permanent housing. There has been a considerable increase in Duty to Refer (DTR) referrals from external agencies and the team are struggling to meet the service standards for response times due to their workload.

NBBC has 96 households (some singles) in temporary accommodation at the present time. This includes the 10 RSI funded rough sleepers.

2. Current Service Gap

Research carried out by NBBC, and indeed Nationally, has identified a high probability of homelessness as a result of the wider impacts of COVID19. Not least of our concerns is the number of private rented tenancies that are likely to be lost over the coming months, following the release from eviction restrictions and the increase in job losses following the lifting of the furlough scheme, later this year and into next- and for some considerable time afterwards. This issue gives us great cause for concern given the size of the private rented sector in our Borough, and the level of lower paid jobs that have already been lost, and are yet to be lost as a likely result of Government support for employers/businesses to start to Diminish.

3. Proposal

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 31 The appointment of 2 X Private Sector Landlord Liaison Assistants, reporting to, and working closely with, the existing Landlord Liaison and Development Officer, to be a Single Point of Contact within the Housing Solutions Service for local private rented Landlords who are considering ending tenancies due to changes in tenants financial circumstances . This proposal will deliver something akin to the ‘Call B4You Serve’ initiative that some Local Authorities use elsewhere. The service we could deliver in-house, with this new post within our existing Housing Solutions Team would include the following:- • Support for landlords in what can be a very stressful time • Help to create a personalised housing plan agreed with the tenant. • Rent arrears assistance through Housing benefit services, Universal Credit, local government homeless prevention funds and charities. • A financial assessment of tenants, maximising income to help ensure successful tenancies. • Referrals and signposting to specialist services for more long-term support if needed. • A mediation service between landlords, tenants and Local authorities. • Help and advice on leasing properties to arrange supported housing Providers. • Identification of private sector tenants in Housing need on the Councils Choice Based Scheme: NBBCHomes with a view to making contact and supporting an appropriate resolution to their needs

Fundamentally the post will help us to increase prevention and reduce homelessness. It is envisaged that the following outcomes will be achieved:- a) Monitor the number of applicants approaching NBBC with Section 21’s, or Sections 21’s that might be issued, identifying the increase, and then evidence a reduction of the notices being actioned by landlords as a result of NBBC interventions, compared with the previous year April 2019 to March 2020. This will be monitored on a quarterly basis over the 2 years b) A reduction in households actually being made homeless as a result of a S.21 Notice c) An improvement to the health and wellbeing of households able to remain in their homes for longer periods of time, due to the more settled nature of their accommodation. d) An increase in the number of Private Sector Landlords Letting to Applicants in receipt of benefits:- evidence the increase of Private

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 32 Sector Landlords who are engaging with NBBC to prevent evictions or who are willing to house NBBC customers, by comparisons over previous years. e) Identify those customers who could have been at risk of rough sleeping if NBBC had not worked to prevent their homelessness in the private sector. (The identifier being customer who have a previous housing history of rough sleeping)

4. Funding

We would propose to use £155,446 the recruitment and employment of the positions over the 2 years. The remaining £44,000 would be used to enable ad-hoc and innovative solutions to facilitate preventions, alongside the Councils existing FHSG (where it does not need to be reserved for potential redundancy costs associated with the recruitment to these posts), that would avoid the need for relief duty and ultimately full housing duty. As a Ring Fenced Grant this would be made available to the Housing Solutions Team for early-interventions.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 33 Agenda item: 8

CABINET

Report Summary Sheet

Date: 9th September 2020

Subject: Consultation regarding redevelopment of existing dwellings.

Portfolio: Housing and Communities – Councillor C. Watkins

From: Director – Housing and Regeneration

Summary: The new Independent Living Service was launched in May 2017 and included the decommissioning of 5 difficult to let schemes. The remaining schemes have been closely monitored. It has become apparent that other schemes are becoming difficult to let. These are largely the schemes that continue to provide bedsit accommodation. There have been and continue to be, a number of initiatives aimed at promoting the bedsit accommodation, along with the additional benefits of Independent Living. It is however clear, that the bedsit type of accommodation is not as attractive to older people as may have been the case historically.

Recommendations:

1. That consent be given to commence consultation with tenants, staff and relevant stakeholders regarding the redevelopment of part of the accommodation and garages at Byford Court.

Reasons: Byford Court provides accommodation within 2 distinct blocks and is in close proximity to Black-A-Tree Court. The block with its frontage to Byford Street, houses the communal lounge and comprises 24

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 34 bedsits, of which 12 are vacant and 2 flats, both vacant. There are no passenger or stairlifts within the whole of the complex. The bedsits are notoriously difficult to let, with the oldest one being vacant since June 2016. The internal layout of this block means that it does not easily lend itself to converting 2 properties into one, across all affected units. In terms of Housing Need across the borough, the largest demand is for general purpose accommodation rather than bedsits and certainly not bedsits in accommodation designated for older persons.

Options: 1. To endorse the commencement of consultation on the basis of the proposal contained within this report.

2. To not accept this proposal and identify an alternative proposition for consultation.

Subject to call-in: Yes

Forward plan: Yes.

Corporate priorities: T1 P3 T3 P3 Relevant statutes or Housing Act 1985 policy: Local Government Act 1988 Housing & Planning Act 2016 Welfare Reform Act 2016

Equal opportunity implications: Any implications will be identified via the consultation

Human resources implications: None at this point.

Financial implications: The Housing Revenue Account is required to pay Council Tax for the empty accommodation and experiences a significant loss of rental income. The proposed option to redevelop would be funded from the Housing Revenue Account Capital Programme and

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 35 there are sufficient allocations within the Business Plan to fund this work.

Health Inequalities Implications:

Any implications will be identified via the consultation process

Section 17 - Crime and Disorder Implications:

None directly arising from the content of the report

Risk management implications:

None arising directly from this report.

Environmental implications: None directly arising from the content of the report

Legal implications: None directly arising from the content of the report

Contact details: Dawn Dawson Ext 6408

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 36 AGENDAITEM NO. 8

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Cabinet – 9th September 2020

From: Director – Housing and Regeneration

Subject: Consultation regarding redevelopment of existing dwellings.

Portfolio: Housing and Communities (Councillor C. Watkins)

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 To request approval to commence consultation in relation to the redevelopment of some buildings at Byford Court.

2.0 Recommendations

2.1 That consent be given to commence consultation with tenants, staff and relevant stakeholders regarding the redevelopment of part of the accommodation and garages at Byford Court.

2.2 That a report be bought back to a future Cabinet meeting with the outcome of the consultation process.

3.0 Background

3.1 The new Independent Living Service was launched in May 2017. This included decommissioning 5 schemes to General Purpose housing. The decommissioned schemes were identified based on the number of voids, the accessibility of the properties, the size of the properties and their proximity to other then, sheltered housing schemes.

3.2 Since May 2017, it has become apparent that there are other schemes that are becoming difficult to let. These are largely the schemes that continue to provide bedsit accommodation. There have been and continue to be, a number of initiatives aimed at promoting the bedsit accommodation, along with the additional benefits of Independent Living. It is however clear, that the bedsit type of accommodation is not as attractive to older people as may have been the case historically. 4.0 Options 4.1 All options have been considered and evaluated as below; 1. Do Nothing:

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 37 This option has been discounted as the status quo is not acceptable. The loss of rental income, coupled with the payment of Council Tax liability means that the cost to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) is unsustainable;

2. Create Temporary Accommodation to One Half: Option A - This option involves alterations only to the existing units and would require a wall to be built by the left hand entrance. This is in order to separate the two sides of the building. A separate door entry system would be required, as would the installation of a new door entry system to the right hand side. In order to accommodate homeless families, there would be a requirement to ‘knock through’ flats 55 & 56, 58 & 59, 64 & 65, 62 & 63, leaving flats 60, 61,66 & 57 as a single person unit. The single person units would require new kitchens, bathrooms and decoration as many are in a poor state of repair – this is because investment has been directed elsewhere, to properties that are in demand. The amalgamated units would require the removal of one set of kitchens and bathrooms and the installation of new kitchens bathrooms and complete decoration throughout. Each property would also need furnishing, with white goods, crockery, cutlery and flooring provided.

This option would cost in the region of £280k and achieve a net income in the region of £64k per annum. Additionally, costs would be incurred in the form of a statutorily payable Homeloss Payment and Disturbance Payment to the four current occupants. These would equate to a total of £31,600. The payback period for the investment would be 4.8 years.

Option B – This option involves a full refurbishment to create 18 units, based on the provision at Spitalfields House. This would create 18 units with communal kitchens and bathrooms and would cost in the region of £713k and achieve a net income of £170k per annum. Additionally, costs would be incurred in the form of a statutorily payable Homeloss Payment and Disturbance Payment to the four current occupants. These would equate to a total of £71,100. The payback period for the investment would be 10 years.

3. Demolish and Rebuild General Purpose Accommodation; As mentioned, there is a critical need to provide general purpose accommodation. Given the physical design of the block in question, consideration has been given to the demolition of the block. In its place, a minimum of 13 units of general purpose homes, ranging from 2 to 4 beds, could be built by utilising the footprint of the block and the attached garage area. This option, with a grant from Homes England or the use of one for one Right to Buy receipts would cost in the region of £1.8m to demolish

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 38 and rebuild. Additionally, costs would be incurred in the form of a statutorily payable Homeloss Payment and Disturbance Payment to the nine current occupants. These would equate to a total of £71,000. This would achieve a net income in the region of £57k per annum and the payback period for the investment would be 33 years. This is well within the 50 year period contained within the Development and Acquisitions Strategy. As a new build development, it would attract a 15 year cost floor protection.

Additional Considerations 4.2 There are further considerations to be taken into account as follows; a) Each of the options (other than Do Nothing), would require decommissioning the scheme.

b) Given the continual difficulty in letting the scheme with bedsit accommodation and, given its proximity to Black-A-Tree Court, consideration should be given to the long term viability of the block. Demolition and rebuild for general purpose homes would help to provide much needed general purpose accommodation, provide some mitigation to the costs for temporary accommodation for homeless households, and should be considered alongside the lack of available development spaces within the Housing Revenue Account.

c) Each of the options (other than Do Nothing) would require time to implement and each would require consultation. Consultation must be undertaken over 8 weeks.

d) Each of the options (other than Do Nothing) would require time to decant the existing tenants into suitable alternative accommodation. Dependent upon the final agreed option, the other wing of the block would have capacity to accommodate the tenants, however, they may wish to move elsewhere. Should they wish to move to the other wing, new kitchens and bathrooms may be required prior to the move. Tenants should be allowed a number of options and a reasonable timeframe to consider properties available and then undertake the move. This could take around 3 months, meaning the area in question would be fully vacated in December 2020.

e) The conversion of the Council House will come on stream in February 2021, meaning that there would then likely be an over provision of temporary accommodation for homeless families at this point.

5.0 Consultation Approach

5.1 To ensure thorough and meaningful consultation is carried out with Independent Living residents and appropriate stakeholders, it is proposed

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 39 that consultation will be undertaken over an eight week period. The consultation will take the form of written information being given to all residents, with the opportunity for face to face discussions with senior officers from Housing and Communities.

4.2 All feedback will be collated and presented at a future Cabinet for the decision in relation to the redevelopment of parts of Byford Court.

4.3 Should approval to consult be given, and subject to call in, consultation with staff, service users and relevant stakeholders will begin on Wednesday 16th September 2020.

Proposed Timeline

Consultation September 2020 – November 2020

Report to Cabinet 9th December 2020

DAWN DAWSON

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 40 Agenda item: 9

Cabinet

Report Summary Sheet

Date: 9th September 2020

Subject: Annual Treasury Management Report 2019/20

Portfolio: Finance and Civic Affairs (Councillor J Jackson)

From: Executive Director - Resources

Summary:

To report the results of the Council’s Treasury Management activities for 2019/20 as required by the Prudential Code.

Recommendations: That it be recommended to Council that:  The actual 2019/20 Treasury and Prudential Indicators detailed in this report and summarised in Appendix 1 be approved.  The Annual Treasury Management Report for 2019/20 be noted.

Options:

None

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 41 Reasons: It is a requirement of the CIPFA Prudential Code for the Treasury Outturn to be reported Council annually following review by the Cabinet

Consultation undertaken with Members/Officers/Stakeholders Portfolio Holder

Subject to call-in:

No – Statutory requirement for report to be submitted to Cabinet and Council prior to end October. Ward relevance: None directly

Forward plan:

Yes

Delivering our Future Themes & Priorities: Theme 3 : Investment – making the most of what we have Priority 3 : Managing our resources

Relevant statutes or policy: Local Government Act 2003 CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities

Equalities Implications: None

Human resources implications: None

Financial implications: As detailed within the report

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 42 Health Inequalities Implications: None

Section 17 Crime & Disorder Implications: None

Risk management implications: Investment and borrowing decisions have been based on the approved Treasury Strategy 2019/20 and with approved counterparties

Environmental implications: None

Legal implications: Statutory requirement to report to Council per the Local Government Act 2003 and the CIPFA Prudential Code

Contact details:

Craig Pugh – Head of Financial Services 02476 376104

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 43 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Cabinet – 9th September 2020

From: Executive Director - Resources

Subject: Annual Treasury Management Report 2019/20

Portfolio: Finance and Civic Affairs (Councillor J Jackson)

Delivering our Future Theme: 3

Delivering our Future Priority: 3

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 This Council is required through regulations issued under the Local Government Act 2003 to produce an Annual Treasury Report reviewing the treasury management activities and the actual prudential and treasury indicators for 2019/20. This report meets the requirements of both the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management (the Code) and the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (the Prudential Code).

2. Recommendations

2.1 That it be recommended to Council that:  The actual 2019/20 Treasury and Prudential Indicators detailed in this report and summarised in Appendix 1 be approved.  The Annual Treasury Management Report for 2019/20 be noted.

3. Introduction

3.1 During 2019/20 the minimum reporting requirements were that the full Council should receive the following reports from the Cabinet:  An annual treasury strategy in advance of the year (Cabinet 13 February 2019);  A mid year treasury update report (Cabinet 13 November 2019);  An annual review following the end of the year describing the activity compared to the strategy (this report)

3.2 Changes in the regulatory environment place a much greater onus on Members for the review and scrutiny of treasury management policy and activities. This report is important in that respect, as it provides details of the outturn position for treasury activities and highlights compliance with

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 44 the Council’s policies previously approved by Members.

3.3 This Council also confirms that it has complied with the requirement under the Code to give prior scrutiny to all of the above treasury management reports by the Cabinet before they were reported to the full Council.

3.4 In addition, the Audit & Standards Committee received treasury management activity update reports on 3rd September 2019, 5th November 2019, 17th March 2020, and 30th July 2020.

4. The Economy and Interest Rates During 2019/20

4.1 The main issue in 2019 was the repeated battles in the House of Commons to agree on one way forward for the UK over the issue of Brexit. This resulted in the resignation of Teresa May as the leader of the Conservative minority Government and the election of Boris Johnson as the new leader, on a platform of taking the UK out of the EU on 31 October 2019. The House of Commons duly frustrated that renewed effort and so a general election in December settled the matter once and for all by a decisive victory for the Conservative Party: that then enabled the UK to leave the EU on 31 January 2020. However, this still leaves much uncertainty as to whether there will be a reasonable trade deal achieved by the target deadline of the end of 2020. It is also unclear as to whether the coronavirus outbreak may yet impact on this deadline; however, the second and third rounds of negotiations have already had to be cancelled due to the virus.

4.2 Economic growth in 2019 has been very volatile with quarter 1 unexpectedly strong at 0.5%, quarter 2 dire at -0.2%, quarter 3 bouncing back up to +0.5% and quarter 4 flat at 0.0%, +1.1% y/y. 2020 started with optimistic business surveys pointing to an upswing in growth after the ending of political uncertainty as a result of the decisive result of the general election in December settled the Brexit issue. However, the three monthly GDP statistics in January were disappointing, being stuck at 0.0% growth. Since then, the whole world has changed as a result of the coronavirus outbreak. It now looks likely that the closedown of whole sections of the economy will result in a fall in GDP of at least 15% in quarter two. What is uncertain, however, is the extent of the damage that will be done to businesses by the end of the lock down period, whether there could be a second wave of the outbreak, how soon a vaccine will be created and then how quickly it can be administered to the population. This leaves huge uncertainties as to how quickly the economy will recover.

4.3 After the Monetary Policy Committee raised Bank Rate from 0.5% to 0.75% in August 2018, Brexit uncertainty caused the MPC to sit on its hands and to do nothing until March 2020; at this point it was abundantly clear that the coronavirus outbreak posed a huge threat to the economy of the UK. Two emergency cuts in Bank Rate from 0.75% occurred in

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 45 March, first to 0.25% and then to 0.10%. These cuts were accompanied by an increase in quantitative easing of £200bn. The Government and the Bank were also very concerned to stop people losing their jobs during this lock down period. Accordingly, the Government introduced various schemes to subsidise both employed and self-employed jobs while the country was locked down. It also put in place a raft of other measures to help businesses access loans from their banks, (with the Government providing guarantees to the banks against losses), to tide them over the lock down period when some firms may have little or no income. However, this leaves open a question as to whether some firms will be solvent, even if they take out such loans, and some may also choose to close as there is, and will be, insufficient demand for their services. The measures to support jobs and businesses already taken by the Government will result in a huge increase in the annual budget deficit in 2020/21 from 2%, to nearly 11%. The ratio of debt to GDP is also likely to increase from 80% to around 105%.

4.4 Inflation has posed little concern for the MPC during the last year, being mainly between 1.5 – 2.0%. It is also not going to be an issue for the near future as the world economy will be heading into a recession which is already causing a glut in the supply of oil which has fallen sharply in price. Other prices will also be under downward pressure while wage inflation has also been on a downward path over the last half year and is likely to continue that trend in the current environment. While inflation could even turn negative in the Eurozone, this is currently not likely in the UK.

4.5 Employment had been growing healthily through the last year but it is obviously heading for a big hit as the economic recession bites and the furlough scheme ends. The good news over the last year is that wage inflation has been significantly higher than CPI inflation which means that consumer real spending power had been increasing and so will have provided support to GDP growth. However, while people could not leave their homes to do non-food shopping, retail sales would also take a big hit.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 46 5. Treasury Position as at 31 March 2020.

5.1 At the beginning and the end of 2019/20 the Council’s treasury position is as follows:

Avg Avg 31 March Rate/ Remaining 31 March Rate/ Remaining 2019 Return Life 2020 Return Life (yrs) (yrs) Total External £80.713m 3.15% 8.6 £77.205m 3.17% 8.0 Debt Capital Financing £90.286m £92.813m Requirement (CFR) Over / (under) (£9.573m) (£15.608m) Borrowing Total Investments £36.376m 1.15% 0.5 £30.318m 1.16% 0.5 (all internally managed) Net Debt £44.337m £46.887m

5.2 This Council operates separate loan pools for the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account since the commencement of HRA Self Financing in April 2012. The following table details the debt positions for both funds as at 31 March 2020, with prior year information as a comparative, and their corresponding Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) to demonstrate that the gross borrowing position by fund is either equal to or lower than the borrowing need (CFR):

General Fund 31st March 2019 31st March 2020

Avg Avg Life Amt Rate Life Amt Rate (yrs) (yrs) PWLB Loans £7.750m 4.67% 16.2 £7.750m 4.67% 15.2 Market Loans £2.000m 4.10% 59.3 £2.000m 4.10% 58.2 Interest Free £0.008m 0.00% 0.3 nil - Loans Total External £9.758m 4.55% 25.0 £9.750m 4.55% 24.0 Debt Capital Financing Requirement £13.626m £14.498m (CFR) Over / (under) (£3.868m) (£4.748m) borrowing

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 47

Housing Revenue 31st March 2019 31st March 2020 Account

Avg Avg Amt Rate Life Amt Rate Life (yrs) (yrs) PWLB Loans £70.955m 2.96% 6.3 £67.455m 2.97% 5.6 Total External £70.955m 2.96% 6.3 £67.455m 2.97% 5.6 Debt Capital Financing Requirement £76.660m £78.315m (CFR) Over / (under) (£5.705m) (£10.86m) borrowing

5.3 At each year end it is possible to analyse the Council’s balance sheet to identify how the investment balances are derived and the following table shows the composition of cash resources that make up the investment portfolio total. Total resources available for investment purposes were almost £46m and almost identical to prior year but the internal decision to utilise some of these resources for internal borrowing decisions due to interest rates reduced the amounts available to approximately £30m.

31 March 31 March Change 2019 2020 General Fund Balances (incl’ £1.66m £1.35m (£0.31m) minimum working balances) General Fund Earmarked £8.99m £10.80m £1.81m Reserves HRA Balances (incl’ minimum £12.17m £6.76m (£5.41m) working balances) HRA Earmarked Reserves £7.01m £4.53m (£2.48m) HRA Major Repairs Reserve £0.38m £4.36m £3.98m Capital Receipts £4.10m £3.59m (£0.51m) Ringfenced grants and £7.26m £7.89m £0.63m contributions Working Capital (i.e. money £4.38m £6.65m £2.27m owed to others less money owed to us) Total Resources Available for £45.95m £45.93m (£0.02m) Investment Less amounts utilised for (£9.57m) (£15.61m) £6.04m internal borrowing decisions Actual Investments £36.38m £30.32m (£6.06m)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 48 6. The Strategy for 2019/20

6.1 The expectation for interest rates within the treasury management strategy for 2018/19 anticipated Bank Rate remaining low for the year and slow increases over the medium term.

6.2 On this basis, the Investment Strategy was to continue to keep the majority of investments relatively short dated in the low interest rate environment and whilst the impact of Brexit negotiations continued to affect the volatility of investment markets.

6.3 The borrowing strategy was to maintain an under-borrowed position while cash balances were sufficient to manage the position. The internal policy to avoid new external borrowing by utilising spare cash balances (internal borrowing) has served well over the last few years. However, this is continually under review to avoid incurring higher borrowing costs in the future when the Council may not be able to avoid new borrowing to finance capital expenditure and/or refinancing of maturing debt.

7. The Borrowing Requirement and Debt

7.1 The Council’s underlying need to borrow to finance capital expenditure is termed the Capital Financing Requirement (CFR).

7.2 The following table details the movements in the CFR for the General Fund and the HRA:

31 March Add new 31 March CFR 2019 prudential Deduct 2020 Actual borrowing MRP/VRP Actual General £13.626m £1.290m (£0.418m) £14.498m Fund Housing £76.660m £1.655m - £78.315m Revenue Account Total £90.286m £2.945m (£0.418m) £92.813m CFR

8. Borrowing Outturn for 2019/20

8.1 During 2019-20, the Council maintained an under-borrowed position. This meant that the capital borrowing need, (the Capital Financing Requirement), was not fully funded with loan debt, as cash supporting the Council’s reserves, balances and cash flow was used as an interim measure. This strategy was prudent as investment returns were low and minimising counterparty risk on placing investments also needed to be considered.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 49 8.2 A cost of carry remained during the year on any new long-term borrowing that was not immediately used to finance capital expenditure, as it would have caused a temporary increase in cash balances; this would have incurred a revenue cost – the difference between (higher) borrowing costs and (lower) investment returns.

8.3 The policy of avoiding new borrowing by running down spare cash balances, has served well over the last few years. However, this was kept under review to avoid incurring higher borrowing costs in the future when this authority may not be able to avoid new borrowing to finance capital expenditure and/or the refinancing of maturing debt.

8.4 No new debt was taken during the year (to avoid the cost of carry implications) and no debt rescheduling was undertaken due to significant premium charges that would have been incurred, rendering it unaffordable. A number of loans were repaid during the year as their natural maturities were reached.

9. Investment Outturn for 2019/20

9.1 Investment returns remained low during 2019/20. The expectation for interest rates within the treasury management strategy for 2019/20 was that Bank Rate would stay at 0.75% during 2019/20 as it was not expected that the MPC would be able to deliver on an increase in Bank Rate until the Brexit issue was finally settled. However, there was an expectation that Bank Rate would rise after that issue was settled, but would only rise to 1.0% during 2020.

9.2 Rising concerns over the possibility that the UK could leave the EU at the end of October 2019 caused longer term investment rates to be on a falling trend for most of April to September. They then rose after the end of October deadline was rejected by the Commons but fell back again in January before recovering again after the 31 January departure of the UK from the EU. When the coronavirus outbreak hit the UK in February/March, rates initially plunged but then rose sharply back up again due to a shortage of liquidity in financial markets.

9.3 While the Council has taken a cautious approach to investing, it is also fully appreciative of changes to regulatory requirements for financial institutions in terms of additional capital and liquidity that came about in the aftermath of the financial crisis. These requirements have provided a far stronger basis for financial institutions, with annual stress tests by regulators evidencing how institutions are now far more able to cope with extreme stressed market and economic conditions.

9.4 Investment balances have been kept to a minimum through the agreed strategy of using reserves and balances to support internal borrowing, rather than borrowing externally from the financial markets. External borrowing would have incurred an additional cost, due to the differential

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 50 between borrowing and investment rates as illustrated in the charts shown above and below. Such an approach has also provided benefits in terms of reducing the counterparty risk exposure, by having fewer investments placed in the financial markets.

9.5 Investment Policy – the Council’s investment policy is governed by CLG guidance, which has been implemented in the annual investment strategy approved by Council in February 2018. This policy sets out the approach for choosing investment counterparties, and is based on credit ratings provided by the three main credit rating agencies supplemented by additional market data such as rating outlooks, credit default swaps and bank share prices.

9.6 The investment activity during the year conformed to the approved strategy, and the Council had no liquidity difficulties.

9.7 The treasury section managed an average investment balance of £40.84m (£45.35m – 2018/19). These funds earned an average rate of return of 1.11% (0.95% - 2018/19). The comparable performance indicators used by the Council are the 3 month LIBID rate which was 0.63% and the 6 month LIBID rate which was 0.70%. This compares with a budget assumption of £35m of investment balances earning an average rate of 1.25%. The higher than budgeted investments placed was due to slippage in the capital programme resulting in cash balances available to invest rather than payment to contractors. As the slipped

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 51 programme is delivered throughout 2020/21, these balances will reduce.

9.8 Long Term Strategic Investments – The Treasury Team will only place long term deposits after considering the medium term cash flow, interest rate forecasts and credit quality of counterparties. As at 31st March 2020 there was only one investment placed which meet this long term category:  £2m placed with the CCLA Local Authority Property Fund. This is a variable rate pooled investment vehicle and is deemed to be a long dated investment due to the structure of the fund. Since the date of initial deposit this has generated an average return of 4.25% against the amount invested and 4.14% for 2019/20 financial year.

9.9 The March valuation of the property fund investment indicates that the capital value of the £2m investment stands at approx. £1.88m after entry charges and changes in capital value:

9.10 The table above shows that there has been a drop in capital value over the last financial year totalling £70k. This is due to uncertainties from Brexit and more recently Covid19 and the impact that this has had on economic activity and uncertainty on property pricing. Rental yields have remained high (over 4%) but there is a risk that these could drop marginally due to voids and potential arrears as the recession bites.

9.11 As local authorities continue to diversify their investment portfolio, more local authorities have invested in this CCLA property fund (it is only open to UK local authorities). The fund value as at end March 2020 was £1.21bn.

9.12 From 2018/19, there was a change in accounting regulations regarding how capital gains and losses are accounted for. Historically, the gains or losses were held on the Balance Sheet, outside of General Fund and would only impact on GF balances when the deposit was withdrawn. From 2018/19 the regulations required and gains or losses in capital value, plus the charges on entry to the fund, to be charged to investment

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 52 income/ costs.

9.13 After lobbying by CIPFA and other bodies representing councils, MHCLG have issued a statutory override for 5 years commencing 2018/19 which allows local authorities to reverse these charges, thereby negating the impact on general fund resources. Once this override ends then any impact of gains/ losses will impact the general fund balances, unless there is an extension to the statutory override or it is made permanent.

9.14 Although this is a substantial change to the accounting treatment in these types of investments, this does not change the view of officers with regards to utilising these types of funds to ensure that there is sufficient spread across investment types and institutions to manage risk.

9.15 The following table shows the property fund returns for 2019/20 before and after the statutory override:

9.16 Short Term Investments - the Treasury Team have been continuing to make use of liquid cash facilities and short dated fixed term deposits to ensure liquidity of funds. These deposits have been restricted to UK banks, UK building societies and Money Market Funds.

9.17 All deposits placed were in accordance with the approved counterparty selection criteria and there was no credit default occurrences in the period, with all maturities repaid in accordance with the deposit agreements.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 53 10. Average Investment and Debt Balances Held

10.1 The following table provides further detail on the Council’s average investment and debt position for 2019/20 with comparative information from the previous year:

2018/19 2019/20 Weighted Weighted Avg Avg Average Average Rate Rate Principal Principal Investments Long Dated Fixed Rate:  Fixed Term Deposits £1.00m 2.40% £0.24m 2.40% Short Term Fixed Rate:  Fixed Term Deposits £14.89m 0.81% £13.15m 1.03%  Certificates of £9.36m 0.86% £10.23m 1.03% Deposit Total Fixed Rate £25.25m 0.89% £23.62m 1.04% Deposits Variable Rate Deposits: Long Term:  Property Fund £1.83m 4.15% £2.00m 4.14% Short Term:  Notice Accounts £8.71m 0.83% £8.00m 0.95%  Liquid Accounts (incl £9.56m 0.59% £7.22m 0.68% MMF) Total Variable Rate £20.10m 1.02% £17.22m 1.21% Deposits Total Investments £45.35m 0.95% £40.84m 1.11% Borrowings Long Term  PWLB £78.71m 3.13% £76.44m 3.14%  Market Debt £2.00m 4.10% £2.00m 4.10%  Interest Free Loans £0.01m 0.00% £0.02m 0.00% Total Long Term Debt £80.72m 3.15% £78.44m 3.16% Temporary Borrowing - - - - Total Borrowing £80.72m 3.15% £78.44m 3.16%

11. Conclusion

11.1 As is highlighted within this report, 2019/20 continued the trend in recent years of low interest rates and investment returns with no beneficial opportunities for rescheduling or repayment of debt.

11.2 Despite these difficulties, all the prudential limits and indicators are reported with no breaches during the year.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 54 Appendix 1

During 2019/20, the Council complied with its legislative and regulatory requirements. The key actual prudential and treasury indicators detailing the impact of capital expenditure activities during the year, with comparators, are as follows:

2019/20 Actual prudential Predicted and treasury 2019/20 2019/20 Outturn indicators 2018/19 Original Mid Year (Feb’ 2019/20 As at 31st March Actual Indicator Review report) Actual Capital expenditure  General Fund £8.31m £9.88m £19.41m £10.19m £9.33m  GF commercial £5.16m £2.65m £3.63m £1.32m £1.04m  HRA £9.21m £23.64m £26.06m £18.49m £17.22m  Total £22.68m £36.17m £49.10m £30.00m £27.59m

Capital Financing Requirement:  General Fund £11.53m £12.48m £16.73m £11.56m £12.46m  GF commercial £2.10m £3.04m £3.04m £2.04m £2.04m  HRA £76.66m £81.16m £81.16m £78.66m £78.31m  Total £90.29m £96.68m £100.93m £92.26m £92.81m

Net debt (debt less £44.34m £57.38m £61.71m £46.61m £46.89m investments)

External debt  Borrowing £80.71m £85.20m £89.53m £83.21m £77.21m  Finance lease £0.00m £0.00m £0.00m £0.00m £0.00m  Total £80.71m £85.20m £89.53m £83.21m £77.21m

Investments (long and short £36.38m £27.82m £27.82m £36.60m £30.32m dated)

Comments: Capital Expenditure: A minor underspend compared to February forecast due to additional slippage in the capital programme. External Debt and Investments: Actual debt is approximately £6m lower at year end compared to the February estimate with the consequence that investment levels are also £6m lower. Net debt is in line with expectations. This decision to delay taking new external debt was due to market volatility and the significant reduction in investment rates available which would create

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 55 a large increase in the ‘cost of carry’ if debt had been taken. This would have created a net cost increase on General Fund and HRA. An under-borrowed position can be maintained in the short term and will be monitored to ensure that the most cost effective position in the medium term is taken.

Gross borrowing and the CFR – in order to ensure that borrowing levels are prudent over the medium term the Council’s external borrowing must only be for a capital purpose. This essentially means that the Council is not borrowing to support revenue expenditure. Borrowing should not therefore, except in the short term, have exceeded the CFR for 2019/20 plus the expected changes to the CFR over 2020/21 and 2021/22 from financing the capital programme. This requirement has been complied with, with no breaches during 2019/20.

The authorised limit – the authorised limit is the “affordable borrowing limit” required by s3 of the Local Government Act 2003. The Council does not have the power to borrow above this level. The table below demonstrates that during 2019/20 the Council has maintained gross borrowing within this authorised limit.

The operational boundary – the operational boundary is the expected borrowing position of the Council during the year. Periods where the actual position is either below or above the boundary is acceptable subject to the authorised limit not being breached.

2019/20 2019/20 2019/20 Mid-Year Predicted Original Review Outturn Authorised limit £110.68m £114.93m £106.26m Operational boundary £96.68m £100.93m £92.26m Maximum gross borrowing £80.72m position during year Average gross borrowing £78.44m position during year

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 56 Actual financing costs as a percentage of net revenue stream – this indicator identifies the trend in the cost of capital (borrowing and other long term obligation costs net of investment income) against the net revenue stream.

2019/20 Ratio of financing Mid costs to net 2019/20 Year 2019/20 revenue stream 2018/19 Original Review Predicted 2019/20 Actual Indicator Update Outturn Actual General Fund 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.2% 3.8% HRA 12.9% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 8.3%

Comments: General Fund: The difference between the predicted outturn and the actual final position was due to a worsening position in NDR pool growth reducing the net revenue stream to the Council plus reduced investment income as interest rates plummeted towards the end of the year. HRA: The HRA actual closing position was significantly better than the predicted outturn due to the decision to defer taking new external debt reducing the debt interest cost position.

Debt and investments – the net debt position and the maturity profile of the debt and investment portfolios are detailed in the following tables:

31 March 31 March Rate/ Avg Rate/ Avg 2019 2020 Return Life yrs Return Life yrs Principal Principal Fixed rate

funding: -PWLB £78.71m 3.13% 7.3 £75.21m 3.15% 6.6 -Market £2.00m 4.10% 59.3 £2.00m 4.10% 58.2 -Interest Free £0.00m 0.00% 0.3 Nil - Total External £80.71m 3.15% 8.6 £77.21m 3.17% 8.0 Debt CFR £90.29m £92.81m Over/ (under) (£9.58m) (£15.6m) borrowing

Internally Managed £36.38m 1.15% 0.5 £30.32m 1.16% 0.5 Investments Total £36.38m £30.32m Investments Net debt £44.33m £46.89m

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 57 The maturity structure of the debt portfolio was a follows and is within the approved limits/ indicators:

31 Mar 2019/20 31 Mar Debt 2019 2020 Actual Indicator Actual Under 12 months 4% 20% 6% 12 months to 2 years 6% 20% - 2 to 5 years 20% 50% 33% 5 to 10 years 60% 75% 50% 10 to 20 years 5% 100% 5% 20 to 30 years - 100% - 30 to 40 years 3% 100% 3% 40 to 50 years - 100% - Over 50 Years 2% 100% 3%

The maturity structure of the internally managed investment portfolio, including the percentage of the total portfolio, was as follows:

Investments 31 March 31 March 2019 2020 actual actual £5.38m £4.32m Instant Access 15% 14% £12.00m £16.00m Less than 3 months 33% 53% £17.00m £8.00m Between 3 months and 1 year 47% 26% £2.00m £2.00m Over 1 year 5% 7%

Total £36.38m £30.32m

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 58 Agenda item:10

CABINET

Report Summary Sheet

Date: 9th September 2020

Subject: General Fund and Housing Revenue Account Quarterly budget monitoring report - Quarter 1 2020/21 Update

Portfolio: Finance and Civic Affairs (Councillor J Jackson)

From: Executive Director - Resources

Summary: The report details the forecast outturn position for 2020/21 as at the end of June 2020 for the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account budgets and updated capital programmes for the year.

Recommendations:

2.1 That the forecast outturn position for 2020/21 for the General Fund and HRA be noted, with regard to the key variances.

2.2 That it be recommended to Council that the virements for the General Fund at para 8.9 of the report be submitted to Council for approval

2.3 That the virements for the Housing Revenue Account as detailed at Appendix C be approved 2.4 That the revised capital programme for the General Fund and HRA for 2020/21 as detailed at Appendix D be submitted to Council for approval

2.5 That delegated authority be given to the Executive Directors to carry out procurement exercises in accordance with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules in order to deliver the capital programme for both the HRA and the General Fund

Reasons: The Council must achieve a balanced budget each year

Options: To accept the report or request further information on the forecast outturn position.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 59 Subject to call-in: Yes

Forward plan: No

Delivering Our Future Theme 3 : Investment – making the most of what Theme & Priority: we have Priority 3 : Managing our resources Relevant statutes or The Local Government Finance Act 1992 requires a policy: balanced budget to be achieved each year.

Equal opportunity implications: None

Human resources implications: None

Financial implications: Included throughout the report

Health Inequalities Implications: None

Section 17 - Crime and Disorder Implications: None

Risk management implications: The Council takes a risk based approach to setting its budget and the appropriate level of reserves held to fund projects.

Environmental implications: None

Legal implications: The authority must achieve a balanced budget each year

Contact details: Simone Hines Executive Director – Resources 02476 376281

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 60 AGENDA ITEM NO. 10

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Cabinet – 9th September 2020

From: Executive Director – Resources

Subject: General Fund and Housing Revenue Account Quarterly Budget Monitoring Report – Quarter 1 2020/21 Update

Portfolio: Finance and Civic Affairs (Councillor J Jackson)

Delivering Our Future Theme: 3

Delivering Our Future Priority: 3

1. Purpose of Report

2.6 To present the 2020/21 forecast outturn position as at 30th June 2020 for the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account budgets and capital programmes

3. Recommendations

3.1 That the forecast outturn position for 2020/21 for the General Fund and HRA be noted, with regard to the key variances.

3.2 That it be recommended to Council that the virements for the General Fund at para 8.9 of the report be submitted to Council for approval

3.3 That the virements for the Housing Revenue Account as detailed at Appendix C be approved

3.4 That the revised capital programme for the General Fund and HRA for 2020/21 as detailed at Appendix D be submitted to Council for approval

3.5 That delegated authority be given to the Executive Directors to carry out procurement exercises in accordance with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules in order to deliver the capital programme for both the HRA and the General Fund.

4. Overview of the forecast outturn for 2020/21

4.1 Both the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account budgets and capital programmes were approved by the Cabinet and Council on 18th February 2020. This report updates Cabinet on how the council is performing financially for both the General Fund and the HRA.

4.2 Clearly the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on both the costs and income of the Council, and it is anticipated that this will continue for some time. Many of the Council’s income streams have been reduced and there have also been costs pressures from homelessness, leisure and the purchase of PPE. The total financial impact to the Council this year is expected to be in the region of £3.6m and government grant has been received to partly mitigate this. Further details of the variances are given in sections 4-7 below and then in-year budget changes are proposed at para 8 to ensure that a balanced and sustainable

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 61 budget can still be achieved this year.

4.3 The key questions identified below are used as indicators of financial performance:

Revenue Monitoring:

 Are we on track to achieve the overall budget within a tolerance of between £0 - £150k for GF and between £0 and £250k for the HRA?  What spend pressures are emerging?  Are key income generators on track?  Are we achieving any key savings?

5. Overall General Fund/HRA position – are we on track to achieve the budget?

5.1 The table shown at Appendix A sets out the Councils overall General Fund forecast outturn for the year, based on the current trends for the first quarter. The original approved budget estimated a contribution to reserves of £19k. The forecast outturn for 2020/21 at the end of the first quarter is a net transfer from reserves of £1.67m, before any mitigating action is taken. Most of the overspends and under-recovery of income are related to COVID-19.

5.2 A key risk to the General Fund forecast for 2019/20 is business rates income. There has been a steady increase in the total rateable value of properties in the Borough compared to the original forecast, and a decrease in the amount of unoccupied property relief. However, there is still an ongoing risk of appeals, and although the new appeals process used by the VOA is leading to a reduction in the number of appeals being lodged, this is expected to be a temporary delay. It is possible that a significant increase in appeals will be received in the near future. Because of this uncertainty, and the complex accounting treatment for business rates, the current forecast outturn for the General Fund assumes income from business rates in line with the budget, but this may change dependant as more information on appeals becomes available.

5.3 The HRA is currently forecasting a small favourable variance of £73k for the year based on information available at the end of the first quarter and further details are given in Appendix B. This includes an additional contribution from earmarked reserves of £220k to part fund the additional security services costs for independent living and a number of virements are requested and are detailed at Appendix C.

6. What key spend pressures are emerging?

6.1 The most significant issues identified for 2020/21 so far are linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the government’s ‘Everyone in policy’ at the beginning of the lockdown period, the Council accommodated 52 rough sleepers, some of whom were not in priority need and the Council would not ordinarily have had a duty towards. This period also saw an increase in demand for temporary accommodation generally, and the need to ensure that social distancing and self-isolation was possible in our hostels led to a further increase in costs. At its peak, the Council had over 140 households in temporary accommodation. There are now 4 rough sleepers remaining in temporary accommodation, but demand still remains high, with 95 households accommodated as at 17th August. To put this in context, the budgeted norm was based on an average of 60 households per week. In addition, the lockdown period has led to delays in the conversion of the Council House and now that the development has restarted there are still delays in material supply. This is expected to push back the completion of the hostel by around three months and has contributed to the

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 62 increased cost of the homelessness service as we will need to use more expensive private accommodation for longer.

6.2 The Council’s leisure facilities are operated by Everyone Active (EA) under an external contract. All the Councils facilities were closed to the public from Friday 27th March. On Saturday 4th July, the government announced that leisure facilities could reopen from Saturday 25th July, as long as strict guidelines were adhered to. Since then the Council has worked with EA to agree the terms under which our facilities could be reopened and when. Given the government guidelines around social distancing it is anticipated that there will still be a loss of income from our facilities even after reopening. The Council has therefore agreed additional payments to EA under the Cabinet Office’s Procurement Policy Note 02/20 and then subsequent update PPN 04/20. These payments have been capped for a period from 1st July to 31st October. The position will then be reviewed for the rest of the financial year, taking into account income levels and government guidance at that point. The payments will be based on a monthly review with open book accounting. The agreement enabled the Pingles and Bedworth Leisure Centres to reopen from 25th July and swimming from 22nd August. It is likely that Etone and Jubilee will remain closed until November, with the exception of some fitness classes being held at Jubilee to facilitate social distancing.

6.3 The Council has also purchased significant amounts of PPE during the pandemic, predominantly to ensure the safety of both our frontline workers and customers for those front facing services that have continued during lockdown. For example, our refuse teams wear PPE when in the refuse vehicles because social distancing is not possible, and the housing team wear PPE when carrying out repairs in tenants homes.

6.4 There are no other significant spend pressures in the General Fund that have come to light over the first quarter of the year but expenditure budgets will be closely monitored as part of the monthly budget setting process.

6.5 Expenditure in the HRA is largely on track with the approved budget overall. There are some additional costs from continuing to provide security in some Independent Living Units whilst H&S risk assessments and necessary works are carried out. Works have been delayed due to COVID-19 shielding and social distancing requirements and also supply chain issues, again due to COVID-19. There are also some increased council tax costs from void properties, although this may reduce later in the year.

7. Are key income generators on track?

7.1 Income streams have been significantly impacted by COVID-19, both during the lockdown period but also as the economy has started to gradually reopen. All income is shown within the Portfolio budgets at Appendix A but the main income generators are shown below along with key variances:

Approved Forecast Budget Outturn Variance Income description £ £ £ Market stall rental income (377,660) (152,370) 225,290 Land Charges (130,820) (130,820) - Licensing (322,130) (291,530) 30,600 Commercial Property rents (978,970) (876,160) 102,810 Industrial Property rents (224,510) (215,560) 8,950 Planning Fee income (949,900) (588,000) 361,900 Car Parking metered income (1,758,040) (805,630) 952,410

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 63 Approved Forecast Budget Outturn Variance Income description £ £ £ Cemeteries income (396,990) (396,990) - Green Waste (853,000) (953,000) (100,000)

7.2 Car park income reduced to around 10% of the budgeted amount for April, when lockdown measures were at their strictest. The Council has also given free parking to NHS and other key worker during the pandemic. Income was 21% of budget in June and 40% in July, as more shops and facilities began to reopen. Town Centre footfall is still at around 50% of pre- COVID levels and we are forecasting income to increase to around 70% of budgeted income later in the year and in the run up to Christmas, although this will clearly depend on the progression of the pandemic, any tightening of measures and changes in customer behaviour.

7.3 Similarly, market income was significantly less than budget during lockdown and has not achieved pre-COVID levels since measures were eased. The Council offered free rent to market traders in April to July and has continued to offer reduced rents in August to encourage traders back to the market. We are currently assuming that income will be below budgeted levels for the rest of the financial year but will keep this under review.

7.4 A review has been undertaken of our commercial and industrial portfolio and a small number of properties are flagged as a risk of becoming void due to COVID-19 pressures. The annual rental value of these properties is approx. £72k and 50% assumed losses have been included in the forecast. This position will continue to be monitored and the income forecasts updated accordingly as the year progresses.

7.5 The Civic Hall has been closed since March 2020 for shows, and although the government has recently announced that theatres can reopen, the Council is still reviewing the guidance on this to determine if and when it will be financially viable to open again. There have been some savings during the time that the Civic Hall has been closed, as casual staff have not been required for instance, but the lack of show income has meant that fixed costs (such as NNDR and utilities) could not be covered. The Bistro reopened on 15th July 2020 initially for take-away only and then for customers to eat in from 10th August 2020, and signed up to the ‘Eat out to help out scheme’.

7.6 Collection of business rates and council tax is also less than original assumptions, which is not unexpected given the wider impact of COVID on the economy. Business rates income is forecast to be around 10% less than originally planned, and this is after the impact of reliefs which reduced the amount of business rates we are due to collect by £10m (which is being funding by the government). Although collection rates are approximately 10% lower than budgeted, the likely impact on the collection fund will be an increase in arrears and an increase in bad debts provision due to possible future write offs. Therefore the full financial impact of reduced collection rates may not be seen for a number of years. The Council Tax is currently slightly below original assumptions but it is expected that the position may worsen from September when the furlough scheme ends. In addition, take-up of Local Council Tax Support increased by almost 20% from April to June, and may also see a further increase in September.

7.7 The impact of the increased take up of Local Council Tax Support and a slowdown of the forecast growth to the taxbase results in a projected in year deficit on the Collection Fund of £2.2m taking the forecast closing position for Council Tax Collection Fund to a deficit of £1.2m (of which around £150k will be the borough councils share). The accounting treatment Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 64 of the Collection Fund delays the impact of any variances to the following financial year. At this point there is no confirmed government funding for Collection Fund losses associated with COVID so it will need to be built into the draft budget forecasts for 2021/22.

7.8 The table at 7.1 does show increased income from green waste due to take-up of the service being higher than budgeted. To date 23,403 households have signed up to the scheme for this year for 24,227 bins.

7.9 In terms of the HRA, rental income is slightly above budget mainly due to a number of dwellings being used for temporary accommodation and charged on a nightly rate and there has also been increased service charge income from Independent Living Units. Investment income is less than budget however, due to historically low interest rates.

8. Are we achieving any key savings?

8.1 A number of key savings are currently being achieved across all portfolios – these mainly relate to net salary savings from vacancies and in-year restructures. Agency costs are also lower than budget. There are vacancies across many services but Economic Development, Parks, Planning, Environmental Health and Revenues and Benefits are particularly affected. Whilst the salary savings are helpful in managing the overall budget position, it does cause capacity issues and puts a heavier workload on those employees that are in post and the impact on wellbeing does need to be closely monitored.

8.2 There were a number of savings agreed as part of the 2020/21 budget setting process and the majority of these are currently on track to be delivered. However, due to COVID-19 pressures a small number of these savings proposals are not likely to achieve their original objectives this financial year:

 Additional income from planning fees  Leisure contract savings  Additional income from Council House conversion

8.3 The financial impact of these is reflected in the forecast position and virements are proposed to restate the budget position.

8.4 The HRA also has a number of salary savings as a result of vacancies and reduced internal recharges.

9. General Fund In-Year budget changes and virements

9.1 As already mentioned at section 3.2 above, the total impact of COVID is expected to be in the region of £3.6m this financial year, although this is subject to change.

9.2 So far the Council has received £1.5m of additional grant funding from the government towards these losses. The government has recently announced an income scheme, whereby the Council can claim up to 75% of lost income after the first 5% is deducted. This is calculated across all income streams and there are some exceptions; rental income for instance won’t be covered at all. We are awaiting final details on the scheme but on current assumptions the Council should receive approx. £1.3m of further grant support.

9.3 This leaves a potential gap of £0.8m, purely form COVID related issues. However,there are vacancy savings and additional income from green waste which will help to reduce the gap further, and so the total budget deficit of £1.845m would reduce to £366k after taking into account the grant from the income scheme.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 65 9.4 However, it is important to note that the current budget position is very much dependent on the speed of economic recovery and any further increase in COVID transmission which may lead to further restrictions. There is also a risk that the assumed £1.3m additional grant will not be at that value once full scheme details are made available. Furthermore, there is concern that the ending of the furlough scheme may cause additional service pressures, either from increased homelessness or reduced council tax collection, for instance.

9.5 In order to ensure that a balanced budget can be maintained this year, Management Team has considered a number of savings options and potential deferral of capital programme items. The Executive Director – Resources has also reviewed the Councils reserves position to determine if any reserves can be reduced or re-purposed. This use of reserves to fund in- year budget pressures is only recommended in exceptional circumstances and where unexpected or one-off pressures have arisen in year.

9.6 It’s worth noting that the Council’s level of reserves are very low, especially when compared to other similar authorities, especially the unallocated reserve which stands at £350k at the end of March 2020. The risk assessment which accompanied the 2020/21 budget set out that the financial risks facing the authority stood at £1.2m. The Financial Planning Reserve currently stands at £0.9m, so this and the unallocated balance is only just sufficient to meet the required level of reserves.

9.7 After reviewing the earmarked reserves position the Executive Director – Resources is comfortable that a small number of reserves could be reduced in order to contribute to the in- year deficit position. These are shown in the table below. The Insurance Fund is held to cover those areas that we self-insure and the reduction is based on consideration of our current cover, excesses and claims history.

9.8 The suggested in-year adjustments are shown in the table below:

£’000 In-Year Savings: Defer recruitment to additional Cleansing Officers until 34 January 2021 (growth item in 2020/21 budget) Reduction in opening hours of the contact centre 22 56 Capital Programme reductions: Defer some of the vehicle replacement programme 100 100 Use of Reserves: Reducing the Planning for the Future reserve 114 Reduce the Insurance reserve 150 Use of Revenues and Benefits system reserve 100 364

Total Proposed changes 520

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 66 9.9 This will require the following virements to be approved for the year

Service Amount Comments £’000 Arts, Leisure & Economic Development Parks 13 Reduced income (eg pitches) Community Recreation 270 Contract support Civic Hall 243 Net Covid19 losses

Central Services & Refuse Refuse & Cleansing (34) defer recruitment of cleansing officers (per paragraph 8.8) Licences 30 Reduced income Finance & Civic Affairs Markets 225 Reduced Market income Rent Rebates 800 Additional Subsidy cost due to increased homelessness Emergency Planning 120 PPE purchases

Housing Health & Communities Housing Advice 30 Additional cost of cleaning for temp accommodation Mobile Home Sites 30 Loss of income from sales of mobile homes

Planning & Development Environmental Protection 13 Pest Control additional cost of service Car Parks 955 income losses (metered income and fines) Building Control 83 Additional contribution to partnership due to lost income Development Control 362 reduced planning income Commercial Property 103 Rental losses Industrial Estates 9 Rental losses

Below Portfolio Investment Income 90 Loss of investment income Contributions from (364) Per para 8.8 additional draw on Reserves earmarked reserves Financing of Capital (100) Per paragraph 8.8 (defer vehicle Expenditure replacement)

Support Services (this will update all portfolios once allocations have been calculated) Corporate Customer (22) Reduce opening hours in the Services Contact Centre (GF Share)

Funding

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 67 Service Amount Comments £’000 General Government Grants (2,856) Covid19 Government Grant Support

Net Virements Total 0

9.10 As the virements required above are more than 5% of net budget (which equates to £800k), the Budgetary and Policy Framework requires them to be approved by Council.

10. Capital Programme 2020/21

10.1 The General Fund capital programme for 2020/21 was approved in February 2020 at £19.74m. The programme was then updated and approved by Cabinet in July 2020 to include slippage from the 2019/20 programme.

10.2 On 1st July, the Council received a notification from government that £1m advance funding from the Towns Fund could be allocated to us, on the basis that it was spent on a project that met the Towns Fund intervention framework and could be delivered by 31st March 2021. After consideration of the options, and particularly given the very tight timescale for delivery, it is proposed that the funding be spent on converting the upper floors of 22 Queen’s Road into small, start-up business space which will address the market failure to provide quality office accommodation within the town centre. The project will create 1,245 m2 of new, high quality, affordable commercial floor space, install energy efficient lighting and create 75 new employment opportunities. The Council has not received confirmation that the proposal has been accepted yet but given timescales for delivery the provision is to be added to the capital programme now to avoid any delays in being able to begin the procurement and project management process once confirmation is received.

10.3 As part of the government ‘Getting Britain Building’ policy, the Coventry and Warwickshire LEP were awarded £8.1m for ‘shovel ready’ projects that could be accelerated and completed within an 18 month timescale. The Council submitted a bid for the conversion of the Art Deco part of the COOP building on Queen’s Rd. This was successful and the Council has been awarded £895,630 for the project.

10.4 Two further project amendments are requested for approval:

 £7,500 – Tennis Courts Miners Welfare Park – Additional grant from Sport England has been applied for to support the project.  (£100,000) – Vehicle and Plant Replacement – deferral of purchases to allow funds to be diverted to support Covid19 savings proposals (per section 8.8)

10.5 The HRA Capital Programme base programme was approved in February at £26.30m and an additional £1.49m of re-profiling requests was reported to the Cabinet in July within the outturn report taking the updated programme to £27.79m. No further amendments are required to the programme at this stage and the latest programme for approval by Council is detailed at Appendix D.

10.6 The Council’s Contract Procedure Rules require Cabinet approval to commence a tendering exercise for any spend above the Key Decision threshold (£125k). To avoid any delays in delivering the programme it is proposed that delegated authority be given to the Executive Directors to carry out the necessary procurement exercises that are required for projects within the approved Capital Programme. Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 68 11. Conclusion

9.1 The COVID-19 pandemic has had a he financial impact on the Council. Whilst government funding has contributed towards closing the in-year gap, there is still a shortfall. This will need to be funded from a combination of in-year savings, deferrals to the capital programme and reserve contributions. The additional contributions from reserves are just to cover the unexpected impact during 2020/21 that could not have been perceived when the budget was set in February. Any longer term impact of COVID will need to be included in the Medium Term Financial Plan and considered when setting the budget for 2021/22.

9.2 The Capital Programmes will need to be increased for 2020/21, partly due to slippage from 2019/20 but also to include the new funding the Council is expecting towards our Transforming Nuneaton Programme.

9.3 The Housing Revenue Account is currently showing a stable position, with a small favourable variance being forecast. Rental income may see a bigger impact once the furloughing scheme ends from September and this will be closely monitored.

Simone Hines

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 69 Appendix A General Fund Forecast Outturn – as at end June 2020

2020/21 2020/21 2020/21 Current Current Forecast Budget Forecast Variance £ £ £ Key Reason for Forecast Variance to Budget Portfolio Arts, Leisure and Economic 5,543,750 5,901,160 357,410 Additional costs mainly due to COVID-19 effect Development on Civic Hall and Leisure. Central Services and Refuse 4,930,660 4,809,411 (121,249) Net (£34k) kerbside recycling [contract costs net of income] and (£100k) additional green waste fees & charge income Finance and Civic Affairs 3,905,020 5,342,237 1,437,217 £1.2m Additional Rent Rebates and Allowance costs due to increased homelessness and lower subsidy recovery rate. Plus £119k additional COVID-19 costs (e.g. PPE). £219k reduced market income due to COVID-19. (£82k) saving due to borough elections being deferred Housing, Health and Communities 1,459,430 1,519,580 60,150 Lost income £30k from mobile home sales, increased salary costs and cleaning costs of £30k due to additional cleaning requirements (COVID-19) for temporary accommodation. Planning and Development (497,830) 1,025,154 1,522,984 Reduced income due to COVID-19 including £1m car park income, £369k building & development control net income plus £115k lost net income from commercial properties & Industrial estates plus £83k forecast additional contribution to Building Control partnership due to COVID losses Support Services (124,256) (124,256) Savings from Vacancies in finance and customer services, reduced postage and Flare one off IT savings on licence costs. Portfolio Total 15,341,030 18,473,286 3,132,256

Central Provisions 334,500 334,500 0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 70 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21 Current Current Forecast Budget Forecast Variance £ £ £ Key Reason for Forecast Variance to Budget Depreciation & Impairment (3,117,950) (3,117,950) 0 Contributions To/From Reserves (2,216,783) (2,216,783) 0 Financing of Capital Expenditure 5,128,520 5,128,520 0 Gains/Losses on Repurchase Of 21,120 21,120 0 Borrowing Investment Income (199,030) (109,000) 90,030 Reduced investment income with drop in interest rates and cashflow. Minimum Revenue Provision 481,630 481,630 0 External Interest 563,290 563,290 0 Total Council Net Expenditure 16,336,327 19,558,613 3,222,286

Council Tax (9,168,458) (9,168,458) (0) Revenue Support Grant 0 0 0 New Homes Bonus (1,621,983) (1,621,983) 0 General Government Grants 0 (1,530,440) (1,530,440) COVID-19 Relief Grant (£1.53M) Business Rates Retention (5,413,670) (5,413,670) 0 Surplus From Collection Fund (150,820) (150,820) 0 Total Funding (16,354,931) (17,885,371) (1,530,440) (Surplus) / Deficit (18,604) 1,673,242 1,691,846

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 71 Appendix B Housing Revenue Account Forecast Outturn – as at end June 2020

2020/21 2020/21 2020/21 Service Current Current Forecast Budget Forecast Variance Comments £ £ £ SUP& MAN - GEN HRA General Expenses 2,196,950 2,168,609 (28,341) £43k insurance claims overspend and £11k agency spend offset by (17k) salary savings and (£65k) saving from internal service recharges. HRA Repairs Management 1,809,230 1,818,705 9,475 (£13k) salary savings & £22k compensation costs. Resident Involvement 22,770 22,770 0 Debt Management Costs 135,940 135,940 0 Increase in Bad Debt Provision 485,360 485,360 0 HRA share of Corporate and Democratic Core 150,000 150,000 0 HRA share of Non-Distributed Costs 57,680 57,680 0 Housing System 96,670 96,670 0 Development Strategy 305,600 305,600 0 5,260,200 5,241,334 (18,866) SUP& MAN -SPECIAL HRA Special Expenses 109,130 161,190 52,060 £48k overspend on council tax and £4k overspend on NNDR. Independent Living 2,295,630 2,573,097 277,467 £310k security services overspend [Virement requested] and £20k council tax overspend slightly offset by (£52k) salary savings. Homeless Hostels 55,930 55,930 0 Bedworth Hostel 63,630 63,630 0 Other Housing Schemes (Flats) 574,420 563,653 (10,767) Salary savings of (£21k) slightly offset by £10k council tax overspend. Grounds Maintenance 449,770 449,770 0 3,548,510 3,867,270 318,760

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 72 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21 Service Current Current Forecast Budget Forecast Variance Comments £ £ £ REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE Reactive Repairs 2,215,710 2,158,870 (56,840) (£72k) salary savings, £30k increased transport costs & (£15k) reduced refuse disposal costs. Call Out 69,190 69,190 0 Repairs Overheads 0 0 0 R.+ M. - Dwellings 1,008,220 990,400 (17,820) (£18k) reduced external contractor based on known factors. R. + M. - Estate Management 20,000 20,000 0 Asbestos 135,000 135,000 0 R. + M. - Homeless Hostels 4,840 4,840 0 R. + M. - Shops & Other Co. 1,000 1,000 0 Planned Works - Outside Contractors 793,500 824,480 30,980 £50k increased amount of works required during gas servicing, (£19k) reduced costs of rendering and algae removal. Outside Contractors - Not Depot Monitored 243,710 243,710 0 R + M - Voids 644,980 666,690 21,710 £25k two month deep clean of properties offset by (£3k) salary saving.

5,136,150 5,114,180 (21,970) CAPITAL FINANCING COSTS Depreciation 8,461,000 8,461,000 0 Interest Payable 2,396,700 2,396,700 0 10,857,700 10,857,700 0 INCOME Council House & Hostels-Income HRA (23,036,890) (23,058,000) (21,110) £49k losses on dwelling rents due to increased voids but also due to a number of dwellings being used for temp homeless provision offset by (£70k) additional income re hostel/ temp accommodation

Interest Receivable (46,800) (30,000) 16,800 Historic low interest rates at 0.1% impacting on returns Non-Dwelling Rents (589,260) (583,260) 6,000 Marginal losses on garage rent income

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 73 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21 Service Current Current Forecast Budget Forecast Variance Comments £ £ £ Other Income - Independent Living Schemes (1,332,610) (1,416,400) (83,790) Increased ILO service charge income [Virement requested] Other Income - Services And Facilities (628,120) (639,183) (11,063) Increased gen purpose service charges [Virement requested] Other Income - Rechargeable Repairs (15,000) (15,000) 0 (25,648,680) (25,741,843) (93,163) APPROPRIATIONS Capital Expenditure funded by HRA (CERA) 1,793,170 1,793,170 0 Appropriations to/ (from) Revenue Reserves (658,910) (878,910) (220,000) Draw on reserves to fund additional security services cost [Virement requested] 1,134,260 914,260 (220,000) Support Services (38,144) (38,144) Total HRA 288,140 214,757 (73,383)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 74 Appendix C

HRA Virements

Cost Centre/ Service Area Budget Comment Virement Requested LB05 – Independent Living £310,000 Additional costs for security services. Delays in withdrawal of services due to Covid19 delays due to supply chain problems for materials and social distancing/ shielding of vulnerable residents. LY03 - Other Income Independent Living (£80,000) Additional income projected Schemes above budget.

LY04 – Other Income Services and (£10,000) Additional income projected Facilities above budget LZ07 – Appropriation from Earmarked (£220,000) Resources to be taken from Reserves general reserve to part fund security services costs.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 75

Appendix D General Fund – Updated Capital Programme

2020/21 Adj' to Subtotal Proposed Updated Base base as Adj' Programme Programme programme reported (this 2020/21 Budget per July to Cabinet report) Cabinet July 2020 Report £ £ £ £ £

Arts, Leisure & Economic Development Haunchwood Pavilion 5,000 (5,000) - - - Pauls Land Pavilion 10,500 - 10,500 - 10,500 Sandon Park/Jack Whetstone Pavilion 23,270 4,600 27,870 - 27,870 Target Hardening 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 Kersley Community Centre Car Park - 1,400 1,400 - 1,400 Improvements Pingles Athletics Stadium - Upgrading - 24,600 24,600 - 24,600 Floodlights Preliminary Works - Riversley Park 40,000 - 40,000 - 40,000 Bridge Pingles - Running Track Replacement 104,570 - 104,570 - 104,570 Tennis Courts - Miners Welfare Park 202,500 - 202,500 7,500 210,000 Leisure Strategy 1,160,000 - 1,160,000 - 1,160,000

Central Services & Refuse ICT Strategy Programme 125,000 41,800 166,800 - 166,800 Major Repairs 250,000 - 250,000 - 250,000 Vehicle & Plant Replacement 868,000 - 868,000 (100,000) 768,000 Sub-Regional Materials Recycling 3,396,000 - 3,396,000 - 3,396,000 Facility Civica APP (Flare) - 73,200 73,200 - 73,200

Finance & Civic Affairs Camp Hill - Early final phase 2,369,235 39,000 2,408,235 - 2,408,235 Purchase of Investment Properties (incl 3,460,000 - 3,460,000 - 3,460,000 properties to lease) Towns Fund Advanced Funding - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Getting Britain Building - - - 895,630 895,630 Transforming Bedworth 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000

Housing, Health & Communities HEART 6,150,600 845,000 6,995,600 - 6,995,600 Empty Homes & Works in Default 40,000 - 40,000 - 40,000 Empty Property Loans 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 Mobile Home Sites 212,100 5,400 217,500 - 217,500 Conversion of Council House 790,000 104,000 894,000 - 894,000

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 76 2020/21 Adj' to Subtotal Proposed Updated Base base as Adj' Programme Programme programme reported (this 2020/21 Budget per July to Cabinet report) Cabinet July 2020 Report £ £ £ £ £

Planning & Development Replacement CCTV Cameras 9,700 - 9,700 - 9,700 CCTV - Wireless Technology 120,000 - 120,000 - 120,000

Miscellaneous Schemes 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000

Total Capital Programme 19,736,475 1,134,000 20,870,475 1,803,130 22,673,605

Financed by: Capital Receipts 2,826,335 2,870,735 - 2,870,735 Earmarked Reserves 5,128,520 5,264,520 (100,000) 5,164,520 Grants & External Contributions 6,595,620 7,445,220 1,903,130 9,348,350 Prudential Borrowing 5,186,000 5,290,000 - 5,290,000 Total 19,736,475 20,870,475 1,803,130 22,673,605

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 77 HRA Capital Programme

Additional 2020/21 amounts re- Updated Base profiled Programme Programme from 2020/21 Budget 2019/20

£ £ £ Acquisition & New Build 11,235,620 (433,420) 10,802,200 Byford Court Regeneration 2,387,000 - 2,387,000 Aids & Adaptations 500,000 - 500,000 Central Heating 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 Decent Homes 2,500,000 - 2,500,000 District Heating - Smart Meters - 262,500 262,500 District Heating Boilers 200,000 - 200,000 District Heating Works 50,000 - 50,000 Door Entry System 50,000 - 50,000 Environmental Works 25,000 - 25,000 Fire Damaged Properties - 15,000 15,000 Fire Risk Assessments (General Purpose) 300,000 - 300,000 Fire Safety Works 2,250,000 666,000 2,916,000 Garages 25,000 - 25,000 Housing Management System - 356,000 356,000 Large Scale Feasibility 100,000 60,000 160,000 Level Access Showers 500,000 37,500 537,500 Lift Renewal Works 100,000 - 100,000 PIR Electrical Works 300,000 145,000 445,000 Roof Coverings/ Modifications 850,000 - 850,000 Shed Door & Roof Renewals 25,000 - 25,000 Sheltered Alarm Call Systems - 367,000 367,000 Shop Improvements 15,000 13,000 28,000 Slabs to Tarmac 200,000 - 200,000 Structural & Cladding / Concrete Repairs 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 Voids 450,000 - 450,000 Windows & Doors 700,000 - 700,000 Capital Salaries 439,170 - 439,170 Contingency 100,000 - 100,000

Total Capital Programme 26,301,790 1,488,580 27,790,370

Financed by Major Repairs Reserve 12,698,620 118,835 12,817,455 Earmarked Reserves/ Revenue 1,793,170 - 1,793,170 Capital Receipts 1,810,000 1,025,045 2,835,045 Capital Grants/ Contributions 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 Borrowing 8,500,000 344,700 8,844,700 Total 26,301,790 1,488,580 27,790,370

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 78 Agenda item: 11

CABINET

Cabinet/Individual Cabinet Member Decision

Report Summary Sheet

Date: 9th September 2020

Subject: Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) - Adoption

Portfolio: Planning, Development & Health (Councillor Neil Phillips)

From: Director – Democracy, Planning and Public Protection

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to seek Cabinet approval of a revised Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and to recommend its adoption at Full Council.

Recommendations:

1. The updated Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) be approved; and

2. Subject to 1 above, it be recommended to Council that the approved Statement of Community Involvement be adopted and the Statement of Community Involvement be published on the Council’s website.

Options:

1. To accept the recommendations.

2. Not to proceed and recommend adoption at Full Council.

Reasons:

Where policies in the adopted SCI cannot be complied with due to current guidance to help combat the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) the SCI has been updated to ensure that plan-making and the determination of planning applications can continue (in

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 79 accordance with the SCI).

Subject to call-in: Yes.

Ward relevance: All.

Forward plan: No.

Delivering Our Future Theme: 1, 2 and 3.

Delivering Our Future Priority: All.

Relevant statutes or policy: The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended), the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure, Listed Buildings and Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, and the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Plan 2019.

Equal opportunity implications: None.

Human resources implications: None.

Financial implications: None.

Health Inequalities Implications: None.

Section 17 - Crime and Disorder Implications: None.

Risk management implications: An up-to-date SCI will assist in ensuring that the Council meets legislative requirements and, consequently, reduce the risk of planning documents being found unsound at examination as well as ensuring consultations on planning applications are undertaken in accordance with the SCI.

Environmental implications: None.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 80

Legal implications: There is a statutory requirement to comply with the SCI when preparing planning policy documents.

Contact details:

Phil Larter Principal Planning Policy Officer 024 7637 6506 [email protected]

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 81 AGENDA ITEM NO.11

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Cabinet – 9th September 2020

From: Director – Democracy, Planning and Public Protection

Subject: Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) - Adoption

Portfolio: Planning, Development & Health

Delivering Our Future Theme: 1, 2 and 3

Delivering Our Future Priority: All

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek Cabinet approval of a revised Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and to recommend its adoption at Full Council.

2. Recommendations

2.1 The updated Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) be approved; and

2.2 Subject to 2.1 above, it be recommended to Council that the approved Statement of Community Involvement be adopted and the Statement of Community Involvement be published on the Council’s website.

3. Background

3.1 The SCI is a statutory document that explains how the community and other stakeholders can become involved in the planning process. The current Statement of Community Involvement was adopted in December 2015 and sets out when and how the community will be engaged with the production of planning policy documents and the determination of planning applications.

3.2 Recent Government guidance in light of the current pandemic is that where any of the policies in the Statement of Community Involvement cannot be complied with due to current guidance to help combat the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19), the local planning authority is encouraged to undertake an immediate review of the SCI and update the policies where necessary so that plan-making can continue.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 82 3.3 It has been identified that within the current SCI the policy to provide planning policy documents for inspection, exhibitions, face-to-face meetings and similar are not achievable at present. Similarly, it may not be feasible to provide site notices, press notices and letters as part of planning application consultations; the government has passed new temporary legislation to provide greater flexibility for the advertising of planning applications which does not accord with the provisions of this SCI. Therefore, additional text has been added to the SCI to address the changes that may be necessary to allow consultation to take place in accordance with the SCI (paragraphs 1.5 to 1.8). And, as per Government guidance online engagement methods will be used to their full potential. The immediate benefit of this for the purposes of planning policy is that consultation on the Town Centres Area Action Plan can begin.

3.4 In normal circumstances consultation would take place on changes to the SCI but given that the issues caused by the pandemic are the ability to undertake some of the consultation methods set out in the SCI and the need to keep the planning system functioning it is considered that consultation is not appropriate. There is no requirement in legislation for local planning authorities to consult when reviewing and updating their Statement of Community Involvement. It should be noted that the SCI is clear that changes to consultations are only temporary whilst restrictions relating to COVID-19 are in place.

3.5 Furthermore, Regulation 10A of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended) requires local planning authorities to review Statements of Community Involvement at least once every 5 years from their adoption date to ensure that policies remain relevant and effectively address the needs of the local community. With the current SCI having been adopted in December 2015 that means a review is due anon.

4 Conclusion

4.1 That the updated SCI is accepted and recommended for approval at Full Council.

5 Appendices

Appendix A – Statement of Community Involvement.

6 Background Papers (if none, state none)

None.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 83

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

STATEMENT OF

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

2020

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 84 Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 85 Contents

1. Introduction ...... 2 2. When Do We Engage? ...... 4 3. Who Do We Engage With? ...... 8 4. How Do We Engage? ...... 10 5. Consultation Tables ...... 12 6. Monitoring ...... 15 APPENDIX A: DUTY TO COOPERATE BODIES ...... 16 APPENDIX B: PRE-APPLICATION COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT CHECKLIST ... 17 APPENDIX C: SPECIFIC CONSULTATION BODIES...... 18 APPENDIX D: GENERAL CONSULTATION BODIES ...... 19 APPENDIX E: OTHER CONSULTEES ...... 20 APPENDIX F: PLANNING APPLICATION CONSULTEES ...... 22 APPENDIX G: GLOSSARY ...... 23

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 86

1. Introduction

1.1 The Nuneaton and Bedworth Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) is a statutory document that formally sets out how the community and other stakeholders with an interest in the development of the Borough can engage with the planning system.

1.2 The aim of the SCI is to ensure that engagement: • Reflects the needs of the community, stakeholders and other interested parties • Is appropriate to the type of document being prepared or the type of planning application being considered by the Council • Is accessible and transparent, ensuring a sense of community ownership • Takes place in a variety of ways.

1.3 The SCI is broken down into 3 main parts. The first part considers when the Council will engage with interested parties, the second part identifies who the Council will engage with and the final part explains how the Council will engage with stakeholders through a range of different methods.

1.4 The Council’s first SCI was adopted in 2006. This update is to reflect changes to planning regulations since this time.

Coronavirus amendments

Development plans documents, supplementary planning documents and Community Infrastructure Levy

1.5 To combat the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) the government has published guidance that has implications for plan-making and the ability of the Council to comply with the policies set out in this Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The ability of the Council to provide planning policy documents for public inspection, undertake exhibitions and face-to-face meetings have been curtailed by the guidance. Therefore, and notwithstanding those policies set out in the SCI, documents for public inspection, exhibitions, displays, roadshows and face-to-face meetings may not be used during consultations on planning policy documents. Instead, as per government guidance, online engagement methods will be used to their full potential. This is only a temporary measure and whilst restrictions relating to COVID-19 are in place so that when it is safe to do so then these consultation methods shall, where appropriate, be used once more.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 87 Planning applications

1.6 Normally an application would be publicised by a site notice, by serving the notice on an adjoining owner or occupier, and/or by publishing the notice in a local newspaper. However, the Government has passed new regulations so that if it is not reasonably practicable for reasons connected to the effects of coronavirus to undertake these actions, then steps such as social media and email can be used instead to inform any persons who are likely to have an interest in the application.

1.7 The new regulations allow for temporary publicity changes to be applied to the following types of application: • applications for planning permission made to us (including an application for Environmental Impact Assessment development accompanied by an environmental statement); • applications for listed building consent; • application for variation or discharge of conditions attached to listed building consent; • applications for planning permission affecting the setting of a listed building or the character or appearance of a conservation area made to us; • applications made by us to the Secretary of State for listed building consent for the demolition, alteration or extension of a listed building; • applications for planning permission or a subsequent application for Environmental Impact Assessment development which has been made without an environmental statement, where the applicant proposed to submit such a statement; and • submission of further information to supplement an environmental statement.

1.8 Also, under the temporary publicity requirements, in the case of an application for planning permission, the period given in a newspaper notice and on our website for representations has been increased from 14 to 21 days (or longer where the period includes public or bank holidays). Therefore, whilst it is not possible to achieve the requirements set out further on in this SCI consultations will be undertaken in accordance with current regulations. These regulations expire on 31st December 2020 but should these be extended or further regulatory changes be made then consultation will be undertaken in accordance with these rather than the SCI if compliance with the SCI cannot be achieved.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 88 2. When Do We Engage?

2.1 The Council prepares a range of planning policy documents that shape development within Nuneaton and Bedworth. Details of the documents are listed below along with the processes of engagement which will be used as they are prepared.

Development Plans

2.2 Development Plan Documents (DPDs) set planning policy for the Borough and are the starting point for the determination of planning applications. There are 3 main stages of DPD production where the Regulations require some form of consultation /community involvement.

1. Preparation of a DPD (Regulation 18): Certain ‘specific’ (identified in the Regulations) and ‘general’ (identified by the Council) consultation bodies are invited to make representations about what a DPD ought to contain.

2. Publication of a DPD (Regulations 19 & 20): Copies of a proposed DPD and associated documents will be made available for inspection for 8 weeks. When necessary, for the purposes of expediency, consultation will take place for 6 weeks. The Council will invite interested parties to make formal representations at this stage. This is effectively the final stage when formal representations can be made to the Council.

3. Submission of a DPD to the Secretary of State (Regulation 22): A copy of the proposed DPD and associated documents is submitted to the Secretary of State for ‘examination’. An Independent Inspector is then appointed to examine the soundness of the document. The Council will provide the Inspector with the formal representations made under Regulation 19 and 20. At this stage the Council cannot consider new formal representations, although opportunities exist for additional statements to be made to the Inspector to elaborate on representations previously made as part of the examination process.

At examination the Inspector will assess whether the Council has met legal and procedural requirements which includes whether the document has been prepared in accordance with the SCI. In considering the soundness of the Plan the Inspector will consider all of the ‘duly made’ representations. The Inspector may invite the Council to make modifications in order to make the document sound. Further consultation is

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 89 normally required on the modifications and any responses received will be considered by the Inspector rather than the Council.

Duty to co-operate

2.3 In addition to the requirements outlined above, Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011 sets out a ‘duty to co-operate’ which requires the Council to engage constructively, actively and on an on-going basis with neighbouring authorities and other statutory bodies on strategic cross boundary matters associated with Plan making. This requirement will be tested at examination. Appendix A lists the Duty to Cooperate bodies.

Additional Engagement

2.4 The Council will also undertake consultation in between the first two stages outlined above and therefore exceed the minimum legal requirements. This is to ensure that interested parties have an opportunity to feed into the development of a document as it emerges and it will assist in meeting the requirements to test reasonable alternatives as part of the Sustainability Appraisal/ Strategic Environmental Assessment process.

2.5 Additional engagement may take the form of an on-going process of informal discussions with key stakeholders and there may not therefore be a defined or formalised period of consultation. However where considered appropriate, a formalised period of consultation will be undertaken for 8 weeks and any representations received will be considered in advance of preparing a ‘Publication’ version of a Plan.

Sustainability Appraisal/ Strategic Environmental Assessment

2.6 Sustainability Appraisals (SAs) assess the environmental, social and economic effects of a DPD as part of a process of ensuring that the proposals contained in a document represent the most appropriate approach when considered against reasonable alternatives. Where appropriate a SA will incorporate a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in accordance with European Directive EC/2001/42. Draft copies of the SA/SEA will be made available alongside corresponding versions of a DPD.

Supplementary Planning Documents

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 90 2.7 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) provide further detail on the policies contained in DPDs. In preparing SPDs the Council will undertake consultation on a draft document. Copies of a document will be made available for inspection and representations will be invited in line with Regulations. Representations will be considered prior to a SPD being finalised and adopted. Additional informal consultation will be undertaken in the drafting of SPD’s where appropriate.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

2.8 CIL is a levy on new development floorspace which is used to contribute towards the delivery of infrastructure to support development. The statutory process for preparing a CIL Charging Schedule is set out in the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (as amended) and the consultation requirements associated with this mean that there will be opportunities to engage in the preparation of the document at the following stages: • Consultation on Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule • Consultation on Draft Charging Schedule • Examination (for those making representations)

Neighbourhood Planning

2.9 Neighbourhood Development Plans provide an opportunity for communities to have a further say in the way their local area is developed although the Plans must be in conformity with the strategic policies in the Borough Plan. Further details regarding Neighbourhood Planning and stakeholder engagement in the plan making process can be found in a Neighbourhood Planning Protocol on the Council’s website.

Involvement in the Planning Application Process

2.10 The Planning Application Process can be divided up into three main stages in terms of community involvement – pre-application, application and post- application.

Pre-Application

2.11 The aim of the ‘pre-application’ stage is to allow an applicant to find out whether the type of development proposed is acceptable in principle prior to submitting a formal planning application.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 91 2.12 A number of benefits may be achieved from pre-application discussions including:

• Better quality applications which will take less time to process; • Identification and resolution of problems at an early stage resulting in fewer objections from statutory consultees, key stakeholders and the community when the application is processed; • Openness of approach; • Fewer revisions of proposals saving developer and local authority time and resources.

2.13 Developers are required to consult local communities on certain types of development (in line with the Localism Act) before submitting a planning application. Pre-application community involvement should be tailored to the nature and scale of the proposed development and applicants are encouraged to contact the Council’s Development Control Team in advance to agree the need for the exercise and the proposed methods of community involvement to be used. To ensure impartiality, the Council will adopt a ‘watching’ role but will not be directly involved in the consultation process. A ‘Consultation Outcome Report’ should be submitted with the Planning Application stating how the application has been amended to overcome issues raised during the pre- application community involvement. The ‘Pre-application Checklist’ provided in Appendix B should be completed by the applicant and submitted with the Consultation Outcome Report.

2.14 The Council provides a pre-application service for developers. Details of the service including information about fees, exemptions and the assistance provided can be found in a guidance note available on the Council’s website.

Application

2.15 At the ‘application’ stage the Council will consider the planning application before making a formal decision on the proposed development. This stage of the process can take between 8-13 weeks depending on the scale of the application concerned. During this stage the Council is also required to publicise and consult on the planning application. This will be carried out in accordance with the statutory requirements for publicity. Where required, consultation on amended plans may also take place, although the timescales for response are likely to be less to prevent a significant delay in the consideration of the application.

2.16 The Head of Development Control has delegated authority to process and make decisions on some planning applications in accordance with procedures agreed by the Planning Applications Committee. The delegation agreement is available to view online. Other applications will be reported to the Planning Applications Committee for a decision. The Planning Applications Committee is a public meeting which takes place at a frequency determined by Cabinet.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 92 Members of the public are allowed to speak at the Committee in accordance with procedures agreed by the Planning Applications Committee. Committee agendas are made available at the meetings or can be found on the Council’s web site. Full details of the dates and venues for future committee meetings can also be found on the Council’s web site.

Post-Application

2.17 After a decision has been taken on an application the Council will publicise the outcome along with details on how the decision was taken (delegated or committee), policies appropriate to the decision, any conditions that are attached to an approval, reason(s) for refusal and details of the applicants right to appeal. All decisions will be updated on the online application register.

2.18 If a planning application is refused or there is disagreement over conditions attached to a planning approval notice, the applicant has a right to appeal against the Council’s decision. When the Council receives notification of an appeal from the Planning Inspectorate, it will write and notify anyone who commented in writing on the original planning application. The notification letter will explain what type of appeal has been submitted and how comments on the appeal can be made to the Planning Inspectorate. Copies of all written comments submitted to the Council in relation to the original planning application will be forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate. Comments on the appeal should be sent to the Planning Inspector who will copy them to the Council for consideration.

3. Who Do We Engage With?

3.1 The planning process, especially the outcomes, can affect anyone regardless of age, disability, gender reassignment, race, ethnicity, religion or belief, gender, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership, ability, education, etc. It is therefore important that anyone who has an interest in the future development of the Borough has an equal opportunity of becoming involved in the process, whether as an individual resident, a member of a community group, a stakeholder or any other interested party.

3.2 The level of community involvement will vary according to the type of planning policy document being prepared and the type and scale of planning application being considered. For example, Area Action Plans and smaller planning applications may require more focused community involvement with local residents. Strategic development documents such as the Borough Plan and larger planning applications will require wider consultation across the Borough and involve a wider range of stakeholders.

Planning Policy Documents

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 93

3.3 The Planning Regulations set out the requirements with regards who must be consulted at defined stages in the plan making process and are known as ‘specific consultation bodies’ and are listed in Appendix C. The Council also has discretion to identify a number of other bodies who it may wish to consult at key stages which are known as ‘general consultation bodies’ and are listed in Appendix D. This will include the community and ‘harder to reach’ groups such as minority groups, disability groups, the young, the elderly and residents from deprived wards in the Borough. The Council will make every endeavour to meet the requirements of the Equality Act.

3.4 In addition to the ‘specific’ and ‘general’ consultation bodies, the Council will engage with a wide range of other individuals and organisations including those listed in Appendix E.

3.5 These lists may change as a result of amendments to the Regulations and/ or the Council updating the list of General Consultation bodies. The Council will maintain an address database of individuals, groups and other interests wishing to be informed when documents are produced.

Planning Applications

3.6 The Council consults a range of statutory consultees (see Appendix F) along with additional organisations which it is advised to consult, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure Order) (England) (2010). The nature and location of a particular proposal will be used to determine who is consulted on what application.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 94 4. How Do We Engage?

4.1 There are a wide range of consultation methods open to the Council when producing planning policy documents and in determining planning applications. The method of engagement used will vary depending on whether it is a formal stage of engagement governed by regulations or an informal engagement stage.

Plan Preparation

4.1 In terms of meeting the minimum legal requirements for Plan preparation as outlined in the 2012 Regulations, the Council must inform by letter or email certain specific and general consultation bodies at Preparation, Publication and Submission. Through this SCI the Council will also consult more widely.

4.2 In order to meet the statutory minimum requirements for community involvement the Council will; • Make documents available at the Town Hall and Bedworth Area Office • Write to statutory consultees • Make documents available on the Council’s website

4.3 In addition to this, the Council may utilise other consultation methods that go beyond the minimum requirements of the regulations such as; • Make documents available in libraries/ other information points • Write to non statutory consultees • Issue press releases to the media • Undertake surveys/ questionnaires • Prepare leaflets/ brochures • Undertake roadshows/ displays/ exhibitions • Social media • Digital media • Focused meetings with recognised groups • Utilisation of Council publications e.g. InTouch

4.4 With regards harder to reach groups the Council will seek to utilise innovative consultation methods to encourage their engagement in the Plan making process. The Council will seek to work with harder to reach groups to determine the most appropriate consultation methods to be used.

4.5 Information will be made available as widely as possible and in other formats on request. Where possible, the principals of the Plain English Crystal Mark will be applied. Where groups require information to be made available in other formats the Council will try to arrange this in advance (if reasonable notice has been given).

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 95 Planning Applications

4.6 To meet the statutory requirements for the publicity of planning applications1, the Council will use the following methods;

• Weekly List which contains details of applications submitted over the previous week. The list is sent to statutory consultees, Councillors and other departments in the Council. It is also available on the Council’s website or can be sent to individuals for a small fee. • Website The Council’s website includes an on-line register of all planning applications submitted since 1990. • Neighbour Notification via a letter is provided to occupiers of properties most likely to be affected by proposals. Consultees are invited to make written comments on the proposals within 21 days. Advice on the process for responding is also provided. Where there are no neighbouring properties or properties directly affected by the proposals a site notice will be posted. • Site Notices are used to publicise all planning applications where neighbour notification by individual letter is not appropriate. Site notices are displayed in the vicinity of the application site. Comments must normally be submitted within 21days of the date of the site notice. • Site Notices and Newspaper Adverts are posted for the following types of application: o Applications accompanied by an Environmental Statement o Applications which would result in a departure from the development plan o Applications where development would affect a public right of way o All major and significant major applications (as defined in Glossary) o Minor and other applications that are likely to result in wider concern (as defined in the Glossary) • Statutory Consultee Notification is provided to relevant Statutory consultees and response is requested with 21 days. Bodies such as Natural England will be allowed a longer period of time to comment on applications where this is prescribed by legislation.

Additional Publicity

4.7 In addition to the statutory requirements for publicity and consultation, the Council will carry out additional publicity for applications that are accompanied by an environmental statement and significant major applications (as defined in the Glossary at Appendix G). The additional publicity will be in accordance with the methods outlined below:

1 The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order, 1995

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 96

• The Exhibition of Plans at the Town Hall, Nuneaton and at Bedworth Area Office, during the 21-day period in which comments can be submitted to the Council. • Press Releases to Media • Council’s website o General planning advice and guidance o Access to the Planning Portal website o Information on the Planning Applications Committee – committee members, committee dates and committee reports • Duty Officer at Town Hall and by free phone from Bedworth Area Office and Civic Hall. • Inspection of plans at Town Hall and Bedworth Area Office. • Direct contact with the planning Contact Centre on 024 7637 6328 or e-mail at [email protected] • Planning Officers may be able to visit older people and those with a disability at home with copies of plans if a request is made. For further information please call the planning contact centre on the above number.

West Midlands Planning Aid

4.8 The West Midlands Planning Aid Service provides free, independent and professional advice on planning issues to community groups and individuals within the West Midlands who are unable to pay for planning consultant support. They also work with communities to help them understand and become involved in the planning process. The Council will make every effort to ensure that members of the community are made aware of this service, and will work with Planning Aid to explore ways in which they can assist in facilitating community involvement. Further details on Planning Aid are available from the Town Hall, Nuneaton or by contacting the West Midlands Planning Advice Helpline on 0121 766 8044.

5. Consultation Tables

5.1 Tables 1 and 2 summarise the information contained in sections 2, 3 and 4 of this document, outlining the minimum engagement arrangements for the preparation of DPDs and SPDs. Table 3 summarises engagement arrangements for planning applications.

Table 1: Minimum Engagement on DPDs Stage Purpose Who How Preparation of a Evidence • Specific and Letter, email, DPD gathering general internet

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 97 Regulation 18 Notify and consult consultation on scope of Plan bodies

Publication of a Consult on • Specific and Letter, email, DPD (and SEA/ proposed general website, drop-in SA) submission consultees events at document • Duty to co-operate identified Regulation 20 bodies locations, • Those on Community 6/8 weeks Council’s Forums*, consultation InTouch* database Submission of Advise of • Specific and Letter, email, Documents and submission of general website. Information to DPD and all consultees Secretary of State associated • Duty to co-operate documents prior to bodies Regulation 22 examination • Those on Council’s consultation database Independent Advise of • All those who Letter, email, Examination Independent made website, public examination representations notice Regulation 24 hearing sessions

Proposed Feedback on • All those who Letter, email, Modifications (and Modifications made website, press SA/ SEA) where requested by representations releases, required Inspector InTouch*

Adoption Adoption of DPD • All those who Letter, email, as Council Policy made website, press Regulation 26 representations releases, InTouch* *Where event/ publication coincides with production

Table 2: Minimum Engagement on SPDs Stage Purpose Who How Preparation Stage Evidence • Specific and Letter, email, gathering general internet, In consultation Touch* Preparing draft bodies SPD Public Particpation Consult on draft • Specific and Letter, email, SPD general website, Regulation 12 consultees InTouch* • Duty to co- 8 weeks operate bodies

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 98 • Those on Council’s consultation database Adoption Inform of adoption • Specific and Letter, email, of the SPD by the general website, press Regulation 14 Council consultees releases, • Duty to co- InTouch*. operate bodies • Those on Council’s consultation database *Where publication coincides with production

Table 3: Planning Applications Matrix

Type of Stages of Methods of Community Involvement / Consultation / Planning Application Publicity Application

Releasesto

WeeklyList SiteWeb Neighbour Notification Letter NoticesSite NewspaperAdvert StatutoryConsultee Letter Exhibitionof Plans Notices on Council’ s Web Site News Local media Contact Direct with PlanningContact Centre

All planning Application Y Y Y Y Y Y applications * Post-Application Y Y Y Y

Appeal Y Y Y Y

Minor and other Application Y Y Y Y Y Y Y applications of wider concern Post-Application Y Y Y Y

Appeal Y Y Y Y

Major Application Y Y Y Y Y Y Y applications Post-Application Y Y Y Y

Appeal Y Y Y Y

Significant Pre-Application Y Y Y Y Y Y major planning (suggested Y applications methods to be undertaken by Developer) Application Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Post-Application Y Y Y Y

Appeal Y Y Y Y

Applications Pre-Application Y Y Y Y Y Y accompanied (suggested by an methods to be Environmental undertaken by Statement Developer) Application Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 99 Post-Application Y Y Y Y

Appeal Y Y Y Y

*where required

6. Monitoring

6.1 The SCI will be kept under review through the Council’s Annual Authority Monitoring Report which will report on consultations undertaken during a monitoring year. The Council will also undertake an assessment of the success of methods used during individual consultation events and will remain open to the consideration of new and innovative methods.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 100 APPENDIX A: DUTY TO COOPERATE BODIES

• Highways England • Homes and Communities Agency • Severn Trent Water • Environment Agency • Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (known as English Heritage) • Natural England • Civil Aviation Authority • Clinical commissioning group established under section 14D of the National Health Service Act 2006 • National Health Service Commissioning Board • Office of Rail Regulation • Each Integrated Transport Authority • The Highways Authority • Local Enterprise Partnership • Local Nature Partnership

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 101 APPENDIX B: PRE-APPLICATION COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT CHECKLIST

On submitting the pre-application consultation outcome report, applicants should check that the report addresses the following requirements:

1. Does the Consultation Outcome Report clearly explain the extent and scope of any pre-application discussions between the applicant / developer and Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council, and the applicant / developer and the wider community?

2. Does the Consultation Outcome Report clearly explain how applicant / developer has undertaken consultation in accordance with the methods set out in the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (table 2)?

3. Does the Consultation Outcome Report clearly assess the transparency and inclusiveness of the community involvement undertaken by the applicant / developer?

4. Does the Consultation Outcome Report provide evidence of the process and outcomes of the community involvement which can be ‘validated’ by the Council?

5. Does the Consultation Outcome Report clearly explain how potential problems, objections and issues identified through the community involvement have been assessed?

Signed:

Dated:

Please remember to submit this checklist with Consultation Outcome Report as part of the formal planning application submission.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 102 APPENDIX C: SPECIFIC CONSULTATION BODIES

• Coal Authority • Environment Agency • Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (known as English Heritage) • Natural England • Network Rail • Highways England • A ‘relevant’ authority in or adjoining the LPA (including Parish Councils and Police Authorities) • Electronic communications code systems operators • Primary Care Trust established under section 18 of the National Health Service Act 2006 or continued in existence by virtue of that section • Electricity providers • Gas providers • Sewerage undertakers • Water undertakers • Homes and Communities Agency

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 103 APPENDIX D: GENERAL CONSULTATION BODIES

• Voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit any part of the authority’s area • Bodies which represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in the authority’s area • Bodies which represent the interests of different religious groups in the authority’s area • Bodies which represent the interests of disabled persons in the authority’s area • Bodies which represent the interests of persons carrying on business in the authority’s area

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 104 APPENDIX E: OTHER CONSULTEES

• Age UK • Airport Operators • British Geological Survey • Canal and River Trust, canal owners and navigation authorities • Centre for Ecology and Hydrology • Chambers of Commerce, Local CBI and local branches of Institute of Directors • Chemical Business Association • Civil Aviation Authority • Coal Authority • Design Council • Crown Estate Office • Diocesan Board of Finance • Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee • Electricity, Gas, and Telecommunications Undertakers, and the National Grid Company • Environmental groups at national, regional and local level, including: Council for the Protection of Rural England; Friends of the Earth; Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; Wildlife Trusts • Equality and Human Rights Commission • Fire and Rescue Services • Forestry Commission • Freight Transport Association • Gypsy Council • Health and Safety Executive • Homes and Communities Agency • Education Funding Agency • Fields in Trust • Local Agenda 21 including: Civic Societies; Community Groups; Local Transport Authorities; Local Transport Operators; Local Race Equality Councils and other local equality groups • Local Land Drainage Authority • Network Rail • Passenger Transport Authorities/Executives • Planning Aid • Police Architectural Liaison Officers / Crime Prevention Design Advisors • Post Office Property Holdings • Rail Companies and the Rail Freight Group • Road Haulage Association • Skills Funding Agency • Sport England • The Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform Coalition • The Home Builders Federation • Water Companies • Women’s National Commission

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 105 • Woodland Trust

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 106 APPENDIX F: PLANNING APPLICATION CONSULTEES

Ancient Monuments Society Victorian Society British Gas Warwickshire County Council British Horse Society (Structure Plan) Canal and River Trust Warwickshire County Council Civic Trust (Footpaths) Civil Aviation Authority Warwickshire Police Authority Coal Authority Warwickshire Wildlife Trust Council for British Archaeology West Midlands Regional Assembly Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Countryside Agency Coventry City Council Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions East Midlands Electricity Board English Heritage English Nature English Partnerships Environment Agency Forestry Commission Garden History Society Georgian Group Government Office for the West Midlands Health and Safety Executive Highways Agency Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies Local Highway Authority (WCC) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) Ministry of Defence National Grid Transco National Trust Network Rail North Warwickshire Borough Council North Warwickshire Primary Care Trust Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Departments Ramblers Association Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England Rugby Borough Council Secretary of State for National Heritage Severn Trent Water Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings Sport England Trading Standards The Theatres Trust Twentieth Century Society

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 107 APPENDIX G: GLOSSARY

Area Action Plan Planning framework for development in a particular (AAP) area.

Authority Monitoring Report Annual report to assess the implementation of the (AMR) LDS, effectiveness of planning policies, and status of saved and linked policies / documents.

Consultation Statement Statement explaining how consultation was undertaken, the main issues that emerged and how they have been addressed.

Borough Plan Long term vision, core policies, spatial strategy and development framework for Borough.

Development Plan Spatial planning documents that have development Document (DPD) plan status and have been subject to formal consultation and independent examination.

Examination An independent public examination chaired by a Planning Inspector into the soundness of DPDs and the SCI.

Local Development The work programme for the preparation of Planning Scheme (LDS) Policy Documents.

Sustainability Appraisal An appraisal of the social, economic and environmental impacts of the policies and proposals of each LDD.

Stakeholders Stakeholders are organisations, bodies or individuals affected, interested or involved in the LDF and/or planning application process, for example, landowners, interest groups and organisations such as English Heritage.

Definitions of Planning Applications:

Minor Application For dwellings: which do not meet the criteria for major applications For all other uses: which do not meet the criteria for major applications

Other Applications Changes of Use: which do not meet the criteria for major applications Householder: developments within the cartilage of a residential

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 108 property - extensions, alterations, garages, outbuildings, walls, fences, vehicular accesses, porches, satellite dishes etc Advertisements Listed Building – alter, extend, demolish etc Conservation Area

Minor and Other The following criteria will be used to asses whether Applications of wider such applications are likely to be of wider concern: Concern (a) those applications affecting property by causing noise, smell, vibration, dust or other nuisance; (b) attracting crowds, traffic and noise in generally quiet areas; (c) causing activity or noise during antisocial hours; (d) significant change, e.g. tall buildings; (e) serious reduction or loss of light; privacy, beyond adjacent properties; (f) affecting setting of an ancient monument; (g) affecting trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders.

Major Application For dwellings: where 10 or more are to be constructed (or if number not given, area is more than 0.5 hectares) For all other uses: where the floor space will be 1,000 sq. metres or more (or site is 1 hectare or more)

Significant Major Those applications likely to raise controversial Application issues, issues of scale or likely to be of Borough wide significance.

Applications accompanied An Environmental Statement will accompany those by an Environmental applications requiring an environmental assessment Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. This statement will provide a systematic and structured assessment of the potential effects of a development on the environment which can be taken into account on the decision making process.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 109 Agenda item: 12

CABINET

Cabinet/Individual Cabinet Member Decision

Report Summary Sheet

Date: 9th September 2020

Subject: Draft Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule

Portfolio: Planning, Development & Health (Councillor Neil Phillips)

From: Director – Democracy, Planning and Public Protection

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to seek Cabinet approval to undertake Regulation 16 consultation on the draft Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule.

Recommendations:

That the draft Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule is published for consultation in accordance with Regulation 16 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (as amended) 2010.

Options:

1. To accept the recommendation 2. To not proceed and recommend amendments to the draft Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 110 Reasons:

To introduce the Community Infrastructure Levy and generate additional income for new infrastructure to support future growth in the Borough.

Subject to call-in: Yes

Ward relevance: All

Forward plan: Yes

Delivering Our Future Theme: 1,2 and 3

Delivering Our Future Priority: All

Relevant statutes or policy: Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (as amended) 2010 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Plan 2019.

Equal opportunity implications: None

Human resources implications: Additional resources may be required to implement and administer the Levy.

Financial implications: There are additional costs in producing the Charging Schedule, implementing and managing the Levy. Administrative costs to the Council associated with managing the Levy can be reimbursed through income from the Levy. The Levy will generate additional funding for infrastructure projects in the Borough.

Health Inequalities Implications: None

Section 17 - Crime and Disorder Implications: None

Risk management implications: Not progressing a Community Infrastructure Levy in the Borough could result in a lack of funding, and therefore a failure to deliver new infrastructure projects in the Borough.

Environmental implications: None

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 111 Legal implications: None

Contact details:

Adam James Principal Planning Policy Officer 024 7637 6457 [email protected]

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 112 AGENDA ITEM NO. 12

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Cabinet – 9th September 2020

From: Director – Democracy, Planning and Public Protection

Subject: Draft Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule

Portfolio: Planning, Development & Health

Delivering Our Future Theme: 1,2 and 3

Delivering Our Future Priority: All

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek Cabinet approval to undertake Regulation 16 consultation on the draft Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That the draft Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule is published for consultation in accordance with Regulation 16 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (as amended) 2010.

3. Background and introduction

3.1 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a charge which can be levied by local authorities on new development in their area. The levy rates are set out within a CIL Charging Schedule, where the local authority can set various rates for a range of different development types and locations. The regulatory process for producing a CIL Charging Schedule is set out within the CIL Regulations (as amended) 2010, which requires public consultation and an independent examination of the Schedule to be undertaken before it can be adopted. Regulation 16 of the CIL Regulations requires public consultation to be undertaken on the draft CIL Charging Schedule. This is the only public consultation required prior to its submission for independent examination.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 113 3.2 The CIL rates should be set at a level which ensures that they will not render new development in the area financially unviable, and once adopted the rates set are non-negotiable, however exemptions and discretionary relief can be applied in certain circumstances. Funding obtained through the Levy should be used to deliver infrastructure needed to support development in the area.

3.3 Appendix A presents further background information on the CIL, outlining why a levy should be introduced in the Borough, how a levy would work, and how the levy is proposed to be introduced.

3.4 The Council produced a CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule in 2015, which was not subsequently progressed. Following the adoption of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Plan 2019, the Council is now in a position to progress the production of a CIL Charging Schedule. The Council has therefore appointed DAC Planning and Dixon Searle Partnership (DSP) to provide support in progressing towards the examination and adoption of an appropriate CIL Charging Schedule for the Borough.

3.5 In March 2020 DAC Planning produced a CIL Charging Schedule Preliminary Report which reviewed the previous draft proposed approach to charging the Levy published by the Council in 2015, identified a schedule of infrastructure costs in the Borough to be considered in the production of a CIL viability assessment, considered potential options for charging CIL in the Borough, and identified the need for introducing a CIL in the Borough. The Preliminary Report is presented in Appendix B, and key outcomes of the report which support the progression of a CIL are summarised in section 4 below.

3.6 The production of a CIL Charging Schedule requires a viability assessment to be undertaken to determine the impact of the imposition of a levy on the financial viability of new development in the area. A draft CIL Viability Assessment has been produced by DSP and is presented in Appendix C. The outcomes of the draft report are summarised in section 5 below.

3.7 The conclusions of the draft CIL Viability Assessment have been used to produce the draft Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough CIL Charging Schedule.

4 The need for the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy in the Borough

4.1 While there are many benefits provided by the introduction of a CIL (see Appendix A), a Levy may not be needed in all areas. The introduction of a Levy should therefore be evidenced by the identification of an aggregate infrastructure funding gap that demonstrates a need for the Levy. The Planning Practice Guidance

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 114 (PPG) outlines1 that any significant funding gap identified should be considered sufficient evidence of a need for the introduction of a CIL.

4.2 The CIL Charging Schedule Preliminary Report (see Appendix B) identified a total cost of £237 million for infrastructure required to support future growth in the Borough. Confirmed infrastructure funding, which includes funding already received and funding expected through section 106 agreements, totalled £112 million. The Preliminary Report therefore identified a total infrastructure funding gap for the Borough of £125 million. The need for the introduction of a CIL in Borough can therefore clearly be demonstrated through the identified infrastructure funding gap.

4.3 The information presented within the Preliminary Report also identifies that there are projects costing around £82 million which have been identified as being potentially appropriate for CIL funding. A Levy will not raise sufficient revenue to fund all of these projects in their entirety, however there is clearly a large number of projects in the Borough which could benefit from the introduction a CIL.

5 The Draft CIL Viability Assessment

5.1 The rates outlined within a CIL Charging Schedule are informed by the production of a viability assessment. A draft CIL Viability Assessment has been produced by DSP (see Appendix C) to determine the impact of a CIL charge, in addition to normal development costs and policy and infrastructure requirements outlined within the Borough Plan, on the financial viability of new development in the area. The PPG states that ‘when deciding the levy rates, an authority must strike an appropriate balance between additional investment to support development and the potential effect on the viability of developments’. The CIL Viability Assessment should therefore seek to maximise the potential for CIL funding to be obtained from all types of development, whilst also ensuring that the proposed Levy rates will not render new development financially unviable.

5.2 The draft CIL Viability Assessment has researched the potential for CIL rates to be applied to all types of new development in the Borough. In doing so, DSP has consulted with the development industry to determine appropriate local development costs relating to land, services and materials which should be included within the calculations. The Assessment has researched land prices and the developed value of a range of uses throughout the Borough in order to identify any local variations which should be addressed through the proposed rates.

1 PPG Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 25-017-20190901

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 115 5.3 To test potential CIL rates, the Assessment has reviewed a range of new residential development types up to 100 dwellings, selected residential strategic allocations in the Borough Plan, and a range of commercial / non residential developments including large retail (supermarkets / larger foodstores / retail warehousing), small shops (local shops / convenience stores), offices (both in-town and out of town centre locations), industrial / warehousing (smaller and larger, including a larger distribution typology), hotels and care homes. The Assessment also includes a high-level consideration of other development uses such as leisure (bowling / fitness / gym), cafes, community centres, leisure centres, health centres, clinics and nurseries.

5.4 The Assessment notes the current economic circumstances regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, and determines that as the long term implications of the pandemic are uncertain at this time, decisions regarding CIL rates should be based on existing evidence. In support of this approach, the determination of appropriate CIL rates in an area includes a ‘buffer’ to ensure that rates are not set on the edge of viability for new development, allowing for changes to the economy to occur without rendering new development in the Borough financially unviable. The Assessment also notes that recent changes to the CIL Regulations have made the update and review process for the CIL Charging Schedule simpler and quicker. CIL rates can therefore be more easily amended to take account of any significant future economic changes.

5.5 In relation to the identification of appropriate CIL rates in the Borough, the CIL Viability Assessment concluded that:

 Strategic residential allocations in the Borough Plan have a significant amount of existing policy and S106 infrastructure requirements which create additional costs for the development of these sites. Given the size and complexity of the sites, there is also the potential for additional costs as the sites progress through the planning process. The addition of a CIL rate higher than £0 per square metre (sqm) could have a detrimental impact on the viability of sites which are important to the strategic aims and objectives of the Borough Plan. The Assessment therefore recommends a £0 per sqm rate is applied to strategic residential allocations in the Borough Plan.  The provision of affordable housing has a significant impact on the viability of new development. Borough Plan Policy H2 requires all developments of 11 or more dwellings to provide affordable housing. The Assessment has therefore recommended setting a variable CIL rate of between £50-£80 per sqm for developments of 11 or more dwellings, and between £70-£100 per sqm for 10 or less dwellings.  Smaller scale greenfield sites are often less complex and less costly sites to develop in comparison to brownfield sites which may

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 116 for example require the removal of existing structures and contaminated land. While the policies within the Borough Plan would not support the development of unallocated greenfield sites outside of development boundaries, it is possible that some residential development of this nature could take place in the future. To acknowledge the differing financial viability of greenfield sites for development, the Assessment has proposed a rate of £100 per sqm on greenfield sites.  Based on the extent of communal non-saleable floor area and high development costs, sheltered / retirement housing would not remain financially viable with a CIL rate of more than £0 per sqm applied.  Based on potential rental and yield assumptions, the development of large retail units (such as foodstores and retail warehousing) have the greatest ability of non-residential development to accommodate a CIL rate. The Assessment concluded that this type of development would remain financially viable with a rate of £100 per sqm.  All other types of non-residential development, including employment (offices, industrial and warehousing) would either not be capable of accommodating a CIL rate above £0 per sqm, or would not be developed at such a frequency within the Borough to warrant the determination of an appropriate CIL rate.

6 Draft Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule

6.1 A CIL Charging Schedule sets out the levy rates for a charging authority area2. The CIL Regulations (as amended) 2010 and the PPG requires the production of a CIL Charging Schedule to include the completion of the following tasks prior to examination:

Relevant CIL Task Regulation Regulation 14 The preparation of an evidence base to inform the production publication of a draft Charging Schedule. This has been undertaken through the production of the CIL Charging Schedule Preliminary Report and the draft CIL Viability Assessment. Regulation 16 Publication of the draft Charging Schedule for public consultation. This report is seeking approval for the undertaking of this task. Regulation 17 Review and assess consultation representations and amend the draft Schedule to take account of comments as necessary. Regulation 19 Submission of the draft Charging Schedule for independent examination. Submission documents include the draft Charging Schedule, a consultation

2 PPG Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 25-011-20190901

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 117 statement, and a statement of modifications setting out changes made since the Regulation 16 consultation.

6.2 The draft Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough CIL Charging Schedule proposed for Regulation 16 consultation is presented in Appendix D. The Schedule is designed to be a simple document which clearly outlines the proposed CIL rates for each type of development. Any background information on CIL and the administration of CIL within the Borough is proposed to be provided in supporting informative documents published on the Council’s website.

6.3 The proposed CIL rates presented in the draft Charging Schedule are based on the conclusions from the CIL Viability Assessment. The proposed rates are outlined in the table below.

Development type CIL rate per sqm Strategic residential sites allocated in the Borough £0 Plan Residential sites consisting of 11 or more £80 dwellings within defined settlement boundaries Residential sites consisting of 11 or more £100 dwellings outside defined settlement boundaries All residential sites of 10 or less dwellings £100 Sheltered / retirement and extra care housing £0 Large retail units on sites of 0.25ha or more £100 (foodstores and retail warehousing) All other retail on sites less than 0.25ha £0 All other development £0

6.4 The CIL Regulations state that a charging authority can implement and amend an instalments policy at any time following appropriate consultation, allowing CIL payments to be made by instalments often based on the progression of development and /or the time since the approval of the development. An instalments policy allows CIL payments to be spread out throughout the life of a project, and can therefore assist the financial viability of the development. An instalments policy can be included within a draft Charging Schedules to be considered during consultation and examination. The draft CIL Charging Schedule therefore includes a proposed instalments policy.

6.5 The PPG details that the Levy may be payable on development which creates new or additional internal area, and where the gross internal area of new build is 100 sqm or more. This limit does not apply to new houses or flats, and a charge can be levied on a single house or flat of

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 118 any size3. The CIL Regulations allow charging authorities to provide relief or exemptions from the levy to specified types of development. The PPG outlines that this can include exemptions and relief to minor development, residential annexes, self-build, social housing, and charitable development. Through the consideration of appropriate CIL rates for the area, no types of development have been identified which should be provided specific relief or exemptions in the Borough beyond nationally recommended exemptions. No Borough specific relief or exemptions have therefore been identified within the draft Charging Schedule. A relief and exemptions policy is not required to form part of the CIL Charging Schedule, and can therefore be produced and amended at any time by the Council following appropriate consultation.

7 Proposed approach to undertaking the Regulation 16 consultation on the draft Charging Schedule

7.1 Before the submission of a draft Charging Schedule for independent examination, the CIL Regulations require a draft Schedule to be published for consultation to invite representations to be made. The Regulations do not specify a required consultation time period, or how the consultation should be undertaken. The approach to consultation can therefore be determined by the Council, in accordance with the Councils Statement of Community Involvement (2015).

7.2 The PPG notes that there is an expectation that consultation on a new Charging Schedule will take place for a minimum of 4 weeks4. It is therefore proposed that consultation on the draft Charging Schedule will take place for 4 weeks, starting on 1st October 2020.

7.3 Due to current restrictions on public meetings as a result of the Covid- 19 pandemic, no public meetings or exhibitions are proposed to support the consultation. Instead, additional consultation material will be produced including the following:

 A CIL information booklet, providing detailed information on the CIL, and outlining how the CIL is proposed to be implemented in the Borough.  A questions and answers sheet, providing answers to common questions relating to the CIL.  A latest news article will be placed on the Council website, and messages placed on the Council’s social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) informing residents that the consultation is taking place and how to obtain further information.

3 PPG Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 25-004-20190901 4 PPG Paragraph: 032 Reference ID: 25‐032‐20190901

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 119

7.4 As required within the CIL Regulations, the Council will consult directly with neighbouring local authorities and the County Council on the draft Charging Schedule. In addition, a deposit copy of the draft Charging Schedule will be made available at the Town Hall for members of the public without access to the internet to review the consultation documents. To ensure that this approach complies with Covid-19 related guidelines, the viewing of deposit copies will be managed through an appointment system only.

8 Potential changes to the Community Infrastructure Levy as a result of the Government White Paper, Planning for the Future

8.1 In August 2020 the Government published for consultation the ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper, which proposes reforms of the planning system in England. The consultation document proposes a mandatory nationally set charge to be place on development as a fixed proportion of the development value above a threshold, which could replace the current CIL process and S106 planning obligations. The proposed ‘national infrastructure levy’ may also seek to go further than existing CIL requirements to capture changes of use, to support the delivery of affordable housing, and to provide more freedom to local authorities in how the levy is spent.

8.2 The proposed reforms relate to long term proposals which are currently subject to a first stage of consultation. Any potential changes to the existing CIL process are therefore at an early stage of consideration, and where taken forward following consultation, are unlikely to impact how local authorities obtain infrastructure funding in the short term.

8.3 Following the Regulation 16 consultation, the Council intends to submit the draft Charging Schedule for independent examination in early 2021. Given the long-term nature of the proposals in the White Paper, it is recommended that the Council progresses with the production of a CIL Charging Schedule. This will enable the Council to obtain additional infrastructure funding while any future changes to the CIL process, and the wider planning system, are considered, agreed and implemented accordingly.

9 Conclusion

9.1 The draft Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule proposes CIL rates for the Borough which will maximise the potential for new development to generate income for the delivery of new infrastructure, while also ensuring that proposed rates do not render new development in the Borough financially unviable. The draft CIL Charging Schedule is therefore recommended to be published for consultation in accordance with Regulation 16 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (as amended) 2010.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 120 10 Appendices

Appendix A – Community Infrastructure Levy Information Sheet Appendix B – Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule Preliminary Report (DAC Planning, March 2020) Appendix C – Draft Community Infrastructure Levy Viability Assessment Report (DSP, July 2020) (the appendices to this report can be provided upon request) Appendix D – Draft Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule

11 Background Papers (if none, state none) None

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 121 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Community Infrastructure Levy

What is the Community Infrastructure Levy? The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a locally set charge (referred to as a levy) on new development which the Council can choose to introduce. The levy is based on the size and type of development and once set is mandatory to pay and non- negotiable. The funds raised would be distributed by the Borough Council to provide infrastructure which is required to support new development within the local area.

Currently when new development proposals are approved by the Council, it is common for an agreement to be made (known as a planning obligation, section 106 agreement or developer contribution) for developers to either provide new or improved infrastructure, or financial contributions towards the provision of new or improved infrastructure in the area. This could include highways improvements, new or improved parks and play facilities, and services and facilities such as new or improved schools and health facilities.

The CIL will not replace the Council’s current methods of obtaining infrastructure and funding through planning obligations. CIL provides an additional mechanism to obtain financial contributions towards new and improved infrastructure.

Why introduce a levy in the Borough?  It provides a simple and transparent process for the collection of funds and the provision of infrastructure.  It collects contributions from a wide range of developments to allow the Council to deliver more projects for new and improved infrastructure that not only support growth but benefit the local community.  It gives the Council flexibility to set its own priorities on projects benefitting the wider community affected by development, unlike section 106 agreements which are more restrictive in their use.  It is non-negotiable and therefore can save time and cost by reducing the need for negotiations between the Council and developers.  It is fair, as it relates the amount of the contribution to the size of the development.

How will the levy work? The levy may be payable on development which creates a new or additional internal area, where the gross internal area of new build is 100 square metres or more. Development which is less than 100 square metres, but which involves the creation of a new house or flat, may also be liable to pay the levy.

Some developments may be eligible for discretionary relief or exemption from the levy. This includes residential annexes and extensions, social housing, charitable development, and houses and flats which are built by ‘self-builders’.

Further information on the propo sed charges for certain types of development will be published by the Council for consultation later this year. Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 122

How will the Council introduce the Community Infrastructure Levy?

The CIL rates are published within a charging schedule. The Council will specify in the charging schedule what types of development are liable to pay the levy and the relevant rates for these development types.

When setting levy rates, the Council will need to ensure that they do not render new development within the Borough financially unviable, while also ensuring that the levy will provide sufficient funds to support the delivery of new and improved infrastructure. The Council will consult on a draft charging schedule to provide everyone with the opportunity to give their views on the proposed levy rates.

Before it can be adopted by the Council, the draft charging schedule must be published for consultation for a minimum of 4 weeks, before being submitted for independent examination.

What has the Council done so far?

The Council has undertaken research to consider appropriate levy rates for the Borough. This includes the production of a CIL Viability Assessment, which considers the ability of different types of development in all areas of the Borough to pay a levy in addition to the normal costs associated with development.

The Assessment helps to ensure that the Council can maximise the potential for CIL revenue to support the delivery of new and improved infrastructure, while also ensuring that new development in the Borough remains financially viable. The CIL Viability Assessment will be published for consultation alongside the draft charging schedule.

Next steps

Later this year the Council plans to:

 Publish for consultation a draft CIL charging schedule.

 Take into account all consultation responses provided and amend the charging schedule accordingly.

 Submit the charging schedule for independent examination.

 Take into account any recommendations made by the examiner.

 Formally approve the charging schedule, and begin charging the levy on all eligible developments.

The Community Infrastructure Levy is an important tool for local authorities to use to help them deliver the infrastructure needed to support development in their area.

Planning Practice Guidance, paragraph 002, reference ID 25-002-20190901

Contact Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council: Website: www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk Email: [email protected] Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 Tel: 024 76376376 123 Address: Town Hall, Coton Road, Nuneaton, CV11 5AA

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule Preliminary Report

March 2020

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Report Purpose 1. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a charge which can be levied by local authorities on new development in their area. The levy rates are set out within a CIL charging schedule, where the local authority can set various rates for a range of different development types and locations. The regulatory process for producing a CIL charging schedule is set out within the CIL Regulations (as amended) 2010, which requires public consultation and an independent examination of the schedule to be undertaken before it can be adopted. The CIL rates should be set at a level which ensures that they will not render new development in the area financially unviable, and once adopted the rates set are non-negotiable, however exemptions and discretionary relief can be applied in certain circumstances. Funding obtained through the levy should be used to deliver infrastructure needed to support development in the area.

2. DAC Planning has been commissioned by Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (NBBC) to progress the production of a CIL Charging Schedule for the area. The Council is seeking to have a CIL Charging Schedule in place in 2021.

3. The Council produced a CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) in 2015, which was not subsequently progressed further by the Council. This report provides a summary of the previous approach together with associated relevant evidence in order to inform the work being undertaken to produce an up to date Charging Schedule.

4. The production of a CIL Charging Schedule requires a viability assessment to be undertaken to determine the impact of the imposition of a levy on the financial viability of development in the area. A viability assessment will need to consider the existing costs associated with development in the area, before then assessing the impact of the implementation of a levy. This report therefore provides a review of existing documentation to identify information which could be beneficial to the production of a new CIL viability assessment, and to identify existing planning policy and infrastructure requirements which could have an impact on the costs of development in the area, and should therefore be considered within the viability assessment.

5. The introduction of a levy should be evidenced by the identification of an aggregate funding gap that demonstrates a need for the levy. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) outlines1 that any significant funding gap identified should be considered sufficient evidence of a need for the introduction of a CIL. A funding gap is usually identified within an Infrastructure Delivery Plan

1 PPG Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 25-017-20190901

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 124 (IDP), however in the future this could instead be presented within the recently introduced Infrastructure Funding Statements (IFS)2. This report will review existing information contained within the IDP which supported the production of the Borough Plan, to ensure that there is sufficient information to confirm, to the satisfaction of a CIL examiner, that there is an aggregate infrastructure funding gap in the area.

6. In summary, this report provides the Council with the following information:

• Section 2 reviews the previous draft proposed approach to charging the levy published by the Council in 2015 and the supporting 2014 Viability Assessment. This will provide useful background information to support the development of a new draft CIL Charging Schedule. • Section 3 reviews the adopted Borough Plan, supporting evidence base documents, and the emerging draft supplementary planning documents, to produce a schedule of policy and infrastructure costs which should be assessed within a new CIL viability assessment to determine appropriate CIL rates for the area. • Section 4 establishes a case for implementing a CIL in the area by identifying the existence of a funding gap in the area. • Section 5 considers options for charging the levy in the Borough. These identified options will be used to establish the parameters for viability testing.

1.3 Relevant background documents 7. The following documents have been agreed with the Council as being relevant background information and evidence base documents to inform the production of a new draft CIL Charging Schedule, and have therefore been reviewed within this report. Previous Preliminary CIL Charging Schedule and evidence base: • H1.1 - Viability Assessment: Whole Plan and Community Infrastructure Levy Viability Study (2014) • H1.2 - Viability Assessment: Whole Plan & CIL Viability Study - Appendices I, IIa & IIb, summaries & covers combined (2014) • H1.3 - Viability Assessment: Whole Plan & CIL Viability Study - Appendix III (2014) • H1.4 - Viability Assessment: Whole Plan & CIL Viability Study - Appendix IV, Glossary (2014) • H2 - Community Infrastructure Levy: Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (2015)

Adopted Local Plan and relevant evidence base documents: • Adopted Borough Plan (June 2019) • H3.1 - Local Plan Viability Assessment - Update (2016) • H3.2 - Local Plan Viability Assessment - Appendices (2016) • H3.3 - Local Plan Viability Assessment - Appendices I, II, IIb combined with summaries (2016) • D4.1 - Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2017) • NBBC/81 - Action 3 & 9, Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Infrastructure Delivery Schedule, February 2019)

2 PPG Paragraph: 018 Reference ID: 25-018-20190901

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 125

Emerging supplementary planning documents: • Affordable Housing SPD (2019, consultation draft) • Air Quality SPD (2019, consultation draft) • Concept Plan SPDs (2019, consultation draft) • Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2019, consultation draft)

Figure 1: Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, October 2015

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 126 2. Previous CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and supporting evidence base documents

2.1 Whole Plan and CIL Viability Assessment, 2014 8. In October 2013 the Council appointed Dixon Searle Partnership (DSP) to undertake an independent viability analysis of the Borough and provide recommendations to the Council in relation to introducing a CIL, having regard for local economic conditions and the emerging Borough Plan.

9. The December 2014 Viability Assessment undertook a review of all policy requirements in the emerging Borough Plan, and assessed the development costs associated with all types of development in the Borough, alongside CIL rate testing of between £0 and £120 per square metre (sqm), to determine appropriate CIL rates for the area. The Viability Assessment recommended that, whilst there was a degree of varying residential values across the Borough, there was insufficient justification for a zoned approach to charging the levy. The only zoning which may have been appropriate was between the strategic sites and residential development outside these areas.

10. The Assessment considered in detail options for the delivery of affordable housing alongside potential CIL / S106 contributions. The Assessment highlighted the importance of the type of site being developed, and sales values assumptions, in determining appropriate levels of CIL on development sites. Uncomplicated and lower value greenfield sites could accommodate high CIL rates, however higher value previously developed sites had significantly less ability to accommodate a levy rate and remain financially viable. Based on a comprehensive assessment of policy requirements, development costs, land and sales values, and allowing for an appropriate buffer to accommodate potential future fluctuations in the housing market, the Viability Assessment recommended a Borough wide residential rate of £40-£50 per sqm.

11. The Assessment considered in detail the potential for charging a levy on larger sites allocated in the Borough Plan, and concluded that there were significant variations in the viability of larger sites depending on land values. The Assessment concluded that whilst ‘in practice the viability outcomes could improve from the assumed positions, they could also deteriorate. Overall, without significant house price growth, we consider that on balance the outcomes may be more likely to deteriorate than improve significantly from the appraised positions. This could be through currently unidentified costs and / or values at reduced levels if the market slows during large site delivery’. In addition, the Assessment recommended that sales values appear more likely to support essential / key infrastructure items, rather than fuller lists of wider community facilities or amenities. The section 106 obligations placed on strategic sites would therefore inhibit the ability of these sites to maintain financial viability with the addition of a CIL charge. The Assessment therefore recommended a rate of £0 per sqm for strategic sites allocated in the Borough Plan.

12. During the production of the Viability Assessment, pooling restrictions remained in place which limited the use of S106 contributions to 5 contributions for each infrastructure project. This created concern that the breaking up of strategic sites into a larger number of smaller proposals could limit the extent of S106 contributions which could be obtained. The Viability Assessment therefore recommended that the levy should be charged on allocated sites where they do not

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 127 come forward in a strategic manner, for example for any applications on strategic sites under a specified size.

13. The Viability Assessment demonstrated that supermarkets and retail warehousing developments would maintain viability with a CIL rate of £100. However, this level of CIL could not be applied across all retail development, and the Assessment therefore recommended a lesser CIL rate of £0 per sqm for small retail development.

14. From the assessment of all types of uses undertaken within the Assessment, only residential (not including strategic sites) and large retail development were considered sufficiently viable to be capable of being charged a rate higher than £0 per sqm through the levy.

2.2 Nuneaton and Bedworth Preliminary Draft CIL Charging Schedule, 2015 15. Based on the recommendations of the 2014 Viability Assessment, the NBBC Preliminary Draft Charge Schedule (PDCS) was published by the Council for a six week consultation in October 2015. The CIL charges proposed in the PDCS are presented in Table 1 below.To support the ability of developers to pay the levy alongside other financial obligations associated with new development, the PDCS proposed the inclusion of an instalments policy as outlined in Table 2.

Table 1: 2015 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule proposed rates

Use Charge £ per sqm Residential £50 (including strategic sites where the development of less than 298 dwellings is proposed) Strategic sites allocated in the Borough Plan £0 (except where planning approval is sought for the development of less than 298 dwellings) Retail and warehouse development proposals over £100 400m2 All other uses £0 (including retail and warehouse development proposals under 400m2)

Table 2: 2015 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule proposed instalments policy

Percentage Levy amount 25% 25% 50% Less than £80,000 Within 60 days Within 270 days Within 365 days or occupation of first dwelling More than £80,000 Within 60 days Within 270 days Within 540 days or occupation of first dwelling

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 128 3. Adopted Local Plan, relevant evidence base documents, and emerging Supplementary Planning Documents

3.1 Local Plan Viability Assessment, 2016 16. In December 2016 DSP produced an update to the 2014 Viability Assessment to take account of changes to national and local policies, new proposed site allocations, and changes to key assumptions and inputs associated with development costs and revenue which took place since the production of the 2014 Assessment.

17. The Assessment identified that residential sales values and build costs had increased by similar amounts since 2014. Where the viability of development had improved since 2014, improvements had been modest and insufficiently regular to support alternative key findings and policy recommendations in comparison to the 2014 Viability Assessment.

18. The 2016 Viability Assessment did not revisit in detail the 2014 CIL rate recommendations, and therefore maintained the previously recommended CIL rates when assessing the viability of development in the Borough. In relation to commercial / non residential uses, the Assessment did not expect any previously non-viable or insufficiently viable scenarios to have changed since 2014 to become capable of supporting a CIL charge.

19. When considering the potential for any changes to the CIL rates recommended in 2014, the updated Assessment stated that DSP ‘have found no clear pointers towards a sufficiently positive picture to underpin charging beyond the limited scope identified from the 2014 Whole Plan and CIL Viability Study’.

3.2 Infrastructure Delivery Plan, 2017 20. The NBBC Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) was published in 2017, and was produced to support the production and progression of the Borough Plan and the CIL Charging Schedule. The IDP covers a wide range of infrastructure types, outlining the baseline position of infrastructure provision in the Borough, and considering what infrastructure improvements may be required in the future to support growth proposed for allocation in the Borough Plan.

21. In relation to sports, leisure and recreation facilities, the IDP was informed by a Playing Pitch Strategy3, which detailed existing infrastructure shortfalls and future requirements for the Borough. Appendix G identified capital costs for developer contributions towards a range of new and upgraded sports and recreational facilities. Based on the estimated population increases that would arise from sites allocated in the Plan, the IDP estimated the costs which could be applied to each site allocation to contribute towards sports, leisure, and recreational facilities.

22. For all other infrastructure types, the IDP provided general information on potential infrastructure needs, deferring specific details of proposed infrastructure improvements, schemes, and costs, to be outlined within a separate Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (IDS). Without detail on specific infrastructure requirements, projects, and costs, the 2017 IDP does not identify a funding gap for the Borough which can be used to evidence the need for a CIL.

3 Playing Pitch Strategy, Knight, Kavanagh and Page, 2016

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 129 23. The IDP noted that in 2017 the Council had in place an internal Corporate CIL Working Group, consisting of officers from departments relating to development management, estates, finance, housing and communities, legal, parks and countryside, planning policy, and economic development. This working group sought to develop evidence to inform and implement the production of a levy. The terms of reference for this working group are contained within Appendix A of the IDP. The Council also had an Infrastructure Planning and Delivery Group in place, with the purpose of overseeing the implementation of the IDP, and informing the preparation of the CIL for the Borough. The terms of reference for the Group is presented in Appendix B of the IDP.

24. While progressing the production of the new CIL Charging Schedule, the Council will also need to consider internal processes associated with managing, charging, distributing and spending the levy. DAC Planning will assist the Council in considering internal processes associated with implementing the levy following the submission of the new CIL Charging Schedule. Where these internal working groups are no longer meeting, DAC Planning will assist the Council in considering the re-establishment of these groups, or the creation of new interdisciplinary working groups, which could support the future implementation of the levy.

3.3 Infrastructure Delivery Schedule, February 2019 25. Following requests from the Borough Plan inspector for updates to the IDP during the examination of the Plan, the IDS was published in February 2019 as an examination document. The IDS lists all known infrastructure projects which are required to support growth planned in the Borough Plan. The IDS includes the following information:

• where appropriate, infrastructure items are linked to relevant site allocations within the Borough Plan; • timescales for the delivery of the projects; • where known, an estimated cost of the infrastructure item is provided; and • appropriate funding opportunities and delivery partners.

26. Some infrastructure projects within the IDS remain uncertain regarding exactly which funding sources will be used to support the delivery an infrastructure project. In these instances, the IDS instead outlines a range of funding options, often including CIL and section 106 contributions.

27. The IDP and IDS have recently been prepared in support of an adopted Borough Plan. It is therefore not necessary to produce a full update of these documents to inform the production of a new CIL Charging Schedule. To clearly identify potential future infrastructure costs in the Borough, and to develop an understanding of the need for CIL based on a Borough wide infrastructure funding gap, an amended version of the IDS has been produced, and is presented in Appendix 1. The amended IDS includes the following amendments in comparison with the version presented to the Borough Plan examiner in February 2019:

• Where there are multiple sites associated with a single infrastructure project, the listing of the sites has been separated to present the costs associated with individual site allocations. The project costs have been apportioned between the sites either based on an even distribution of costs across the sites, or based on the proportion of

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 130 the total development associated with the infrastructure project4. The approach to apportionment for the purposes of this exercise was determined by the infrastructure type and the number of sites associated with the infrastructure project. This amendment has been made to allow a calculation of likely S106 contributions for each site, as presented in Table 4. This information will be used by the new CIL viability assessment to determine the infrastructure costs associated with each strategic site. • The amount of received or agreed funding and identified infrastructure costs are clearly presented within separate columns. Highlighting this information allows an infrastructure funding gap to be calculated within the table. • Infrastructure which would be likely to be delivered through S106 contributions is clearly presented, with potential contributions listed within a separate column. Any sites identified within the 2019 IDS as being linked to an infrastructure project where the ‘funding and delivery partners’ column identified S106 as a potential funding source, are listed within the ‘likely S106’ column in the amended IDS. • Infrastructure projects identified within the IDS as potentially being appropriate for funding through a CIL, are presented in a separate column. Where the 2019 IDS identified CIL as one of a number of potential funding sources, and an infrastructure project was linked to ‘all HSG sites, all sites, Borough wide, north sub area, south sub area, and Nuneaton’, it has been assumed that the need for the infrastructure project cannot be attributed to a single site, therefore these sites have been listed within the amended IDS as having the potential for being funded through CIL.

28. The information contained within the IDS has been collated to present the aggregate Borough wide infrastructure funding gap, total potential future S106 and CIL contributions towards infrastructure projects, and to provide a summary of the likely S106 contributions towards infrastructure costs for each strategic residential site allocation in the Borough Plan. This collated information is presented within Tables 3 and 4 below.

4 For example, where 3 sites are associated with one infrastructure project costing £100,000, and Site A is for 50 dwellings, Site B is for 90 dwellings, and Site C is for 120 dwelling, the proportionate contribution for each site is calculated as follows: • Site A, 50 (number of dwellings on site A) / 260 (total number of dwellings across the 3 sites) x £100,000 (cost of the infrastructure) = £19,231 • Site B, 90 / 260 x £100,000 = £34,615 • Site C, 120 / 260 x £100,000 = £46,154

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 131 Table 3: Summary of the infrastructure costs contained within the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule

Total cost of Total Total cost of projects Total projects identified Infrastructure funding Total funding identified as infrastructure as being likely to be type received / gap potentially being costs funded by S106 agreed funded through a CIL5 contributions

Education £40,000,000 £0 £40,000,000 £0 £0 Green £3,548,702 £0 £2,682,995 £865,707 £865,707 infrastructure Health £4,196,790 £0 £4,196,790 £0 £0 Social £926,046 £0 £0 £926,046 £926,046 Sports and £35,701,300 £0 £370,000 £35,331,300 £35,331,300 leisure Transport £147,107,000 £48,437,000 £12,060,000 £86,610,000 £43,230,000 Utilities £5,954,365 £4,305,000 £0 £1,649,365 £1,649,365 Water and flood £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 mitigation Total £237,434,203 £52,742,000 £59,309,785 £125,382,418 £82,002,418

Table 4: Summary of likely S106 contributions identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule from known infrastructure costs for strategic residential site allocations in the Borough Plan6

Site Total likely S106 Cost per allocation contributions No. dwellings dwelling HSG 1 £23,461,892 4419 £5,309 HSG 2 £6,579,625 1525 £4,315 HSG 3 £2,945,813 575 £5,123 HSG 4 £7,238,210 689 £10,505 HSG 5 £2,620,876 398 £6,585 HSG 6 £1,676,111 220 £7,619 HSG 7 £2,857,768 196 £14,580 HSG 8 £3,916,788 495 £7,913 HSG 9 £2,694,876 621 £4,340 HSG 10 £3,165,080 360 £8,792 HSG 11 £1,133,556 200 £5,668 HSG 12 £324,869 380 £855 EMP 2 £694,319 73 £9,511 Total £59,309,785 10151 £5,843

5 CIL will not raise sufficient revenue to fund all of these projects in their entirety, but the evidence demonstrates and establishes a clear need for a CIL in the Borough through the identification of an infrastructure funding gap. 6 Note that the costs collated in Table 4 represent the best information available to the Council at the time of producing the IDS (February 2019). Where the majority of the strategic sites have not been subject to detailed planning applications, the infrastructure information available at this stage is predominantly indicative and subject to change as the detailed elements of these schemes are progressed.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 132

29. The 2014 and 2016 viability assessments undertaken on behalf of the Council to support the progression of the CIL PDCS and the Borough Plan did not incorporate per site infrastructure cost estimates for strategic sites. Instead, these assessments tested a range of potential S106 costs depending on the type of site being considered. Detailed per site infrastructure cost estimates for strategic residential sites are now available within the amended IDS presented in Appendix 1 and Table 4. This information should be used within the new CIL viability assessment supporting the production of the new CIL Charging Schedule, to assess the ability of development sites in the Borough to remain financially viable while accommodating a levy in addition to existing development and infrastructure costs. The CIL viability assessment should also consider any additional development costs resulting from policies contained within the Borough Plan and emerging supplementary planning documents. These potential additional costs are considered within the following sections.

3.4 The Borough Plan 2011-2013 30. The NBBC Borough Plan 2011-2031 was adopted in June 2019. The Plan seeks to guide the delivery of 14,060 homes, 107.8ha of employment land, 39 traveller pitches and 5 transit pitches between 2011 and 2031. To meet the residential and employment needs for the area the Plan allocates 10,151 dwellings and 86.3ha of employment land on 17 strategic sites throughout the Borough.

31. There are 51 policies in the Plan which could have an impact on the cost of development in the Borough, and could therefore affect the ability of new development to remain viable with the imposition of a levy in addition to the development costs associated with policies contained in the Borough Plan. The viability assessment supporting the production of the CIL Charging Schedule will need to take into account any additional development costs, over and above those considered standard development costs such as providing vehicular access or local design features, resulting from policies in the Borough Plan.

32. The 2016 Local Plan Viability Assessment summarised above assessed all emerging Borough Plan policies to consider their impact on the viability of development. The policies identified within the assessment as having the largest impact on the viability of development were policies associated with affordable housing, sustainable development requirements particularly relating to building for life, lifetime homes, code for sustainable homes, passive solar design, and renewable and low carbon energy. The Assessment highlighted that emerging Borough Plan policies at times went beyond minimum national standards and building regulations, therefore incurring additional development costs upon new development in the area.

33. Any potential additional development costs, over and above normal development costs associated with new development, which should be considered within the CIL viability study are presented in the Table 5 below. Table 5 does not include infrastructure requirements listed within the site allocation policies HSG 1 to HSG 12 and EMP 1 to EMP 7, as this information is contained within the IDS in Appendix 1, and is therefore captured in the information contained within Tables 3 and 4.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 133

Table 5: Borough Plan policies which could have an impact on the financial viability of development in the Borough

Policy Summary Potential impact on development costs H2 Requirement for development proposals of Provision of affordable Affordable 15 dwellings or more dwellings to provide housing is an additional cost housing 25% affordable housing, and for development for new developments of 11 of 11 to 14 dwellings to provide two or more dwellings. affordable units. BE3 Major development proposals must provide a The requirements set out Sustainable statement with their application showing within the policy go beyond design and how their proposal will: the minimum standards for construction 1. Meet all the questions set out in the design and construction, and Buildings for Life 12 standard, or justify would therefore result in why requirements have not been met and additional development costs set out appropriate mitigation. for major developments in the Borough. 2. Meet the optional Building Regulations requirement M4(2) for ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’ for 35 % of the development proposal.

3. Install rainwater harvesting systems in the curtilage of all new buildings.

4. Integrate the principles of passive solar design.

5. Contribute to reducing crime and fear of crime by meeting the principles of Secured By Design.

6. Minimise the potential for pollution of air, soil, noise and light, and in particular not contribute to unacceptable levels of air pollution.

Major non-domestic development proposals must meet the Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) very good standard for new construction projects, using the most up-to-date new construction version of BREEAM, where technically and financially feasible.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 134 3.5 Emerging Supplementary Planning Documents 34. A range of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) were published for consultation by NBBC in October 2019 to provide further detail on policies in the Borough Plan relating to affordable housing, air quality, sustainable design and construction, and concept plans for strategic site allocations. The SPDs are proposed to be adopted in April 2020.

35. The Affordable Housing SPD consultation draft provides comprehensive information on how affordable housing should be delivered in the Borough, but does not provide any new requirements which would incur additional development costs that should be considered within a CIL viability assessment, in addition to those set out within Borough Plan Policy H2 Affordable Housing.

36. The Air Quality SPD consultation draft provides information on the types of development which would be required to produce an Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA), how an AQIA should be undertaken, and where necessary, how an approach to mitigation should be determined. The guidance within the SPD may result in a development proposal requiring the production of an AQIA, and while this may result in additional costs, the production of an AQIA is not considered a development cost which is additional to the normal costs associated with developments. The production of an AQIA is a common requirement for new development proposals where there are concerns regarding the impact on local air quality as a result of the new development. The CIL viability assessment would not therefore be required to consider the need to produce an AQIA as a separate additional cost. Where any required air quality mitigation measures supporting specific developments are known, the CIL viability assessment could take this infrastructure project into account. There are currently no air quality management projects which should be included within Appendix 1 and a future CIL viability assessment.

37. The Sustainable Design and Construction SPD consultation draft provides additional guidance in relation to Borough Plan Policy BE3 Sustainable Design and Construction, and outlines how new development proposals should seek to deliver sustainable design and construction. The 2016 Local Plan Viability Assessment identified Policy BE3 as having requirements which could potentially increase local development costs. This SPD provides further detail on these requirements, which may assist a future CIL viability assessment to more accurately consider the implications of these requirements on development costs in the local area. It is therefore recommended that this document is considered, alongside Borough Plan Policy BE3, in a future CIL viability assessment.

38. Consultation draft Concept Plan SPDs have been produced for all strategic site allocations in the Borough Plan, to guide future development, highlight key principles, and ensure that sites are considered in a strategic and comprehensive manner. The Concept Plan SPDs provide a visual representation of the Borough Plan strategic policies HSG1 to EMP7. The Concept Plan SPDs do not therefore introduce any additional requirements and development costs on strategic sites that would need to be considered within the CIL viability assessment.

3.6 Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement, April 2019 39. NBBC published a Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement in April 2019 which provides the most up to date published status of the strategic allocations within the Borough Plan. Table 6 provides a summary of the information within the Statement relating to the strategic allocations.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 135 Table 6: Status of the strategic sites allocated in the Borough Plan, April 2019 7

Planning Total Ref Address Position at April 2019 app no. capacity The Long Shoot, between 48-130 Davidson HSG1 32246 Complete 66 Developments, Nuneaton The Long Shoot, land rear of 28-44 HSG1 32399 Under construction 125 (Bellway Phase 1) Site 18C002: Land at Lower Farm, Weddington HSG1 33184 Under construction 193 Road, Nuneaton (Milby Hall at the Farm) Site 18C002: Land at Lower Farm, Weddington HSG1 33184 Under construction 221 Road, Nuneaton (Cotton Grange at The Farm) Site 31B007 Land off", The Long Shoot HSG1 32992 Under construction 250 (Bellway Phase 2), Nuneaton "Site 29B002 - Land off", Weddington Road, HSG1 33758 Nuneaton, (South of Lower) (Barratt - St Under construction 245 James' Gate) HSG1 34571 Dubh-Linn, 431 Higham Lane Complete 1 Site 31B004 - Land rear of 194-262, The Long HSG1 34360 Under construction 120 Shoot, Nuneaton (Davidsons) Site 31B004 - Land rear of 194-262", The Long HSG1 34361 Under construction 35 Shoot, Nuneaton (Davidsons) Cresswells Farm, The Long Shoot, Nuneaton, HSG1 34969 Not Started 150 (Jelsons Ltd) Site 31A002 - Land off, Higham Lane, HSG1 34076 Nuneaton, (adj Nuneaton Fields Farm) Not Started 453 (Persimmon Homes Eaton Place) HSG1 35279 Remaining land at Top Farm Resolution to Grant 1700 HSG1 34615 Calendar Farm Resolution to Grant 850 HSG1 total 4,409 HSG2 - Arbury No application submitted 1640 HSG3 - Gipsy Lane No application submitted 575 HSG4 - Woodlands No application submitted 689 HSG5 - Hospital Lane No application submitted 398 HSG6 - School Lane No application submitted 220 HSG7 - Land East of Bulkington No application submitted 196 HSG8 - Land West of Bulkington No application submitted 495 HSG9 - Land off Golf Drive No application submitted 621 "Site 52D067 - Land off" (Land adj HSG10 33926 Not Started 360 Crematorium), Eastboro Way, Nuneaton HSG11 - Land adjacent Judkins Quarry, Tuttle Hill Application submitted 200 HSG12 - Former Hawkesbury Golf course No application submitted 380 EMP2 - Phoenix Way/Wilsons Lane No application submitted 73 Total dwellings on strategic allocations 10,256

7 The dwelling numbers in the table are replicated from the NBBC Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement. Total dwelling numbers for sites HSG1 and HSG2 are different to the allocations in the Borough Plan, and are therefore not consistent with the dwelling numbers presented in Table 4 and Appendix 1.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 136

40. While planning applications have been submitted for all sites associated with allocations HSG1, HSG10 and HSG11, all other sites have not yet been subject to a planning application. Strategic allocations which have not yet been developed could be assessed within the CIL viability assessment to consider the potential for these sites to remain financially viable whilst also accommodating a CIL charge. The advantages and disadvantages of this approach are considered further in section 5 below.

4. Establishing a case for the implementation of a CIL in the Borough

41. The PPG8 states that a Council intending to introduce a CIL ‘should focus on providing evidence of an aggregate funding gap that demonstrates the need to put in place the levy. Any significant funding gap should be considered sufficient evidence of the desirability of CIL funding, where other funding sources are not confirmed’.

42. For the purposes of identifying the funding gap for the Borough, confirmed funding sources are considered to be likely S106 contributions and those where the funding has already been received or agreed and will be provided in the near future as required. The amended IDS presented in Appendix 1, and the summary of this information presented in Table 3 above, identifies the total confirmed infrastructure funding within the Borough to be £112,051,7859. By deducting the confirmed infrastructure funding from the total cost for all infrastructure listed within the IDS, Table 3 identifies a total infrastructure funding gap for the Borough of £125,382,41810.

43. The information presented within Appendix 1 and Table 3 also identifies that there are projects costing a total of£82,002,416 which have been identified as being potentially appropriate for CIL funding. There are clearly a large number of projects in the Borough which could benefit from the creation of a CIL.

44. Appendix 1 and Table 3 present a significant infrastructure funding gap in the Borough. The Council can therefore demonstrate the need to adopt a levy in the Borough.

8 PPG Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 25-017-20190901 9 Total funding received / agreed £52,742,000 + Total cost of projects identified as being likely to be funded by S106 contributions £59,309,785 = total confirmed infrastructure funding £112,051,785 10 Total infrastructure costs £237,434,203 – total confirmed infrastructure funding £112,051,785 = infrastructure funding gap £125,382,418

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 137 5. Options for charging the levy in the Borough

45. The rates in the previous PDCS were based on the conclusions of the 2014 Viability Assessment summarised in section 2.1. Since the publication of the PDCS in 2015 there have been changes to the CIL Regulations and national planning policy, the Borough Plan has been adopted, and it is highly likely that there have been changes in land values, house values, and development costs. It is therefore appropriate for NBBC to reconsider the approach to charging CIL in the Borough to ensure that the Council is maximising the potential for CIL revenue generation, while also ensuring that development in the area remains financially viable.

5.1 Approaches to charging the levy in the surrounding area 46. While the approach to determining appropriate CIL rates should be based on evidence within the CIL viability assessment, and should where possible use locally based land values, house values, and development costs, a review of the approach to charging CIL within the surrounding area can be helpful.

Table 7: Summary of adopted CIL charging rates and affordable housing requirements in the surrounding area

Local authority Adoption CIL rate Affordable date housing requirement Daventry 31/07/2015 Two residential charging zones, consisting of 25% in £50 per sqm in one area and £200 per sqm Daventry (reduced to £65 per sqm if there is sufficient Town affordable housing provided) in the other. 35% in Two retail development charging zones with growth areas rates of £100 and £0 per square metre. 40% in rural No charge for all other uses. areas Lichfield District 19/04/2016 Three residential housing development 40% Council charging zones with rates of £55, £25 and £14 per square metre. No charge for apartment developments.

Supermarkets are charged £160 per square metre. Retail warehouse developments are charged £70 per square metre. Neighbourhood convenience retail developments are charged £20 per square metre.

No charge for all other uses. Stratford-upon- 11/12/2017 Three large residential development and extra 35% Avon District care development charging zones with rates of Council £150, £85 and £0 per square metre. Two small residential development and extra care

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 138 Local authority Adoption CIL rate Affordable date housing requirement development charging zones with rates of £75 and £0 per square metre. No charge for retirement home developments.

Three retail development (A1-5) charging zones with rates of £120, £10 and £0 per square metre.

No charge for all other uses. Solihull 12/04/2016 Three residential charging zones, with rates of 40% Metropolitan £150, £75 and £0 per square metre. Two hotel Borough and residential institution development Council charging zones with rates of £25 and £0 per square metre.

Two supermarket and large convenience retail development charging zones with rates of £300 and £0 per square metre. Two small convenience retail development charging zones with rates of £150 and £0 per square metre. Three charging zones for other retail (A1) development with rates of £50, £25 and £0 per square metre. Two financial and professional development (A2) charging zones with rates of £25 and £0 per square metre. Two food and drink development (A3, A4 & A5) charging zones with rates of £100 and £0 per square metre.

Two car dealership charging zones with rates of £75 and £0 per square metre. No charge for all other uses. Warwick 15/11/2017 Three residential development charging zones 40% District Council with rates of £195, £140 and £70 per square metre. Three strategic residential charging zones with rates of £55, £25 and £0 per square metre. Student housing developments are charged £100 per square metre.

Two retail developments charging zones with rates of £65 and £0 per square metre. Large scale retail developments are charged £105 per square metre.

No charge for all other uses.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 139 47. As presented in Table 7, there is a range of approaches to charging CIL being undertaken in surrounding authorities. All of the examples have identified different residential CIL charging rates, and 4 of the 5 examples in Table 7 charge residential rates higher than the draft rate proposed within the 2015 NBBC PDCS.

48. All of the examples have at least two residential charging rates above £0 per sqm. Daventry has introduced differential rates11 based on the provision of affordable housing.

49. All examples include a range of retail CIL rates, including differential rates depending on the type of retail provision and the area it is being provided within. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council is the only example to propose rates for other uses in addition to residential and retail development, where rates are also requested for financial and professional, food and drink, and car dealership developments.

50. Based on the approaches of other local authorities in the surrounding area, and in comparison to the draft approach to charging CIL presented in the NBBC PDCS, a new NBBC CIL Charging Schedule could, subject to the conclusions of a new CIL viability assessment, consider:

• A higher charging rate for residential development. Mechanisms for establishing a higher CIL rate are considered further below. • The increased use of differential rates, particularly for residential development where there could be greater variation between land and house values throughout the Borough. • Providing a greater range of differential CIL rates for retail development, depending on the type and location of the development. • Including rates for other uses beyond residential and retail.

51. Potential options for establishing a higher CIL rate on residential development and the use of differential CIL rates are consider further in the following sections.

5.2 Setting differential rates 52. Differential rates are the charging of different CIL rates, including supplementary charges, nil rates, increased or reduced rates:

a) for different zones in which development would be situated; b) by reference to different intended uses of development; c) by reference to the intended gross internal area of development; d) by reference to the intended number of dwellings or units to be constructed or provided under a planning permission12.

53. The CIL regulations allow Councils to apply differential rates in a flexible way throughout the area, ‘to help ensure the viability of development is not put at risk. Charging authorities should consider how they could use differential rates to optimise the funding they can receive through the levy13’. As outlined in section 2 above, the 2014 PDCS proposed charging more than £0 per sqm only on residential sites excluding the strategic allocations in the Borough Plan, and retail and warehouse development over 400m2. While the PDCS did include differential rates

11 See section 5.2 for an explanation of ‘differential rates’ 12 See Regulation 13, CIL Regulations (as amended) 2010, HM Government 13 Planning Practice Guidance: Paragraph: 022 Reference ID: 25-022-20190901

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 140 between retail / warehouse development of different sizes and allocated and non-allocated residential sites, the approach to setting differential rates in order to maximise CIL revenue was limited.

54. The approach to setting CIL rates in the PDCS was based on the conclusions of the 2014 Viability Assessment also summarised in section 2. The 2014 Viability Assessment stated that when setting CIL charging rates, ‘the starting point aim should be a simple approach to the charging regime14’. In addition, the Assessment stated that ‘the CIL principles are such that ideally Charging Schedules should be as simple as possible; i.e. as simple as the viability overview and finding the right balance locally will permit. Whilst a more differential approach in theory has the potential to reflect more closely the subtly changing values and viability scenarios moving around such a borough, some level of variety is always found. For CIL it is appropriate to respond only to any more significant variety in broad area characteristics affecting viability15’.

55. Therefore, in addition to ensuring the viability of development in the Borough, a key focus of the setting of rates in the previous PDCS was to present a simple and easy to understand Charging Schedule. While the simplicity of the Charging Schedule is an important consideration, for the new CIL Charging Schedule the Council could consider seeking to provide more focus on maximising the potential for CIL revenue through increased differential rates between types of development, the location of development, and the size of development.

56. The 2014 Viability Assessment highlighted the impact of land values, sales assumptions, the location of development, and the type of development, on the viability of new development in the Borough. Where the charging of a levy may render some development financially unviable, bringing together broad development types in the setting of CIL rates will inhibit the ability of some more viable developments to be charged a levy. Creating more differential CIL rates which can take account of varying land values, location, and development types, will therefore increase the amount of development which could be charged a levy, and in theory increase overall receipts

57. Using a zoning approach to setting CIL rates allows locational variations in land and sales values to be taken into account. The 2014 Viability Assessment considered a zoning approach, but determined that ‘whilst there is a degree of varying residential values across the Borough, the evidence of likely delivery taken alongside the viability research and findings, suggests that there is insufficient justification for a zoned approach’. The only zoning proposed therefore was between the strategic sites and residential development outside these areas.

58. While it is acknowledged that the use of differential rates can make a levy more complicated to understand and administer, the ability to generate more CIL revenue by increasing the amount of development which would be liable to pay the levy makes the increased use of differential rates an attractive option. It is therefore recommended that the CIL viability assessment should seek to identify opportunities to maximise the potential for CIL revenue through consideration of the use of differential CIL rates based on:

a) The use of the development, for example residential, retail, office etc. b) The size of development, for example minor or major residential development and development over a specified size.

14 Paragraph 3.7.11, Viability Assessment, DSP, 2014 15 Paragraph 3.6.3, Viability Assessment, DSP, 2014

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 141 c) The location of development within the Borough, identifying higher and lower value areas, and setting CIL rates accordingly. d) The location of development, on either greenfield sites or previously developed sites.

5.3 Determining an appropriate buffer within the levy rates 59. In relation to considering how CIL rates should be set within an area, the PPG states that ‘a charging authority’s proposed rate or rates should be reasonable, given the available evidence, but there is no requirement for a proposed rate to exactly mirror the evidence. For example, this might not be appropriate if the evidence pointed to setting a charge right at the margins of viability. There is room for some pragmatism. It would be appropriate to ensure that a ‘buffer’ or margin is included, so that the levy rate is able to support development when economic circumstances adjust16’.

60. In considering an appropriate buffer to incorporate into recommendations on a CIL rate, the 2014 Viability Assessment acknowledged that there is a significant difference between the ability of uncomplicated lower value greenfield sites to accommodate a levy, in comparison to a high value more complicated previously developed site. Where a single CIL rate was being proposed through all residential development outside of strategic allocations, the buffer applied was required to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate varying locational values, assumptions, and types of residential development. The buffer being applied was therefore much larger than may be required when setting a CIL rate for just one type of residential development in a specified location.

61. It is therefore recommended that in addition to seeking to test a greater range of differential rates within the Borough, the CIL viability assessment seeks to create differential rates that allows more certainty in the rate being applied for the specific type of development or location, and therefore allows for a significantly reduced buffer within the CIL rate. This approach will allow a higher rate of CIL to be set, and would therefore increase the funds being created through the levy.

5.4 Setting levy rates on strategic allocations in the Borough Plan 62. The 2014 Viability Assessment raised concerns regarding the ability of strategic residential allocations in the Borough Plan to maintain financial viability with the imposition of a CIL levy. The Assessment therefore recommended a rate of £0 per sqm for strategic sites allocated in the Borough Plan. However, in 2014 there was limited information available to the DSP regarding infrastructure requirements and potential S106 contributions relating to each strategic site allocated in the Borough Plan. The more detailed information which is now available and presented in Appendix 1, and Tables 3 and 4 above, could result in significantly different conclusions being made on the viability of strategic sites and their ability to pay a CIL.

63. Table 4 above collates information contained within the 2019 IDS to outline total likely S106 contributions from infrastructure projects with known costs for each strategic residential site allocation17. Only two of the strategic sites have S106 costs over £10,000 per dwelling, with

16 Planning Practice Guidance: Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 25-020-20190901 17 Note that the costs collated in Table 4 represent the best information available to the Council at the time of producing the IDS (February 2019). Where the majority of the strategic sites have not been subject to detailed

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 142 HSG7 the highest at £14,580 per dwelling. The estimated per dwelling S106 costs outlined within Table 4 are not considered to be excessively high, in other areas significantly higher per dwelling S106 contributions can be observed on viable development sites.

64. In addition to S106 contributions, another significant planning policy related cost upon the development of the strategic sites is the provision of affordable housing. Based on the advice of the 2014 and 2016 Local Plan Viability Assessments, the Borough Plan set an affordable housing requirement of 25% on the strategic sites. While affordable housing rates vary across the country depending on housing need, infrastructure requirements, and the viability of varying types of development in different areas, it is not uncommon for local plans to set affordable housing requirements higher than 25%. Table 7 presents the affordable housing requirements for charging authorities in the surrounding area. The affordable housing requirement in NBBC is lower than all the other authorities listed within the table.

65. While all development sites will have some site specific issues, generally undeveloped greenfield sites are considered to be of lower value, and less likely to be constrained or contaminated, in comparison to brownfield previously developed sites within urban areas. A significant cost associated with the development of greenfield sites is connections to utilities. If this issue can be easily addressed, then the overall costs of developing greenfield sites can often be considerably lower than previously developed sites in urban areas. The strategic allocations are predominantly located on undeveloped greenfield sites formerly included within the Green Belt. Subject to the ability of these sites to access utilities, the development costs associated with these greenfield sites should be relatively low.

66. Taking into account the relatively low per dwelling S106 contributions identified, the 25% affordable housing requirement, and the greenfield location of many of the strategic allocations in the Borough Plan, it is recommended that the potential for CIL to charged on strategic sites allocated in the Borough Plan without rendering the sites financially unviable should be explored further within the new CIL viability assessment. it is considered that there could be the potential to charge a levy on some of the strategic allocations.

67. The NBBC Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement projects an average of 22 windfall18 new dwellings per annum between 2021/22 and 2030/31. In relation to the potential for CIL revenue from residential development, the £0 per sqm charge for strategic allocations would therefore result in only limited CIL revenue being collected from residential development outside of the strategic allocations. Given the extent of development proposed within the strategic allocations, if a levy was applied to all or some of the sites, this would significantly increase the potential CIL revenue which could be collected by the Council.

68. Using the CIL rate of £50 per sqm for residential development proposed in the 2015 NBBC CIL PDCS, and allowing levy charges to be made on the allocated sites, Table 8 identifies that a total CIL revenue of up to £38,066,250 could theoretically be collected from strategic sites allocated in the Borough Plan19. Only collecting residential CIL charges from windfall developments planning applications, the infrastructure information available at this stage is predominantly indicative and subject to change as the detailed elements of these schemes are progressed. 18 Windfall developments relates to sites with planning permission for development which were not specifically identified for that purpose within the Borough Plan. 19 Note that this assessment is for presentational purposes only, and does not take into account the current status of individual sites. It is therefore acknowledged that not all of the sites could be charged CIL, as some are subject to existing planning permissions.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 143 identified within the NBBC Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement between 2021/22 and 2030/31, and assuming that only market housing is being proposed, would create a total CIL revenue of £1,100,000 up to 2030/31. Subject to further viability assessments, there are considerable financial benefits in seeking to obtain CIL funding from the strategic sites allocated in the Borough Plan which make this approach an attractive option.

69. An infrastructure funding gap of £125,382,418 has been identified in the Borough, and it is estimated that infrastructure projects totalling £82,002,416 could potentially be appropriately considered for CIL funding. To support the delivery of this infrastructure, the Council should be seeking to maximise the potential for CIL funding to be obtained from all types of development. To increase the potential funds that could be collected through a levy on residential development, it is recommended that a new CIL viability assessment considers in greater detail the potential for a levy to be applied to the strategic sites allocated in the Borough Plan.

Table 8: Potential CIL rates on strategic sites allocated in the Borough Plan20

Site No. dwellings excluding Potential CIL revenue22 allocation No. dwellings affordable housing21 HSG 1 4419 3,314 £16,571,250 HSG 2 1525 1,144 £5,718,750 HSG 3 575 431 £2,156,250 HSG 4 689 517 £2,583,750 HSG 5 398 299 £1,492,500 HSG 6 220 165 £825,000 HSG 7 196 147 £735,000 HSG 8 495 371 £1,856,250 HSG 9 621 466 £2,328,750 HSG 10 360 270 £1,350,000 HSG 11 200 150 £750,000 HSG 12 380 285 £1,425,000 EMP 1 0 0 £0 EMP 2 73 55 £273,750 EMP 3 0 0 £0 EMP 4 0 0 £0 EMP 7 0 0 £0 Total 10151 7,613 £38,066,250

20 Note that this assessment is for presentational purposes only, and does not take into account the current status of individual sites. It is therefore acknowledged that not all of the sites could be charged CIL, as some are subject to existing planning permissions. 21 As outlined in the Borough Plan, a level of 25% affordable housing has been applied. CIL charges do not apply to affordable housing. 22 CIL revenue was calculated using an average 3 bedroom house size of 100 sqm and a residential CIL rate of £50 per sqm, as proposed in the 2015 NBBC CIL PDCS.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 144 5.5 Instalments policy 70. The CIL Regulations23 state that a charging authority can implement and amend an instalments policy at any time following appropriate consultation, allowing CIL payments to be made by instalments often based on the progression of development and /or the time since the approval of the development. An instalments policy allows CIL payments to be spread out throughout the life of a project, and can therefore assist the financial viability of the development. CIL Charging Schedules usually include an instalments policy to be considered during the consultation and examination of the draft Charging Schedule. It is therefore recommended that a draft instalments policy is published as part of the draft CIL Charging Schedule consultation, to seek views from the development sector on how the policy can support the viability of development in the future.

71. Where the purpose of the instalments policy is primarily to support the viability of development affected by the imposition of a CIL charge, it is recommended that developing an appropriate approach to allowing CIL payment instalments is considered within the production of the CIL viability assessment.

5.6 Relief and exemptions policy 72. The CIL Regulations allow charging authorities to provide relief or exemptions from the levy to specified types of development. The PPG outlines that this can include exemptions to minor development and residential annexes, and relief for charities and social housing developments. Through the consideration of appropriate CIL rates for the area, the Council should consider if there are any types of development occurring in the area which should be considered for relief or exemptions. A relief and exemptions policy does not form part of the CIL Charging Schedule and can be amended at any time following appropriate consultation, however it would be helpful to determine this policy approach through the consultation and examination of the new CIL Charging Schedule.

23 CIL Regulation 2010 (as amended), Paragraph 69b, HM Government

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 145 6. Conclusions 73. The information contained within the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2017) and the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (IDS, 2019) identifies a current Borough wide infrastructure funding gap of £125,382,418. A detailed inspection of the information contained within the IDS, summarised in Appendix 1 of this report, identifies that there are a large number of infrastructure projects in the Borough (cost estimates totalling over £82 million) that could potentially be considered in the future for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding. CIL will not raise sufficient revenue to fund all of these projects in their entirety, but the evidence demonstrates and establishes a clear need for a CIL in the Borough through the identification of an infrastructure funding gap.

74. This report has reviewed the Council’s previous draft approach to charging CIL as published in the 2015 CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS), the evidence base supporting the production of the previous draft CIL rates, and the extent of adopted CIL rates being applied by charging authorities in the surrounding area. Based on the review of this information, it is recommended that the CIL rates within the 2015 PDCS should be reassessed through a new CIL viability assessment to consider if an alternative approach to charging CIL could be developed, potentially including higher rates, differential rates, an increased range of development liable to pay a levy, and a range of alternative charging zones, which could increase the potential amount of revenue collected through the levy.

75. The consideration of options for charging a levy in the Borough also recommended creating differential rates that allow more certainty in the appropriateness of the rates being applied, allowing for a significantly reduced buffer to be included, and therefore increasing the amount of levy which can be charged. The detailed testing of strategic sites allocated in the Borough Plan through a new CIL viability assessment, to consider their ability to accommodate a levy charge and remain financially viable, was also recommended. Charging a levy on the strategic sites would support the Council in maximising the potential revenue which could be obtained through the levy.

76. A review of the policies contained within the adopted Borough Plan, and information within the 2019 emerging draft supplementary planning documents and 2016 Local Plan Viability Assessment, identified that policies associated with affordable housing and sustainable development requirements, particularly relating to building for life, lifetime homes, code for sustainable homes, passive solar design, and renewable and low carbon energy, had the greatest impact on the financial viability of new development in the area. Affordable housing requirements within Policy H2 will impact all residential development proposals of 11 and more dwellings, and Policy BE3 includes sustainable design and construction requirements which go beyond minimum national standards and building regulations, and therefore incur additional development costs upon new development in the area. The emerging draft Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) consultation draft provides further detail on the requirements of Policy BE3, which may assist a future CIL viability assessment to more accurately consider the implications of these requirements on development costs in the local area. A new CIL viability assessment will therefore need to take into account the impacts of these policy requirements, and the associated SPD, when considering the levy rate which could be applied to new development in the Borough.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 146 Appendix 1: Amended Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (March 2020) a) All infrastructure, listed by infrastructure type Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - east HSG 9 There is a need for new primary provision in As brought Circa £2.5 £2,500,000 £0 £2,500,000 £2,500,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' of Nuneaton the east of Nuneaton as a result of the forward by million expansion) and proposed developments at Golf Drive and developers from Developer CIL/S106 Attleborough Fields generating an estimated 2021 1 form of entry. Financial contribution to Warwickshire County Council towards the provision by Warwickshire County Council for the expansion of primary and secondary school places

Education School expansion - HSG 8 This will generate less than 1 form of entry. As brought Circa £2 £2,000,000 £0 £2,000,000 £2,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' Bulkington Financial contribution towards primary forward by million expansion) and education at Arden Forest Infant and St developers from Developer CIL/S106 James Academy Junior schools to meet 2020 anticipated demand for school places Education School expansion - HSG 7 This will generate less than 1 form of entry. As brought Circa £1 £1,000,000 £0 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' Bulkington Financial contribution towards primary forward by million expansion) and education at Arden Forest Infant and St developers from Developer CIL/S106 James Academy Junior schools to meet 2020 anticipated demand for school places Education School expansion - HSG 5 Allocation of land on site for expansion of As brought £2 million £2,000,000 £0 £2,000,000 £2,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' west of Bedworth Newdigate Primary School to increase forward by expansion) and capacity to a 3 form entry school. Altering developers from Developer CIL/S106 priority areas Newdigate and Goodyers End 2020 primary school, and subsequent expansion of expansion of Newdigate Primary School by 15 places per year group – 105 places in total. Education School expansion - HSG 4 Provision of 1 form entry primary school i.e. As brought circa £4 £4,000,000 £0 £4,000,000 £4,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' west of Bedworth 210 pupils. We would require a site to forward by million plus expansion) and enable expansion beyond 1FE if required. developers from land costs of Developer CIL/S106 2019 1.2 to 2ha Education School expansion - HSG 3 Financial contribution to WCC towards the As brought Circa £2 £2,000,000 £0 £2,000,000 £2,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' south of Nuneaton provision by WCC of a 1 form entry primary forward by million expansion) and school developers from Developer CIL/S106 2019

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 147 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - Ash HSG 12 The development generates just less than As brought Circa £250,000 £0 £250,000 £250,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' Green School half a form of entry of pupils. Financial forward by £500,000 expansion) and contributions would be sought towards developers from Developer CIL/S106 expansion of existing primary school 2020 – timescale provision and secondary school places at Ash dependant on Green School. assessment of pupil forecasts at time of development. Education School expansion - HSG 11 The development generates just less than As brought Circa £1 £1,000,000 £0 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' North of Nuneaton half a form of entry primary pupils. forward by million expansion) and Contribution would be sought in order to developers from Developer CIL/S106 expand existing primary provision. Financial 2019 contribution to Warwickshire County Council towards the provision by Warwickshire County Council for the expansion of primary and secondary school places Education School expansion - east HSG 10 There is a need for new primary provision in As brought Circa £2 £2,000,000 £0 £2,000,000 £2,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' of Nuneaton the east of Nuneaton as a result of the forward by million expansion) and proposed developments at Golf Drive and developers from Developer CIL/S106 Attleborough Fields generating an estimated 2019 1 form of entry. Financial contribution to Warwickshire County Council towards the provision by Warwickshire County Council for the expansion of primary and secondary school places Education School expansion - HSG 6 Financial contribution towards primary As brought Circa £1 £1,000,000 £0 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' west of Bedworth education at local schools. Expansion forward by million expansion) and required for Newdigate Primary School (see developers from Developer CIL/S106 HSG5). 2020 Education School expansion - HSG 2 1 new primary school, initially to be As brought circa £4 £4,000,000 £0 £4,000,000 £4,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' west of Nuneaton delivered at 1 form of entry (210 pupils) but forward by million plus expansion) and capable of expansion to 2 forms of entry developers from land costs of Developer CIL/S106 (420 pupils) 2020 1.2 to 2ha Education School expansion - HSG 1 Provision of three 2 form entry primary First primary circa £4 £18,000,000 £0 £18,000,000 £18,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' north of Nuneaton school and funding for early years. 2 New school to be million per expansion) and standalone primary schools to be provided open September School plus Developer CIL/S106 within the growth area, one in the east, one 2020 and the rest the provision Possible ESFA in the west. These will be Free Schools. The over the plan of 1.2 - 2 ha Wave Free School schools to be capable of taking up to 2 forms period (2031) of land for a allocation of entry (i.e. a total of 420 pupils) although 1FE school or they could initially open at 1 form of entry circa £6m (210 pupils). Development of new secondary plus 2ha of school required on HSG1. Site to be reserved land for a 2FE at Top farm for educational purposes primary including a primary, secondary, pre school and possible SEN provision. Provision of new secondary school with

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 148 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed community use sports provision to include 6 grassed football pitches for youth/ junior provision with changing facilities, full-sized floodlit artificial health and fitness facility with minimum of 100 station gym and dance studio.

Education School expansion - Ash EMP 2 The development generates just less than As brought Circa £250,000 £0 £250,000 £250,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' Green School half a form of entry of pupils. Financial forward by £500,000 expansion) and contributions would be sought towards developers from Developer CIL/S106 expansion of existing primary school 2020 – timescale provision and secondary school places at Ash dependant on Green School. assessment of pupil forecasts at time of development. Education Ash Green School re- HSG 4 Expansion of Ash Green School. Potential to This will require To be LEA ('basic need' prioritisation and displace Coventry pupils to accommodate further work on determined expansion) and expansion demand. WCC would in look to expand Ash pupil forecasts Developer CIL/S106 Green School to cope with the extra demand and actual from the developments. However, WCC numbers will be would look to ensure a coherent pattern of re-assessed to provision across the town. confirm requirements and timeframes from 2021 Education Ash Green School re- HSG 5 Expansion of Ash Green School. Potential to This will require To be LEA ('basic need' prioritisation and displace Coventry pupils to accommodate further work on determined expansion) and expansion demand. WCC would in look to expand Ash pupil forecasts Developer CIL/S106 Green School to cope with the extra demand and actual from the developments. However, WCC numbers will be would look to ensure a coherent pattern of re-assessed to provision across the town. confirm requirements and timeframes from 2021 Education Ash Green School re- HSG 6 Expansion of Ash Green School. Potential to This will require To be LEA ('basic need' prioritisation and displace Coventry pupils to accommodate further work on determined expansion) and expansion demand. WCC would in look to expand Ash pupil forecasts Developer CIL/S106 Green School to cope with the extra demand and actual from the developments. However, WCC numbers will be

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 149 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed would look to ensure a coherent pattern of re-assessed to provision across the town. confirm requirements and timeframes from 2021 Education Ash Green School re- EMP 2 Expansion of Ash Green School. Potential to This will require To be LEA ('basic need' prioritisation and displace Coventry pupils to accommodate further work on determined expansion) and expansion demand. WCC would in look to expand Ash pupil forecasts Developer CIL/S106 Green School to cope with the extra demand and actual from the developments. However, WCC numbers will be would look to ensure a coherent pattern of re-assessed to provision across the town. confirm requirements and timeframes from 2021 Education Ash Green School re- HSG 12 Expansion of Ash Green School. Potential to This will require To be LEA ('basic need' prioritisation and displace Coventry pupils to accommodate further work on determined expansion) and expansion demand. WCC would in look to expand Ash pupil forecasts Developer CIL/S106 Green School to cope with the extra demand and actual from the developments. However, WCC numbers will be would look to ensure a coherent pattern of re-assessed to provision across the town. confirm requirements and timeframes from 2021 Green Local Play and HSG 9 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green Allotments HSG 8 Provision of land for allotments in line with 2018 onwards £40,110 £40,110 £0 £40,110 £40,110 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure Allotment Strategy contributions Green Local Play and HSG 8 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 150 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed

Outdoor gyms £160,000

Green Local Play and HSG 7 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green Community park x 3 HSG 1 New Community Parks by extending existing 2018 onwards To be CIL/S106 infrastructure open spaces determined contributions Green Sports pitches HSG 7 Improvements to existing sports pitch 2018 onwards £120,000.00 £40,000 £0 £40,000 £40,000 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure contributions Green Link to Change brook HSG 1 Link to Changebrook Open Space - may 2018 onwards To be CIL/S106 infrastructure Open Space require culvert + new play area determined contributions Green Local Play and HSG 6 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green Sports pitches HSG 5 Improvements to existing sports pitch 2018 onwards £120,000.00 £40,000 £0 £40,000 £40,000 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure contributions Green Local Play and HSG 5 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 151 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed

Outdoor gyms £160,000

Green Local Play and HSG 4 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green Local Play and HSG 3 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green Allotments HSG 2 Provision of land for allotments in line with 2018 onwards £40,110 £40,110 £0 £40,110 £40,110 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure Allotment Straegy contributions Green Community Parks HSG 2 New Community Park with Ballcourt + older 2020 onwards MUGA- £258,594 £0 £258,594 £258,594 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure children's and younger children’s equipped £59,998.55 contributions play provision Play equipment £90,819.72 teenage facility £7,573.30 Green Gym £32,000 Tarmac car park 30 Spaces £68,202

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 152 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Green Local Play and HSG 2 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green Wildflower & Wetland HSG 2 Wildflower & Wetland Habitat Creation 2020 onwards Wildlife £436,534 £0 £436,534 £436,534 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure Habitat Creation habitat contributions £436,534 Green Crushed Stone HSG 2 Crushed Stone Pathways in Arbury Estate 2020 onwards Crushed £188,411 £0 £188,411 £188,411 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure Pathways Woodland extension stone contributions footway £188,411.44 Green Cyclepath Network HSG 2 Cyclepath Network within Site 2020 onwards Tarmacadum £761,362 £0 £761,362 £761,362 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure Cycleway contributions £761,361.65 Green Local Play and HSG 11 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green Local Play and HSG 10 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green Allotments HSG 1 Provision of land for allotments in line with 2018 onwards £40,110 £40,110 £0 £40,110 £40,110 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure Allotment Straegy contributions

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 153 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Green Open space All sites Site securing (inc. gates, trip rail, kissing 2018 onwards £139, 427.48 £372,715 £0 £372,715 £0 £372,715 CIL/S106 infrastructure infrastructure gates etc.) £97, 500 contributions Signage (large Amenity lighting signage) & £40,500 (small signage) £15,787.03

£55,000 (benches and seats)

£24,500 (litter bins) Green Provision of All sites Provision of tarmacadum footway (nominal 2018 onwards £309,182 £309,182 £0 £309,182 £0 £309,182 CIL/S106 infrastructure tarmacadum footway width 1.8m) contributions Green Provision of crushed All sites Provision of crushed stone footway (nominal 2018 onwards £183,810 £183,810 £0 £183,810 £0 £183,810 CIL/S106 infrastructure stone footway width 1.8m) contributions Green Local Play and HSG 1 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green Sports pitches HSG 1 Improvements to existing sports pitch 2018 onwards £120,000.00 £40,000 £0 £40,000 £40,000 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure contributions Green Structural Tree HSG 1 Structural Tree Planting 2018 onwards £2.00 per sqm CIL/S106 infrastructure Planting for large scale contributions tree planting. Total not defined. Green Structural Tree HSG 2 Structural Tree Planting 2018 onwards £2.00 per sqm CIL/S106 infrastructure Planting for large scale contributions tree planting. Total not defined. Green Structural Tree HSG 6 Structural Tree Planting 2018 onwards £2.00 per sqm CIL/S106 infrastructure Planting for large scale contributions tree planting. Total not defined.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 154 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Green HSG8 green space HSG 8 Provision of a strategic green edge to the From 2020 - To be CIL/S106 infrastructure north of the boundary to provide a 2027 determined defensible boundary and include open space and allotments Health GP expansion - HSG 10 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £129,762 £21,627 £0 £21,627 £21,627 £0 Developer Nuneaton extension to Chaucers/ Whitestone surgery. development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire to 2031) from North CCG 2018 Health GP expansion - HSG 8 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £129,762 £21,627 £0 £21,627 £21,627 £0 Developer Nuneaton extension to Chaucers/ Whitestone surgery. development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire to 2031) from North CCG 2018 Health GP expansion - HSG 7 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £129,762 £21,627 £0 £21,627 £21,627 £0 Developer Nuneaton extension to Chaucers/ Whitestone surgery. development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire to 2031) from North CCG 2018 Health GP expansion - HSG 6 A requirement for 3.01 GPs. New build Across £1,719,745 £429,936 £0 £429,936 £429,936 £0 Developer Bedworth surgery (a site will need to be identified). development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire to 2031) from North CCG 2020. Health GP expansion - HSG 6 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £130,305 £130,305 £0 £130,305 £130,305 £0 Developer Bedworth extension to Bedworth Health Centre, development CIL/S106, Leicester Road Surgery, Old Coal House. plan period (up Warwickshire to 2031) from North CCG 2020. Health GP expansion - HSG 5 A requirement for 3.01 GPs. New build Across £1,719,745 £429,936 £0 £429,936 £429,936 £0 Developer Bedworth surgery (a site will need to be identified). development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire to 2031) from North CCG 2020. Health GP expansion - HSG 4 A requirement for 3.01 GPs. New build Across £1,719,745 £429,936 £0 £429,936 £429,936 £0 Developer Bedworth surgery (a site will need to be identified). development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire to 2031) from North CCG 2020. Health GP expansion - HSG 2 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £129,762 £21,627 £0 £21,627 £21,627 £0 Developer Nuneaton extension to Chaucers/ Whitestone surgery. development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire to 2031) from North CCG 2018 Health GP expansion - HSG 11 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £129,762 £21,627 £0 £21,627 £21,627 £0 Developer Nuneaton extension to Chaucers/ Whitestone surgery. development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire North CCG

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 155 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed to 2031) from 2018 Health GP expansion - HSG 1 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £129,762 £21,627 £0 £21,627 £21,627 £0 Developer Nuneaton extension to Chaucers/ Whitestone surgery. development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire to 2031) from North CCG 2018 Health GP expansion - North HSG 1 New build surgery in Weddington. A Across £2,216,978 £2,216,978 £0 £2,216,978 £2,216,978 £0 Developer Nuneaton requirement for 4.02 GPs. A site has been development CIL/S106, Estate identified as part of planning application plan period (up Technology 033758 in Weddington. to 2031) from Transformation 2018 fund, Warwickshire North CCG Health GP expansion - EMP 2 A requirement for 3.01 GPs. New build Across £1,719,745 £429,936 £0 £429,936 £429,936 £0 Developer Bedworth surgery (a site will need to be identified). development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire to 2031) from North CCG 2020. Social Additional personnel All HSG Setting-up and equipping police officers and Across £18,786.00 £18,786 £0 £18,786 £0 £18,786 Developer CIL/S106 required to serve the sites staff entails providing IT, radios, protective development Warwickshire and proposed additional equipment, uniforms and bespoke training in plan period (up West Mercia Police housing growth the use of these. However, additional staff to 2031) will require additional equipment. There are practical limits to the extent to which existing equipment can be re-used e.g. with uniforms or where technology has moved on.

Requirement: 2 police officers and 1 police staff Social Additional personnel All HSG Setting-up and equipping police officers and Across £42,976.00 £42,976 £0 £42,976 £0 £42,976 Developer CIL/S106 required to serve the sites staff entails providing IT, radios, protective development Warwickshire and proposed additional equipment, uniforms and bespoke training in plan period (up West Mercia Police housing growth the use of these. However, additional staff to 2031) will require additional equipment. There are practical limits to the extent to which existing equipment can be re-used e.g. with uniforms or where technology has moved on.

Requirement: 4 police officers and 4 police staff Social Police Vehicles All HSG In order to equip the additional officers Across £31,284.00 £31,284 £0 £31,284 £0 £31,284 Developer CIL/S106 sites required to police the development development Warwickshire and proposed by the different options vehicles plan period (up West Mercia Police and bicycles will be needed. to 2031)

1 vehicle and 1 bicycle

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 156 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Social Expansion of Safer All HSG Existing Safer Neighbourhood Police Teams Across £420,000 - £455,000 £0 £455,000 £0 £455,000 Developer CIL/S106 neighbourhood teams sites will need to expand and adjust as significant development £490,000 Warwickshire and numbers of new homes are completed and plan period (up construction West Mercia Police occupied. The Safer Neighbourhood Team to 2031) costs of new (SNT) Police Office can either be build Police freestanding within a local centre, or as part Office of a “community hub” building. (Approx. 178m2) if delivered as standalone facility. Social Additional custody All HSG Based on the level of growth proposed for Across £378,000 £378,000 £0 £378,000 £0 £378,000 Developer CIL/S106 provision at the Justice Sites the Borough, we consider that in total 9 development Warwickshire and Centre additional cells will be needed. Based on plan period (up West Mercia Police proxy figures we have for providing new to 2031) build custody suites elsewhere in the alliance area, the build cost in this instance would be circa £42,000 per cell Sports and Expansion of HSG 8 To be determined but could include a new From 2020/21 - £370,000 £185,000 £0 £185,000 £185,000 £0 Developer leisure community facilities in build large multipurpose room and store at 2027/28 CIL/S106, Big Bulkington Bulkington Village Centre. Lottery Fund, the Charity Bank and a number of other funding partners/bodies Sports and Expansion of HSG 7 To be determined but could include a new From 2020/21 - £370,000 £185,000 £0 £185,000 £185,000 £0 Developer leisure community facilities in build large multipurpose room and store at 2027/28 CIL/S106, Big Bulkington Bulkington Village Centre. Lottery Fund, the Charity Bank and a number of other funding partners/bodies Sports and Bedworth New School South Sub 6-court hall, 150 station gym, studio From 2020 £6,100,000 £6,100,000 £0 £6,100,000 £0 £6,100,000 Sport England, leisure LC (Option A) Area Developer CIL/S106 Halls Sports and Bedworth New School South Sub SRCFS 2106 identifies both public pools From 2020 £4,790,000 £4,790,000 £0 £4,790,000 £0 £4,790,000 Sport England, leisure LC (Option A) Area operating at over 100% capacity. By 2031 Developer CIL/S106 Pool the current 4-lane (25m) deficit will increase to 6.5 lanes. Sports and Tennis Courts, Miners South Sub Refurbish existing 4 courts with resurfacing From 2020 £355,000 £355,000 £0 £355,000 £0 £355,000 Sport England, leisure Welfare Park Area with porous acrylic, and new floodlights. Developer CIL/S106

Resurface existing 2 courts with tarmac for netball

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 157 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Sports and Heckley Pavilion, South Sub Refurbish existing facility From 2020 £1,050,000 £1,050,000 £0 £1,050,000 £0 £1,050,000 Sport England, leisure Exhall. Refurbish Area Extend with new small hall for boxing and Developer CIL/S106 and extend studio + plus 2 dry-side changing room. 2 changing rooms for playing fields (cricket, football and netball) plus improved access incl. disabled access and new parking Sports and Keresley Community South Sub £130k; plus £5k external lighting From 2020 £135,000 £135,000 £0 £135,000 £0 £135,000 Sport England, leisure Hall improvements Area Developer CIL/S106 Sports and Bulkington South Sub Bulkington sports & Social club/pavilion - From 2020 £2,230,000 £2,230,000 £0 £2,230,000 £0 £2,230,000 Sport England, leisure Area replacement of all current and extended Hall Developer CIL/S106 Sports and Nicholas Chamberlaine South Sub Changing rooms enhanced to community From 2020 £645,000 £645,000 £0 £645,000 £0 £645,000 Sport England, leisure School Area specification with access. Developer CIL/S106 Sports and New Cycling Track, South Sub One-mile closed road circuit. SRCFS 2016 From 2020 £1,220,000 £1,220,000 £0 £1,220,000 £0 £1,220,000 Sport England, leisure Miners Welfare Park Area identifies the need for the development of Developer CIL/S106 safe, traffic-free cycling facilities in the Borough such as MTB trails, BMX pump/ play tracks or community level closed road circuits. The facilities could be designed to be suitable for coaching and training making them ideal catalysts for supporting the establishment of new cycling clubs/ groups. NBBC wish to focus the priority development in a Destination Park. Sports and Rugby/Football AGP at South Sub Playing Pitch Strategy and RFU priority for From 2020 £1,250,000 £1,250,000 £0 £1,250,000 £0 £1,250,000 Sport England, leisure N/Chamberlaine Area specialist rugby 3G- AGP. Only facility for Developer CIL/S106 School whole borough. All new development within 30 drive time minute catchment. Sports and Other pitch South Sub As identified in Playing Pitch Strategy From 2020 £411,300 £411,300 £0 £411,300 £0 £411,300 Sport England, leisure improvements Area Developer CIL/S106 Sports and Pingles Leisure Centre North sub Additional new 4-lane (25m) pool with From 2020 £3,845,000 £3,845,000 £0 £3,845,000 £0 £3,845,000 Sport England, leisure new pool area moveable floor. SRCFS 2016 identifies both Developer CIL/S106 public pools operating at over 100% capacity. By 2031 the current 4-lane(25m) deficit will increase to 6.5 lanes. This proposal provides 4 extra (net) lanes. Multi- use for teaching lane swimming and club training.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 158 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Sports and New LC at new School North sub New dual use leisure centre with: From 2020 £4,200,000 £4,200,000 £0 £4,200,000 £0 £4,200,000 Sport England, leisure North of Nuneaton area 2 (of 6) court hall, Developer CIL/S106 ‘HSG1’ 100 station gym Dance studio, 2 community grass pitches Floodlit full size 3G-AGP 6-team changing (for playing fields)

SRCFS 2016 identifies deficit of sports halls of 9 courts, 6.5 lanes of swimming pools, 263 fitness stations and 3 AGPs by 2031.This proposal will the provide the balance. Whilst all new development is within the facility catchment, contributions will be targeted from new housing developments in the North of the Borough (including Nuneaton and North of Nuneaton). Education contributions will pay for just under 4 courts, so community sports contributions will be for 2.2 courts; and education to pay for 50% of the enhanced changing. 2 community grass pitches. Sports and Ambleside Sports Club North sub New 6 table-tennis sprung floor studio From 2020 £710,000 £710,000 £0 £710,000 £0 £710,000 Sport England, leisure Table Tennis studio area extension to existing community hall. SRCFS Developer CIL/S106 2016 identifies that there are no purpose- built table tennis facilities in the Borough. Local clubs identify this as the main challenge they face, and the barrier to developing participation further. Sports and Clubs 4 Young People North sub Refurbish and Extend. From 2020 £480,000 £480,000 £0 £480,000 £0 £480,000 Sport England, leisure Sports Hall refurbish area Refurbish: 1x badminton-court sports hall; Developer CIL/S106 Extend with new small studio for boxing and studio + Plus 2 dry-side changing room. Accessible community facility. Part of wider Pingles Leisure Centre hub and community facilities. SFCFS 2016 identifies that there is a need to invest in the existing community halls including Nuneaton Club 4 Young People as a priority, to ensure a quality environment can be provided in which to deliver physical activity programmes and opportunities to help tackle current levels of inactivity and poor health in the Borough.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 159 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Sports and Clubs 4 Young People North sub Refurbish and Extend. From 2020 £290,000 £290,000 £0 £290,000 £0 £290,000 Sport England, leisure New small boxing and area Refurbish: 1x badminton-court sports hall; Developer CIL/S106 community hall Extend with new small studio for boxing and studio + Plus 2 dry-side changing room. Accessible community facility. Part of wider Pingles Leisure Centre hub and community facilities. SFCFS 2016 identifies that there is a need to invest in the existing community halls including Nuneaton Club 4 Young People as a priority, to ensure a quality environment can be provided in which to deliver physical activity programmes and opportunities to help tackle current levels of inactivity and poor health in the Borough. Sports and Sandon Park North sub new community pavilion (£845k) From 2020 £845,000 £845,000 £0 £845,000 £0 £845,000 Sport England, leisure area Developer CIL/S106 Sports and Stockingford North sub Extended and refurbished community hall/ From 2020 £360,000 £360,000 £0 £360,000 £0 £360,000 Sport England, leisure area pavilion (£360k) incl £30k car park extention Developer CIL/S106 Sports and Pauls Land North sub Pavilion full refurbish £460k From 2020 £460,000 £460,000 £0 £460,000 £0 £460,000 Sport England, leisure area Developer CIL/S106 Sports and Haunchwood North sub Pavilion £525k From 2020 £525,000 £525,000 £0 £525,000 £0 £525,000 Sport England, leisure area Developer CIL/S106 Sports and Avenue Road North sub New Pavilion (£590k), parking + demolition From 2020 £615,000 £615,000 £0 £615,000 £0 £615,000 Sport England, leisure area (£25k) Developer CIL/S106 Sports and Pingles North sub Football and Athletics Stadium: 2 team From 2020 £380,000 £380,000 £0 £380,000 £0 £380,000 Sport England, leisure area changing, reception, toilets, physio, £340k Developer CIL/S106 + x20 parking £40k Sports and Etone College Sports North sub Improve sports hall and new gym total. From 2020 £3,210,000 £3,210,000 £0 £3,210,000 £0 £3,210,000 Sport England, leisure Centre: Refurbish Hall area Refurbish existing 4 court hall and changing. Developer CIL/S106 and changing Replace squash with new studio plus 50 space gym site. The 4-court hall is 38 years old and the hall, squash courts, changing rooms were last refurbished about 13 years ago. SRCFS 2016 identifies deficit of sports halls of 9 courts and 263 fitness stations by 2031. This will not be required if a new North Nuneaton Leisure Centre is built.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 160 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Sports and Etone College Sports North sub Improve sports hall and new gym total. From 2020 £870,000 £870,000 £0 £870,000 £0 £870,000 Sport England, leisure Centre: New extension area Refurbish existing 4 court hall and changing. Developer CIL/S106 gym/studios and Replace squash with new studio plus 50 squash space gym site. The 4-court hall is 38 years old and the hall, squash courts, changing rooms were last refurbished about 13 years ago. SRCFS 2016 identifies deficit of sports halls of 9 courts and 263 fitness stations by 2031. This will not be required if a new North Nuneaton Leisure Centre is built. Sports and Tennis Courts North sub 4 courts refurbishment at Pingles From 2020 £355,000 £355,000 £0 £355,000 £0 £355,000 Sport England, leisure area Developer CIL/S106 Transport HSG 8 highway HSG 8 Financial contributions towards Bulkington 2028 £1.5m £1,500,000 £0 £1,500,000 £1,500,000 £0 CIL/S106, S278 improvement highway improvement works as set out in contributions the Strategic Transport Assessment NBBC/41 The measures include improvements to the following junctions: 1. Rugby Road/New Street Junction. 2. Rugby Rd/Withybrook Rd/Shilton Ln 3. Rugby Rd/Arden Rd 4. Nuneaton Rd/Cleveland Rd Transport HSG 7 highway HSG 7 Financial contributions towards Bulkington 2028 £1.5m £1,500,000 £0 £1,500,000 £1,500,000 £0 CIL/S106, S278 improvement highway improvement works as set out in contributions the Strategic Transport Assessment NBBC/41 The measures include improvements to the following junctions: 1. Rugby Road/New Street Junction. 2. Rugby Rd/Withybrook Rd/Shilton Ln 3. Rugby Rd/Arden Rd 4. Nuneaton Rd/Cleveland Rd Transport HSG 4 access HSG 4 New access from A444 Newtown Road and 2023 onwards To be £2,600,000 £0 £2,600,000 £2,600,000 £0 CIL/S106, S278, associated improvements to the existing determined at WCC highway network including a new detailed northbound slip onto the A444. design stage on site by site basis. Current estimate for construction costs is circa £2.6 million (NBBC/62) Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 12 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £112,304 £76,923 £153,846 £74,869 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 161 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 9 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £183,529 £76,923 £153,846 £122,352 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 8 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £146,291 £76,923 £153,846 £97,527 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Transport Nuneaton – Hartshill HSG 2 Provision of dedicated cycle infrastructure Across To be S106/CIL via Whittleford Park linking West Nuneaton to the town centre development determined WCC Cycle Route via Whittleford Park. plan period (up to 2031) Transport Nuneaton – Camp Hill HSG 11 Completion of missing links in existing Across To be S106/CIL Cycle Route cycling provision between Camp Hill and the development determined WCC town centre. plan period (up to 2031) Transport North Nuneaton Cycle HSG 2 Provision of a dedicated cycle link from Across To be S106/CIL Connectivity B4114 Tuttle Hill to Weddington via Stoney development determined WCC Road and a crossing of the River Anker. plan period (up to 2031) Transport North Nuneaton Cycle HSG 3 Provision of a dedicated cycle link from Across To be S106/CIL Connectivity B4114 Tuttle Hill to Weddington via Stoney development determined WCC Road and a crossing of the River Anker. plan period (up to 2031) Transport North Nuneaton Cycle EMP 1 Provision of a dedicated cycle link from Across To be S106/CIL Connectivity B4114 Tuttle Hill to Weddington via Stoney development determined WCC Road and a crossing of the River Anker. plan period (up to 2031) Transport North Nuneaton Cycle EMP 4 Provision of a dedicated cycle link from Across To be S106/CIL Connectivity B4114 Tuttle Hill to Weddington via Stoney development determined WCC Road and a crossing of the River Anker. plan period (up to 2031) Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 7 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £57,925 £76,923 £153,846 £38,617 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Transport West Nuneaton – EMP 2 Provision of dedicated cycle links from West Across To be S106/CIL Bermuda / Town Nuneaton to Bermuda Park and Nuneaton development determined WCC Centre Cycle Route town centre. plan period (up to 2031) Transport West Nuneaton – EMP 6 Provision of dedicated cycle links from West Across To be S106/CIL Bermuda / Town Nuneaton to Bermuda Park and Nuneaton development determined WCC Centre Cycle Route town centre. plan period (up to 2031)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 162 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Transport West Nuneaton – HSG 6 Provision of dedicated cycle links from West Across To be S106/CIL Bermuda / Town Nuneaton to Bermuda Park and Nuneaton development determined WCC Centre Cycle Route town centre. plan period (up to 2031) Transport The Long Shoot to HSG 9 Provision of dedicated cycle infrastructure Across To be S106/CIL Bermuda between The Long Shoot and Bermuda via development determined WCC Eastboro Way. plan period (up to 2031) Transport The Long Shoot to HSG 10 Provision of dedicated cycle infrastructure Across To be S106/CIL Bermuda between The Long Shoot and Bermuda via development determined WCC Eastboro Way. plan period (up to 2031) Transport A5 Corridor Cycle HSG 1 Extension of the Nuneaton/Hinckley to MIRA Across To be S106/CIL Improvements cycle route in order to link to Mancetter, development determined WCC Atherstone, Birch Coppice and Tamworth. plan period (up Highways England to 2031) Transport A5 Corridor Cycle HSG 10 Extension of the Nuneaton/Hinckley to MIRA Across To be S106/CIL Improvements cycle route in order to link to Mancetter, development determined WCC Atherstone, Birch Coppice and Tamworth. plan period (up Highways England to 2031) Transport A5 Corridor Cycle HSG 11 Extension of the Nuneaton/Hinckley to MIRA Across To be S106/CIL Improvements cycle route in order to link to Mancetter, development determined WCC Atherstone, Birch Coppice and Tamworth. plan period (up Highways England to 2031) Transport Highway Improvement Borough- Pedestrian infrastructure improvements to Across N/A S38/S278 Schemes and wide be incorporated into all IDP and other development Development Site highway improvements, along with plan period (up Masterplans – individual development site Masterplans. to 2031) Pedestrian Facilities Transport Cycling Improvement Borough- Improvements for pedestrians will be Across N/A S38/S278 Schemes – Pedestrian wide incorporated in all shared use and development Facilities segregated foot/cycleway facilities. plan period (up to 2031) Transport Bermuda Connectivity HSG 2 The Bermuda Connectivity Project will 2018/19 £8.9m £2,225,000 £2,225,000 £0 £0 £0 WCC Capital Project – Pedestrian deliver benefits for pedestrians in terms of Growth Fund LEP Facilities improved access to parts of West Nuneaton, Growing Places the George Eliot Hospital, Bermuda Rail Fund Station and the employment areas around Bermuda. Transport Bermuda Connectivity HSG 3 The Bermuda Connectivity Project will 2018/19 £8.9m £2,225,000 £2,225,000 £0 £0 £0 WCC Capital Project – Pedestrian deliver benefits for pedestrians in terms of Growth Fund LEP Facilities improved access to parts of West Nuneaton, Growing Places the George Eliot Hospital, Bermuda Rail Fund Station and the employment areas around Bermuda.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 163 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Transport Bermuda Connectivity EMP 1 The Bermuda Connectivity Project will 2018/19 £8.9m £2,225,000 £2,225,000 £0 £0 £0 WCC Capital Project – Pedestrian deliver benefits for pedestrians in terms of Growth Fund LEP Facilities improved access to parts of West Nuneaton, Growing Places the George Eliot Hospital, Bermuda Rail Fund Station and the employment areas around Bermuda. Transport Bermuda Connectivity EMP 4 The Bermuda Connectivity Project will 2018/19 £8.9m £2,225,000 £2,225,000 £0 £0 £0 WCC Capital Project – Pedestrian deliver benefits for pedestrians in terms of Growth Fund LEP Facilities improved access to parts of West Nuneaton, Growing Places the George Eliot Hospital, Bermuda Rail Fund Station and the employment areas around Bermuda. Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 6 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £65,018 £76,923 £153,846 £43,345 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Transport NUCKLE 1.1: Nuneaton Borough- Provision of new stations at Ricoh Arena and 2015/16 - £15m £15,000,000 £15,000,000 £0 £0 £0 DfT Major Scheme – Bedworth – Coventry wide Bermuda Park and platform extensions at complete Funding, WCC Heavy Rail Bedworth Station CCC Improvements Centro DfT Network Rail Train Operators Transport NUCKLE 1.2: Nuneaton Borough- Provision of bay platform at Coventry along 2018/19 £15m £15,000,000 £0 £15,000,000 £0 £0 DfT – Bedworth – Coventry wide with track and signalling works to enable the LEP Local Growth Heavy Rail introduction of a half-hourly train service Deal, WCC Improvements between Coventry, Bedworth and Nuneaton. CCC Centro DfT Network Rail Train Operators Transport NUCKLE 3: Coventry – Borough- Provision of a dive-under at Nuneaton along 2020/21 £19.5m £19,500,000 £0 £19,500,000 £0 £0 LEP Local Growth East Midlands Heavy wide with associated track and signalling works to Deal, WCC Rail Improvements allow through passenger services to be CCC reinstated between Coventry and the East Centro Midlands. DfT Network Rail Train Operators Transport Nuneaton Rail Station Borough- Provision of improved access to Nuneaton To be To be WCC Access and Interchange wide rail station, along with better interchange determined determined Network Rail Improvements facilities for pedestrians, cyclists, buses and Train Operators taxis. This may (subject to the outcome of a feasibility study by Network Rail) include the provision of a new pedestrian/cycle access to the rail station from Weddington Terrace. This is still at an early stage in development

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 164 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed and further work is required to assess its feasibility

Transport Bermuda Connectivity HSG 3 The Bermuda Connectivity Project will 2018/19 £8.9m £2,960,000 £0 £2,960,000 £0 £0 WCC Capital Project –Access to deliver benefits for pedestrians and cyclists Growth Fund Bermuda Rail Station in terms of improved access from parts of LEP Growing Places West Nuneaton to Bermuda Rail Station. Fund

Transport Bermuda Connectivity EMP 1 The Bermuda Connectivity Project will 2018/19 £8.9m £2,960,000 £0 £2,960,000 £0 £0 WCC Capital Project –Access to deliver benefits for pedestrians and cyclists Growth Fund Bermuda Rail Station in terms of improved access from parts of LEP Growing Places West Nuneaton to Bermuda Rail Station. Fund

Transport Bermuda Connectivity EMP 4 The Bermuda Connectivity Project will 2018/19 £8.9m £2,960,000 £0 £2,960,000 £0 £0 WCC Capital Project –Access to deliver benefits for pedestrians and cyclists Growth Fund Bermuda Rail Station in terms of improved access from parts of LEP Growing Places West Nuneaton to Bermuda Rail Station. Fund

Transport Highway Improvement Borough- Bus infrastructure improvements to be Across N/A S38/S278 Schemes and wide incorporated into all IDP and other highway development Development Site improvements, along with individual plan period (up Masterplans – Bus development site Masterplans. to 2031) Facilities Transport Nuneaton Rail and Bus Borough- Improved signage, information, surfacing, Across N/A WCC Station Connectivity wide lighting and pedestrian crossing facilities development Improvements between Nuneaton rail and bus stations. plan period (up to 2031) Transport Nuneaton Bus Station Borough- Reconfiguration of the bus station will be Across N/A Developers Reconfiguration wide necessary as part of the proposed development WCC redevelopment of this area of the town plan period (up Bus Operators centre. The cost of the reconfiguration works to 2031) will be met as part of the overall site redevelopment. Transport Nuneaton Bus Bridge Borough- Across N/A Developers wide development WCC plan period (up Bus Operators to 2031) Transport Nuneaton Town Centre Borough- Provision of a new bus-only bridge between Across N/A Developers Bus Priority wide the bus station and Bond Gate (possibly in development WCC conjunction with the reconfiguration of the plan period (up Bus Operators bus station – see above) to 2031) Transport College Street/A444 All sites Signalised Crossroads with widening on 2022 £4,070,000 £4,070,000 £0 £4,070,000 £0 £4,070,000 CIL/S106,S278, approached & exits. WCC Scheme funded via

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 165 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed CIF - £300,000 remaining.

Transport College Street/Bull All sites Roundabout with significant widening on 2022 £1,120,000 £1,120,000 £0 £1,120,000 £0 £1,120,000 CIL/S106,S278, Ring approaches WCC Transport Greenmoor All sites Signalised junction with widening on 2022 To be CIL/S106,S278, Road/Heath End Road approaches determined WCC Transport A425/Crowhill Road All sites Signalised T junction. Widening on all 2022 £1,210,000 £1,210,000 £0 £1,210,000 £0 £1,210,000 CIL/S106,S278, approaches and EB exit. WCC Scheme funded via S278 (AMEC site) Transport A4254/B4114/Eastboro All sites Widening on west, east and southern 2022 £730,000 £730,000 £0 £730,000 £0 £730,000 CIL/S106,S278, Way approaches to extend the two lane approach WCC Transport B4113/Longford All sites Addition of signals on the B4113 Bedworth 2022 £190,000 £190,000 £0 £190,000 £0 £190,000 CIL/S106,S278, Rd/Bedworth Rd approach/circulatory WCC Rd/Wilson Ln Transport Bermuda All sites Opened route from St Georges Way to 2022 £8,900,000 £8,900,000 £4,700,000 £4,200,000 £0 £4,200,000 CIL/S106,S278 Sustainable/All Modes Bermuda Road connecting A444 Griff to WCC Capital Transport Bridge Heath End Road, West Nuneaton Growth Fund LEP Growing Places Fund Part funded £4.7m secured, remaining cost £4,200,000. Transport Roanne All sites Widening to accommodate two lane exit 2027 £990,000 £990,000 £990,000 £0 £0 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Ringway/Coton onto Vicarage St. Roanne Ringway/ Road/Vicarage St Extending this two lane section to allow two Coton Road/ lane section full length of Vicarage St Vicarage Street, between Coton Rd and Church St Rdbt Church Street/ Reducing exit into Coton Rd (north) to 1 lane vicarage & A444 Back Street, Leicester Road Gyratory incl. Bond Street/ Regent Street & Back Street. Part funded £1m Growth Deal, £7.5m secured in total towards overall regeneration project "Transforming Nuneaton". Considered a key priority for WCC. Currently seeking opportunties for

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 166 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed both County and external funding. Key scheme not adjusted for inflation as will be delievered early phases of Borough Plan period. Remaining £16,123,688

Transport Church Street/Vicarage All sites Widening to accommodate third lane flare 2027 £810,000 £810,000 £810,000 £0 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Street on Church Lane (south) approach Roanne Ringway/ Widening on circulatory to 3 lane on south- Coton Road/ west section Vicarage Street, Widening of Vicarage St NEB exit and Church Street/ continuing the two lanes to join the existing vicarage & A444 two lanes on approach to Wheat St junction Back Street, Leicester Road Gyratory incl. Bond Street/ Regent Street & Back Street. Part funded £1m Growth Deal, £7.5m secured in total towards overall regeneration project "Transforming Nuneaton". Considered a key priority for WCC. Currently seeking opportunties for both County and external funding.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 167 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Key scheme not adjusted for inflation as will be delievered early phases of Borough Plan period. Remaining £16,123,688

Transport A444 Back St/Leicester All sites New junctions at Leicester Rd/Vicarage 2027 £13,500,000 £13,500,000 £13,500,000 £0 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Rd Gyratory incl. Bond St/Back St (4-arm roundabout) and Leicester Roanne Ringway/ St, Regent St & Back St Rd/Regent St (LiLo from Regent St only) Coton Road/ Back St widened to accommodate a two lane Vicarage Street, southbound section, allowing the flow of Church Street/ traffic from Newtown Rd to reach Vicarage vicarage & A444 St and Leicester Rd without traversing the Back Street, Bond St/Regent St gyratory, via the new Leicester Road roundabout. Gyratory incl. Bond Closure of Bond St to vehicular traffic Street/ Regent Street & Back Street. Part funded £1m Growth Deal, £7.5m secured in total towards overall regeneration project "Transforming Nuneaton". Considered a key priority for WCC. Currently seeking opportunties for both County and external funding. Key scheme not

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 168 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed adjusted for inflation as will be delievered early phases of Borough Plan period. Remaining £16,123,688

Transport Trent Road/Leicester All sites Reconfiguration of Trent Road to Left-In Left- 2027 £650,000 £650,000 £0 £650,000 £0 £650,000 CIL/S106,S278 Road/Weddington Out and reduction of the Leicester Lane Road/Weddington Lane movement from two to one lane. Transport Corporation All sites Addition of dedicated slip from flow from 2027 £520,000 £520,000 £0 £520,000 £0 £520,000 CIL/S106,S278 Street/Newtown Corporation St to Newtown Rd (east) with Road/Powell extended merge section on Newtown Rd. Way/Roanne Ringway Transport Roanne All sites Increased two lane merge section on NB exit 2027 £450,000 £450,000 £0 £450,000 £0 £450,000 CIL/S106,S278 Ringway/Queens Road onto Roanne Ringway (north)

Transport Croft Road/Greenmoor All sites Widening on NB approach to accommodate 2027 £120,000 £120,000 £0 £120,000 £0 £120,000 CIL/S106,S278 Road Priority right turners into Greenmoor Rd (~15m)

Transport Higham Lane/A47 Old All sites Signalisation and widening on Higham Lane 2031 £750,000 £750,000 £0 £750,000 £0 £750,000 CIL/S106,S278 Hinckley Road and Hinckley Rd (east) approaches and on Funded via NPIF + Hinckely Rd (west) exit. £375k secured via S106 Transport Eastboro All sites Signalised crossroads 2031 £1,920,000 £1,920,000 £0 £1,920,000 £0 £1,920,000 CIL/S106,S278 Way/Townsend Drive Funded via S278 (AMEC site) Transport Donnithorne All sites Signalised T junction. Widening on southern 2031 £440,000 £440,000 £0 £440,000 £0 £440,000 CIL/S106,S278 Ave/Coventry Road approach. Transport Weddington All sites Addition of second lane on northern 2031 £210,000 £210,000 £0 £210,000 £0 £210,000 CIL/S106,S278 Road/Weddington approach for right turns into Weddington Terrace Terrace

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 169 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Transport Ansley Road/Anstley All sites Mini-roundabout with minor widening on 2031 £250,000 £250,000 £0 £250,000 £0 £250,000 CIL/S106,S278 Lane the eastern approach Transport A444/Washingham All sites Addition of 3rd lane flare on all approaches, 2031 £1,650,000 £1,650,000 £0 £1,650,000 £0 £1,650,000 CIL/S106,S278 Drive widening on circulatory to 3 lanes. Widening full length of Walsingham Dr approach from St Davids Way Rdbt Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 5 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £117,624 £76,923 £153,846 £78,416 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Transport School Lane/B4113 All sites Widening of northern approach (2 to 3 2031 £780,000 £780,000 £0 £780,000 £0 £780,000 CIL/S106,S278 Coventry Road/Bayton lanes) and southern exit (1 to 2 lanes) to Road allow two lane SB movement on Coventry Road Transport A444 Weddington All sites Signalisation. Addition of long two lane 2031 £500,000 £500,000 £0 £500,000 £0 £500,000 CIL/S106,S278 Rd/Shanklin Dr section on NB approach to accommodate right turners into Shanklin Dr Transport A4254 Eastboro Way All sites Addition of second lane in NB direction from 2031 £5,760,000 £5,760,000 £0 £5,760,000 £0 £5,760,000 CIL/S106,S278 NB Corridor (between Crowhill to Camborne Dr, joining the two Crowhill Rd & lane exits and two lane approaches Townsend Dr) introduced by the schemes at Crowhill and Townsend junctions, and the widening come forward with the committed site at the north of Eastboro Way. Transport Arbury Rd/Heath End All sites Signalised T junction. Widening on western 2031 £310,000 £310,000 £0 £310,000 £0 £310,000 CIL/S106,S278 Rd approach to accommodate a second lane for right turners into Heath End Rd. Transport Coventry Rd All sites Addition of second lane on the SB approach 2031 £680,000 £680,000 £0 £680,000 £0 £680,000 CIL/S106,S278 Exhall/Blackhorse to accommodate the right turners into Rd/Longford Wilson Lane (access to the new employment Rd/Wilson Lane site). This two lane section will connect with the two lane section on the SB exit introduced by the School Road / B4113 Coventry Road / Bayton Road improvements Transport Church Lane/Bowling All sites Roundabout with two lane approach from 2031 £320,000 £320,000 £0 £320,000 £0 £320,000 CIL/S106,S278 Green Lane/School School Lane Lane Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 4 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £203,625 £76,923 £153,846 £135,750 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Transport Bus Priority All sites Bus Priority Enhancements 2031 £5,000,000 £5,000,000 £0 £5,000,000 £0 £5,000,000 CIL/S106,S278 Enhancements Transport Eastboro Way Dualling All sites Eastboro Way Dualling near Long Shoot 2018/19 £1,300,000 £1,300,000 £1,300,000 £0 £0 Funded via S278 under construction

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 170 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Transport A47/A4254 All sites Incorporated in latest Borough Plan 2018/19 £1,937,000 £1,937,000 £1,937,000 £0 £0 Funded via NPIF Roundabout assessment. Originally identified as a Improvement signalised junction to be funded via S278. Due to land negotiations it was agreed to remove this obligation. Scheme now funded through NPIF. Transport Corporation St Slip All sites Slip from Corporation St onto Newtown Rd. 2027 £300,000 £300,000 £300,000 £0 £0 Likely to be Additional mitigation identified in latest incoporated into Borough Plan model update Transforming Nuneaton project Transport HSG 1 distributor link HSG 1 Distributor road through HSG1 to link The 2031 To be CIL/S106, S278, road Long Shoot with A444, with a link onto the determined at WCC A5 via the Calendar Farm development detailed design stage on site by site basis. Transport HSG 2 distributor link HSG 2 HSG2 distributor link road with integrated 2031 To be CIL/S106, S278, road footway/cycleway provision (with additional determined at WCC link to A444) detailed design stage on site by site basis. Transport HSG 3 cycle paths HSG 3 Cycle paths running north-south and east- 2026 To be CIL/S106, S278, west across the development and parallel to determined at WCC Gispy Lane, as well as providing connections detailed to cycle network provision within EMP1 and design stage to Bermuda Park on site by site basis. Transport HSG 3 canal towpath HSG 3 Canal towpath improvements and provision 2026 To be CIL/S106 improvements of the crossing to the canal (suitability of determined at Turnover Bridge to be investigated) detailed design stage on site by site basis. Transport Coventry Road/Gipsy HSG 3 Signalisation and significant widening. 2031 £760,000 £760,000 £0 £760,000 £760,000 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Lane Southern and eastern approach widened to Funding to be accommodate 3rd lane on immediate linked to Gipsy approach (~25m) Lane development Northern approach widened to sites accommodate 2 lanes, connecting to two lane section from Griff Island exit NB exit widened to accommodate 2 lane exit, joining two lane section on approach to Griff Island Transport HSG 7 access HSG 7 Provision of new access from Lancing Road 2025 To be CIL/S106, S278 and Nuneaton Road determined at detailed design stage

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 171 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed on site by site basis.

Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 3 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £169,934 £76,923 £153,846 £113,289 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Transport A444/Walsingham HSG 2 Provision of a new footway alongside the Across £0.5m + land £500,000 £0 £500,000 £500,000 £0 S106/CIL Drive Pedestrian A444 in the vicinity of Walsingham Drive. development acquisition Improvements plan period (up costs to 2031) Transport HSG 8 access HSG 9 Provision of access arrangements as set out 2030 To be CIL, S106, S278 concept plan determined at detailed design stage on site by site basis. Transport HSG 11 cycle path HSG 11 Full specification cycle path along Stoney 2024 To be CIL, S106, S278 Road using railway underbridge to link to the determined at NCN52 and Sandon Park/Weddington detailed Meadows public open space design stage on site by site basis. Transport EMP 1 canal crossing EMP1 Provision of canal crossing to facilitate cycle 2024 To be CIL, S106 & Canals and towpath usage, with investigation of using Turnover determined at and Rivers Trust improvements Bridge and, if not technically feasible, detailed provision of an alternative bridge. design stage on site by site basis. Transport EMP 3 (Prologis EMP3 Public footway from Pilgrims Walk to New 2021 To be CIL, S106, S278 Extension) - footpath Road/country park determined at detailed design stage on site by site basis. Transport EMP 7 Bowling Green EMP7 Provision of a cycle network within the site 2028 To be CIL, S106 Lane - cycle network as well as contributions to links beyond the determined at site to residential areas and toward detailed Bedworth Town Centre design stage on site by site basis.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 172 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Transport West Nuneaton Train Nuneaton Scheme also known as Stockingford Station 2023 onwards £11.4m £11,400,000 £0 £11,400,000 £0 £11,400,000 CIL, S106, WCC, Station and Galley Common station. A feasibility Network rail study by Warwickshire County Council revealed a positive business case for the project.The study found that a new Galley Common/Stockingford station would bring considerable business and environmental benefits to the area, the benefit ratio is 3.43:1. A former station, known as Stockingford, was located in the area, adjacent to the Whittleford Road overbridge, before closing in March 1968. The new station would consist of northbound and southbound platforms linked by a footbridge; pedestrian and cycle links to Kingswood Road and Whittleford Road and a car park.The timescales for opening are constrained by capacity issues on the route and the lack of rolling stock. Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 2 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £450,695 £76,923 £153,846 £300,463 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 11 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £59,107 £76,923 £153,846 £39,405 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Transport Cycle Coventry and HSG 10 Provision of dedicated cycle infrastructure Across £2m £1,000,000 £0 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £0 S106/CIL Warwickshire: on B4113 Coventry Road between Bermuda development WCC Nuneaton – Bedworth Park, Bedworth and Coventry, with plan period (up LEP Local Growth – Coventry Strategic connections to existing cycle network, key to 2031) Deal Cycle Route employment sites and residential areas. Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 10 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £106,393 £76,923 £153,846 £70,929 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Transport Cycle Coventry and HSG 1 Provision of dedicated cycle infrastructure Across £2m £1,000,000 £0 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £0 S106/CIL Warwickshire: on B4113 Coventry Road between Bermuda development WCC Nuneaton – Bedworth Park, Bedworth and Coventry, with plan period (up LEP Local Growth – Coventry Strategic connections to existing cycle network, key to 2031) Deal Cycle Route employment sites and residential areas.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 173 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Transport Nuneaton – Hinckley HSG 1 Provision of dedicated cycle infrastructure Across £1,200,000 £1,200,000 £0 £1,200,000 £1,200,000 £0 S106/CIL (via The Longshoot) between A5 and town centre, via The Long development WCC Cycle Route Shoot and Horeston Grange open space. plan period (up NPIF funding to 2031) delivering on road following road alignment. Off carriageway routes to the south of A47 being investigated. Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 1 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000 £1,305,980 £76,923 £153,846 £870,653 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Transport Sustainable Transport EMP 2 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £21,574 £76,923 £153,846 £14,383 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Utilities 11kV, 33kV and 132kv HSG 4 All Primary work would be handled by the Medium term. Indicative £800,000 £800,000 £0 £0 £0 Western Power diversions Primary System Design team at Castle For a new costs = Donnington. Primary £800,000 for All general 11kV infrastructure would substation this providing delivered from our distribution office at would be 11kV Hinckley. 18months – 2 infrastructure years after to the acceptance of a boundary of formal offer & the site only. payment of any Costs for contributions. potential There would be a diversions not lead in time for identified. the 11kV infrastructure to site of at least 16 weeks. Time for completion would depend on the infrastructure required.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 174 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Utilities 11kV, 33kV and 132kv HSG 6 All Primary work would be handled by the Medium term. Indicative £800,000 £800,000 £0 £0 £0 Western Power diversions Primary System Design team at Castle For a new costs = Donnington. Primary £800,000 for All general 11kV infrastructure would substation this providing delivered from our distribution office at would be 11kV Hinckley. 18months – 2 infrastructure years after to the acceptance of a boundary of formal offer & the site only. payment of any Costs for contributions. potential There would be a diversions not lead in time for identified. the 11kV infrastructure to site of at least 16 weeks. Time for completion would depend on the infrastructure required. Utilities 11kV, 33kV and 132kv EMP1 All Primary work would be handled by the Medium term. Indicative £800,000 £800,000 £0 £0 £0 Western Power diversions Primary System Design team at Castle For a new costs = Donnington. Primary £800,000 for All general 11kV infrastructure would substation this providing delivered from our distribution office at would be 11kV Hinckley. 18months – 2 infrastructure years after to the acceptance of a boundary of formal offer & the site only. payment of any Costs for contributions. potential There would be a diversions not lead in time for identified. the 11kV infrastructure to site of at least 16 weeks. Time for completion would depend on the infrastructure required.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 175 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Utilities Upgrading the HSG 5 Either the existing Primary may have to be Medium term. Estimated £1,500,000 £1,500,000 £0 £0 £0 Western Power Langdale Drive Primary upgraded or a new Primary established in a For a new cost £1.5M Substation` suitable location on the site for which a 40m Primary x 40m site would be required. Two 33kV substation this cables would have to be laid from Hinckley would be to the site. 18months – 2 years after acceptance of a formal offer & payment of any contributions. Utilities Possible upgrade to HSG 4 possible upgrade of 11kV network Medium term. Indicative £405,000 £405,000 £0 £0 £0 Western Power 11kV network dependant on development plan. All general There would be a costs = 11kV infrastructure would delivered from lead in time for £405,000 for our distribution office at Hinckley. the 11kV providing infrastructure to 11kV site of at least 16 infrastructure weeks. Time for to the completion boundary of would depend on the site only. the infrastructure required. Utilities Fire Station upgrade All sites Increased growth will require additional Across Projected at £1,210,121 £0 £1,210,121 £0 £1,210,121 Developer contribution provision to ensure services projected to be development £121 per CIL/S106, WCC £121 per dwelling. Fire and Rescue will plan period (up dwelling continue to seek contributions from to 2031) Developers to ensure that there is adequate provision of infrastructure to support the effective delivery of the fire and rescue service e.g. the cost of fire hydrants. Utilities Increase waste All sites Provide for the required increase in capacity Across £43.92 per £439,244 £0 £439,244 £0 £439,244 Developer CIL/S106 management and as the HWRC development dwelling , WCC recycling facilities plan period (up capacity to 2031) Water and Sustainable Drainage All sites Incorporate a sustainable drainage system Across To be CIL/S106 flood systems within the development plans for each site development determined at contributions and mitigation including urban wetlands and street rain plan period (up detailed funding from EA gardens to 2031) design stage on site by site basis. Water and Long Shoot localised HSG 1 Potential localised infrastructure capacity Across To be Combination of flood sewage and drainage improvements (particularly around the Long development determined Severn Trent and mitigation capacity improvements shoot), to accommodate flows from growth plan period (up developer CIL/S106 in the area. to 2031) Water and Weddington pumping HSG 1 To resolve potential capacity issues at Across To be Combination of flood station and CSO Weddington Road pumping station and CSO. development determined Severn Trent and mitigation improvements developer CIL/S106

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 176 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed plan period (up to 2031)

Water and Nuneaton Hartshill HSG 1 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth. development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Water and Nuneaton Hartshill HSG 2 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth. development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Water and Nuneaton Hartshill HSG 3 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth. development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Water and Nuneaton Hartshill HSG 10 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth. development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Water and Nuneaton Hartshill EMP 1 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth. development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Water and Nuneaton Hartshill EMP 4 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth. development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Water and Arbury sewage and HSG 2 Improvements to the local network in order From 2020/21 To be Combination of flood drainage network to reduce the impact on hydraulic determined Severn Trent and mitigation improvement performance in the area developer CIL/S106 Water and Coventry - Finham HSG 3 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Water and Coventry - Finham EMP 1 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Water and Coventry - Finham EMP 4 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Water and Goodyers End Pumping HSG 4 Connection to pumping facilities - From 2019/20 - To be Combination of flood connection connection point Goodyers End 2030/31 determined Severn Trent and mitigation developer CIL/S106 Water and Goodyers End Pumping HSG 5 Connection to pumping facilities - From 2019/20 - To be Combination of flood connection connection point Goodyers End 2030/31 determined Severn Trent and mitigation developer CIL/S106

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 177 Infrastructure IDP project name Area/Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure total costs received / delivery partners agreed Water and Localised sewage and HSG 5 Local improvements to the network required From 2020/21 To be Combination of flood drainage to alleviate pressures on flooding at determined Severn Trent and mitigation improvements Goodyers End Lane. developer CIL/S106 Water and Localised sewage and EMP 7 Local improvements to the network required From 2020/21 To be Combination of flood drainage to alleviate pressures on flooding at determined Severn Trent and mitigation improvements Goodyers End Lane. developer CIL/S106 Water and Water supply All sites Reconfiguration to the distribution system in Across To be Combination of flood infrastructure the proximity of the site will also be development determined Severn Trent and mitigation required. plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Water and Site Specific Flood risk All sites Funding will be sought through CIL or S.106 Across To be Developer flood mitigation on a site specific basis where any development determined CIL/S106, WCC and mitigation development sites are at risk of flooding or plan period (up EA the new development places additional to 2031) burden on existing infrastructure: • Where area within a development site are located in Flood Zones 2 or 3 or are located in the 1 in 200 year shallow layer of the EA Flood map for surface water, and mitigation works are required to ensure an acceptable level of flood risk for the new development and ensure that there is no increase in flood risk beyond the development site. • Where areas within a development site benefit from defences (including de facto defences or any structures on watercourses upstream, or downstream of the sites, impounded water bodies or any flood risk management assets in the Lead Local Flood Authority register of assets) • Where flood risk management and draining infrastructure near the development site is in poor condition and this would be exacerbated by new growth. • Where a development site is not expected to maintain greenfield run off rates and volumes (up to the 1 in 100 year rainfall event, plus an allowance for climate change).

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 178 b) Infrastructure projects associated with strategic residential allocations in the Borough Plan, listed by site allocation Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - HSG 1 Provision of three 2 form entry primary First primary circa £4 £18,000,000 £0 £18,000,000 £18,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' north of Nuneaton school and funding for early years. 2 New school to be million per expansion) and standalone primary schools to be provided open September School plus Developer CIL/S106 within the growth area, one in the east, one 2020 and the the provision Possible ESFA Wave in the west. These will be Free Schools. The rest over the of 1.2 - 2 ha Free School schools to be capable of taking up to 2 forms plan period of land for a allocation of entry (i.e. a total of 420 pupils) although (2031) 1FE school or they could initially open at 1 form of entry circa £6m (210 pupils). Development of new secondary plus 2ha of school required on HSG1. Site to be reserved land for a 2FE at Top farm for educational purposes primary including a primary, secondary, pre school and possible SEN provision. Provision of new secondary school with community use sports provision to include 6 grassed football pitches for youth/ junior provision with changing facilities, full-szied floodlit artifical health and fitness facility with minimum of 100 station gym and dance studio. Green Community park x 3 HSG 1 New Community Parks by extending existing 2018 onwards To be CIL/S106 infrastructure open spaces determined contributions Green Link to Change brook HSG 1 Link to Changebrook Open Space - may 2018 onwards To be CIL/S106 infrastructure Open Space require culvert + new play area determined contributions Green Allotments HSG 1 Provision of land for allotments in line with 2018 onwards £40,110 £40,110 £0 £40,110 £40,110 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure Allotment Straegy contributions Green Local Play and HSG 1 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green Sports pitches HSG 1 Improvements to existing sports pitch 2018 onwards £120,000.00 £40,000 £0 £40,000 £40,000 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure contributions Green Structural Tree HSG 1 Structural Tree Planting 2018 onwards £2.00 per sqm CIL/S106 infrastructure Planting for large scale contributions tree planting. Total not defined. Health GP expansion - HSG 1 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £129,762 £21,627 £0 £21,627 £21,627 £0 Developer Nuneaton extension to Chaucers/ Whitestone surgery. development CIL/S106,

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 179 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed plan period (up Warwickshire North to 2031) from CCG 2018 Health GP expansion - North HSG 1 New build surgery in Weddington. A Across £2,216,978 £2,216,978 £0 £2,216,978 £2,216,978 £0 Developer Nuneaton requirement for 4.02 GPs. A site has been development CIL/S106, Estate identified as part of planning application plan period (up Technology 033758 in Weddington. to 2031) from Transformation 2018 fund, Warwickshire North CCG Transport A5 Corridor Cycle HSG 1 Extension of the Nuneaton/Hinckley to MIRA Across To be S106/CIL Improvements cycle route in order to link to Mancetter, development determined WCC Atherstone, Birch Coppice and Tamworth. plan period (up Highways England to 2031) Transport HSG 1 distributor link HSG 1 Distributor road through HSG1 to link The 2031 To be CIL/S106, S278, road Long Shoot with A444, with a link onto the A5 determined at WCC via the Calendar Farm development detailed design stage on site by site basis. Transport Cycle Coventry and HSG 1 Provision of dedicated cycle infrastructure on Across £2m £1,000,000 £0 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £0 S106/CIL Warwickshire: B4113 Coventry Road between Bermuda development WCC Nuneaton – Bedworth Park, Bedworth and Coventry, with plan period (up LEP Local Growth – Coventry Strategic connections to existing cycle network, key to 2031) Deal Cycle Route employment sites and residential areas. Transport Nuneaton – Hinckley HSG 1 Provision of dedicated cycle infrastructure Across £1,200,000 £1,200,000 £0 £1,200,000 £1,200,000 £0 S106/CIL (via The Longshoot) between A5 and town centre, via The Long development WCC Cycle Route Shoot and Horeston Grange open space. plan period (up NPIF funding to 2031) delivering on road following road alignment. Off carriageway routes to the south of A47 being investigated. Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 1 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000 £1,305,980 £76,923 £153,846 £870,653 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Water and Long Shoot localised HSG 1 Potential localised infrastructure capacity Across To be Combination of flood sewage and drainage improvements (particularly around the Long development determined Severn Trent and mitigation capacity improvements shoot), to accommodate flows from growth plan period (up developer CIL/S106 in the area. to 2031) Water and Weddington pumping HSG 1 To resolve potential capacity issues at Across To be Combination of flood station and CSO Weddington Road pumping station and CSO. development determined Severn Trent and mitigation improvements plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 180 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Water and Nuneaton Hartshill HSG 1 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth. development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Totals £23,897,219 £76,923 £22,745,085 £23,461,892 £0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 181 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - HSG 2 1 new primary school, initially to be delivered As brought circa £4 £4,000,000 £0 £4,000,000 £4,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' west of Nuneaton at 1 form of entry (210 pupils) but capable of forward by million plus expansion) and expansion to 2 forms of entry (420 pupils) developers from land costs of Developer CIL/S106 2020 1.2 to 2ha Green Allotments HSG 2 Provision of land for allotments in line with 2018 onwards £40,110 £40,110 £0 £40,110 £40,110 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure Allotment Straegy contributions Green Community Parks HSG 2 New Community Park with Ballcourt + older 2020 onwards MUGA- £258,594 £0 £258,594 £258,594 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure children's and younger children’s equipped £59,998.55 contributions play provision Play equipment £90,819.72 teenage facility £7,573.30 Green Gym £32,000 Tarmac car park 30 Spaces £68,202 Green Local Play and HSG 2 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green Wildflower & Wetland HSG 2 Wildflower & Wetland Habitat Creation 2020 onwards Wildlife £436,534 £0 £436,534 £436,534 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure Habitat Creation habitat contributions £436,534 Green Crushed Stone HSG 2 Crushed Stone Pathways in Arbury Estate 2020 onwards Crushed £188,411 £0 £188,411 £188,411 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure Pathways Woodland extension stone contributions footway £188,411.44 Green Cyclepath Network HSG 2 Cyclepath Network within Site 2020 onwards Tarmacadum £761,362 £0 £761,362 £761,362 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure Cycleway contributions £761,361.65 Green Structural Tree HSG 2 Structural Tree Planting 2018 onwards £2.00 per sqm CIL/S106 infrastructure Planting for large scale contributions tree planting. Total not defined.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 182 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Health GP expansion - HSG 2 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £129,762 £21,627 £0 £21,627 £21,627 £0 Developer Nuneaton extension to Chaucers/ Whitestone surgery. development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire North to 2031) from CCG 2018 Transport Nuneaton – Hartshill HSG 2 Provision of dedicated cycle infrastructure Across To be S106/CIL via Whittleford Park linking West Nuneaton to the town centre via development determined WCC Cycle Route Whittleford Park. plan period (up to 2031) Transport North Nuneaton Cycle HSG 2 Provision of a dedicated cycle link from Across To be S106/CIL Connectivity B4114 Tuttle Hill to Weddington via Stoney development determined WCC Road and a crossing of the River Anker. plan period (up to 2031) Transport Bermuda Connectivity HSG 2 The Bermuda Connectivity Project will deliver 2018/19 £8.9m £2,225,000 £2,225,000 £0 £0 £0 WCC Capital Project – Pedestrian benefits for pedestrians in terms of improved Growth Fund LEP Facilities access to parts of West Nuneaton, the Growing Places George Eliot Hospital, Bermuda Rail Station Fund and the employment areas around Bermuda. Transport HSG 2 distributor link HSG 2 HSG2 distributor link road with integrated 2031 To be CIL/S106, S278, road footway/cycleway provision (with additional determined at WCC link to A444) detailed design stage on site by site basis. Transport A444/Walsingham HSG 2 Provision of a new footway alongside the Across £0.5m + land £500,000 £0 £500,000 £500,000 £0 S106/CIL Drive Pedestrian A444 in the vicinity of Walsingham Drive. development acquisition Improvements plan period (up costs to 2031) Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 2 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £450,695 £76,923 £153,846 £300,463 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Water and Nuneaton Hartshill HSG 2 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth. development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Water and Arbury sewage and HSG 2 Improvements to the local network in order From 2020/21 To be Combination of flood drainage network to reduce the impact on hydraulic determined Severn Trent and mitigation improvement performance in the area developer CIL/S106 Totals £8,954,856 £2,301,923 £6,433,008 £6,579,625 £0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 183 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - HSG 3 Financial contribution to WCC towards the As brought Circa £2 £2,000,000 £0 £2,000,000 £2,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' south of Nuneaton provision by WCC of a 1 form entry primary forward by million expansion) and school developers from Developer CIL/S106 2019 Green Local Play and HSG 3 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Transport North Nuneaton Cycle HSG 3 Provision of a dedicated cycle link from Across To be S106/CIL Connectivity B4114 Tuttle Hill to Weddington via Stoney development determined WCC Road and a crossing of the River Anker. plan period (up to 2031) Transport Bermuda Connectivity HSG 3 The Bermuda Connectivity Project will deliver 2018/19 £8.9m £2,225,000 £2,225,000 £0 £0 £0 WCC Capital Project – Pedestrian benefits for pedestrians in terms of improved Growth Fund LEP Facilities access to parts of West Nuneaton, the Growing Places George Eliot Hospital, Bermuda Rail Station Fund and the employment areas around Bermuda. Transport Bermuda Connectivity HSG 3 The Bermuda Connectivity Project will deliver 2018/19 £8.9m £2,960,000 £0 £2,960,000 £0 £0 WCC Capital Project –Access to benefits for pedestrians and cyclists in terms Growth Fund Bermuda Rail Station of improved access from parts of West LEP Growing Places Nuneaton to Bermuda Rail Station. Fund Transport HSG 3 cycle paths HSG 3 Cycle paths running north-south and east- 2026 To be CIL/S106, S278, west across the development and parallel to determined at WCC Gispy Lane, as well as providing connections detailed to cycle network provision within EMP1 and design stage to Bermuda Park on site by site basis. Transport HSG 3 canal towpath HSG 3 Canal towpath improvements and provision 2026 To be CIL/S106 improvements of the crossing to the canal (suitability of determined at Turnover Bridge to be investigated) detailed design stage on site by site basis. Transport Coventry Road/Gipsy HSG 3 Signalisation and significant widening. 2031 £760,000 £760,000 £0 £760,000 £760,000 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Lane Southern and eastern approach widened to Funding to be accommodate 3rd lane on immediate linked to Gipsy Lane approach (~25m) development sites Northern approach widened to accommodate 2 lanes, connecting to two lane section from Griff Island exit

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 184 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed NB exit widened to accommodate 2 lane exit, joining two lane section on approach to Griff Island

Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 3 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £169,934 £76,923 £153,846 £113,289 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Water and Nuneaton Hartshill HSG 3 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth. development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Water and Coventry - Finham HSG 3 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Totals £8,187,458 £2,301,923 £5,946,370 £2,945,813 £0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 185 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - HSG 4 Provision of 1 form entry primary school i.e. As brought circa £4 £4,000,000 £0 £4,000,000 £4,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' west of Bedworth 210 pupils. We would require a site to enable forward by million plus expansion) and expansion beyond 1FE if required. developers from land costs of Developer CIL/S106 2019 1.2 to 2ha Education Ash Green School re- HSG 4 Expansion of Ash Green School. Potential to This will require To be LEA ('basic need' prioritisation and displace Coventry pupils to accommodate further work on determined expansion) and expansion demand. WCC would in look to expand Ash pupil forecasts Developer CIL/S106 Green School to cope with the extra demand and actual from the developments. However, WCC numbers will be would look to ensure a coherent pattern of re-assessed to provision across the town. confirm requirements and timeframes from 2021 Green Local Play and HSG 4 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Health GP expansion - HSG 4 A requirement for 3.01 GPs. New build Across £1,719,745 £429,936 £0 £429,936 £429,936 £0 Developer Bedworth surgery (a site will need to be identified). development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire North to 2031) from CCG 2020. Transport HSG 4 access HSG 4 New access from A444 Newtown Road and 2023 onwards To be £2,600,000 £0 £2,600,000 £2,600,000 £0 CIL/S106, S278, associated improvements to the existing determined at WCC highway network including a new detailed northbound slip onto the A444. design stage on site by site basis. Current estimate for construction costs is circa £2.6 million (NBBC/62) Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 4 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £203,625 £76,923 £153,846 £135,750 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 186 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Utilities 11kV, 33kV and 132kv HSG 4 All Primary work would be handled by the Medium term. Indicative £800,000 £800,000 £0 £0 £0 Western Power diversions Primary System Design team at Castle For a new costs = Donnington. Primary £800,000 for All general 11kV infrastructure would substation this providing delivered from our distribution office at would be 11kV Hinckley. 18months – 2 infrastructure years after to the acceptance of a boundary of formal offer & the site only. payment of any Costs for contributions. potential There would be diversions not a lead in time identified. for the 11kV infrastructure to site of at least 16 weeks. Time for completion would depend on the infrastructure required. Utilities Possible upgrade to HSG 4 possible upgrade of 11kV network dependant Medium term. Indicative £405,000 £405,000 £0 £0 £0 Western Power 11kV network on development plan. All general 11kV There would be costs = infrastructure would delivered from our a lead in time £405,000 for distribution office at Hinckley. for the 11kV providing infrastructure to 11kV site of at least infrastructure 16 weeks. Time to the for completion boundary of would depend the site only. on the infrastructure required. Water and Goodyers End Pumping HSG 4 Connection to pumping facilities - connection From 2019/20 - To be Combination of flood connection point Goodyers End 2030/31 determined Severn Trent and mitigation developer CIL/S106 Totals £8,511,086 £1,281,923 £7,256,306 £7,238,210 £0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 187 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - HSG 5 Allocation of land on site for expansion of As brought £2 million £2,000,000 £0 £2,000,000 £2,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' west of Bedworth Newdigate Primary School to increase forward by expansion) and capacity to a 3 form entry school. Altering developers from Developer CIL/S106 priority areas Newdigate and Goodyers End 2020 primary school, and subsequent expansion of expansion of Newdigate Primary School by 15 places per year group – 105 places in total. Education Ash Green School re- HSG 5 Expansion of Ash Green School. Potential to This will require To be LEA ('basic need' prioritisation and displace Coventry pupils to accommodate further work on determined expansion) and expansion demand. WCC would in look to expand Ash pupil forecasts Developer CIL/S106 Green School to cope with the extra demand and actual from the developments. However, WCC numbers will be would look to ensure a coherent pattern of re-assessed to provision across the town. confirm requirements and timeframes from 2021 Green Sports pitches HSG 5 Improvements to existing sports pitch 2018 onwards £120,000.00 £40,000 £0 £40,000 £40,000 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure contributions Green Local Play and HSG 5 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Health GP expansion - HSG 5 A requirement for 3.01 GPs. New build Across £1,719,745 £429,936 £0 £429,936 £429,936 £0 Developer Bedworth surgery (a site will need to be identified). development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire North to 2031) from CCG 2020. Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 5 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £117,624 £76,923 £153,846 £78,416 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Utilities Upgrading the HSG 5 Either the existing Primary may have to be Medium term. Estimated £1,500,000 £1,500,000 £0 £0 £0 Western Power Langdale Drive Primary upgraded or a new Primary established in a For a new cost £1.5M Substation` suitable location on the site for which a 40m Primary x 40m site would be required. Two 33kV substation this cables would have to be laid from Hinckley to would be the site. 18months – 2 years after

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 188 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed acceptance of a formal offer & payment of any contributions.

Water and Goodyers End Pumping HSG 5 Connection to pumping facilities - connection From 2019/20 - To be Combination of flood connection point Goodyers End 2030/31 determined Severn Trent and mitigation developer CIL/S106 Water and Localised sewage and HSG 5 Local improvements to the network required From 2020/21 To be Combination of flood drainage to alleviate pressures on flooding at determined Severn Trent and mitigation improvements Goodyers End Lane. developer CIL/S106 Totals £4,160,084 £1,576,923 £2,696,306 £2,620,876 £0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 189 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - HSG 6 Financial contribution towards primary As brought Circa £1 £1,000,000 £0 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' west of Bedworth education at local schools. Expansion forward by million expansion) and required for Newdigate Primary School (see developers from Developer CIL/S106 HSG5). 2020 Education Ash Green School re- HSG 6 Expansion of Ash Green School. Potential to This will require To be LEA ('basic need' prioritisation and displace Coventry pupils to accommodate further work on determined expansion) and expansion demand. WCC would in look to expand Ash pupil forecasts Developer CIL/S106 Green School to cope with the extra demand and actual from the developments. However, WCC numbers will be would look to ensure a coherent pattern of re-assessed to provision across the town. confirm requirements and timeframes from 2021 Green Local Play and HSG 6 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green Structural Tree HSG 6 Structural Tree Planting 2018 onwards £2.00 per sqm CIL/S106 infrastructure Planting for large scale contributions tree planting. Total not defined. Health GP expansion - HSG 6 A requirement for 3.01 GPs. New build Across £1,719,745 £429,936 £0 £429,936 £429,936 £0 Developer Bedworth surgery (a site will need to be identified). development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire North to 2031) from CCG 2020. Health GP expansion - HSG 6 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £130,305 £130,305 £0 £130,305 £130,305 £0 Developer Bedworth extension to Bedworth Health Centre, development CIL/S106, Leicester Road Surgery, Old Coal House. plan period (up Warwickshire North to 2031) from CCG 2020. Transport West Nuneaton – HSG 6 Provision of dedicated cycle links from West Across To be S106/CIL Bermuda / Town Nuneaton to Bermuda Park and Nuneaton development determined WCC Centre Cycle Route town centre. plan period (up to 2031) Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 6 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £65,018 £76,923 £153,846 £43,345 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 190 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed agreements for individual sites

Utilities 11kV, 33kV and 132kv HSG 6 All Primary work would be handled by the Medium term. Indicative £800,000 £800,000 £0 £0 £0 Western Power diversions Primary System Design team at Castle For a new costs = Donnington. Primary £800,000 for All general 11kV infrastructure would substation this providing delivered from our distribution office at would be 11kV Hinckley. 18months – 2 infrastructure years after to the acceptance of a boundary of formal offer & the site only. payment of any Costs for contributions. potential There would be diversions not a lead in time identified. for the 11kV infrastructure to site of at least 16 weeks. Time for completion would depend on the infrastructure required. Totals £2,497,783 £876,923 £1,786,611 £1,676,111 £0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 191 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - HSG 7 This will generate less than 1 form of entry. As brought Circa £1 £1,000,000 £0 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' Bulkington Financial contribution towards primary forward by million expansion) and education at Arden Forest Infant and St developers from Developer CIL/S106 James Academy Junior schools to meet 2020 anticipated demand for school places Green Local Play and HSG 7 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green Sports pitches HSG 7 Improvements to existing sports pitch 2018 onwards £120,000.00 £40,000 £0 £40,000 £40,000 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure contributions Health GP expansion - HSG 7 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £129,762 £21,627 £0 £21,627 £21,627 £0 Developer Nuneaton extension to Chaucers/ Whitestone surgery. development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire North to 2031) from CCG 2018 Sports and Expansion of HSG 7 To be determined but could include a new From 2020/21 - £370,000 £185,000 £0 £185,000 £185,000 £0 Developer leisure community facilities in build large multipurpose room and store at 2027/28 CIL/S106, Big Bulkington Bulkington Village Centre. Lottery Fund, the Charity Bank and a number of other funding partners/bodies Transport HSG 7 highway HSG 7 Financial contributions towards Bulkington 2028 £1.5m £1,500,000 £0 £1,500,000 £1,500,000 £0 CIL/S106, S278 improvement highway improvement works as set out in the contributions Strategic Transport Assessment NBBC/41 The measures include improvements to the following junctions: 1. Rugby Road/New Street Junction. 2. Rugby Rd/Withybrook Rd/Shilton Ln 3. Rugby Rd/Arden Rd 4. Nuneaton Rd/Cleveland Rd Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 7 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £57,925 £76,923 £153,846 £38,617 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Transport HSG 7 access HSG 7 Provision of new access from Lancing Road 2025 To be CIL/S106, S278 and Nuneaton Road determined at detailed

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 192 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed design stage on site by site basis. Totals £2,877,076 £76,923 £2,972,997 £2,857,768 £0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 193 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - HSG 8 This will generate less than 1 form of entry. As brought Circa £2 £2,000,000 £0 £2,000,000 £2,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' Bulkington Financial contribution towards primary forward by million expansion) and education at Arden Forest Infant and St developers from Developer CIL/S106 James Academy Junior schools to meet 2020 anticipated demand for school places Green Allotments HSG 8 Provision of land for allotments in line with 2018 onwards £40,110 £40,110 £0 £40,110 £40,110 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure Allotment Straegy contributions Green Local Play and HSG 8 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Green HSG8 green space HSG 8 Provision of a strategic green edge to the From 2020 - To be CIL/S106 infrastructure north of the boundary to provide a defensible 2027 determined boundary and include open space and allotments Health GP expansion - HSG 8 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £129,762 £21,627 £0 £21,627 £21,627 £0 Developer Nuneaton extension to Chaucers/ Whitestone surgery. development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire North to 2031) from CCG 2018 Sports and Expansion of HSG 8 To be determined but could include a new From 2020/21 - £370,000 £185,000 £0 £185,000 £185,000 £0 Developer leisure community facilities in build large multipurpose room and store at 2027/28 CIL/S106, Big Bulkington Bulkington Village Centre. Lottery Fund, the Charity Bank and a number of other funding partners/bodies Transport HSG 8 highway HSG 8 Financial contributions towards Bulkington 2028 £1.5m £1,500,000 £0 £1,500,000 £1,500,000 £0 CIL/S106, S278 improvement highway improvement works as set out in the contributions Strategic Transport Assessment NBBC/41 The measures include improvements to the following junctions: 1. Rugby Road/New Street Junction. 2. Rugby Rd/Withybrook Rd/Shilton Ln 3. Rugby Rd/Arden Rd 4. Nuneaton Rd/Cleveland Rd Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 8 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £146,291 £76,923 £153,846 £97,527 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 194 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed agreements for individual sites

Totals £3,965,552 £76,923 £3,973,107 £3,916,788 £0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 195 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - east HSG 9 There is a need for new primary provision in As brought Circa £2.5 £2,500,000 £0 £2,500,000 £2,500,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' of Nuneaton the east of Nuneaton as a result of the forward by million expansion) and proposed developments at Golf Drive and developers from Developer CIL/S106 Attleborough Fields generating an estimated 2021 1 form of entry. Financial contribution to Warwickshire County Council towards the provision by Warwickshire County Council for the expansion of primary and secondary school places Green Local Play and HSG 9 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 9 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £183,529 £76,923 £153,846 £122,352 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Transport The Long Shoot to HSG 9 Provision of dedicated cycle infrastructure Across To be S106/CIL Bermuda between The Long Shoot and Bermuda via development determined WCC Eastboro Way. plan period (up to 2031) Transport HSG 8 access HSG 9 Provision of access arrangements as set out 2030 To be CIL, S106, S278 concept plan determined at detailed design stage on site by site basis. Totals £2,756,053 £76,923 £2,726,370 £2,694,876 £0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 196 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - east HSG 10 There is a need for new primary provision in As brought Circa £2 £2,000,000 £0 £2,000,000 £2,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' of Nuneaton the east of Nuneaton as a result of the forward by million expansion) and proposed developments at Golf Drive and developers from Developer CIL/S106 Attleborough Fields generating an estimated 2019 1 form of entry. Financial contribution to Warwickshire County Council towards the provision by Warwickshire County Council for the expansion of primary and secondary school places Green Local Play and HSG 10 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area£454,098 contributions

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Health GP expansion - HSG 10 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £129,762 £21,627 £0 £21,627 £21,627 £0 Developer Nuneaton extension to Chaucers/ Whitestone surgery. development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire North to 2031) from CCG 2018 Transport The Long Shoot to HSG 10 Provision of dedicated cycle infrastructure Across To be S106/CIL Bermuda between The Long Shoot and Bermuda via development determined WCC Eastboro Way. plan period (up to 2031) Transport A5 Corridor Cycle HSG 10 Extension of the Nuneaton/Hinckley to MIRA Across To be S106/CIL Improvements cycle route in order to link to Mancetter, development determined WCC Atherstone, Birch Coppice and Tamworth. plan period (up Highways England to 2031) Transport Cycle Coventry and HSG 10 Provision of dedicated cycle infrastructure on Across £2m £1,000,000 £0 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £0 S106/CIL Warwickshire: B4113 Coventry Road between Bermuda development WCC Nuneaton – Bedworth Park, Bedworth and Coventry, with plan period (up LEP Local Growth – Coventry Strategic connections to existing cycle network, key to 2031) Deal Cycle Route employment sites and residential areas. Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 10 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £106,393 £76,923 £153,846 £70,929 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Water and Nuneaton Hartshill HSG 10 To increase capacity to the treatment works Across To be Combination of flood Sewage Treatment to support growth. development determined Severn Trent and mitigation Work expansion plan period (up developer CIL/S106 to 2031) Totals £3,200,544 £76,923 £3,247,997 £3,165,080 £0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 197 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed

Education School expansion - HSG 11 The development generates just less than As brought Circa £1 £1,000,000 £0 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' North of Nuneaton half a form of entry primary pupils. forward by million expansion) and Contribution would be sought in order to developers from Developer CIL/S106 expand existing primary provision. Financial 2019 contribution to Warwickshire County Council towards the provision by Warwickshire County Council for the expansion of primary and secondary school places Green Local Play and HSG 11 Play Area, MUGA and provision of a playing 2018 onwards Equipped play £72,524 £0 £72,524 £72,524 £0 CIL/S106 infrastructure recreation facilities pitches where appropiate (inc. drainage) area contributions £454,098

MUGA £119,997.10

Playing pitch £63,674.36

Outdoor gyms £160,000 Health GP expansion - HSG 11 A requirement for 0.82 GPs. Possible Across £129,762 £21,627 £0 £21,627 £21,627 £0 Developer Nuneaton extension to Chaucers/ Whitestone surgery. development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire North to 2031) from CCG 2018 Transport Nuneaton – Camp Hill HSG 11 Completion of missing links in existing cycling Across To be S106/CIL Cycle Route provision between Camp Hill and the town development determined WCC centre. plan period (up to 2031) Transport A5 Corridor Cycle HSG 11 Extension of the Nuneaton/Hinckley to MIRA Across To be S106/CIL Improvements cycle route in order to link to Mancetter, development determined WCC Atherstone, Birch Coppice and Tamworth. plan period (up Highways England to 2031) Transport HSG 11 cycle path HSG 11 Full specification cycle path along Stoney 2024 To be CIL, S106, S278 Road using railway underbridge to link to the determined at NCN52 and Sandon Park/Weddington detailed Meadows public open space design stage on site by site basis. Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 11 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £59,107 £76,923 £153,846 £39,405 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Totals £1,153,258 £76,923 £1,247,997 £1,133,556 £0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 198 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - Ash HSG 12 The development generates just less than As brought Circa £250,000 £0 £250,000 £250,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' Green School half a form of entry of pupils. Financial forward by £500,000 expansion) and contributions would be sought towards developers from Developer CIL/S106 expansion of existing primary school 2020 – provision and secondary school places at Ash timescale Green School. dependant on assessment of pupil forecasts at time of development. Education Ash Green School re- HSG 12 Expansion of Ash Green School. Potential to This will require To be LEA ('basic need' prioritisation and displace Coventry pupils to accommodate further work on determined expansion) and expansion demand. WCC would in look to expand Ash pupil forecasts Developer CIL/S106 Green School to cope with the extra demand and actual from the developments. However, WCC numbers will be would look to ensure a coherent pattern of re-assessed to provision across the town. confirm requirements and timeframes from 2021 Transport Sustainable Transport HSG 12 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £112,304 £76,923 £153,846 £74,869 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Totals £362,304 £76,923 £403,846 £324,869 £0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 199 Infrastrucutre IDP project name Site Scheme details Timescale Cost of Known total Funding Funding gap Likely S106 Potential CIL Funding and type Allocation infrastructure costs received / delivery partners agreed Education School expansion - Ash EMP 2 The development generates just less than As brought Circa £250,000 £0 £250,000 £250,000 £0 LEA ('basic need' Green School half a form of entry of pupils. Financial forward by £500,000 expansion) and contributions would be sought towards developers from Developer CIL/S106 expansion of existing primary school 2020 – provision and secondary school places at Ash timescale Green School. dependant on assessment of pupil forecasts at time of development. Education Ash Green School re- EMP 2 Expansion of Ash Green School. Potential to This will require To be LEA ('basic need' prioritisation and displace Coventry pupils to accommodate further work on determined expansion) and expansion demand. WCC would in look to expand Ash pupil forecasts Developer CIL/S106 Green School to cope with the extra demand and actual from the developments. However, WCC numbers will be would look to ensure a coherent pattern of re-assessed to provision across the town. confirm requirements and timeframes from 2021 Health GP expansion - EMP 2 A requirement for 3.01 GPs. New build Across £1,719,745 £429,936 £0 £429,936 £429,936 £0 Developer Bedworth surgery (a site will need to be identified). development CIL/S106, plan period (up Warwickshire North to 2031) from CCG 2020. Transport West Nuneaton – EMP 2 Provision of dedicated cycle links from West Across To be S106/CIL Bermuda / Town Nuneaton to Bermuda Park and Nuneaton development determined WCC Centre Cycle Route town centre. plan period (up to 2031) Transport Sustainable Transport EMP 2 Sustainable Transport Contributions 2031 £3,000,000.00 £21,574 £76,923 £153,846 £14,383 £0 CIL/S106,S278 Contributions £1m secured through S106 agreements for individual sites Totals £701,510 £76,923 £833,782 £694,319 £0

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 200 c) Summary of infrastructure costs and potential funding sources by infrastructure type

Total cost of Total cost of Total Total funding projects identified projects identified Total funding Infrastructure type infrastructure received / as being likely to as potentially being gap costs agreed be funded by S106 funded through a contributions CIL Education £40,000,000 £0 £40,000,000 £0 £0 Green infrastructure £3,548,702 £0 £2,682,995 £865,707 £865,707 Health £4,196,790 £0 £4,196,790 £0 £0 Social £926,046 £0 £0 £926,046 £926,046 Sports and leisure £35,701,300 £0 £370,000 £35,331,300 £35,331,300 Transport £147,107,000 £48,437,000 £12,060,000 £86,610,000 £43,230,000 Utilities £5,954,365 £4,305,000 £0 £1,649,365 £1,649,365 Water and flood mitigation £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Total £237,434,203 £52,742,000 £59,309,785 £125,382,418 £82,002,418

d) Summary of likely S106 contributions from known infrastructure costs for strategic residential allocations in the Borough Plan

Total likely S106 Cost per Site contributions No. dwellings dwelling HSG 1 £23,461,892 4419 £5,309 HSG 2 £6,579,625 1525 £4,315 HSG 3 £2,945,813 575 £5,123 HSG 4 £7,238,210 689 £10,505 HSG 5 £2,620,876 398 £6,585 HSG 6 £1,676,111 220 £7,619 HSG 7 £2,857,768 196 £14,580 HSG 8 £3,916,788 495 £7,913 HSG 9 £2,694,876 621 £4,340 HSG 10 £3,165,080 360 £8,792 HSG 11 £1,133,556 200 £5,668 HSG 12 £324,869 380 £855 EMP 2 £694,319 73 £9,511 Total £59,309,785 10151 £5,843

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 201 For: Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Viability Assessment

DRAFT Report (Client v3)

August 2020 DSP20701

Dixon Searle Partnership Elm House, Tanshire Park ShacklefordCabinet -Road, Wednesday Elstead, 9th September Surrey, GU82020 6LB 202 www.dixonsearle.co.uk Draft Report

Contents

Notes and Limitations i

Executive Summary iv

1. Introduction 1

2. Methodology 11

3. Findings Review 44

Summary – CIL charging parameters overview 75

Appendices

Appendix I: Development appraisal assumptions outline

Appendix IIa: Residential (typologies) results & summaries

Appendix IIb: Strategic housing sites results & summaries

Appendix IIc: Commercial (typologies) results & summaries

Appendix III: Research & information - Market & values report

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 203 Notes and Limitations

1. The purpose of the assessment reported in this document is to inform and support the Council’s work on further considering and progressing through further consultation the intended introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule for the borough.

2. This report sets out options to inform the Council’s consideration of potential CIL charging rates from a viability perspective whilst taking into account adopted local and national policies that may impact on development viability.

3. This has been a desk-top exercise based on information provided by Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (NBBC) supplemented with information gathered by and assumptions made by DSP appropriate to the current stage of review and to inform the Council’s preparation of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule for the borough.

4. This review has been carried out using well recognised residual valuation techniques by consultants highly experienced in the preparation of strategic viability assessments for local authority policy development including whole plan viability, affordable housing and CIL economic viability as well as providing site-specific viability reviews and advice. In order to carry out this type of assessment many assumptions are required alongside the consideration of a range of a large quantity of information which rarely fits all eventualities.

5. It should be noted that every scheme is different, and no review of this nature can reflect the variances seen in site specific cases. Accordingly, this assessment (as with similar studies of its type) is not intended to prescribe land values or other assumptions. Specific assumptions and values applied for our test scenarios are unlikely to be appropriate for all developments. A degree of professional judgment is required. We are confident, however, that our assumptions are reasonable in terms of making this viability overview and further informing and supporting the Council’s approach to and proposals for a CIL.

6. Small changes in assumptions can have a significant individual or cumulative effect on the residual land value (RLV) or other surplus / deficit output generated – the indicative surpluses (or other outcomes) generated by the development appraisals for this review will not necessarily reflect site specific circumstances. Therefore, this assessment (as with similar studies of its type) is not intended to prescribe land values or other assumptions or otherwise substitute for the usual considerations and discussions that will continue to be

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 204 needed as particular developments with varying characteristics come forward. Nevertheless, the assumptions used within this study reflect the policy requirements and strategy of the Council as known at the time of carrying out this review and therefore take into account the cumulative cost effects of policies where those are relevant in developing a CIL Charging Schedule.

7. The research, review work and reporting for this further assessment has been assembled at a time when there remain economic uncertainties associated with Brexit. In terms of the latest context potentially having a bearing on all of this, the Global COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic situation is now dominating all aspects of the news and economy.

8. This may run through into many potential areas of influence on matters affecting viability or deliverability, short term in particular. However, there could be a range of influences and effects, not necessarily all negative in their impact on viability or other matters. At the point of this assessment while there are unknowns, and potentially significantly so, it is possible to work only with the known – i.e. available information at this point in time and as continues to be reflected in the usual way through the stated established information sources. At this stage it appears that it will then be for Local Authorities and others to consider how this picture may change – monitor it as best possible and consider any necessary updating of the evidence and local response in due course.

9. This is consistent with the approach that typically is taken already when either a significant amount of time passes, or other circumstances change during the period of Plan or CIL preparation/review. In the meantime, this work contains information on the impact of varied assumptions. Additionally, in considering the assessment we have also sought to provide wide sensitivity testing to inform the Council’s consideration of development viability in the wider plan delivery context.

10. This document has been prepared for the stated objective and should not be used for any other purpose without the prior written authority of Dixon Searle Partnership Ltd (DSP); we accept no responsibility or liability for the consequences of this document being used for a purpose other than for which it was commissioned.

11. To the extent that the document is based on information supplied by others, Dixon Searle Partnership Ltd (DSP) accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client or others who choose to rely on it.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 205 12. In no way does this study provide formal valuation advice; it provides an overview not intended for other purposes nor to over-ride particular site considerations as the Council’s policies will be applied from case to case.

13. DSP conducts its work only for Local Authorities and selected other public organisations. We do not act on behalf of any development interests. We are not involved in any other work within the Nuneaton & Bedworth area at the current time, nor have we been during the course of this assessment.

14. In any event we can confirm that no conflict of interests exists, nor is likely to arise given our approach and client base. Our fees are all quoted in advance and agreed with clients on a fixed or capped basis, with no element whatsoever of incentive/performance related payment. Our project costs are simply built-up in advance, based on hourly/day rates and estimates of involved time.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 206

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 207 1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction and Background to the Study

1.1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide viability advice to support the preparation of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule for Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (NBBC).

1.1.2 In October 2013, NBBC appointed Dixon Searle Partnership (DSP) to undertake an independent viability analysis of the Borough and provide recommendations to the Council in relation to introducing a CIL, having regard for local economic conditions and the emerging Borough Plan. The resulting December 2014 assessment1 undertook a review of all policy requirements in the emerging Borough Plan, and assessed the development costs associated with all types of development in the Borough, alongside CIL rate testing at between £0 and £120 per square metre (sq. m), to determine appropriate CIL charging rates for the area.

1.1.3 Based on the recommendations of the 2014 Viability Assessment, the NBBC Preliminary Draft Charge Schedule (PDCS) was published by the Council for a six week public consultation in October 2015. The CIL was not progressed further by the Council following the PDCS consultation.

1.1.4 In December 2016, DSP produced an update to the 2014 Viability Assessment2 to take account of changes to national and local policies, new proposed site allocations within the emerging Borough Plan, and changes to key assumptions and inputs associated with development costs and revenue. The purpose of this update was primarily to support the production and progression of the Borough Plan.

1.1.5 The NBBC Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) was published in 2017 to further support the production and progression of the Borough Plan. The IDP covered a wide range of infrastructure types, outlining the baseline position of infrastructure provision in the Borough, and considered what infrastructure improvements may be required in the future to support growth proposed for allocation in the Borough Plan. The IDP provided general information on potential infrastructure needs, deferring specific

1 Dixon Searle Partnership: Viability Assessment: Whole Plan and Community Infrastructure Levy Viability Study (2014) 2 Dixon Searle Partnership: Local Plan Viability Assessment - Update (2016)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 208 details of proposed infrastructure improvements, schemes, and costs, to be outlined within a separate Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (IDS).

1.1.6 Following requests from the Borough Plan inspector for updates to the IDP during the examination of the Plan, the IDS was published in February 2019 as an examination document. The IDS lists all known infrastructure projects which are required to support growth planned in the Borough Plan.

1.1.7 Following the adoption of the Borough Plan in 2019, the Council is now in a position to continue building the evidence base towards the publication and consultation on a Draft Charging Schedule.

1.1.8 The purpose of the CIL viability assessment is to identify appropriate CIL rates for inclusion within a draft CIL Charging Schedule. In accordance with the recommendations of the PPG3, this report seeks to set out a CIL viability assessment that is proportionate, simple, transparent, and allows all calculations to be made publicly available. The assessment will show the potential effects of proposed levy rates on the viability of all types of development across the Borough area taking into account and building upon previous viability assessments published by the Council as discussed above.

1.1.9 To that end, DSP were appointed by Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council to provide the viability advice and evidence to determine appropriate CIL rates for the borough. To be clear, although appropriate and available evidence has been considered in compiling this study (including previous viability work undertaken by DSP) this CIL Viability Study is not an update of previous work but a new study to inform the Council’s consideration of the potential for CIL across the borough.

1.1.10 Key outputs required by the Council from the CIL viability assessment include:

i. Advice on appropriate CIL rates for all types of development across the Borough.

ii. Recommendations on the need for and implementation of an instalments policy.

3 Paragraph: 019 Reference ID: 25-019-20190901

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 209 iii. Consideration of how locally specific development costs could impact upon the extent of levy which could be charged in the area (Borough Plan, Supplementary Planning Documents, IDP and IDS).

iv. Potential for differential charging zones based on differences in costs and values across the Borough if identified.

v. The ability of strategic sites allocated in the Borough Plan to remain financially viable with the imposition of a levy, in addition to locally specific development costs and policy and infrastructure requirements within the Borough Plan, IDP and IDS.

vi. How the proposed CIL rates can maximise the potential CIL revenue to be obtained within the Borough, while also ensuring that the viability of new development in the Borough is maintained.

1.1.11 This study therefore investigates the potential scope for CIL charging in Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough, taking into account the adopted Borough Plan policies. This is done by considering the economic viability of residential and commercial / non-residential development scenarios within the borough. The review takes into account the range of normal development costs and obligations (including costs associated with local and national planning policies, as would be borne by developments as well the Community Infrastructure Levy payments and affordable housing provision). The aim is to provide the Council with advice as to the likely viability of seeking developer contributions towards infrastructure provision through the CIL. This includes the consideration of viability and the potential charging rate or rates appropriate in the local context; as part of a suitable and achievable overall package of likely planning obligations (including affordable housing) alongside other usual development costs.

1.1.12 This approach does not require a detailed viability appraisal of every site anticipated to come forward over the plan period but rather the testing of a range of appropriate site typologies reflecting the potential mix of sites likely to come forward. Neither does it require an appraisal of every likely policy but rather potential policies that are likely to have a close bearing on development costs.

1.1.13 To this end, the study requires the policies and proposals in the local plan to be brought together to consider their cumulative impact on the viability of introducing a CIL. The Council’s adopted local plan comprises the Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council Borough Plan 2011-2031 (referred to in this document as the ‘Borough Plan’ or just local plan for ease). The relevant policies in this document and within SPD, the IDP and

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 210 IDS have been taken into consideration alongside any national and regulatory issues in carrying out this study.

1.1.14 This report sets out our findings and recommendations for the Council to consider in taking forward its further development work on the local implementation of a new CIL.

1.1.15 This study has been carried out between May and August 2020.

1.2 Background to the CIL

1.2.1 The CIL regulations came into force in April 2010 and have been revised on a number of occasions since, with the most recent revisions (and to the associated guidance) - The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 – coming into force on 1st September 2019. The Regulation details are not repeated in full here, but we have summarised below some of the key aspects: -

• Local Authorities in England and Wales may put a CIL in place to raise funds from new development in their area to deliver the infrastructure needed to support that development (in this case Lichfield District Council is and will continue to be the charging authority). • CIL is charge payable on ‘development which creates net additional floor space’ over 100sq. m. • Residential annexes and extensions are exempt regardless of size • The creation of any new dwelling regardless of size will pay the charge4 • The funds raised are to be allocated towards infrastructure needed to support new development in the charging authority’s area. • Charging Authorities must allocate a ‘meaningful proportion’ of the levy revenue raised in each neighbourhood back to those local areas. • Where a neighbourhood development plan (NDP) is in place, the neighbourhood will be able receive 25% of the revenues from the CIL arising from the development5. • Where an NDP is not in place but CIL is still charged, the neighbourhood will receive a capped share of 15% of the levy revenue arising from development in their area.

4 The latest 2019 amendments have not altered these key points of principle. 5 The proportion would be paid directly to the neighbourhood planning bodies and could be used for community projects. PPG provides further information on spending of Levy receipts including distribution to local neighbourhoods. Also see https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy (Paragraph: 072 Reference ID: 25-072-20140612 Revision date: 12 06 2014)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 211 • AH and development by charities will not be liable for CIL i.e. in respect of residential development, only market dwellings will be liable to pay CIL at the rate(s) set by the charging authority. • As reflected above, the CIL rate or rates should be set at a level that ensures development within the authority’s area (as a whole, based on the plan provision) is not put at serious risk.

1.2.2 The Council has been working with infrastructure providers and agencies in considering and estimating the costs of the local requirements associated with supporting the anticipated local plan level of growth to be accommodated across the borough as a whole through the development of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and subsequently and Infrastructure Delivery Statement (IDS). Both documents were produced to support the adopted Borough Plan and as such the Council do not consider it necessary to produce a full update of the IDS to support the potential introduction of a CIL. Instead an updated draft IDS has been produced6 which presents the aggregate borough-wide infrastructure funding gap (to evidence the need to a CIL), total potential future s106 and CIL contributions towards infrastructure projects and a summary of potential infrastructure costs for each strategic residential site allocation in the Borough Plan. It is clear from this document that there is a clear infrastructure funding gap and thus need for a CIL in the borough, subject to any viability constraints.

1.2.3 Infrastructure is taken to mean any service or facility that supports the Borough Council area and its population and includes (but is not limited to) facilities for transport, education, health, social infrastructure, green infrastructure, public services, utilities and flood defences. In the case of the current scope of the CIL, affordable housing is assumed to be outside that and dealt with in the established way through site specific planning (s.106) agreements.

1.2.4 The CIL Guidance contained within the PPG goes on to state that the levy rate(s) need to be set so that they do not threaten the ability to develop viably the sites and scale of development identified in the relevant Plan (Local Plan in England): ‘an authority must strike an appropriate balance between additional investment to support development and the potential effect on the viability of developments… this balance is at the centre of the charge-setting process’ and ‘in meeting the regulatory requirements, charging authorities should be able to show and explain how their

6 DAC Planning: Amended Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (March 2020)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 212 proposed levy rate (or rates) will contribute towards the implementation of their relevant plan and support development across their area’.7

1.2.5 To achieve this: ‘a charging authority should use an area-based approach, involving a broad test of viability across their area, as the evidence base to underpin their charge. The authority will need to be able to show why they consider that the proposed levy rate or rates set an appropriate balance between the need to fund infrastructure and the potential implications for the economic viability of development across their area.’8.

1.2.6 Although we have not set out fully the sections of the PPG viability guidance that are relevant in assessing viability in (for both CIL and plan-making), some of the key points are summarised below: • ‘Appropriate available evidence’ must be used to inform the charging rate(s); • An appropriate range of site types (or ‘typologies’) should be tested based on the range of site types likely to come forward for development over the plan period; • Costs within the viability assessment should be based on evidence reflective of local market conditions (see paragraph 012 of the ‘Viability’ PPG); • Land value should be based on the Existing Use Value of the site, plus a premium (known as the ‘EUV plus’ approach); • There is no requirement for the charging authority to directly mirror the rate(s) proposed within the viability study; • A ‘viability buffer’ should be included so that the charges are able to support development through economic cycles; • Differential rates can be applied if appropriate in relation to geographical zones (including for strategic sites) and/or by varying type and scale of development, although undue complexity should be avoided noting specifically that charging authorities ‘should be aware that it is likely to be harder to ensure that more complex patterns of differential rates are State aid compliant’. • Stakeholders should be appropriately consulted to inform the viability assessment process; • The viability assessment should be proportionate, simple, transparent and publicly available.

7 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy (Paragraph 010 Reference ID: 25-010-20190901 Revision date: 01 09 2019 8 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy#evidence-and-setting-rates (Paragraph 020 Reference ID: 25-020- 20190901 Revision date: 01 09 2019

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 213 1.2.7 Within this study, allowances have been made for the cost to developers of providing affordable housing and complying with other planning policies fully (based on assumptions relevant to testing allied to the adopted local plan). This is whilst factoring-in the usual costs of development (build costs, fees, contingencies, finance, costs of sale, profit and land value).

1.2.8 The consideration of the collective planning obligations (including affordable housing, other requirements and CIL, together with any continued use of s.106) cannot be separated. The level of each will play a role in determining the potential for development to bear this collective cost. Each of these cost factors influences the available scope for supporting the others, which links back to ‘striking a balance’. It follows that the extent to which s.106 will have an on-going role also needs to be considered in determining suitable CIL charging rates, bearing in mind that CIL is non- negotiable.

1.2.9 In most cases, where adopted, CIL replaces or largely replaces s.106 as the mechanism for securing developer contributions towards infrastructure. The 2019 updated CIL Regulations and PPG reflect the greater flexibility that authorities now have to use funds from both section 106 planning obligations and the Levy to pay for the same items of infrastructure, regardless of how many planning obligations have already contributed towards an item of infrastructure (the previous s.106 ‘pooling restrictions’ have been removed).

1.2.10 As noted above, a key requirement of CIL and setting the charging rates is that an appropriate balance should be struck between the desirability of funding infrastructure from the levy and the potential effects that imposing the levy may have upon the economic viability of development (development viability).

‘When deciding the levy rates, an authority must strike an appropriate balance between additional investment to support development and the potential effect on the viability of developments.

This balance is at the centre of the charge-setting process. In meeting the regulatory requirements, charging authorities should be able to show and explain how their proposed levy rate (or rates) will contribute towards the implementation of their

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 214 relevant plan and support development across their area (see regulation 14(1), as amended by the 2014 Regulations).’9

1.2.11 The CIL Regulations (Amendment) have been taken into account in the preparation of this report and in our opinion and experience the preparation of this study meets the requirements of all appropriate Guidance.

1.2.12 In addition, relevant information is contained in the publication ‘Viability Testing Local Plans – Advice for planning practitioners’ published in June 2012 by the Local Housing Delivery Group chaired by Sir John Harman (known as the ‘Harman’ report10). That sets out a stepped approach as to how best to build viability and deliverability into the plan preparation process and offers guidance on how to assess the cumulative impact of policies within the Local Plan, requirements of SPDs and national policy. It provides useful practical advice on viability in plan-making and its contents should be taken into account in the Plan making process.

1.3 Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Profile

1.3.1 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough is one of five boroughs within Warwickshire. It is the smallest in the area, but has the second largest population of 125, 400, resulting in a high population density of 1592 per sq.km (the average for Warwickshire is 275 persons per sq.km). Largely urban in nature the borough has three main settlements; the towns of Nuneaton and Bedworth and the large village of Bulkington all of which are separated by areas of countryside that are designated Green Belt. There are also several smaller settlements located in the south of the borough between Bedworth and Bulkington.

1.3.2 Nuneaton is the borough’s main retail and commercial centre serving the borough and wider area. Bedworth has a more local role.

1.3.3 The Borough Plan sets out strategic targets for housing and employment development within the borough to 2031 including at least 14,060 homes and 107.8ha of employment land.

9 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy (Paragraph 010 Reference ID: 25-010-20190901 Revision date: 01 09 2019 10 ‘Local Housing Delivery Group – Viability Testing Local Plans’ (Harman, June 2012)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 215 1.3.4 Of the 14,060 new homes planned for, approximately 10,250 are expected to come forward on strategic sites allocated in the Borough Plan. The following table sets out a summary of the site allocations and their current status (as of May 2020):

Figure 1: Status of strategic sites allocated in the Borough Plan (May 2020) Planning Total Ref Address Position at April 2020 app no. capacity The Long Shoot, between 48- HSG1 032246 130 Davidson Developments, Complete 66 Nuneaton The Long Shoot, land rear of 28- HSG1 032399 44 Under construction 125 (Bellway Phase 1) Site 18C002: Land at Lower Farm, Weddington Road, HSG1 033184 Under construction 193 Nuneaton (Milby Hall at the Farm) Site 18C002: Land at Lower Farm, Weddington Road, HSG1 033184 Complete 221 Nuneaton (Cotton Grange at The Farm) Site 31B007 Land off", The Long HSG1 032992 Shoot (Bellway Phase 2), Under construction 250 Nuneaton "Site 29B002 - Land off", Weddington Road, Nuneaton, HSG1 033758 Under construction 245 (South of Lower) (Barratt - St James' Gate) HSG1 034571 Dubh-Linn, 431 Higham Lane Complete 1 Site 31B004 - Land rear of 194- HSG1 034360 262, The Long Shoot, Nuneaton Under construction 120 (Davidsons) Site 31B004 - Land rear of 194- HSG1 034361 262", The Long Shoot, Nuneaton Under construction 35 (Davidsons) Cresswells Farm, The Long HSG1 034969 Under construction 150 Shoot, Nuneaton, (Jelsons Ltd) Site 31A002 - Land off, Higham Lane, Nuneaton, (adj Nuneaton HSG1 034076 Under construction 453 Fields Farm) (Persimmon Homes Eaton Place) Outline application submitted HSG1 035279 Remaining land at Top Farm 1700 – to be determined 034615 (outline) Resolution to Grant – outline 03692 only HSG1 (reserved Calendar Farm 850 matters for Reserved matters for 450 450 dwellings - TBD dwellings - TBD)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 216 Planning Total Ref Address Position at April 2020 app no. capacity Land to rear of 28-44 The Long HSG1 036873 Shoot, Nuneaton (Bellways Full application - TBD 75 Phase 3) HSG1 total 4,409 HSG2 - Arbury No application submitted 1640 Outline application approved HSG3 035037 Gipsy Lane 575 recently HSG4 - Woodlands No application submitted 689 HSG5 - Hospital Lane No application submitted 398 035503 Outline application 035503 (outline) (up to 150 dwellings) for part of allocation approved. HSG6 037022 School Lane 220 (full for 133 Reserved matters application dwellings 037022 (for 133 dwellings) TBD) submitted and TBD. HSG7 - Land East of Bulkington No application submitted 196 Application for northern 036491 parcel of the site only (188 HSG8 (full Land West of Bulkington dwellings). Decision deferred 495 application) until Concept Plan SPD is adopted in July 2020. Hybrid – full for 621 HSG9 037122 Land off Golf Drive dwellings, outline for 621 (hybrid) community centre - TBD "Site 52D067 - Land off" (Land Planning approved. Not HSG10 033926 adj Crematorium), Eastboro 360 Started Way, Nuneaton Land adjacent Judkins Quarry, Outline application submitted HSG11 035595 200 Tuttle Hill – TBD Full application for 212 dwellings, outline to be 036870 380 submitted shortly for 288 (full app. [500 HSG12 Former Hawkesbury Golf course dwellings. [N.B Hybrid for 212 applied application submitted dwellings) for] previously for 500 dwellings] - TBD EMP1 034901 Faultlands Outline application approved No application submitted but pre-app public consultation held with some more EMP2 - Phoenix Way/Wilsons Lane 73 detailed plans available at: https://www.landatwilsonsla ne.co.uk/ EMP3 Prologis Extension No application submitted EMP4 Coventry Road No application submitted School Lane/Longford Road, EMP6 037021 Full application - TBD Bedworth EMP7 Bowling Green Lane, Bedworth No application submitted Total dwellings on strategic allocations 10,256

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 217 2 Methodology

2.1 Residual valuation principles

2.1.1 This study investigates the potential for a range of development types to contribute to infrastructure provision funding across the Borough Council’s area through the collection of financial contributions charged via a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

2.1.2 Prior to fixing assumptions, necessarily at a point in time, and running appraisals using those (as outlined in the following paragraphs) we undertake an extensive information review, property market research and development industry stakeholders’ survey. As part of this approach, we undertake a review of the established policies – enabling an assessment of which are considered likely to have a particular development cost impact, or additional cost implications over and above the typical costs involved in the development process (for example build costs utilising the costs information from established sources such as the Building Cost Information Service of the RICS (BCIS), associated fees and contingencies, finance, sale costs, development profit; and land costs).

2.1.3 Appendix I to this document also provides a quick reference guide to the assumptions used and includes a policy review schedule indicating the view taken with respect to the policies contained within the Borough Plan and associated SPDs that are likely to influence viability.

2.1.4 In carrying out this study we have run development appraisals using the well- recognised principles of residual valuation on a number of scheme types, both residential and non-residential / commercial.

2.1.5 The most established and accepted route for studying development viability at a strategic level, including for CIL viability, but also used for site-specific viability assessments, is residual valuation. This is also consistent with the relevant guidance described above. Figure 2 below sets out (in simplified form only) the principles of the residual valuation calculation, which is the methodological basis of the appraisals sitting behind our results and recommendations.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 218 Figure 2: Simplified Residual Land Valuation Principles

2.1.6 Having allowed for the costs of acquisition, development, finance, profit and sale, the resulting figure indicates the sum that is potentially available to pay for the land – i.e. the residual land value (RLV).

2.1.7 In order to guide on a range of likely viability outcomes the assessment process also requires a benchmark, or range of benchmarks of some form, against which to compare the RLV. This assessment is consistent with the NPPF and accompanying PPG

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 219 on Viability, with the NPPF no longer containing any reference to competitive returns to a ‘willing landowner’ and ‘willing developer’. The emphasis has moved away from a market value approach to land that may have been used or carried greater influence in the past. The PPG on Viability has for some time now made it clear this benchmark land value (BLV) should be based on Existing Use Value (EUV) and states:

‘To define land value for any viability assessment, a benchmark land value should be established on the basis of the existing use value (EUV) of the land, plus a premium for the landowner. The premium for the landowner should reflect the minimum return at which it is considered a reasonable landowner would be willing to sell their land. The premium should provide a reasonable incentive, in comparison with other options available, for the landowner to sell land for development while allowing a sufficient contribution to fully comply with policy requirements. Landowners and site purchasers should consider policy requirements when agreeing land transactions. This approach is often called ‘existing use value plus’ (EUV+)’.

2.1.8 Any potential margin (CIL funding scope) is then considered in the round so that charging rates are not pushed to the limits but also allow for some other scope to support viability given the range of costs that could alter over time or with scheme specifics.

2.1.9 The range of assumptions that go into the RLV appraisals process is set out in more detail in this chapter. Further information is also available at Appendices I and III.

2.2 Stakeholder Consultation

2.2.1. The national policy and guidance reflects the need and value of stakeholder engagement. Consistent with our established practice for strategic viability assessments, DSP sought soundings as far as were available from a range of development industry stakeholders as the assumptions were considered. This offered an engagement opportunity to a wide range of locally active organisations and interests, with a few to gathering feedback on our emerging study approach and inputs - to help inform the assessment.

2.2.2. This engagement process was conducted primarily by way of three bespoke survey type questionnaires seeking information and views with which to help test our emerging assumptions at the early project stages, followed up with any subsequent

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 220 dialogue as appropriate. The questionnaires set out our initial draft assumptions and testing parameters, with the opportunity provided for the stakeholders to then comment on those emerging positions or suggest alternative assumptions with reasoning. The survey proformas were issued as follows:-

• Development Industry – range of active stakeholders in the district as per the Council’s contacts lists and supplemented where appropriate from DSP’s experience, including local property agents, developers, housebuilders, planning agents, industry representatives and others.

• Strategic Site Interests – in relation to further informing the more specific larger sites testing as far as possible, other relevant parties have been contacted using a separate bespoke (per-site) survey type document requesting any available information in connection with these sites including in relation to land value/ownership, any views on development values and costs any current stage estimates or similar on infrastructure requirements, potential site abnormals, site phasing/delivery trajectories, etc.

• AH Providers – range of locally active affordable housing providers, again through discussion with the Council. These parties were contacted with a directed survey form requesting guide information on likely AH revenue (payment to developer) levels as well as on underlying investment/valuation assumptions and any other commentary – again, all as far as available.

2.2.3. As part of this process, we keep a full record of all stakeholder interaction, including a log indicating the parties contacted, reminders issued, the feedback responses and level of response overall.

2.2.4. Given in some instances commercial sensitivities/confidentiality, the details of the responses received are not included within our published work. However, this remains a valuable contribution to help inform the assessment and consider the assumptions range. It also aids the review of and judgments made around the results in the later assessment stages. Overall the assessment is informed by a combination of sources, including the Council’s information, our own extensive research process and experience and the relevant stakeholder sourced feedback.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 221 2.3 Scheme Development Scenarios – Residential Development Scenarios

2.3.1 The site typologies modelled as part of this assessment reflect a range of different types of development that are thought likely to be brought forward through the planning process across the plan area. This enables viability to be tested in a way that reflects the likely range of future housing supply characteristics, informed also by the local experience of development to date. The residential scenarios chosen also allow us to test CIL in relation to policy thresholds (for example reviewing viability and the potential capacity for CIL above and below the adopted affordable housing threshold). This appropriately informs the development the residential CIL charge setting process, with the key aim of finding an appropriate balance between policy requirements (including complying with adopted policy and the desirability of funding infrastructure) and the ability of developments to continue to come forward viably.

2.3.2 While this cannot be and does not need to be an exhaustive exercise as the guidance recognises, in order to adopt a relevant range of residential development typologies, we have reviewed and analysed the housing supply expected to come forward over the emerging plan period – up to 2031 with an emphasis on smaller non-strategic allocations and windfall sites. In addition, the assessment considers the viability of specific strategic site allocations in particular to test the potential for those to contribute towards CIL as well as site specific mitigation measure through s106.

2.3.3 Each of the development typologies has been tested over a range of value levels (VLs) representing varying residential sales values as seen at the time of review across the borough by scheme location / type. A key part of the Council’s Brief is to test if there is scope to be more refined in setting CIL by location ; to take account on any geographical variation in viability. As well as looking at the influence of location within the borough, this sensitivity testing approach allows us to consider the potential impact on development viability of changing market conditions over time (i.e. as could be seen through falling or rising values dependent on market conditions) as well as how this key assumption may vary by location, development type and scale.

2.3.4 A summary of the general residential scheme typologies tested as part of this study is shown at Figure 3 below, with the full detail set out in Appendix I.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 222 Figure 3: Residential Scheme Typologies Scheme Size appraised Type Site Type 3 Houses PDL 10 Houses Greenfield / PDL 11 Houses Greenfield / PDL 15 Houses Greenfield / PDL 15 Flats PDL 30 Mixed Greenfield 30 Flats (Sheltered) PDL 60 Flats (Extra Care) PDL 100 Mixed Greenfield

Note: BH = bed house; BF = bed flat; Mixed = mix of houses and flats.

2.3.5 As mentioned above, in addition to the site typologies tested, this assessment specifically reviews the viability and scope for CIL from a number of strategic site allocations from the Local Plan; those that do not already have consent or are not already under construction. We discuss these sites in detail later in this report.

2.3.6 As part of the site typologies testing and seeking to make these as representative of possible of future development, an assumption is made in relation to dwelling mix, for which we have adopted the principles set out in Figure 4 below and Appendix I. These dwelling mix principles are based on the detail set out in Local Plan which is informed by the most Strategic Housing Market Assessment11 that supported the Borough Plan as well as detail set out in the Council’s Affordable Housing SPD12.

Figure 4: Dwelling Mix Assumptions Type Market Housing Affordable Housing 1-beds 8% 40-45% 2-beds 25% 25-30% 3-beds 51% 20-25% 4-beds 16% 5-10%

2.3.7 In all cases it should be noted that a “best fit” of affordable housing numbers and tenure assumptions has to be made, given the effects of numbers rounding and also the limited flexibility available; particularly in scheme typologies with small dwelling numbers. The assumed scheme mixes are by their nature hypothetical and are not exhaustive. Many other types and variations may be seen, including larger or smaller

11 GL Hearn (2013). Coventry & Warwickshire Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Final Report 12 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council: Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2019)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 223 dwelling types in different combinations, according to particular site characteristics, localised markets and requirements etc. Appendix I also provides more information on the assumed dwelling mixes and associated revenue levels per tenure type.

2.3.8 For larger scale comprehensive development proposals much depends upon the extent, cost and phasing of the infrastructure to be funded by the development, the amount and type of housing that can actually be accommodated on site and the timing of its provision in relation to that of the accompanying infrastructure. At this stage, the finer details are not clear and, as such, the larger site appraisal testing for this viability assessment is based on a mixture of known requirements and costs (as available at the timing of appraisals), and typical assumptions informed by reference to sources such as the Harman Report (as mentioned above), stakeholder engagement and through experience - as is appropriate for this level of viability testing.

2.3.9 The dwelling sizes assumed for the purposes of this study are as follows (see figure 5 below):

Figure 5: Residential Unit Sizes

Unit Market Size (sq. m.)

1BF 50 2BF 61 2BH 79 3BH 93 4BH 106

2.3.10 As with the many other variables considered through assumptions, there will be a large range and mix of dwelling sizes coming forward in practice, with these varying by scheme and location. Due to the high-level nature of this study process, a sample of scenarios and assumptions can be tested rather than every potential iteration. This approach is sufficient to generate a suitable overview, in accordance with guidance.

2.3.11 Since there is a relationship between dwelling size, value and build costs, it is the relative levels of the values and costs that are most important given the nature and purpose of this study (i.e. with values and costs expressed and reviewed in £/sq. m. terms); rather than necessarily the specific dwelling sizes to which those levels of costs and values are applied in each case. With this approach, the indicative ‘Value Levels’ (VLs) used in the study can then be applied to varying (alternative) dwelling sizes, as

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 224 can other assumptions. Although methods vary, an approach to focussing on values and costs per sq. m. also fits with a key mode that developers and tend to use to assess, compare/analyse and price schemes. It provides a more relevant context for considering the potential viability scope across the typologies approach, as part of considering relative policy costs and impacts, and is also consistent with how a CIL is set up and charged (as prescribed under the regulations).

2.3.12 The above dwelling sizes are expressed in terms of gross internal floor areas (GIAs) for houses (with no floor area adjustment – i.e. 100% saleable floorspace). For flats, the additional cost of constructing communal/shared non-saleable areas also needs to be taken into account. For the general flatted typology development tests, we have assumed a net:gross ratio of 85% (i.e. 15% communal space). The sheltered housing scenario assumes a lower proportion of saleable floorspace compared with typical general needs flats, at 75% (i.e. 25% communal) which is then further reduced through the selected assumptions to 65% saleable (35% communal) for the extra care development typology. We consider these to be reasonably representative of the types of properties coming forward within the scheme types likely to be seen most frequently providing on-site integrated AH, although again we acknowledge that all such factors will likely vary to some extent from scheme to scheme. It is always necessary to consider the size of new build accommodation in looking at its price per sq. m. rather than its price alone.

2.3.13 The range of prices expressed in £s per sq. m. therefore are the key measure used in considering the research analysis undertaken, working up the range of VLs for testing, and in reviewing the results. At this level of strategic overview, we do not differentiate between the value per sq. m. for flats and houses although in reality we often observe an inverse relationship between the size of a property and its value when expressed in terms of a £ sales value rate per unit area (£/sq. m or £/sq. ft.).

2.4 Strategic Site Allocations

2.4.1 As part of this study, the Council requires an updated assessment of the strategic site allocations that form a significant part of the Council’s future residential (and employment) land supply in order to test whether a positive contribution to CIL can be made in addition to the site specific infrastructure provision.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 225 2.4.2 DSP were provided with an update on the status of each of the strategic allocations (and any individual sites forming part of a wider allocation) as set out in Figure 1 above. A number of sites are either completed, under construction or have planning consent. For this stage of the study we have not carried out any further testing of those sites. The remaining sites that have been considered in this assessment are set out in detail in Appendix I including site specific assumptions allied to those sites. Figure 6 below summarises the sites appraised.

Figure 6: Strategic Site Allocations Tested Indicative Capacity Assumed Gross Site Site (approx no. of dwellings) Area (ha) HSG2 1640 85.82 Arbury HSG4 689 38.07 Woodlands HSG5 398 22.93 Hospital Lane HSG7 196 10.25 Land East of Bulkington HSG8 495 25.13 Land West of Bulkington HSG10 Land off" (Land adj 360 15.3 Crematorium), Eastboro Way, Nuneaton Details provided by NBBC and may differ from Local Plan numbers

2.4.3 Differing from the general range of residential site typologies noted above, these strategic site allocations are specific sites and as such have bespoke value and cost assumptions applied (including for site specific mitigation through s106 as provided by the Council via the DAC Planning Preliminary CIL report13). Appendix I provides a summary of the specific assumptions for each strategic site based on a mixture of reviewing site promotion documents, other key documents (e.g. IDS) discussions with key Council officers and our own experience.

2.4.4 Although specific appraisals have been carried out for the above strategic sites, in reality the length of time over which development is planned (over the lifetime of the emerging plan) in combination with detailed site information (including costings) available at this stage, means that the results can only provide a high-level assessment of the potential viability of these sites.

13 DAC Planning: Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule Preliminary Report (March 2020).

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 226

2.4.5 The results of the appraisals are shown in Appendix IIb alongside summaries of the development appraisals. These show the potential residual surplus (or deficit) after allowing for typical build costs, external and site works, fees, finance, development profit, costs of sale and land purchase, as above. In addition, we have also applied a layer of sensitivity testing to each site with the level of sales value and construction cost is increased and decreased from the base position in a number of steps.

2.4.6 The ‘Findings Review’ section (3) below includes our review of the results for these Strategic Site Allocations as well as the general range of typologies (including non- residential typologies). Appendix IIb provides the strategic site results summary tables for each strategic site allocation tested.

2.5 Scheme Development Typologies - Commercial / Non-Residential Development Scenarios

2.5.1 This assessment also considers non-residential development with scenarios tested based on the type of development likely to come forward across the Borough. Figure 5 sets out the various scheme types appraised for this study again on a typologies basis, covering a range of non-residential development uses in order to test the likely impact on viability of requiring CIL contributions from different types of commercial development; types again as considered potentially relevant.

2.5.2 The commercial / non-residential aspects of this study adopt the same (residual valuation) methodology as described earlier in this report, considering the variable strength of the relationship between the development values and costs associated with different scheme types. Appendix I provides more information on the scope of assumptions used to assess the typologies outlined in Figure 7 below:

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 227 Figure 7: Commercial / Non-residential Development Typologies Use Class / Type Example Scheme Type

Large Retail Large Supermarket - out of town Large Retail Retail Warehouse Small Retail Convenience/local Store - various locations Business - Offices - Town Centre Office Building Business - Offices - Out of town Office Building centre / Business Park Smaller / Move-on type industrial unit including Business - Industrial / Warehousing offices - industrial estate Larger industrial / warehousing unit including Business - Industrial / Warehousing offices - industrial estate B1, B2, B8 - Industrial / Warehousing Storage & Distribution B8 - warehousing / distribution Distribution unit

Hotel (budget)*** Hotel - edge of town centre / edge of town

C2 - Residential Institution Nursing Home Variable - considered on strength of values / costs relationship basis for a range of other Other / Sui Generis development uses including community / clinics / fitness/ leisure / nurseries etc. / holiday lets

2.5.3 Following the same principles and general process as the residential scenarios, a variety of sources were researched and considered in support of our assumptions setting process; again, also informing the review of findings later on. This includes information on values, land values and other development assumptions; from sources such as CoStar Commercial Real Estate Intelligence resource, the VOA Rating List and other web-based review as well as feedback as available from the development industry consultation. Supplementary information sources included articles and development industry features sourced from a variety of construction related publications; and in some cases, property marketing details.

2.5.4 Collectively our research enables us to apply a level of “sense-check” to our proposed assumptions, whilst necessarily acknowledging that this is high level work and that a great deal of variance is seen in practice from scheme to scheme. The full research review is provided within Appendix III to this report.

2.5.5 In addition to testing the commercial uses of key relevance above, further consideration was given to other development forms that may potentially come

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 228 forward locally. These include for example non-commercially driven facilities (community halls, medical facilities, schools, etc.) and other commercial uses such as motor sales / garages, depots, workshops, surgeries / similar, health / fitness, leisure uses (e.g. cinemas / bowling) and day nurseries.

2.5.6 Clearly there is potentially a very wide range of such schemes that could be developed over the life of the Local Plan, and any revised CIL charging schedule(s). Alongside viability, it is also relevant for the Council to consider the likely frequency, delivery and distribution of these over the Plan and Schedule periods. In advance of potentially expanded typology test appraisals, it was possible to review (in basic but sufficient terms) the key relationship between likely completed value per sq. m. and the cost of building such schemes – see Section 3 for more detail.

2.5.7 Where it can be quickly seen that the build cost (even before all other costs such as finance, fees, profits, purchase and sale etc. are allowed for) outweighs or is close to the completed value, it becomes clear that a scenario is not financially viable in the normal context that has been discussed above. This extends the iterative process, as an addition to the main appraisals, whereby a deteriorating strength of relationship between values and costs provides an indication of further reducing viability prospects compared with the more viable or marginally viable developments. This starts to indicate schemes that are considered more typically likely to require other financial support; rather than being clearly and consistently able to produce a surplus capable of some level of contribution to CIL. Through this process, we were able to determine whether there were any of those scenarios that warranted additional viability appraisals / testing.

2.6 Gross Development Value (Scheme Value) - Residential

2.6.1 A key part of the appraisal assumptions are the market housing sale values. Consistent with our established and examined assessment approach, determining these assumptions in the Nuneaton & Bedworth context involves a range of information sources being considered and analysis of the data reviewed. For a proportionate but appropriately robust evidence basis, it is preferable to consider information from a range of sources including those listed below. Our practice is to consider all available sources to inform our independent overview - not just historic data or particular scheme comparables, including:

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 229 • Previous viability studies as appropriate; • Land Registry; • Valuation Office Agency (VOA); • Property search, sale/market reporting and other web resources; • Development marketing web-sites; • Any available information from stakeholder consultations

2.6.2 A framework needs to be established for gathering and reviewing property values data. An extensive residential market review has been carried out in order to consider and appropriately reflect, at a level suitable for strategic assessment, the variation in residential property values seen across the district to enable consideration of potential variations to CIL rates geographically.

2.6.3 The data was collected by both ward and settlement areas and analysed using both sold and asking prices for new-build and re-sale property. It must be acknowledged that the scope of the data varies through time and by location. In some instances, data samples are small (e.g. relating to a particular period or geography) and this is not unusual. Consistent with the above principles and the need to review it is important that the available data is reviewed collectively in setting the values assumptions.

2.6.4 As above, this data collection phase was based on both ward and settlement areas within the borough and having regard to the settlement hierarchy set out in Policy DS2 in the borough plan. Specific values research was also carried out relating to the strategic sites modelled in this assessment. We considered this to provide the most appropriate and reflective framework for this extensive data collection exercise, and the subsequent analysis to inform assumptions. This review method enabled us to view how the value patterns and levels observed overlay with the areas in which the most significant new housing provision is expected to come forward over the plan period. The data collection and research analysis is described fully as part of Appendix III to this report.

2.6.5 In addition to our own research we have also considered information provided to DSP as part of our stakeholder consultation exercise. When viewing overall sales values patterns across the borough the following provides a summary of how values vary:

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 230 Figure 8: Resale Values Analysis by Settlement – Dec 2019 – June 2020 Average Price Average Sample SETTLEMENT Updated by Updated Size UK HPI £/M2 ASH GREEN £208,028 £2,130 9 BEDWORTH £178,700 £2,107 99 BULKINGTON £221,960 £2,479 14 KERESLEY £173,993 £1,925 8 NUNEATON £184,044 £2,161 293

2.6.6 The above data has also been considered by Ward as follows:

Figure 9: Resale Values Analysis by Ward – Dec 2019 – June 2020 Average Price Average Sample Updated by Updated WARD Size UK HPI £/M2 ABBEY £139,292 £1,742 41 ARBURY £177,408 £2,142 22 ATTLEBOROUGH £152,931 £1,988 25 BAR POOL £155,999 £2,046 36 BEDE £160,328 £1,913 15 BULKINGTON £221,960 £2,516 15 CAMP HILL £146,445 £1,878 26 EXHALL £181,621 £2,022 28 GALLEY COMMON £178,800 £2,333 28 HARTSHILL £85,406 £1,675 1 HEATH £192,573 £2,064 25 KINGSWOOD £171,198 £1,994 19 POPLAR £177,432 £2,186 30 SLOUGH £184,885 £2,283 18 ST. NICOLAS £259,151 £2,534 28 WEDDINGTON £238,953 £2,526 34 WEM BROOK £161,221 £1,732 13 WHITESTONE £262,148 £2,574 20

2.6.7 Although the general sales values picture provides a good overview for how the second-hand market operates across the borough in terms of differential sales values, it is new build development that drives the values needed to support a CIL and any variation by location. As has been noted through previous assessments and again seen through our current research and consultation, new build values across the borough do not vary hugely by location.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 231 2.6.8 Figure 10 below shows the average new build values by settlement (where available) and Figure 11 shows the data by Ward (also where available):

Figure 10: New Build Values Analysis by Settlement Average Sale Sample Settlement Price Updated Updated £/M2 Size by UK HPI Ash Green £195,976 £2,285 13 Bedworth £196,919 £2,727 15 Nuneaton £283,819 £2,705 772

Figure 11: New Build Values Analysis by Ward Average Sale Sample Ward Price Updated Updated £/M2 Size by UK HPI Camp Hill £176,227 £2,375 110 Exhall £195,976 £2,285 13 Galley Common £238,135 £2,654 69 Heath £292,264 £2,647 7 Poplar £113,492 £2,929 8 St. Nicolas £313,927 £2,770 277 Weddington £304,856 £2,733 316

2.6.9 It is clear that there is very little variation of new build values with values typically within the £2,700 to £2,900/m2 range. Two Wards shown in Figure 11 above are based on singe sites within those and could be considered outliers.

2.6.10 Information provided by the stakeholder consultation responses also reflects our own research. The following table was provided by one respondent and show a range of new build values between £2,378/m2 and £2,885/m2 the stakeholder commentary does however point out that the examples below “give a robust understanding into sales values throughout Nuneaton and Bedworth” and that “There appears to be no direct correlation between geographical location and values, with across the district values above £250psf are being achieved…Anomalies in the data (sales values below £250psf) are Barratt Homes Saxon Meadows, Cartwright Homes The Zu, and Owl Homes Windmill Heights. Saxon Meadows is a larger regeneration project which abuts onto council owned housing, the smallest unit size and avg £psf suggests this development was not sought after…Both The Zu and Windmill Heights have been developed by smaller local developers which we would expect to achieve lesser sales values than those PLC housebuilders achieve”. {DSP note: Check inclusion of quotes re sensitivities}

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 232

Figure 12: Site Specific New Build Values – January 2019 – January 2020

2.6.11 The above suggests minimum values of around £2,700/m2 are being achieved borough- wide and that there is very little difference in new build values regardless of location.

2.6.12 In order to provide analysis of the sensitivity of viability to the assumed sales values we have carried out testing across a range of value levels (VLs) between £2,400/m2 and £4,200/m2. Although the main, values are between £2,700/m2 and £2,900/m2, we have included testing either side of this range to capture either values variation over time or specific outliers to our assumed main range. Details are provided in Appendix I.

2.6.13 It should also be noted that house price data is highly dependent on specific timing in terms of the number and type of properties within the data-set for a given location at the point of gathering the information. Again, in some cases, small numbers of properties in particular data samples (limited house price information) can produce inconsistent results. This is not specific to Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough.

2.7 Scheme Revenue (Gross Development Value (GDV)) – Affordable Housing (AH) Revenue

2.7.1 In addition to the market housing, the development appraisals also assume a requirement for affordable housing (AH). Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council’s

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 233 current approach is to seek affordable housing from sites of 11 dwellings or more. Policy H2 of the adopted Borough Plan states: ‘The council will seek to negotiate 25 % affordable housing where residential development proposals consist of 15 dwellings or more, and for two units where residential development proposals consist of between 11 to 14 dwellings, irrespective of any demolitions’.

2.7.2 For the make-up of the affordable housing, we have assumed that approximately 76% is affordable rented tenure and 24% is ‘intermediate’ in the form of shared ownership whilst maintaining a minimum of 10% affordable home ownership within the overall affordable housing requirement as required by Paragraph 64 of the NPPF. The current tenure mix is based on advice provided in the Council’s Affordable Housing SPD.

2.7.3 In reality tenure will normally be decided based on an up to date Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) ensuring that properties meet local needs at the time of the application. In practice many tenure mix variations could be possible; as well as many differing rent levels derived from the affordable rented (AR) tenure approach - as affected by local markets and by affordability. The same applies to the intermediate (assumed shared ownership) affordable housing element in that the setting of the initial purchase share percentage, the rental level charged on the Registered Provider’s (RP’s - i.e. Housing Association or similar) retained equity and the interaction of these two would usually be scheme specific considerations.

2.7.4 For the on-site affordable housing, the revenue that is assumed to be received by a developer is based only on the capitalised value of the net rental stream (affordable rent) or capitalised net rental stream and capital value of retained equity (in the case of shared ownership tenure). Currently the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) expects affordable housing of either tenure on s.106 sites to be delivered with nil grant or equivalent subsidy input. At the very least this should be the starting assumption pending any review of viability and later funding support for specific scenarios / programmes. We have therefore made no allowance for grant or other public subsidy / equivalent.

2.7.5 The value of the affordable housing (level of revenue received for it by the developer) is variable by its very nature. This may be described as the ‘payment to developer’, ‘RP payment price’, ‘transfer payment’ or similar. These revenue assumptions were reviewed based on our extensive experience in dealing with affordable housing policy development and site-specific viability issues (including specific work on SPDs, affordable rents, financial contributions and other aspects for other authorities). The

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 234 affordable housing revenue assumptions were also underpinned by RP type financial appraisals – looking at the capitalised value of the estimated net rental flows (value of rental income after deduction for management and maintenance costs, voids allowances and the like).

2.7.6 The transfer values for the AR AH units assumed for the study are shown in Appendix I. We have also introduced a revenue level cap by assuming that the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) acts as an upper level above which rents will not be set – i.e. where the percentage of market rent exceeds the LHA rate.

2.7.7 In practice, as above, the affordable housing revenues generated would be dependent on property size and other factors including an RP’s own development strategies, and therefore could well vary significantly from case to case when looking at site specifics. The RP may have access to other sources of funding, such as related to its own business plan, external funding resources, cross-subsidy from sales / other tenure forms, recycled capital grant from stair-casing receipts, for example, but such additional funding cannot be regarded as the norm for the purposes of setting viability study assumptions – it is highly scheme dependent and variable and so has not been factored in here.

2.8 Gross Development Value – Commercial / Non-residential

2.8.1 The value (GDV) generated by a commercial or other non-residential scheme varies enormously by specific type of development and location. In order to consider the viability of various commercial development types, a range of assumptions are needed. Typically, these are made with regard to the rental values and yields that would drive the value of completed schemes within each commercial scheme appraisal. The strength of the relationship between the GDV and the development costs was then considered using the following methods:-

• For the main commercial scheme typologies under review, consistent with those reviewed in most of our strategic level viability assessments, residual valuation methodology - as per the principles applied to the residential typologies, or;

• A simpler method adopting a value vs cost comparison for other commercial typologies clearly indicating a poor relationship between the two - resulting in full appraisals being unnecessary e.g. for surgeries, community centres, and a range of

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 235 other development uses either typically provided by public agencies or generally non-commercially viable uses as stand-alone scenarios.

2.8.2 Broadly the commercial appraisals process follows that carried out for the residential scenarios, with a range of different information sources informing the values (revenue) related inputs. Data on yields and rental values (as far as available) was collated from a range of sources including (also see Appendix III for more detail):

• CoStar property intelligence database; • Valuation Office Agency (VOA); • Range of property and development industry publications, features and websites.

2.8.3 Figure 13 below shows the range of annual rental values assumed for each scheme typology. These were then capitalised based on associated yield assumptions to provide a GDV for each scheme dependent on the combination of yield and rental values applied.

Figure 13: Assumed rental value – key commercial typologies Value Range tested Development Use / Example Scheme Type - Annual Rents £ per sq. m Class Type Low (L) Mid (H) High (H) Large Supermarket - out of Large Retail £200 £225 £250 town Large Retail Retail Warehouse £100 £130 £160 Convenience/local Store - Small Retail £75 £100 £125 various locations Business - Offices - Town Office Building £125 £150 £175 Centre Business - Offices - Out of Office Building £140 £160 £180 town centre / Business Park Smaller / Move-on type Business - Industrial / industrial unit including £60 £80 £100 Warehousing offices - industrial estate Larger industrial / Business - Industrial / warehousing unit including £55 £65 £75 Warehousing offices - industrial estate B1, B2, B8 - Industrial / Storage & Distribution £80 £90 £100 Warehousing B8 - warehousing / Distribution unit £50 £90 £100 distribution Hotel - edge of town centre / £4,000 £5,000 £6,000 Hotel (budget)*** edge of town Annual Room Rents C2 - Residential Institution Care/Nursing Home £160 £180 £200

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 236 2.8.4 As above, the rental values were tested at three levels representative of low, medium/mid and high test values considered relevant to each commercial scheme type across the study area. This enables us to assess the sensitivity of the viability findings to varying value levels, much like the residential appraisals. These are necessarily estimates and based on an assumption of new build development.

2.8.5 The quality and quantum of available information in this regard varies considerably by development type. Again, we do not consider this to be a specific NBBC factor and it does not detract from the viability overview process that is appropriate for this type of study.

2.8.6 These varying rental levels were capitalised by applying yields of between 5% and 7% (varying dependent on scheme type). As with the level of rental value, varying the yields enabled the exploration of the sensitivity of results given that in practice a wide variety of rentals values and yields could be seen. This approach also means that it is possible to consider what changes would be needed to rents or yields to sufficiently improve the viability of non-viable schemes or, conversely, the degree to which viable scheme assumptions and results could potentially deteriorate whilst still supporting the collective costs, including CIL.

2.8.7 It is worth noting here that small variations in assumptions can have a significant impact on the GDV available to support the development costs (and thus the viability of a scheme) together with any potential CIL funding scope. We consider this very important bearing in mind the balance that must be found between the desirability of infrastructure funding needs and the potential effect on viability. Through our research into commercial values we consistently found lower rents representative of older stock and as such have taken a more positive view of commercial values to test the scope for CIL on various forms of non-residential development. This is particularly the case with industrial / employment sites in the borough. Retail values tend to be more robust. While it is relevant to assume new development and appropriate lease covenants etc. rather than older stock, using overly positive assumptions in the local context could act against finding that balance.

2.8.8 This approach enabled us to consider the sensitivity of results to changes in the capital value (GDV) of schemes and allowed us then to consider the most relevant results in determining the parameters for setting non-residential CIL rates for the study area, including any differential rates that could or should be considered by NBBC moving

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 237 ahead. As with other elements of the study, the adopted assumptions will not necessarily match scheme specifics and therefore we need to keep in mind whether and how frequently local scenarios are likely to indicate viable results (including as values vary). See further detail at Section 3.

2.9 Development Costs – General

2.9.1 Total development costs can vary significantly from one site or scheme to another. For these strategic overview purposes, however, these cost assumptions have to be fixed by typology to enable the comparison of results and outcomes in a way which is not unduly affected by how variable site-specific cases can be. Although the full set of cost assumptions adopted within the appraisals are set out in detail in Appendix I to this report, a summary of the key points is also set out below.

2.9.2 Each cost assumption is informed by data and supporting evidence from such sources as follows in accordance with relevant sections of the PPG:

• Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Building Cost Information Service (BCIS); • Locally available information as far as available following the stakeholder consultation process; • Other desktop-based research; • Professional experience.

2.9.3 For site typology testing, we have not allowed for abnormal costs that may be associated with particular sites - these are highly specific and can distort comparisons at this level of review. Where known, those have been applied to the strategic site allocations tests. Contingency allowances have however been made for all appraisals. This is another factor that should be kept in mind in setting policy and CIL charging rates and ensuring those are not set to the ‘limits’ of viability. In some circumstances and over time, overall costs could rise from current / assumed levels. The interaction between values and costs is important and whilst any costs rise may be accompanied by increased values from assumed levels, this cannot be relied upon.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 238 2.10 Development Costs – Build Costs

2.10.1 The base build cost level shown below is taken from the BCIS; an approach endorsed by the PPG guidance on Viability and considered to be ‘appropriate data’14 and rebased using a locally appropriate location factor. Costs assumed for each development type (e.g. houses, flats, mixed as well as non-residential etc.) are provided in Appendix I.

Figure 14: Base Build Cost Data (BCIS Median)

Base BCIS Development Type Build Cost (£/m2) Build Costs 'One-off' housing detached (3 units or £1,962 less) - generally (£/sq. m) Build Costs Mixed Developments - generally (£/sq. m)1 £1,133 Residential C3 Build Costs Estate Housing - generally (£/sq. m)1 £1,120 Build Costs Flats - generally (£/sq. m)1 £1,275 Build Costs (Supported Housing - Generally) (£/sq. m) £1,612 Large Retail Large Supermarket - out of town £1,316 Large Retail Retail Warehouse £748 Small Retail Convenience/local store - various locations £1,004 Business - Offices - Town Office Building £1,740 Centre Business - Offices - Out of town centre / Business Office Building £1,603 Park Business - Industrial / Smaller / Move-on type industrial unit including £1,070 Warehousing offices - industrial estate Business - Industrial / Larger industrial / warehousing unit including £731 Warehousing offices - industrial estate B1, B2, B8 - Industrial / Storage & Distribution £731 Warehousing B8 - warehousing / Distribution unit £731 distribution

Hotel (budget) Hotel - edge of town centre / edge of town £1,871

C2 - Residential Institution Nursing Home £1,603

*the above costs exclude external works and contingencies (these are added to the above base build costs).

2.10.2 BCIS build costs do not include external works/site costs, contingencies or professional fees (all added separately). An allowance for plot and site works has been allowed for on a variable basis depending on scheme type (typically between 5% and 20% of base

14 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability (Paragraph 012 Reference ID: 10-012-20180724 Revision date: 24 07 2018

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 239 build cost). These are based on a range of information sources and cost models and generally not pitched at minimum levels so as to ensure sufficient allowance for the potentially variable nature of these works. Specifically, site works and infrastructure costs of £300,000/ha have been assumed for the range of site typologies tested with more specific, higher allowances assumed for large scale greenfield development including for some of the specific strategic site allocations tested. These are based on a mixture of consultation feedback and experience as well as by reference to guidance in documents such as the Harman report15.

2.10.3 For this broad test of viability, it is not possible to test all potential variations to additional costs. There will always been a range of data and opinions on and methods of describing, build costs. In our view, we have made reasonable assumptions in accordance with relevant guidance which lie within the range of figures we generally see for typical new build schemes (rather than high specification/complex schemes that may require particular construction techniques or materials). As with many aspects of viability assessment, there is no single appropriate figure in reality, so judgements on these assumptions (as with others) are necessary. It is important to note that as with any appraisal input, in practice this will be highly site specific.

2.10.4 In the same way that we have mentioned the potential to see increased costs in some cases, it is just as likely that we could also see cases where base costs, externals costs or other elements will be lower than those assumed. Once again, in accordance with considering balance and the prospect of scheme specifics varying in practice, we aim to pitch assumptions which are appropriate and realistic through not looking as favourably as possible (for viability) at all assumptions areas.

2.10.5 An allowance of 5% of build cost has also been added in all cases (residential and commercial typologies) to cover contingencies (i.e. unforeseen variations in build costs compared with appraisal or initial stage estimates) and 10% to cover professional and related fees. These are relatively standard allowances in our experience, although we do see some assumptions at lower levels.

2.10.6 It is important to note that the interaction of costs and values levels will need to be considered again at future reviews of CIL (or the Local Plan) as base build cost levels typically vary over time. Appendix III includes some information on build cost trends,

15 Local Housing Delivery Group: Viability Testing Local Plans – Advice for planning practitioners (June 2012)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 240 as viewed currently; particularly referring to the current coronavirus pandemic and the potential impacts of that on the development industry.

2.10.7 At this stage we also cannot be sure how the UK’s decision to leave the European Union will play out in either the short or longer term on the economy, and potentially affecting development viability. The influences on the property market from the perspective of sales values and rates of sales seem likely to be at least as great as those on construction works and build costs. Equally, the current coronavirus crisis may have short term impacts on development activity, markets and overall viability. Savills16 anticipate a 7.5% fall in house prices in the short term over the remainder of 2020, but transactions returning to normal by 3rd quarter 2021 and values increasing by 2% in 2021 followed by forecasts of 10%, 7% and 6.3% in 2022, 2023 and 2024 respectively leading to an 18.3% increase in values over 5 years in the West Midlands. Savills also note that land values appear to be holding up, however there are concerns that housebuilders will hold back on construction if they are concerned about the ability to sell properties in this period of uncertainty. Housebuilding sites have reopened, and initial indications are that the fall in delivery may be less drastic than previously feared. Anecdotal evidence from our local authority clients indicates that there has been a small drop in planning applications being submitted but applications continue to come in at a similar rate to normal.

2.11 Development Costs – Fees, Finance & Profit (Residential)

2.11.1 The following costs have been assumed for the purposes of this study alongside those discussed above and vary slightly depending on the scale and type of development (residential or commercial). Other key development cost allowances for residential scenarios are as follows - for the purposes of this assessment only (Note: Appendix I also provides a summary):

16 ‘Spotlight: Revisions to our mainstream residential market forecasts’ – Savills, July 2020

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 241 Figure 15: Residential Development Costs – Fees, Finance & Profit Residential Development Costs - Fees, Finance & Cost Allowance Profit Professional & Other Fees 10% of build cost 1.5% Agent's fees

Site Acquisition Fees 0.75% Legal Fees Standard rate (HMRC scale) for Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) 6.5% p.a. interest rate (assumes scheme is Finance debt funded and includes all ancillary fees) 3% of GDV sales agent & marketing fees Marketing Costs £750/unit legal fees Open Market Housing – based on range described in PPG of 15% - 20% of GDV Developer Profit (17.5% assumed within testing) Affordable Housing - 6% GDV (affordable housing revenue)

Figure 16: Commercial Development Costs – Fees, Finance & Profit Commercial Development Costs - Fees, Finance & Cost Allowance Profit Sustainability Allowance 5% of build cost Professional & Other Fees 10% of build cost Variable applicability, sensitivity tested Yields across range at 5% to 8%. 1.5% Agent's fees 0.75% Legal Fees Site Acquisition Fees Standard rate (HMRC scale) for Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) 6.5% (including over lead-in and Finance letting/sales period) Arrangement/other fees at 2% of cost 1% Advertising / Other costs (% of annual Marketing / Other Costs income) (Cost allowances - scheme 10% letting / management / other fees (% circumstances will vary) of assumed annual rental income) 5.75% purchasers' costs - where applicable Developer Profit 15% of GDV

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 242 2.12 Build Period

2.12.1 The build period assumed for each development scenario has been based on BCIS data utilising the Construction Duration calculator by entering the scheme typology details modelled in this study. This has then been sense checked against our professional experience and informed by site-specific examples where available. The build periods provided in Appendix I exclude lead-in times which have been assumed at 6 months and extended sales periods which have also been allowed for on a variable basis according to scheme type and size, having the effect of increasing the periods over which finance costs are applied – see Appendix I for detail.

2.12.2 The specific strategic site allocations testing has bespoke assumptions applied in connection with timings/phasing based on information provided by the Council and DSP experience, which will be discussed further below.

2.13 Key Policy Areas for Testing – Summary

2.13.1 A number of the Council’s policies both in the Borough Plan and SPD as well as national policies and infrastructure costs have an impact on development viability, both directly and indirectly. The direct impacts are those policies which ultimately result in a specific fixed cost assumption within the appraisal modelling e.g. AH policy.

• Policy H2 – affordable housing: requirement for 2 affordable units on sites of 11- 14 dwellings and 25% affordable housing on sites of 15 units or more. Tenure mix as set out in the latest SHMA or SPD. Full account has been taken of the affordable housing requirements in running this assessment as described earlier in this report.

• Policy NE2 – open space requirements: our appraisal modelling has assumed OS to be funded via CIL and wider s106 obligations. Alongside this, we have also included a general land area adjustment of 15% for site typology testing, accounting for an element of additional physical space requirements as part of the development site. Strategic site allocations assume all land (gross) is purchased at benchmark land value to include open space.

• Policy NE3 & BE3

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 243 o Sustainable design & construction – we have assumed an overall allowance of 2% which we consider covers the requirements of Policy BE3 and also consider covers the requirement for biodiversity off-setting as described in Policy NE3.

o Enhanced accessibility ‘Access to and use of Buildings’ - 35% of units to be built to M4(2) 'Accessible and adaptable dwellings' - Cost of achieving this requirement (extra-over cost) assumed on a per unit basis at £1,646 (Flats) and £2,447 (Houses) based on the EC Harris DCLG Housing Standards Review Cost Impact.

2.14 Planning Obligations

2.14.1 It was considered that a great majority of existing planning obligation requirements are likely to be taken up within the CIL proposals if adopted, but nevertheless sites are still required to contribute to site-specific mitigation measures (for example open space / highways / transport and similar requirements). The appraisals therefore include an additional notional sum of £1,000 per dwelling (for all dwellings – including affordable - and all schemes) on this aspect purely for the purposes of this study and in the context of seeking to allow for a range of potential scenarios and requirements – effectively as an additional contingency in respect of any residual s.106 requirements.

2.14.2 For the strategic site allocations, the s106 requirements are based on likely contributions identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (February 2019) from known infrastructure costs. For this study, the figures provided within the DAC Planning report 17have been utilised. A table of assumed costs per unit are shown below. Note that not all the sites are included within this assessment as a number of allocations and sites within the allocations already have either been granted planning consent, are under construction or have completed.

17 DAC Planning: NBBC CIL Draft Charging Schedule Preliminary Report (March 2020)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 244 Figure 17: Average Cost per Unit – s106 Contributions Strategic Site Allocations

2.14.3 Should any updated information on the above (Fig. 17) become available during the course of this assessment work, then it would be possible to revisit the tested sites to refresh the relevant inputs and to pick up on the associated findings.

2.14.4 For the strategic site allocations, appraisals were run based on scenario testing with a fixed land value input to allow a surplus to be generated after all other development costs had been accounted for. That sum could then be expressed as a potential maximum sum available for CIL.

2.15 Indicative land value comparisons and related discussion

2.15.1 In order to consider the likely viability of any development scheme, the results of the appraisal modelling (the residual land value results when viewed in £/ha terms) need to be measured against an appropriate level of benchmark land value. This enables the review of the strength of the results as those change across the range of Value Levels, trial CIL rates.

2.15.2 The process of comparison with land values is, as with much of strategic level viability assessment, not an exact science. It involves judgements and well-established

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 245 acknowledgements that, as with other appraisal aspects, the values associated with the land will, in practice, vary from scheme to scheme.

2.15.3 Land value in any given situation should reflect the specifics of existing use, planning status (including any necessary works, costs and obligations), site conditions and constraints. It follows that the planning policies and obligations, including any site specific s106 requirements, will also have a bearing on land value. Where an implementable planning consent forms a suitable basis for an alternative use value (AUV) based approach, that could be in place of the primary approach to considering site value (benchmark land value – BLV), which is now always “EUV plus” (existing use value plus) consistent with the updated PPG on Viability.

2.15.4 The levels of land value selected in this context are known as ‘benchmark land values’ (BLVs). They are not fixed in terms of creating definite cut-offs or steps in viability but, in our experience, they serve well by adding a filter to the results as part of the review. BLVs help to highlight the changing strength of relationship between the values (scheme revenue (GDV)) and development costs as the appraisal inputs (assumptions) change.

2.15.5 As noted above, the recently updated PPG on viability is now very clear that BLVs should be based on the principle of existing use value plus a premium to incentivise the release of the site for development.

2.15.6 As part of our results analysis, we have compared the wide scope of appraisal RLVs with a range of potential BLVs used as ‘Viability Tests’, based on the principles of ‘existing use value plus’ (EUV+). The coloured shading within the results tables (Appendix II) provides a graded effect intended only to show the general change in results from most positive (boldest green coloured) to likely non-viability scenarios (least positive), where the RLVs show no surplus or a deficit against the BLVs.

2.15.7 The land value comparison levels (BLVs) are not fixed and are not substitutes for use on scheme specifics where in time more detailed knowledge of the sites, constraints and characteristics may be known – no study of this nature can consider individual sites in that level of detail; they are purely for this assessment purpose. Schemes will obviously come forward based on very site specific circumstances, including in some cases on sites with appropriately judged land values beneath those assumed for this purpose.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 246

2.15.8 As part of the process of developing appropriately robust BLVs, we have reviewed the available evidence, including previous viability studies (as well as those conducted for neighbouring/nearby Authorities) both at a strategic level as well as site-specific viability assessments. In addition, we have also had regard to the published Government sources on land values for policy appraisal18 providing industrial, office, residential and agricultural land value estimates for locations across the country - including Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough.

2.15.9 It should be noted that the MHCLG residential land value estimates require adjustment for the purposes of strategic viability testing due to the fact that a different assumptions basis is used in our study compared to the truncated valuation model used by the MHCLG. This study assumes all development costs are accounted for as inputs to the RLV appraisal, rather than those being reflected within a much higher “serviced” i.e. “ready to develop” level of land value.

2.15.10 The MHCLG model provides a much higher level of land value for ‘residential land’ as it assumes the following:-

• All land and planning related costs are discharged; • Nil affordable housing requirement – whereas in practice the requirement for AH can impact land value by around 50% on a 0.5ha site with 35% AH. • Nil CIL; • No allowance for other planning obligations; • Full planning consent is in place – the risk associated with obtaining consent can equate to as much as a 75% deduction when adjusting a consented site value to an unconsented land value starting point; • Lower quartile build costs; • 17% developer’s profit.

2.15.11 The above are additional assumptions that lead to a view of land value well above that used for comparison (benchmarking purposes) in viability assessments. Overall the approach taken in this assessment (as relates to all land values) assumes all deductions from the GDV are covered by the development costs applied within the appraisals. In our view this would lead to a significantly reduced residential land value benchmark when taking into account all of the above factors.

18 MHCLG: Land value estimates for policy appraisal 2017 (May 2018 report issue)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 247

2.15.12 The indicative comparisons of our residual land value results to the range of benchmark land values are set out in Appendices IIa and IIb (residential and commercial results overview tables). These range between £250,000/ha and £1,250,000/ha plus, enabling us to view where the RLVs fall in relation to those levels and to the overall range between them. Typically, we would expect to apply an EUV+ based land value benchmark at approximately £250,000/ha for greenfield land for based on a circa 10 - 12 times uplift factor (the “plus” element) from the EUV for agricultural land. The BLVs range above that, from £500,000/ha to £1,250,000/ha, is representative of previously developed land (PDL) i.e. ‘brownfield’ land. Although some sites in most areas could be in existing residential use, underpinning relatively high BLVs, the mid to upper end of that range is most likely to be relevant in some of the main settlement areas with higher existing use values.

2.15.13 At this point, it is also important to consider the wider context of the types of sites that are planned to come forward over the plan period, as above. Taking into account the overall picture of delivery in terms of site type and planned locations, we consider the key BLVs for reviewing the results range from Viability Tests 2 to 3 at £500,000/ha to £1,000,000/ha (for PDL scenarios) and around £250,000/ha (greenfield land).

2.15.14 Overall, we consider the BLV range noted above is appropriate and corresponds with the future planned site supply context as part of the Borough Plan. Figure 18 below shows, with some explanatory notes, the range of selected BLVs which have been used as ‘viability tests’ (filters).

Figure 18: Range of BLVs (‘Viability Tests’) EUV+ £/ha Notes £250,000 Greenfield Enhancement £500,000 Greenfield Enhancement (Upper) £750,000 Low-grade industrial/commercial OOT land values. £1,000,000 Industrial Upper / Commercial CBD (includes a 20% uplift). £1,250,000 Upper PDL / Residential land values

2.15.15 It is important to note that all RLV results indicate the potential receipt level available to a landowner after allowing, within the appraisal modelling, for all development costs (as discussed earlier). This is to ensure no potential overlapping/double-counting of development costs that might flow from assuming land values at levels associated with serviced/ready for development land, with planning permission etc. The RLVs and the indicative comparison levels (BLVs) represent a “raw material” view of land value,

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 248 with all development costs falling to the prospective developer (usually the site purchaser).

2.15.16 Matters such as realistic site selection for the particular proposals, allied to realistic landowner’s expectations on site value will continue to be vitally important. Site value needs to be proportionate to the realistic development scope and site constraints, ensuring that the available headroom for supporting necessary planning obligations (securing AH and other provision) is not overly squeezed beneath the levels that should be achieved.

2.15.17 The PPG19 states the following:-

‘To define land value for any viability assessment, a benchmark land value should be established on the basis of the existing use value (EUV) of the land, plus a premium for the landowner. The premium for the landowner should reflect the minimum return at which it is considered a reasonable landowner would be willing to sell their land. The premium should provide a reasonable incentive, in comparison with other options available, for the landowner to sell land for development while allowing a sufficient contribution to comply with policy requirements. This approach is often called ‘existing use value plus’ (EUV+)…

Benchmark land value should: • be based upon existing use value • allow for a premium to landowners (including equity resulting from those building their own homes) • reflect the implications of abnormal costs; site-specific infrastructure costs; and professional site fees

Viability assessments should be undertaken using benchmark land values derived in accordance with this guidance. Existing use value should be informed by market evidence of current uses, costs and values. Market evidence can also be used as a cross- check of benchmark land value but should not be used in place of benchmark land value. There may be a divergence between benchmark land values and market evidence; and plan makers should be aware that this could be due to different

19 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability#standardised-inputs-to-viability-assessment Paragraph: 014 Reference ID: 10-014-20190509 Revision date: 09 05 2019

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 249 assumptions and methodologies used by individual developers, site promoters and landowners.

This evidence should be based on developments which are fully compliant with emerging or up to date plan policies, including affordable housing requirements at the relevant levels set out in the plan. Where this evidence is not available plan makers and applicants should identify and evidence any adjustments to reflect the cost of policy compliance. This is so that historic benchmark land values of non-policy compliant developments are not used to inflate values over time.

In plan making, the landowner premium should be tested and balanced against emerging policies. In decision making, the cost implications of all relevant policy requirements, including planning obligations and, where relevant, any Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge should be taken into account.

Where viability assessment is used to inform decision making under no circumstances will the price paid for land be a relevant justification for failing to accord with relevant policies in the plan. Local authorities can request data on the price paid for land (or the price expected to be paid through an option or promotion agreement).’

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 250 3 Findings Review

3.1 General context for results review

3.1.1 The following report sections consider the 3 groups of appraisal results carried out across this new CIL viability assessment (2020):

1. Residential scheme typologies – Tests up to 100 dwellings. (Results set out at Appendix IIa)

2. Strategic allocation sites. (Results tabled at Appendix IIb)

3. Typology based tests of commercial/non-residential developments. (Results included at Appendix IIc)

3.1.2 The results presented each have an appraisal behind them, based on the approach and assumptions set out above and in Appendix I.

3.1.3 As with this further assessment process as a whole, as well as looking afresh at CIL viability, the review revisits and builds on the previous suite of viability work by DSP (Assessment 2014, Update 2016 and further information in support of the Local Plan Examination 2019 - appropriate available evidence, supported through the development processes of the adopted recently Local Plan (LP) – June 2019).

3.1.4 The iterative approach of testing the influence of trial CIL charging rates (at £20/sq. m steps from £0/sq. m (nil-CIL) to £200/sq. m) covers the range within which the previous assessment work as well as our experience of CIL viability shows suitable CIL charges for Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough would fall.

3.1.5 This also provides scope for reviewing the outcomes based on any appropriate interpolation between the applied trial CIL rate steps, or as may be relevant between the tested VLs, should such a further fine-grained review or the consideration of alternatives become relevant. However, we note that in looking to get to that level of apparent accuracy, the appropriate strategic overview nature of a CIL and the setting of the levy rate or rates in the context of the LP as a whole also needs to be kept in mind. Although charged at an individual development level, CIL is a borough-wide

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 251 response and support mechanism to the LP delivery. This means that even with a differential or highly differential approach to the charging schedule that ultimately goes forward, it is very unlikely that all variables encountered in practice would be reflected. The setting of suitable CIL charging rates always involves weighing up the range of information, the making of judgments and ultimately an overview. This is all consistent with the CIL guidance (within the PPG, as noted earlier).

3.1.6 Reflecting the nature of a CIL, the guidance notes that there is some room for pragmatism and furthermore that the selected approach does not need to exactly mirror the viability guidance – the prospective charging authority will need to be able to show how its evidence has informed the selected approach.

3.1.7 On pursuing a CIL, NBBC, as the prospective charging authority in this case, will need to show how an appropriate balance has been struck - between the desirability of funding infrastructure (to support the Local Plan growth) and the potential effects on the viability of the sites that are relevant to that.

3.1.8 Following the LP adoption, this is all consistent with the Council’s brief to now look again and closely review the scope for developments in the borough to support CIL, from the full range of circumstances.

3.1.9 This has involved both a new review and consideration of the previous findings on the scope to support CIL. The Council wishes to consider, appropriately, whether its 2015 Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) approach now needs revisiting, informed by this further viability assessment; or whether this very latest work shows that those previous or similar CIL charging proposals remain relevant based on the latest available information and assumptions.

3.1.10 The October 2015 CIL PDCS, informed by DSP’s base assessment findings (as were carried through to the 2016 update) proposed the following (see Figure 19 below):

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 252 Figure 19 – CIL PDCS charging rates proposals (Source NBBC 2015):

3.1.11 First on review of our new results, we consider residential development. In common with other similar projects, this is the main assessment focus here, owing to the importance of new housing delivery to the borough and its new LP; and also because this is the area in LP and indeed national policy has by far the most influence on development viability (most significantly in relation to affordable housing). The same cannot be said of a Council’s scope and level of influence over the viability of commercial/non-residential development; that is much more limited.

3.1.12 Secondly, invariably the scale of residential development (quantum of new accommodation to come forward) is such that the source of CIL income is going to be largely weighted towards residential. This will be the case in this borough.

3.1.13 Although with the new LP in place the policies are set, as per the earlier assessment work it is worth reiterating that the setting of the affordable housing (AH) policy at an appropriate 25% here still draws significantly on the available development driven funds. AH has by far the largest single policy cost impact – far greater than that from other policies, because the affordable homes cost approximately the same to build as the market sale ones but support a much lower level of revenue. CIL costs have a much lower impact on viability but nevertheless now need to be considered as an addition to the cumulative effect of the development and policy costs.

3.1.14 A CIL takes a fixed, non-negotiable sum from the development revenue, and is a first call on that – needs to be viewed as a top-slice. Therefore, added to the development and policy costs, care must be taken not to set the rates at levels that would mean adding too much pressure and a reliance on the margins of viability. Similarly, charging rates that are set too high could in some circumstances have a negative impact on the ability of schemes to support the policies on AH and other planning objectives.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 253

3.1.15 Consistent with supporting the growth associated with the up to date Local Plan, and not related to any other existing deficits in infrastructure provision, if implemented CIL will be a high-level borough-wide response and contributor. It is not possible for CIL to reflect and respond to all levels of local variation in values in other matters. How it overlays with the planned site supply is most important, even if that means some level of misfit in areas not supplying a significant level of development in the overall planned terms. The CIL principles are such that the charging schedule should ideally be as simple as possible, accepting that usually values and other characteristics do not actually respect any particular boundaries, in more than the sense of general location. All sites are different - varying characteristics and values will be seen between sites in practice, and often even within them in some cases.

3.1.16 Also included below is a grid (see Figure 20) showing the range of trial residential CIL charging rate tests when expressed as a percentages of sales values i.e. trial CIL rate as a proportion of GDV. DSP has used this sort of guide as background information for clients it advises on CIL viability.

3.1.17 This additional information does not represent additional viability testing, but in our view may be useful in purely a general health-check type way as a further aid to help make sure that CIL charging rates are not set too high. DSP’s view over 10 years now of CIL viability assessment and rates setting experience has been that, as a guide, realistic CIL charging rates should not exceed a range approximately 3% GDV to 5% GDV (maximum). In our experience CIL rates equivalent to closer to 2-3% GDV have generally proved workable. The earlier PDCS residential rate of £50/sq. m can be seen to at the lower end this secondary guide range. On the other hand, this also indicates that subject to the viability testing, we would probably not expect to see a residential CIL charging rate or rates in the Nuneaton & Bedworth context at more than around £100/sq. m. (i.e. going into the yellow to orange shaded areas of the grid below (to illustrate this guide). This may be useful as a further broad measure in considering the current viability findings, as discussed and then summarised below.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 254 Figure 20 – Rates setting context - Trial residential CIL charging rates as %GDV

GDV i.e. Sales value assumption – NBBC Value Levels (VLs) range - £/sq. m DSP VL1 VL2 VL3 VL4 VL5 VL6 VL7 VL8 VL9 VL10 VL11 2020 Trial CIL Rate £2,400 £2,500 £2,600 £2,700 £2,800 £2,900 £3,000 £3,200 £3,400 £3,800 £4,200 £/sq. m ↓ 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20 0.83% 0.80% 0.77% 0.74% 0.71% 0.69% 0.67% 0.63% 0.59% 0.53% 0.48% 40 1.67% 1.60% 1.54% 1.48% 1.43% 1.38% 1.33% 1.25% 1.18% 1.05% 0.95% 60 2.50% 2.40% 2.31% 2.22% 2.14% 2.17% 2.00% 1.88% 1.76% 1.58% 1.43% 80 3.33% 3.20% 3.08% 2.96% 2.86% 2.76% 2.67% 2.50% 2.35% 2.11% 1.90% 100 4.17% 4.00% 3.85% 3.70% 3.57% 3.45% 3.33% 3.13% 2.94% 2.63% 2.38% 120 5.00% 4.80% 4.62% 4.44% 4.29% 4.14% 4.00% 3.75% 3.53% 3.16% 2.86% 140 5.83% 5.60% 5.38% 5.19% 5.00% 4.83% 4.67% 4.38% 4.12% 3.68% 3.33% 160 6.67% 6.40% 6.15% 5.93% 5.71% 5.52% 5.33% 5.00% 4.71% 4.21% 3.81% 180 7.50% 7.20% 6.92% 6.67% 6.43% 6.21% 6.00% 5.63% 5.29% 4.74% 4.29% 200 8.33% 8.00% 7.69% 7.41% 7.14% 6.90% 6.67% 6.25% 5.88% 5.26% 4.76%

3.1.18 Sample appraisal summaries are included as a second part to Appendices IIa to IIc. The appraisals are typically too numerous to include all summaries. The aim of including these is to further illustrate the structure of the residual calculations, and a summary of their content. The summaries follow a mainly standard format, as generated by the appraisal software.

3.1.19 The findings considered here relate to the information provided in each of the results appendices, with the results grouped according to the distinct sets of appraisal types completed as per 3.1.1 above:

1. Residential scheme typologies – Tests up to 100 dwellings. Results set out at Appendix IIa. This wide testing range applied across the range of tested value levels (VLs), all undertaken to include the adopted 25% AH (at 11+ dwellings) and reflecting all other Local Plan policies as discussed above, reviews the effect on the residual value outcomes of adding-in the cost of CIL to the cumulative effect of the development and policy costs that are in place.

Appendix IIa (Tables 1a to 1h) - appraisal RLV results from the general residential test typologies (as per Figure 3 above). For each typology the upper (non-shaded) table section shows the RLVs (£s) and in the lower section the

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 255 RLVs (£/Ha) overlaid with colour shading linked to the BLVs (as ‘viability tests’ that are met by each RLV £/ha result).

The boldness of the green colouring highlights the trends within the results and shows increasing confidence in these as viability is maintained while a wider range of BLVs are met. The RLVs and therefore the strength of the viability outcomes is seen to increase and meet higher BLVs with increasing value level (VL) assumed, and to reduce gradually with each increase in the trial CIL rate applied.

2. Strategic allocation sites. Results tabled at Appendix IIb. Ranging between 196 and 1,640 dwellings, the 6 no. LP strategic site allocations have been tested to including NBBC’s latest available estimates of the site-specific s.106 costs, with a starting review position of nil (£0/sq. m) CIL as an input. The latter follows on from our previous indications on the likely CIL scope for such sites. This is also consistent with most experience of CIL as applies to genuinely strategic sites but adopted here as an test initial position. According to latest information 5 of these sites have not been progressed through planning (HSG2, HSG4, HSG5, HSG7, HSG8) and HSG10 (Attleborough Fields) now has planning approval.

This then allows us to consider more closely whether in fact the latest appraisals point to any positive charging scope on such sites being a possibility or clearly evidenced – by reviewing any potentially available surpluses after making all other appropriate development and policy cost allowances. This is consistent with the study aims and Council’s need to strike an appropriate balance in the local circumstances – as above.

The 2015 PDCS proposed to charge £50/sq. m CIL on strategic sites where less than 298 dwellings were proposed, as per the prevailing residential CIL charging rate that was then being considered. A nil rate (£0/sq. m) would have been applied to residential development at a larger scale.

Appendix IIb (Tables 2a – 2f) – after displaying key assumptions on the scenario tested, including the assumed infrastructure costs included, this shows for each site with a base nil CIL (£0/sq. m) assumption the estimated potential deficit/surplus outcome. As above, these appraisals include a fixed land cost

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 256 input at a rate £250,000/ha applied across the gross (whole) site area in each case, and thus also account for the finance costs etc. associated with that.

Development profit is allowed for at 17.5% on the GDV (i.e. mid-range figure with reference to the PPG on ‘Viability’) for the private sale homes; and 6% GDV of the affordable homes, which appropriately reflects the expected delivery mode and therefore a constructor’s type profit approach rather than a market delivery level of risk.

The total indicative surplus/deficit sums are shown in the upper section of each table, with the equivalent in £/dwelling surplus/deficit from each scenario test shown in the lower table section for each of the sites tested.

These are after allowing for the following NBBC supplied March 2020 estimates of the likely dwelling numbers and s.106 cost totals:

HSG2 Arbury - 1,640 dwellings s.106 @ £6,579,625 HSG4 Woodlands - 689 dwellings s.106 @ £7,238,210 HSG5 Hospital Lane - 398 dwellings s.106 @ £2,620.876 HSG7 Land E of Bulkington - 196 dwellings s.106 @ £2,857,768 HSG8 Land W of Bulkington - 495 dwellings s.106 @ £3,916,788 HSG10 Attleborough Fields - 360 dwellings s.106 @ £3,165,080

Overall, this means s.106 estimate allowances made across a wide range c. £4,012/dwelling (at HSG2) to £10,505/dwelling (HSG4) and the highest current allowance equivalent to £14,580/dwelling (at HSG7).

After making these s.106 allowances and taking account of the other stated assumptions, the green shaded results (areas of each table) are indicating surplus outcomes

On this basis, the pink/red shaded areas of these results are showing scenarios /sensitivity tests where deficits (financial shortfalls) are reported.

The Argus Developer appraisal software has been used to run the range of sensitivity tests shown in Tables 2a – 2f. In each case, the result we regard as the base outcome is that shown in bold at the centre of each grid - at VL4

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 257 (assumed market sales at £2,700/sq. m and reflecting the review of values as above and see Appendices I and III) with an zero (no) adjustment to the construction cost rate assumed. The sensitivities indicate how the surplus of deficit outcome alters as the construction cost rate moved in 2.5% increments, up or down – at each value level (VL). The reported surplus indications are seen to increase as the VL increases and/or construction cost reduces (more green shaded results) and likewise the indicative deficits grow larger (suggesting increasing viability gaps) with reducing VL and/or increasing construction cost.

3. Typology based tests of commercial/non-residential developments. Results included at Appendix IIc. Undertaken across a range of rental value and investment yield assumptions, tested across the same wide range of trial CIL charging rates – £0 – 200/sq. m at £20/sq. m increments again.

Appendix IIc (Tables 3a to 3e) - commercial development tests results, equivalent to Appendix IIa in general format.

The range of scenario tests are shown top to bottom - by development use type.

The £RLV results are seen on the left side of each table, with the part green shaded sections to the right being those same results expressed in RLV £/Ha and filtered against the range of BLVs.

Each one of those has been tested at 3 trial value i.e. rent levels (L- lower, M- mid/medium and H - higher) simply to explore the sensitivity of the RLV outcomes to that assumption varying in combination with a yield % test ranging from most positive (at 5% - Table 3a) to least positive for the study purposes (at 7% - Table 3e RLV indications).

The table formatting again uses the varying boldness of green shading to illustrate the changing strength of results according to the assumptions combination used, when compared the BLVs (as ‘viability tests’ again) – principles and approach as per the residential sets at Appendix IIa. The results deteriorate from the most positive set overall, Table 3a, which shows the 5% yield tests through to those in Table 3e based on a 7% yield, and

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 258 therefore a range of capitalisation rates (adjusted annual rent x20 at 5% yield, compared with x14.3 at a 7% yield).

As expected, they are also seen to reduce gradually with increasing trial CIL rate increment (moving left to right). However, the results are seen to step up as increasing annual rental assumptions are used, and particularly in the case of the more positive, lower yield % tests.

It can be seen that the viable scenarios range reduces very significantly by the time we use a 7% test yield to inform the capitalisation of the assumed rental values – across L, M and H levels as above.

This deterioration in results with increasing yield % reflects a progressively less positive view in relation to the capitalisation rate applied to the rental assumptions, indicating a less secure, higher risk income stream assumed for the commercial property investor as the yield % increases.

Further results review context – commercial/non-residential development and CIL

3.1.20 After considering the residential findings and potential implications/recommendations (including for the strategic sites), we will go on to round up our review of the likely variable viability of commercial development across the study area.

3.1.21 The approach to this aspect is consistent with the typical scope required in our experience, and with assumptions informed by our research and experience, so as to be representative of local circumstances – again, based on a high-level overview approach rather than site-specific level detail.

3.1.22 As will be seen, using assumptions appropriate for the assessment purpose and ensuring no reliance on pushing to the margins of viability in order to support CIL charging, this proportional approach requires only a much smaller number of appraisals for the commercial typologies testing. These were developed as sets to the point where viability in each case falls away to a ‘negative RLV’ –as shown in the Appendix IIc tables - i.e. indicated non-viability positions based on the assumptions used for the study purpose. Once a very low, nil or negative outcome is reached it is not necessary to explore further to develop the understanding of where the clear scope for positive CIL charging lies.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 259

3.1.23 Unlike in the case of residential development (and in particular the role in setting policy as affects affordable housing impacts), there is little scope for a Council (whether NB BC or any another authority) to influence the viability of commercial and non- residential development provided its approach does not add, through unnecessary policy, to the development costs usually associated with such development. The latter is not considered to be the case with the Local Plan now firm, having been adopted last year shortly after the examination ended.

3.1.24 DSP also has considerable wider experience of commercial and non-residential development viability in the context of considering CIL setting.

3.1.25 As with residential, the strength of the market and therefore of the strength of relationship between development values and costs is key; the most significant factor. However, there are considered to be no significant instances of NBBC local policy influence that will have a direct development cost and therefore a clear negative viability impact compared with a typical approach that we see.

3.1.26 Using the range of test assumptions, for those potential development uses that currently appear unable to support any clear or significant level of CIL charging, it is possible to consider the extent to which more positive assumptions are required (and to which those may or may not be realistic in the short term - next few years, as are likely to be applicable to a first CIL charging schedule).

3.1.27 Consideration of this type of thinking extends to a wide range of potential development uses, within an “all other development uses” type approach as was effectively proposed in the 2015 PDCS and is a common element of most charging schedules.

3.1.28 As part of considering the overall balance (between the desirability of funding infrastructure and the ability of developments to continue to come forward viably), it is possible that a low (essentially nominal rate) could be considered across a range of development types in approach similar to that of the London Mayoral CIL. There is some other experience of this type of strategy aimed at securing a modest additional level of infrastructure funding, including at charging authorities advised by DSP on viability, albeit in a higher value area. However, this relies on the need for infrastructure, the principles of spreading the burden at a low-level and the balance to be struck. Considering such an approach contrary to the main viability evidence means

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 260 that rather than relying on this, it is likely to involve the principle of accepting a small negative influence on viability but at a level unlikely to halt a scheme progressing (minimal cost and effect of a low CIL charge). As is the case in considering the implantation of CIL generally, the administrative costs and other aspects would need to be considered too.

3.1.29 We have taken the view that overall the same range of comparison/benchmark land values (as used for the other study elements) are applicable. In most cases, broadly it is considered that meeting or exceeding the £750,000 – £1.25m/Ha BLV tests should prove sufficient. In the case of larger format retail and town centre development it is anticipated that higher land values potentially exceeding the higher commercial land BLV at £1.25m/Ha equivalent could sometimes be justified and need to be met.

3.1.30 On the other hand, commercial/non-residential proposals could also come forward on land in lower value or relatively low value existing uses – e.g. lower value redundant commercial sites and on greenfield where part of larger scale/strategic development.

3.1.31 As with all results (appraisal RLV indications) and the reporting around them, many of the results for the relevant more valuable development types do indicate that higher land values could be or could need to be supported.

3.1.32 Our round-up of findings for the commercial/non-residential scenarios is included in later sections below, following the further residential findings commentary that we set out next.

3.2 FINDINGS REVIEW – Residential scenarios (General sites – typologies review – results at Appendix IIa)

3.2.1 We will not repeat the research or findings on property sales values or land values here, as have been commented on above – see the earlier report sections 2.6 and 2.15, respectively. Appendices I and III provide more detail too.

3.2.2 Consistent with our previous work in the borough, based on the currently available information overall we have found that the values likely to be supported by typical new build housing as relevant to the LP overall are very similar across the borough. While this also a general observation across our wide range of studies, in N&B’s case we consider that the specific values achieved site-by-site will if anything be much more localised or based on scheme type and specification, transport and commuting

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 261 times/connections, specific local amenities and schools etc. than affected by general location.

3.2.3 We consider that a reasonable approach to take for the review of the Appendix IIa smaller sites typologies (tests at up to 100 dwellings) on sales values is to consider the range VL4 (@ £2,700/sq. m i.e. c. £250/sq. ft.) to VL6 (@ £2,900/sq. m i.e. c. £269/sq. ft.). Therefore these results will be discussed below based on values within the mid- range of this key area, at VL5 i.e. £2,800/sq. m (c. £260/sq. ft.); also bearing in mind the sensitivity of the RLV outcomes to potential movement around this area of the values picture. As acknowledged above, values falling outside this range are seen, and could be seen moving ahead. The potential relevance of this should also be kept in mind, however at this stage significantly lower values for new builds are considered to be outliers – not typical. The nature of CIL setting is such that judgments need to be made on such assumptions and variables; likewise on potential land values, as below.

3.2.4 Generally, values up to or at the lower part of this range have been assumed at this stage in assessing the strategic sites viability for the study purpose (VL4 @ £2,700/sq. m as base – see section 3.3 below.

3.2.5 On land values, with a key PDL range at £750,000/ha+ but a potentially relevant range to £1,250,000/ha, we consider it appropriate to use the £1,000,000/ha (£1m/ha) PDL benchmark for the following typologies results review context.

3.2.6 Although understood not set to contribute significantly to the overall LP supply, and smaller greenfield (GF) site scope – non-strategic sites – to support CIL could be considered on the basis of land value up to the £500,000/ha ‘upper greenfield enhancement’ BLV (‘viability test’).

3.2.7 In any event the viability tests used should not be regarded as specific figures or cut- offs; they are guides enabling the strength of the results to be considered and trends to be seen more clearly. Where a BLV is not reached, and especially marginally, this does not necessarily mean that a development would not happen. Equally, the results also show RLVs at levels exceeding the viability tests (BLVs) and particularly as the assumed values reach or exceed the test levels that are considered suitable as base assumptions.

3.2.8 The results will be reviewed by first considering the potential maximum (or sometimes known as ‘theoretical maximum’) scope for CIL charging. This view is based on the

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 262 premise that once the above assumptions are accommodated (development and policy costs, land value and profit at the stated levels), all of the available headroom for CIL or other currently unknown costs or viability impacts could in theory be available for CIL.

3.2.9 However, a reality check or layer of caution/pulling-back then needs to be applied too - before suitable, carefully judged parameters for actual, implementable CIL charging rates are arrived at.

3.2.10 Respecting the CIL Guidance principle of ensuring that the rates do not rely on the margins of viability, it is not appropriate to allocate all of this potential maximum/theoretical headroom to CIL, which then becomes the fixed-cost top-slice from the development proceeds as noted above. This element of prudent allowance for potential movement in other assumptions (both values and costs) against viability, means that it is necessary to have a significant level of cushioning, known as “buffering”, in setting the selected charging rates well beneath these potential maximum levels. This helps allow for potential downward movement in values or any upward movement in costs compared with the CIL rates setting stage assumptions baseline. These movements could affect the positive side of the cashflow – i.e. revenue (principally market sales values risk, but also affected by time to sell and sales costs, affordable housing revenue etc.) or the costs side – e.g. build costs varying, national policy unknowns, site abnormals, land value of profits variance, etc.

3.2.11 The potential maximum available or selected rate after buffering viewed from the results will vary by typology. This is a typical finding, seen here and more widely. They are also affected by dwelling mix assumptions, and the notional allocation of dwellings to affordable housing (AH) and varying AH tenure – i.e. assumptions made on a best- fit basis reflecting the policies as applied to the typology details. This reflects the reality that all sites and schemes are different – in practice, the actual amount of CIL that a development could bear would vary from one to the next. This brings us back to the nature of the CIL, so that even if a differential or complex approach is sought an overview always needs to be made.

3.2.12 The level of ‘buffer’ factor essentially arbitrary. It is intended only as a guide aimed at keeping well within the margins of viability – at a specific level it need not be adhered to rigidly as it is still quite hypothetical and the viability work does not have to be followed precisely in any event. How its actual effect relates to viability will again be scheme-specific, so the aim is to consider a level of buffering that will deal adequately

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 263 with keeping away from the margins of viability and help cater for movements in the values and costs. As per the CIL principles and other evidence informing the balance to be struck, the Council should be able to show how the selected charging approach has been informed.

3.2.13 The following sections will therefore provide NBBC with an indication of the potential maximum CIL scope under various circumstances as informed by the residential typologies review, and what a buffered view could produce as parameters for suggested workable CIL charging rates. The level of buffering ultimately adopted, although having a variable effect per scheme as above, will be informed by judgments around the level of potential unknowns and uncertainty at the time of progressing a Draft CIL Charging Schedule. In making judgments, the ultimately selected charging rates might represent a range of buffering, which we suggest should be considered at a minimum deduction of around 30% from the potential maximum levels of scope noted.

3.2.14 We will run through the typologies in ascending size, but rather than needing to discuss each provide here an overview based on schemes which are or are not expected to provide affordable housing. Higher cost levels are often seen in smaller schemes, and this can be an effect that reduces the viability gain from a nil AH position. Nevertheless, the AH policy threshold may be a relevant factor in considering the CIL rates setting, hence this is amongst the aspects to consider.

Small scheme scenarios beneath the LP policy H2 AH threshold (<11 dwellings) – Appendix IIa tables 1a and 1b

3 – 10 houses (Tables 1a & 1b)

3.2.15 At VL5 with land value equivalent to £1m/ha the potential maximum CIL scope is seen to be approximately £130/sq. m when looking at the 3 houses typology (Table 1a):

• A 50% buffer (halving this back) would lead to a CIL charging rate at c. £65/sq. m; • A 30% buffer would lead to a charging rate of c. £91/sq. m.

3.2.16 For wider indications, whilst with VL6 values, i.e. higher values possibly supported by some smaller individual schemes, the maximum (pre-buffered) scope rises to c.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 264 £180m/sq. m, it is seen to fall to c. £70-80/sq. m at VL7. This demonstrates the high sensitivity to assumed sales value; potentially significant movement either side of the overview at 3.2.14.

3.2.17 Looking at the 10 houses tests (Table 1b) shows approximately £165/sq. m potential maximum scope.

3.2.18 For the Council’s information, considering the same principles would lead to:

• 50% buffer – c. £80/sq. m; • 30% buffer – c. £112/sq. m.

3.2.19 Overviewing this suggests suitable parameters for a CIL charging rate applicable to site beneath the H2 AH policy threshold in the parameters approximately £75 to £100/sq. m, with a reasonable level of buffering allowed.

Sample scenarios triggering the LP policy H2 AH threshold (11+ dwellings) – Appendix IIa tables 1c to 1h

11 houses (Table 1c)

3.2.20 On the same basis, but with 2 no. AH dwellings assumed to be included as per policy H2, these tests indicate a potential maximum scope of around £110/sq. m, which following the above principles as a guide, viewed alone, could mean:

• Less 50% buffer – c. £55/sq. m; • Less 30% buffer – c. £77/sq. m.

15 houses (Table 1d)

3.2.21 Influenced by the step-up to the more onerous full 25% AH H2 policy headline included, here we see potential maximum scope at a slightly lower £100/sq. m at VL5, supporting the following guides/parameters after adjustment:

• Less 50% buffer – c. £50/sq. m; • Less 30% buffer – c. £70/sq. m.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 265 3.2.22 11 dwellings is the first point at which the AH policy impacts, hence its use as a testing point, and this may not be a scheme size regularly seen. As noted above, assumed dwelling mix and allocation of affordable homes within that also plays into the outcomes quite significantly and can skew direct comparisons. We will go on to review whether the larger typology tests that include AH support similar maximum potential CIL headroom to that seen from the 11 and 15 dwellings typology tests as above.

30 mixed dwellings – houses and flats (Table 1f)

3.2.23 These tests show the potential maximum scope at VL5 to be c. £110/sq. m:

• Less 50% buffer – c. £55/sq. m; • Less 30% buffer – c. £77/sq. m.

100 mixed dwellings – houses and flats (Table 1h) houses (Table 1d)

3.2.24 These tests indicate a potential maximum scope of just over £140/sq. m, so suggesting:

• Less 50% buffer – c. £70/sq. m; • Less 30% buffer – c. £98/sq. m.

3.2.25 From the above, the indications are that there is some albeit relatively limited scope to consider a differential (higher) CIL charging rate for schemes that fall beneath the H2 AH policy threshold – i.e. providing fewer than 11 dwellings.

Overall – general typologies tests

3.2.26 Our view, drawing from the above and DSP’s experience of CIL viability, is that a suitable CIL charging approach across Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough residential developments (non-strategic sites) is likely to be in the range approximately £50 to £80/sq. m for developments that trigger the affordable housing policy, depending on the level of buffering applied and, we suggest, with that element considered in light of current circumstances, should a CIL be pursued in the borough in the short term.

3.2.27 For developments falling beneath the scope of LP policy H2, i.e. which are not required to provide affordable housing, the viability findings suggest the suitable CIL charging rates parameters to be approximately £70 to £100/sq. m making an appropriate

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 266 overview as above. This means an upward differential of approximately £20/sq. m could be applicable to such sites, again for borough-wide application.

3.2.28 Referring back to the secondary guide/sense-check information provides at Figure 20 above, these charging rate parameters would be equivalent to approximately 2% to 3.5% GDV, depending on the combination of sales value level (VL) and prospective rate viewed. This indicates that we would not expect to see supportable rates going significantly above the levels suggested here.

3.2.29 As a headline, consistent with our earlier assessment findings and with indications on values sourced during our research and stakeholder consultation exercises, we find no clear viability evidence for differential rates by reference to location or particular development type or scale as a general theme. With infrastructure needs and the desirability of funding those on the other side of the balance, we have considered for example any potential for higher rates for the main types of development and generally relevant circumstances.

3.2.30 Only with values assumed to exceed c. £3,000/sq. m (approx. £279/sq. ft.) – beyond current appropriate assumptions for a great majority of development at this stage from available information, might we expect to see the CIL scope potential exceed the above parameters notably. This again is consistent with DSP’s wide-spanning experience of CIL viability.

3.2.31 There may be potential exceptions to this, however, which might be considered depending on their relevance overall to the LP housing delivery. For the Council’s information these could include the following.

3.2.32 As indicated at 3.2.6, any smaller, uncomplicated greenfield developments could support more CIL than the levels indicated here. If these are potentially a regular occurrence, thinking perhaps of any urban area greenfield sites or any schemes permitted as small-scale built up area additions, this scope could be reviewed further. Trialing a CIL rate test at beyond £200/sq. m could be useful to inform this if relevant, in order to fully view the potential maximum and then adjusted parameters, as above. However, we can see that the potential maximum scope lies beyond that assuming VL4 and VL5 values, with the RLVs reaching well over the £500,000/ha BLV level that in our view may be regarded a maximum suitable land value for any such sites. This is also potential scope supported by any lower sales values instances, so that for example at VL3 with £200/sq. m fully tested, the RLV reaches almost £370,000/ha which could be

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 267 regarded as a sufficient land value in such a context in our view. Applying a 50% buffer to this would suggest charging rate scope of more than £100/sq. m indicatively at this stage, including on sites providing affordable housing (and so showing notably more scope than seen for the 30 mixed dwellings base outcome – with affordable housing – as per 3.2.26 above).

3.2.33 The above considerations cater for mixed housing developments, i.e. envisaging some of those including a mix of houses and flats, as well as houses-only or predominantly houses bases schemes. Looking in the other direction on potential CIL charging scope, however, any significance to the plan overall of apartments-only developments would need to be considered in terms of potential downward CIL rate differentiation. This is evident from our typology tests of apartments only scenarios and is not an unusual finding. Apartments only developments typically require relatively high values to support the high development costs, and the results show – the viability picks up to workable looking levels once higher values than our base assumptions are used. The indications from our work here are that such a positive relationship between values and costs is not likely to be in place regularly in the borough, based as necessary on currently available information.

3.2.34 Following on from this general indication, although not thought to be of key relevance in the Nuneaton & Bedworth context, this theme may need to be considered for any bespoke sheltered/retirement housing scenarios that come forward. With an increased proportion of communal non-saleable floor area (usually up to about 25%) needing to be constructed and other bespoke assumptions applied, even at the highest VL12 tested (sales assumed @ £4,400/sq. m i.e. approx. £409/sq. ft.) the outcomes indicate £1m/ha land value equivalent reached with potential maximum CIL scope at around £70/sq. m (so c. £35/sq. m after a 50% buffer deduction; c. £49 after 30% deduction. However, this is a tested level of sales value rather than an evidenced level. Furthermore, we can see that at the V11 test, any level of CIL is supportable only in a greenfield development context and then probably only based on £20 – 40/sq. m maximum CIL potential. Any extra care developments would typically involve higher development costs (principally associated with further enlarged communal areas, at around 30% of the overall floor area). Whilst higher still values may be achieved, subject to any available local evidence, we draw from this that at this stage the most suitable response in viability terms is likely to be a nil-rate (£0/sq. m) for such developments – retirement/sheltered and extra-care housing (usually apartments or

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 268 equivalent) – or at most a nominal only type rate (although not viability evidence-led, but based rather on considering the balance as per the above noted CIL principles).

3.2.35 Site-specifics will, unavoidably, be variable and no particular level of CIL, including a highly varied or nil-rated approach can guarantee scheme delivery. The key consideration is selecting a level of levels for the charging that will be likely to prove workable generally across the development planned to occur locally.

3.3 FINDINGS REVIEW - Larger / Strategic scale development – Strategic site allocations (Appendix IIb)

3.3.1 At this stage, the assumed approach to sales values has been chosen to reflect higher volume, less individual development scenarios. While we consider it likely that in at least some of those cases there will be a positive “place-making” effect on likely values in these instances, and this could vary, at this stage we have assumed a slightly lower level of value (at £2,700/sq. m i.e. approx. £250/sq. ft.) across these sites. This is considered appropriate based on experience and the available information at this time i.e. that the values achieved on larger, less individual schemes may not reach quite the levels considered most relevant to the typologies overview as set out in this section (base assumption £2,800/sq. m as above).

3.3.2 As above, the results at Tables 2a to 2f show (in green) any available surpluses after accounting for the NBBC provided s.106 estimated per site. In respect of any surpluses potentially available to support CIL as well as the s106 costs, the “buffering” principles as discussed above should again be considered.

3.3.3 Based on the available information, this review of the following 2 sites shows positive viability (small/marginal surplus results – green table shading), supporting the collective assumptions applied but before allowing for any CIL:

• HSG2 Arbury (as per Table 2a) – surplus reported equivalent to £2,925/dwelling (all dwellings), and;

• HSG10 Attleborough Fields (as per table 2f) – surplus reported equivalent to £349/dwelling (all dwellings).

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 269 3.3.4 The same approach results in current indications that show deficits for the other 4 strategic sites with the assumptions used, including the Council’s s106 estimates – HSG4 (Woodlands), HSG5 (Hospital Lane), HSG7 (Land East of Bulkington) and HSG8 (Land West of Bulkington).

3.3.5 These are relatively small looking deficits in the context of such schemes (indicating marginally negative outcomes only) except in the cases of HSG4 (Woodlands) and HSG7 (Land East of Bulkington) which indicate more significant viability gaps based on current assumptions. This is principally a reflection of the significantly greater £/dwelling s.106 estimated included for these sites, at £10,505 - £14,580/dwelling as per 3.1.19 (2) above (cost applied to all assumed dwellings) compared with estimated s.106 costs ranging from just over £4,000/dwelling on the other sites tested here.

3.3.6 Overviewing these viability outcomes points to a continuation of the use of s.106 on these sites and particularly given the evident sensitivity of these outcomes to changes in costs or other unknowns – reflecting the same principles as discussed above.

3.3.7 The outcomes could of course vary considerably with timing, scheme details, further national policy developments and so on. With, not unusually, a range of unknowns at this stage it is not possible to say exactly what level and detailed make up of planning requirements and obligations packages will ultimately be appropriate or supported at these locations. It is not known at this stage how (procurement route) or exactly when (timing) all the elements of community and social benefit and other planning obligations will be delivered.

3.3.8 However, with the pooling restrictions lifted, the use of s.106 again offers much greater flexibility. In our view, this route may well continue to offer the more responsive route to delivering the development mitigation and infrastructure required for these schemes and particularly as currently there appears to be no scope to clearly support a level of CL charging alongside the estimated s.106 packages. We could reasonably expect the s.106 estimates to move further, and it can be seen that once the scheme details are known and values etc. can be specifically discussed then depending on the market there may be a possibility of supporting enhanced s.106 levels if the Council’s evidence show those to be required. This work does not prescribe or limit those details; rather it suggests that at this stage the Council should consider adding to potential viability pressures on sites that are key to the new Local Plan overall via fixed top-sliced cost in the form of CIL.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 270

3.3.9 As elsewhere in this assessment report, these are points put forward at the point of undertaking this work. At this stage it is not possible to say what the implications of Brexit or, as of Spring to Summer 2020 but also with expected longer effects, the global Covid-19 pandemic will be. It appears appropriate to take a balanced rather than totally negative view in regard to the housing market and new housing demand, but as is acknowledged, this does add to the potential unknowns.

3.3.10 As is relevant in the case of all the other information and findings here, the lifespan of a first charging schedule may well be relatively short relative to that of the Local Plan or the operation of various economic and property market cycles. Irrespective of the approach taken to CIL at this stage, it will be possible and appropriate to relatively regularly revisit and adjust if/as needed the charging rates. A CIL review may now be conducted on a lighter-touch basis than was possible previously.

3.4 FINDINGS REVIEW – Commercial / non-residential scenarios (Appendix IIc)

3.4.1 Our assessment work on the review of commercial and non-residential development has focused on our typical methodology for considering CIL viability, again using an established approach to apply the same principles as used in the residential assessment aspects.

3.4.2 Typically, for non-residential development, a local authority’s planning policy obligations have relatively little influence on development viability. There is usually no significant policy area that creates such an influence as is found in the case of residential (e.g. affordable housing). From a review of the local context and policies, this is also considered to be the case in Nuneaton & Bedworth.

3.4.3 As noted in DSP previous work for the Council, the findings are highly varied and both this and the patterns/relativities seen here are fairly typical in our experience. In our wide experience of CIL viability, generally poor viability or at best mixed results tend to be seen from most test scenarios other than those representing certain forms of retail development (typically larger format retail development – e.g. foodstores and retail warehousing). This has been seen in this assessment too.

3.4.4 Usually we find that this is especially the case for most of the B (business/employment) use class types. However, such outcomes do not necessarily mean that development

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 271 will not be delivered through flexibility in development appraisal inputs and negotiations – factors that we cannot assume in prudently assessing viability for informing the CIL setting purposes, given the fixed top-slice nature of CIL charging.

3.4.5 Prospective occupiers may have particular drivers for pursuing developments and/or may be able to work with different costs than those that we need to assume for this assessment purpose (bearing in mind CIL principles and ensuring that CIL is not set to the margins of viability by removing assumed cost from appraisals and/or relying on potentially excessive values assumptions, for example).

3.4.6 We will set out below the findings from this fresh look at viability – as above, undertaken with the aim of a complete revisit of the CIL funding scope supportable from a range of relevant development types. However, as a high-level overview, the previously stated themes and findings remain broadly valid. Unfortunately, it continues to be necessary to restate our previous acknowledgment that, particularly when viewed in terms and using assumptions appropriate to this type of strategic level local authority viability assessment, the viability of many non-residential forms of development looks likely to remain challenging

3.4.7 In respect of these other forms of development, many of which are unlikely to be brought forward speculatively, and especially in the current/short term uncertain wider economic circumstances, it appears more to be case of working with the market, being open, incentivising and engaging with development interests as far and productively as possible. This will involve aiming to review and promote or protect/ select the most appropriately and accessible sites for relevant uses, seek necessary development that also meets other strategies and policies, and so on.

3.4.8 This does not necessarily mean that suitable schemes will not come forward; they will when their promoters deem them to be sufficiently viable.

3.4.9 With a CIL in place, this does not necessarily mean a significant added impact on viability either. The consequence is that the CIL will be chargeable at the stated rate(s) on any relevant developments that the market deems viable enough to bring forward while the schedule is in operation. If a development is considered sufficiently viable to proceed, the likelihood is that an appropriately set CIL will not unduly impact that viability. S.106 will usually be scaled-back with CIL implemented.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 272

3.4.10 In re-considering the below, and CIL charging rate setting generally, it is worth noting that it is necessary only to clearly describe the form(s) of development that the charging levels(s) are to apply to. These, and any differentiation, need not be by reference to Planning Use Class. Reference to that may be of assistance with some descriptions though – assisting the clarity of how a charging schedule is intended to apply.

3.4.11 It is not proportionate or necessary to appraise all forms of development. So, appraisals have been carried out for larger format retail (supermarkets/larger foodstores/retail warehousing), small shops (local shops/convenience stores), offices (both in-town and out of town centre locations), industrial/warehousing (smaller and larger, including a larger distribution typology), hotels and care homes. However, for a range of other highly variable forms of development that could also come forward on an ad hoc basis (community and assembly uses, health, education, leisure, etc.) it is sufficient and proven appropriate not to go beyond considering at a high-level the likely strength of the relationship between the development value (where applicable) and costs. Typically, such wider development is not viable in a commercial sense and/or may be regarded as infrastructure anyway (e.g. health, education and other public/community services).

3.4.12 As noted, the Council (as prospective charging authority) will need to strike an appropriate balance between viability and the desirability of funding infrastructure; and does not have to precisely follow the viability evidence in doing so.

Retail development (A Use Classes)

3.4.13 Large retail units (foodstores and retail warehousing) remain amongst the most clearly viable forms of development “on paper” as per this exercise. Should they be pursued, these developments would not be entirely speculative and they could expect to be underpinned by rental and yield combinations towards or at the more positive end of our assumptions (lower end yield within our range tested (c. 5%); if not lower potentially). Currently we are seeing lower (more positive) yields for foodstores than for retail warehousing and indeed al other retail types. We use the Knight Frank Yield Guides (latest May 2020), other similar reference sources and Co-Star to inform our views. The latest Knight Frank Yield Guide Issue notes a ‘Stable’ to ‘Positive’ market

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 273 sentiment for foodstores, while for al other listed sectors, not just retail, this is currently stated as ‘Negative’.

3.4.14 However, and reflecting this, while the results appear strong, the Appendix IIc Table 3a to 3e results also show the very high level of sensitivity of those outcomes to lower values (with falling rents) and/or a less positive (increasing %) investment yield - reflecting less confidence in the security of the rental income flow.

3.4.15 Taking these factors into account, we do not consider the current CIL charging scope in Nuneaton & Bedworth for these types of retail to go beyond £100/sq. m if they come forward. The results tables show that the investment yields could move out to 6%- 6.5% and there still be an element of buffering maintained to support a charging rate of £100/sq. m.

3.4.16 Using the mid (M) rental value tests, the foodstore typology maintains a £1m/ha RLV with the yield at 6% (compared with 5% or more positive now – the Knight Frank Guide indicates 4.25-4.75%) and c. £140/sq. potential maximum CIL (Table 3c). At 5.5% the foodstore typology produces a residual of £1.5m/ha+ at the maximum tested trial CIL rate of £200/sq. m (Table 3b).

3.4.17 Although the current investment yield view associated with retail warehousing unit development is not the same, the viability of this typology is helped by relatively low build costs compared with other retail unit types. We can see at Table 3d (6.5% yield) that a £1m/ha+ RLV is supported with potential maximum CIL cost of £160/sq. m factored in.

3.4.18 Under the new Local Plan context, the extent to which new retail units (or extensions) that would be CIL chargeable are considered relevant is likely to be an important consideration. In general, it may be that any non-viability of particular schemes is not critical to the Plan overall in any event. This is an acceptable consequence of the CIL principles in general and may also apply to other forms of development (see below). There is also the key element of the balance – the Councils considering infrastructure needs as well as viability.

3.4.19 These other elements involved in considering the set-up of a CIL may well have a significant influence on the selected approach.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 274 3.4.20 Other retail types and smaller shops development. The current assessment results continue to show the likely fragile or probably at best marginal viability of the development of other retail types – including smaller convenience and other local stores, comparison and individual shop units generally – e.g. within urban centre locations, parades, neighbourhood or local centres and potentially as may be envisaged as part of larger housing or employment-led developments.

3.4.21 Smaller shops development appears viable and potentially strongly so on first sight of the results, but on closer view this is only at the most positive end (i.e. with lower yield % tests). In fact, the yields seen are more likely to be around mid-range of our testing at best for the types envisaged locally, and less positive from there. The Knight Frank Yield Guide indicates around 9% for ‘neighbourhood schemes’; 10% for secondary and tertiary location High Street retail (as above, both with a ‘Negative’ market sentiment). We can consider our results in this sort of wider context. Table 3b shows that a 5.5% yield with our ‘M’ rent level assumptions is needed to support a £1m/ha equivalent RLV with between £100 and £120 potential maximum CIL scope, and Table 3c then shows this falls way to much lower viability at a 6% yield (with nil CIL scope or a low land value needing to be accepted). A reliance on potentially very positive assumptions appears need to support any level of CIL charging on these wider range of retail developments in our view.

3.4.22 Overall, looking beyond any development for the larger format retail types as discussed above, we consider that it will be appropriate for NBBC to consider a nil (£0/sq. m) rate or otherwise a very low (nominal only) level of charge for other retail types.

3.4.23 In many cases (and as will be relevant also to other forms of development) new uses will be formed within existing or altered / extended premises and so CIL may have a reduced level of relevance and limited likely infrastructure funding receipts potential in any event. As part of the assumptions approach, the assessment does not allow for the netting-off of any existing floorspace as this will be such a variable and site-specific factor. In practice this means in some cases that an additional element of buffering will exist within the assumptions, as CIL may not be charged across the entire floor areas within schemes.

3.4.24 Overall, we suggest that a differential approach to CIL charging will be relevant for the Council’s consideration:

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 275 • Larger format retail (foodstores, retail warehousing and similar) – suggested charging rate c. £100/sq. m; • All other retail – suggested nil charging rate (£0/sq. m) or (subject to LP policies and potential delivery impact relevance especially perhaps in current economic circumstances) at most a nominal rate; in which case not supported on viability grounds but related to the balance and on the basis that the added impact on viability should in any event be minimal at a very low rate;

Employment (B Use Class) development – offices and industrial / warehousing

3.4.25 Office developments. With the locally achievable rents, unless the Council were to seek to adopt a nominal rate type view across a range of development types that do not exhibit clear viability for CIL charging, the only option pointed to by the results for the office development typologies is again a nil (£0/sq. m) charging rate.

3.4.26 This is clearly seen on review of the Appendix C results, which even at the most positive end of the testing (5% yield assumption – Table 3a) indicate at best low residual values reliant on the ‘H’ rent level assumptions and essentially nil CIL scope.

3.4.27 There could be some low- level indication here that looking ahead office development on greenfield or other land in very low value existing use may prove viable, if demand exists. However, to reiterate, the results do not provide viability evidence of scope for CIL charging at the current time. This is considered unlikely to change significantly in the short term likely to be relevant to a first charging schedule.

3.4.28 Industrial/warehousing/distribution developments as reviewed through the typologies show a slightly more positive picture than that for offices, with in our view the potential to carefully consider a very low (nominal) charging rate from a marginally more positive viewpoint, depending how this sits within the overall balance and the LP delivery context. However, we need to stress that this looks quite marginal.

3.4.29 Other than for ‘prime distribution/warehousing’ (showing ‘Stable’ market sentiment), the information on yields suggests that 6% to possibly 5% could be supported by the investment prospects in some circumstances.

3.4.30 At the ‘M’ rent tests, a 5% yield supports residual outcomes that may meet greenfield or other low existing use land values with potential maximum CIL scope of around £80

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 276 to £100/sq. m. However, these outcomes amount to a narrow band of viability, needing the support of this currently very positive yield assumption.

3.4.31 With a 5.5% yield assumed, any limited positive viability scope is only seen using the ‘H’ rental value level. We would not rule out this combination, but overall these findings do not point to more than a rate of perhaps up to approx. £20/sq. m – effectively a nominal rate as a possibility that might be considered, subject to all the other factors as have been considered above. As with all aspects of considering a CIL, the Council will also need to consider the potential receipts levels (“yields”) vs the administrative costs and burdens, etc.

3.4.32 Consistent with the above, the charging of a nominal CIL level would in itself not be likely to make the difference between viability and non-viability. Pressures on viability are inherent in the relationship between the much larger figures involved in considering development values and costs.

Hotels (C1) and Care Homes/similar (C2)

3.4.33 These tests, with results shown at the bottom of each of the Appendix IIc tables, show no viability at any level using assumptions which are considered appropriate for the study purpose, in the local circumstances.

3.4.34 We reiterate that, as in all cases, the above does not mean that all developments subject to CIL charging will be inherently viable; or that all development types ultimately subject to a nil CIL charge will not come forward at all. Parties pursuing any schemes that progress will have a particular rationale for doing so.

3.4.35 This means that in respect of these uses, again, unless the Council is minded to purse a nominal rate approach (potentially applied to a range of development types, with a need to consider any state aid related aspects) then as a suggested outcome consideration should be given to a nil-rate (£0/sq. m) charging approach for such uses.

3.4.36 As in the other instances noted above, these points and positions are borough-wide considerations – not intended for considering only in limited localities (zones) or in other ways that might introduce unwarranted complexity in our view.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 277 Other development uses

3.4.37 The comments offered in these sub-sections reflect the general principles considered throughout on the varying strength of development costs: values relationships but are for consideration in a wider context; also going beyond viability.

3.4.38 As a regular component of our CIL viability assessment work, we also consider a range of other development uses – their likely viability. 3.4.39 So, in common with most of our other CIL studies, we have also carried out some initial high-level consideration of other development uses such as leisure (e.g. bowling / fitness / gym) or other D class elements such as health / clinics / nurseries etc.

3.4.40 Bearing in mind the key development value / cost relationship that we are examining here, we find that it is not necessary to carry out full appraisals of these because a simple comparison of the completed value with the build cost indications from BCIS (before consideration of other development costs) points to poor to (at best) marginal development viability. This is one of the key reasons why these forms of development are generally not seen stand-alone but tend to be provided as part of mixed-use schemes that are financially driven by the residential and /or retail development.

3.4.41 Much the same applies to elements such as health / clinics and other similar, more community-oriented development.

3.4.42 Following our extensive iterative review process, throughout this assessment we can see that once values fall to a certain level there is simply not enough development revenue to support the developments costs, even before CIL scope is considered (i.e. where adding CIL cost simply increases the nominal or negative numbers produced by the residual land value results – makes the RLVs, and therefore viability prospects, lower or moves them further into negative).

3.4.43 In such scenarios, a level of CIL charge or other similar degree of added cost in any form would not usually be the single cause of a lack of viability. Such scenarios are generally unviable in the sense we are studying here – as a starting point. This is because they have either a very low or no real commercial value and yet the development costs are often similar to equivalent types of commercial builds. We regularly see that even the build costs, and certainly the total costs, exceed levels that can be supported based on any usual view of development viability. These are often

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 278 schemes that require financial support through some form of subsidy or through the particular business plans of the organisations promoting and using them. Indeed, some such developments may well be considered as infrastructure themselves.

3.4.44 As will be seen below, there are a wide range of potential development types which could come forward as new builds, but even collectively these are not likely to be significant in terms of “lost opportunity” as regards significant CIL funding receipts overall, even with anything more than a nominal or nil CIL rate in place. We consider that many of these uses would frequently occupy existing / refurbished / adapted premises.

3.4.45 A clear case in point will be community uses which generally either generate very low or sub-market level income streams from various community groups and as a general rule require very significant levels of subsidy to support their development cost; in the main they are likely to be a long way from regularly supporting anything other than a nil or nominal type CIL charge.

3.4.46 There are of course a range of other arguments in support of a distinct approach for such uses. For example, in themselves, such facilities are generally contributing to the wider availability of community infrastructure. They may even be the very types of facilities that the pooled CIL contributions will ultimately support to some degree. For all this, so far as we can see the guiding principle in considering the CIL regime as may be applied to these types of scenarios remains their viability as new build scenarios.

3.4.47 As a part of reviewing in general terms only the likely viability prospects associated with a range of other uses, considered at a high-level as developments, we compared their estimated typical values (or range of values) – with reference to values research from entries in VOA Rating Lists and with their likely build cost levels or ranges (base build costs before external works and fees) sourced from BCIS. As has been discussed above, where the relationship between these two key appraisal ingredients is not favourable (i.e. where costs exceed or are not sufficiently outweighed by values) then we can quickly see that we are not dealing with viable development scenarios in the usual sense considered by this assessment or referred to in guidance. The lack of positive relationship is often such that, even with low land costs assumed, schemes will not be viable as developments. Some of these types of new developments may in any event be promoted / owned by charitable organisations and thereby be exempt from CIL charging (as affordable housing is).

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 279

3.4.48 On this basis, Figure 21 below provides examples of this high-level review only of the general relationship between values and costs - in a range of these other scenarios. This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but it enables us to gain a clear picture of the extent of development types which (even if coming forward as new builds) would be unlikely to support anything more than a nil or nominal CIL charge. Otherwise, the added viability burden could be likely to delay or frustrate schemes, mean other compromises or add to funding requirements. The Councils may also wish to consider the administrative aspects – CIL charging implementation. These points are not key to the viability assessment.

3.4.49 These types of value / cost relationships are not unique to Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough. Very similar information is applicable in a wide range of locations in our experience, although the Council may be able to consider the likely relevance of certain types of development uses within its area in the LP context, and therefore the potential need to ensure that any essential delivery is not unduly undermined.

Figure 21: Other development uses - Broad consideration of viability prospects (indicative value/cost relationships (DSP 2020)

Indicative capital Example Indicative Base build cost value (£/sq. m) Viability prospects and development use annual rental indications – before sale costs Notes type value (£/sq. m) BCIS** etc.*

Insufficient viability to £80 - £300 per £800 - £3,000 per Approx. £2,000 - Cafés clearly and reliably sq. m. sq. m. £3,500 outweigh the costs £10 - £50/ per £100 - £500 per Approx. £1,800 - Clear lack of Community Centres sq. m. sq. m. £3,000 development viability Day Nurseries £80 - £150 per £800 - £1,500 per Approx. £1,700 - Clear lack of (Nursery School sq. m. sq. m. £2,500 development viability /Creches)

Low grade industrial (B £30 - £100 per £300 - £1,000 per Approx. £650 - Garages and Premises uses) - costs generally sq. sq. m. £1,200 exceed values

Clear lack of Halls £10 - £50 per sq. £100 - £500 per Approx. £1,800 - development viability – - Community Halls m. sq. m. £3,000 subsidy needed

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 280 Likely marginal Leisure Centre - development viability at Health and Fitness £60 - £130 per £600 - £1,300 per Approx. £1,200 - best - probably need to (Sports Centres/ sq. m. sq. m. £2,700 be supported within a recreational centres) mixed-use scheme; or to generally occupy existing premises

Likely marginal development viability at Leisure Centre Other - Approx. £2,000 - best - probably need to No information available Bowling / Cinema £2,500 be supported within a mixed-use scheme; or to occupy existing premises

Likely clear lack of Approx. £1,500 - Museums No information available development viability – £4,000 subsidy needed

Approx. £400 - Assumed (generally low £1,300 (mixed grade) B type uses. Costs Storage Depot and £10 - £100 per £100 - £1,000 per storage types to generally exceed values - Premises sq. m. sq. m. purpose-built no evidence in support of warehouses) regular viability.

Insufficient viability to Approx. £2,200 - clearly and reliably £3,500 (Health outweigh the costs based Surgeries No information available Centres, clinics, on other than high-end group practice looking value surgeries) assumptions.

Above: Figure 21 - continued (DSP 2020)

*£/sq. m rough guide prior to all cost allowance (based on assumed 10% yield for illustrative purposes - unless stated otherwise). **Approximations excluding external works, fees, contingencies, sustainability additions etc. (BCIS)

3.4.50 Our recommendation is for the Council to consider first a nil-rate (£0/sq. m charge), as per the viability outcomes, applicable as above to all forms of development other than those bearing the ultimately selected positive charging rates (as proposed above for residential and larger format retail developments); or, as a potential alternative, a nominal rate type approach (relying on judgments around the balance to be struck as per the CIL guidance, rather than based on viability only).

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 281 3.5 Other evidence and potential future review

3.5.1 This viability information will need to continue to be considered in conjunction with the Council’s wider evidence, including the developing picture on infrastructure needs and its approach to the ongoing use of s.106 agreements.

3.5.2 As we have commented above, it is not necessary for the prospective charging authority to exactly follow their viability evidence. Rather, the council should be able to show how the information (along with other sources and drivers) has informed its overall approach. Councils are able to consider that there is some room to take a pragmatic view, as the national guidance states.

3.5.3 The processes of considering all the variables and influences, and then setting the CIL charging rates, are not an exact science by any means. Judgments need to be made.

3.5.4 These can be revisited in response to matters that change, and potentially over a fairly short period of time compared with the Local Plan timeframe. The review of CIL charging schedules is often undertaken within around 3-4 years, and this may now be seen to reduce. The local and wider circumstances that a CIL is operating in will normally be monitored to inform review.

3.5.5 The review process has recently been eased to some extent. On operating scope, the more flexible use of s.106 that is now available should also be considered as part of the wider approach to infrastructure provision. A blend of s.106 and suitably set CIL charges should be workable.

3.6 Brief summary – CIL viability scope Suggested parameters for potential charging rates

3.6.1 Following this comprehensive viability review and based on the findings set out above, as a quick guide, these are the guide parameters for CIL charging rates that are put forward to NBBC for consideration based on the viability findings (quick summary only – the above reporting provides the details:

• Residential (borough-wide): ➢ Sites with affordable housing (policy H2 triggered i.e. at 11+dwellings: Rate - £50 – 80/sq. m (see 3.2.26) ➢ Sites beneath AH policy threshold (up to and including 10 dwellings):

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 282 Rate - £70 – 100/sq. m (upward differential possible @ c. +£20/sq. m) (see 3.2.27) ➢ Possibility of higher rate for any small-scale uncomplicated greenfield development (subject to CIL basis in terms of description/zoning or similar) – Potentially at £100+/sq. m if relevant (with AH) (see 3.2.32) ➢ Sheltered/retirement and extra-care - £0/sq. m (see 3.2.34)

• Commercial/non-residential (borough-wide): ➢ Any development of larger retail units (foodstores, retail warehousing and similar) – Rate c. £100/sq. m (see 3.4.24 and preceding detail) ➢ Any other retail (smaller shops development) – e.g. smaller convenience and comparison shops, development in centres and neighbourhoods, any new local centres – Rate £0/sq. m (see 3.4.24 and preceding detail) ➢ Employment (offices, industrial and warehousing) and all other development uses - £0/sq. m.

3.6.2 As a potential alternative that NBBC could consider in respect of development uses that are not considered to support CIL charging scope directly through the viability evidence, the above reporting notes the possibility of considering nominal CIL rate charging (very low rate, having a minimal impact on viability) within the overall balance that will need to be struck. This could be considered further with the Council if appropriate, although at the time of writing the current economic backdrop may play into the review of any such possibilities.

3.6.3 DSP will to be happy to assist the Council further as required.

Report ends –– DRAFT Client (v3) August 2020

Assessment work undertaken by:

Richard Dixon BSc (Hons) MRICS CIHM; Rob Searle BSc (Hons) MSc CIHM; Helena Jones BSc (Hons); Nick Molyneux BA (Hons) MCIH; DSP wider research team

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 283 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule September 2020

Proposed Community Infrastructure Levy rates CIL liable development, as defined within the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (as amended) 2010 and the Planning Practice Guidance, will be required to pay the following levy rates.

Development type CIL rate per sqm

Strategic residential sites allocated in the Borough Plan £0 Residential sites consisting of 11 or more dwellings within defined £80 settlement boundaries Residential sites consisting of 11 or more dwellings outside defined £100 settlement boundaries All residential sites of 10 or less dwellings £100

Sheltered / retirement and extra care housing £0 Large retail units on sites of 0.25ha or more (foodstores and retail £100 warehousing) All other retail on sites less than 0.25ha £0

All other development £0

Proposed Instalments Policy The above levy rates are required to be paid to the Council through the following instalments following the provision of a CIL Demand Notice issued by the Council.

Overall CIL liability Payment instalments £20,000 or less Payment in full within 240 days £20,000 - £50,000 50% paid within 360 days Further 50% paid within 540 days £100,000 - £500,000 10% paid within 270 days Further 15% paid within 540 days Further 25% paid within 720 days Remaining 50% paid within 900 days £500,000 or more Agreement of project specific payment schedule

Contact Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council:

Website: www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk Email: [email protected] Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 Tel: 024 76376376 284 Address: Town Hall, Coton Road, Nuneaton, CV11 5AA Agenda item: 13

CABINET

Report Summary Sheet

Date: 09 September 2020

Subject: Local Development Scheme (LDS) update

Portfolio: Planning, Development & Health (Councillor Neil Phillips)

From: Director – Democracy, Planning and Public Protection

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to approve the updated Local Development Scheme (LDS).

Recommendations:

That: 1. the timescales identified within the updated Local Development Scheme be noted; 2. the updated Local Development Scheme be approved; and 3. subject to 2 above, it be recommended to Council that the approved Local Development Scheme be adopted and the Local Development Scheme be published on the Council’s website.

Options:

Reflecting the fact that the adoption and review of a LDS is a statutory requirement, the options are as follows:

1. Accept the recommendation 2. Amend the LDS prior to approval

Reasons:

To enable the Council to comply with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 285 Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and the associated Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (as amended).

Subject to call-in: Yes

Ward relevance: All

Forward plan: Yes

Delivering Our Future Theme: 1,2 and 3

Delivering Our Future Priority: All

Relevant statutes or policy: Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and the associated Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (as amended).

Equal opportunity implications: None

Human resources implications: None

Financial implications: The costs associated with the publication of the LDS will be met within existing budgets.

Health Inequalities Implications: None

Section 17 - Crime and Disorder Implications: None

Risk management implications: Publication of the LDS a requirement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the associated Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (as amended).

Environmental implications: None

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 286

Legal implications: The publication of the LDS for the Borough is a statutory requirement under the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the associated Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (as amended).

Contact details:

Adam James Principal Planning Policy Officer 024 7637 6457 [email protected]

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 287 AGENDA ITEM NO.

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Cabinet – 09 September 2020

From: Director – Democracy, Planning and Public Protection

Subject: Local Development Scheme (LDS) update

Portfolio: Planning, Development & Health (Councillor Neil Phillips)

Delivering Our Future Theme: 1,2 and 3

Delivering Our Future Priority: All

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to approve the updated Local Development Scheme (LDS).

2. Recommendations

2.1 The timescales identified within the updated Local Development Scheme be noted;

2.2 the updated Local Development Scheme be approved; and

2.3 subject to 2.2 above, it be recommended to Council that the approved Local Development Scheme be adopted and the Local Development Scheme be published on the Council’s website.

3. Background

3.1 Under section 15 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended), Local Planning Authorities are required to produce a LDS. The LDS must identify the Local Development Documents (including Development Plan Documents and Area Action Plans) that are being developed by the Authority over a 3 year period. It also includes details of the subject matter of each document and the timescales for production. For completeness, the production of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) are also included. A copy of the LDS is attached as Appendix A and the supporting Gantt chart is attached as Appendix B. The LDS is based on forecasts of timescales

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 288 for progressing the documents at the time of its publication, and therefore has to be updated if or when the progress varies significantly from the published LDS.

3.2 The existing LDS was adopted in September 2019. The timescales within the LDS are now out-of-date and need updating to reflect the formal stages of the Borough Plan review, as well as the emerging Development Plan Documents (DPDs), Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

4. Content of the LDS

4.1 Following an introduction outlining the purpose of the LDS, the document summarises the existing policy documents forming the Development Plan for the Borough. This is then followed by a section focusing on proposed Development Plan Documents (DPDs), including the Borough Plan Review and the production of DPDs as requested by the Planning Inspector as part of the Borough Plan Examination process – i.e. the Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocations DPD and the Town Centres Area Action Plan.

4.2 Once adopted, the DPDs will be reviewed in accordance with the latest Government guidance. The Council has committed to commencing the Borough Plan Review to consider the updated National Planning Policy Framework, particularly in respect of the standard method for assessing housing need and the associated Housing Delivery Test.

4.3 Government guidance states that updates to the plan, or certain policies within it, must follow the plan making procedure; including preparation, publication and examination by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. As the Borough Plan Review will need to be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence, the first stage of the review will be to reassess the existing evidence base and to update it where necessary. The majority of the Borough Plan evidence was produced prior to 2017 and so is in need of bringing up- to-date over the coming months. Only once the key evidence is reviewed or updated can the authority consult on Issues and Options.

4.4 On 6th August 2020, the Government consulted on a number of potential planning reforms. The Government has proposed a new ‘standard method’ for calculating numbers. However, the ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper states that the Government will issue binding housing targets to local authorities. These would be based on the new standard method, but take into account constraints and opportunities to more effectively use land including through densification. Subsequently, there remains uncertainty as to the housing numbers that will form the basis for the Borough Plan Review. The White Paper states that the Duty to Co-operate is to be abolished given that binding housing targets are to be issued to local authorities. However, until the

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 289 relevant legislation is passed and national guidance is updated accordingly to reflect the White Paper proposals, the legal Duty to Co- operate remains. Subsequently, important evidence (such as the Coventry and Warwickshire Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment) would still need to be updated. Existing Government guidance states that engagement with neighbouring authorities needs to occur before a final decision on whether to update policies in a plan is made. This would need to be co-ordinated at sub-regional level and the Council would need to work with Coventry and the other Warwickshire authorities to update the evidence and address cross- boundary matters. Although the local authorities’ plans are at different stages of plan production or review, there is a common understanding of the need for more up-to-date evidence to inform plan reviews. Notwithstanding the White Paper reforms, sub-regional working is continuing, although the implications of the White Paper consultation will require further consideration at sub-regional level. This engagement and the evidence scoping exercise has been factored into the Borough Plan Review timetable.

4.5 Given the proposals set out in the White Paper, and the possible changes to Government guidance, there is a risk to the authority in proceeding under the existing arrangements, given the costs in updating evidence and associated risks of potential abortive work. It is considered that the proposed timetable provides sufficient steer to progress the DPDs and SPDs, whilst allowing time for the authority to understand the Government’s final reforms, and the timescales associated with the changes.

4.6 The Local Development Scheme will be reviewed annually (and where necessary updated), but any interim updates will be issued on the Council webpages in due course.

4.7 The LDS also includes the production of the CIL Charging Schedule and provides details of SPDs to be produced, as well as their timetable for production. SPDs provide more detailed advice and guidance in relation to the implementation and interpretation of certain planning policies. Again, the SPDs have been agreed, or requested by, the Planning Inspector as part of the Borough Plan Examination process. The list of SPDs to be produced includes:

 Transport Demand Management Matters SPD (incorporating parking standards)  Heritage and Conservation Area Appraisals and Management SPDs  Health Impact Assessment SPD  Open spaces and Green Infrastructure SPD

5 Conclusion

Publication of a Local Development Scheme is a statutory requirement under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Subsequently,

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 290 it is recommended that the updated LDS be approved and published on the Council’s website as per the recommendation above.

6 Appendices

Appendix A – Local Development Scheme 2020 Appendix B – Local Development Scheme Gantt chart 2020

7 Background Papers (if none, state none)

The existing Local Development Scheme can be found at:

https://www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/downloads/download/410/lo cal_development_scheme

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 291 Appendix A

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

Local Development Scheme September 2020

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 292 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3

2. Existing Planning Policy Documents ...... 4

Local planning policies ...... 4

Warwickshire planning policies ...... 4

3. The emerging Planning Policy Framework ...... 5

Development Plan Documents ...... 5

Borough Plan ...... 5

Proposals Map ...... 7

Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocations DPD ...... 7

Town Centres Area Action Plan ...... 7

Community Infrastructure Levy ...... 8

4. Supporting Statement ...... 9

Evidence Base ...... 9

Sustainability Appraisal (SA) / Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ...... 9

Monitoring ...... 10

Political Framework ...... 10

Resources ...... 11

Risk Assessment ...... 11

5. Contact Details ...... 13

2

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 293 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Local Development Scheme (LDS) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). The LDS has two main functions:

1. To identify the current planning policy documents that are being applied in Nuneaton and Bedworth. 2. To provide a three year project plan that outlines what the replacement planning policy documents will be and their stages of preparation.

1.2 The document is divided into the following sections:

 Existing Planning Policy Section 2 of the document provides an overview of the existing planning policy documents and guidance that cover the Borough.

 Documents to be Prepared Section 3 outlines the type and function of the documents that the Council will produce in forthcoming years.

 Supporting Statement Section 4 makes reference to the evidence base which will be used to inform emerging policy along with the Sustainability Appraisal work that will be required. A programme for monitoring and reviewing documents, the political framework for approval, the resources available and an assessment of the risks associated with the delivery of the LDS are also identified.

1.3 The Council’s Authority Monitoring Report is produced annually and is required to assess Development Plan Document progress against the targets and milestones in the LDS. Where the milestones have not been met, up-to- date information will be provided on the Council’s webpages.

3

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 294 2. EXISTING PLANNING POLICY DOCUMENTS

Local planning policies

2.1 The Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Plan was adopted on 11th June 2019. On adoption, the Borough Plan superseded the saved policies of the 2006 Nuneaton and Bedworth Local Plan. The Council has committed to a review of the Plan following its adoption in order to consider the implications of the updated National Planning Policy Framework and associated guidance.

2.2 There remain adopted Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and Guidance (SPG) documents providing additional information or guidance on certain matters:

 Affordable Housing SPD (2020)  Air Quality SPD (2020)  Car Parking Standards SPD (2003)  Concept Plan SPDs (for each of the strategic housing and employment allocations) (2020)  Planning for a Healthier Area – Hot Food Takeaways SPD (2020)  Shopfronts and Advertisements Design Guide SPG (1994)  Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2020)

2.3 Where necessary, out-of-date guidance will be superseded by the future SPDs or more up-to-date planning policy guidance.

Warwickshire planning policies

2.1 Warwickshire County Council adopted a Waste Core Strategy Development Plan Document on 9th July 2013. This strategy guides the future strategy and development of all new waste facilities in the County up to 2028.

2.2 The Warwickshire County Council Minerals Local Plan (1995) provides the planning policies to guide future minerals development within the County. From September 2007 the following policies were saved:

 M1 Areas of Search and Preferred Areas  M4 Sand and Gravel Extraction in the Context of Landbanks  M5 Sterilisation of Mineral Reserves  M6 Considerations and Constraints Affecting Mineral Extraction  M7 Mitigation and Planning Conditions/Agreements  M9 Restoration of Mineral Workings  M10 Monitoring of Mineral Sites

The Warwickshire Minerals Plan has been submitted to the Secretary of State and examination hearings are to take place in October 2020. If the plan is found ‘sound’ and subsequently adopted, it will replace the saved Minerals

4

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 295 Local Plan (1995) policies. Further information on the Minerals Plan can be found at www.warwickshire.gov.uk/mdf.

3. THE EMERGING PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

3.1 This section identifies how the Council will deliver its future planning policy framework. This will comprise Development Plan Documents (DPDs) and Area Action Plans (AAPs). There will also be Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) to provide additional information relating to certain policies. The timetable forecasts provided below are the best estimates available at the time of publication. Where the milestones have not been met, up-to-date information will be provided on the Council’s webpages.

Development Plan Documents

Borough Plan Review

3.2 The Council has committed to undertaking an immediate review of the adopted Borough Plan following the publication of the updated National Planning Policy Framework. All aspects of the updated NPPF will need to be re-examined, but in particular the new ‘standard method’ for assessing housing need and associated Housing Delivery Test have changed how Local Plans calculate housing requirements.

3.3 Para. 33 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) states that policies in Local Plans should be reviewed no later than five years after the date of adoption and should take into account changing circumstances affecting the area or any relevant changes in national policy. Relevant strategic policies will need updating at least once every five years if their applicable housing need figure has changed significantly; and they are likely to require earlier review if local housing need is expected to change significantly in the near future.

3.4 The accompanying Planning Practice Guidance provides the following advice:

A local planning authority can review specific policies on an individual basis. Updates to the plan or certain policies within it must follow the plan making procedure; including preparation, publication and examination by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. [Paragraph: 069 Reference ID: 61-069-20190723]

If a local planning authority decides that they do not need to update their policies, they must publish the reasons for the decision within 5 years of the adoption date of the plan. A local planning authority will not necessarily need to review their entire plan in whole and may publish a list of which policies they will update and which policies they consider do not need updating. [Paragraph: 070 Reference ID: 61-070-20190315]

5

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 296 3.5 As the Local Plan Review will need to be underpinned by relevant and up-to- date evidence, the first stage of the review is reassessing the existing evidence base and to update it where necessary. The majority of the Borough Plan evidence was produced prior to 2017 and so is in need of bringing up-to- date. Officers are reviewing the list of evidence documents to ascertain the documents that require updating, to prioritise their updates and to establish timescales, taking account of existing budgets and resources.

3.6 On 6th August 2020, the Government consulted on a number of potential planning reforms. The Government has proposed a new ‘standard method’ for calculating numbers. However, the ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper states that the Government will issue binding housing targets to local authorities. These would be based on the new standard method, but take into account constraints and opportunities to more effectively use land including through densification. Subsequently, there remains uncertainty as to the housing numbers that will form the basis for the Borough Plan Review. The White Paper states that the Duty to Co-operate is to be abolished given that binding housing targets are to be issued to local authorities.

3.7 Until the relevant legislation is passed and national guidance is updated accordingly to reflect the White Paper proposals, the legal Duty to Co-operate remains. Subsequently, important evidence (such as the Coventry and Warwickshire Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment) would still need to be updated. Existing Government guidance states that engagement with neighbouring authorities needs to occur before a final decision on whether to update policies in a plan is made. This would need to be co-ordinated at sub- regional level and the Council would need to work with Coventry and the other Warwickshire authorities to update the evidence and address cross-boundary matters. Although the local authorities’ plans are at different stages of plan production or review, there is a common understanding of the need for more up-to-date evidence to inform plan reviews. Notwithstanding the White Paper reforms, sub-regional working is continuing, although the implications of the White Paper consultation will require further consideration at sub-regional level. This engagement and the evidence scoping exercise has been factored into the Borough Plan Review timetable.

3.8 Given the proposals set out in the White Paper, and the possible changes to Government guidance, there is a risk to the authority in proceeding under the existing arrangements, given the costs in updating evidence and associated risks of potential abortive work. It is considered that the proposed timetable provides sufficient steer to progress the DPDs and SPDs, whilst allowing time for the authority to understand the Government’s final reforms, and the timescales associated with the changes.

Stage Timescale Opportunity for Public Involvement Commencement/ scoping June 2019 – May 2021 No Issues and Options May 2021 Yes Consultation

6

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 297 Stage Timescale Opportunity for Public Involvement Consultation on Publication Jan 2022 Yes version Submit to Secretary of State Jul 2022 No Examination July 2022 - Dec 2022 Yes Receipt of Inspector’s Report Jan 2023 No Adoption Feb 2023 No Table 1: Borough Plan Review Timetable

Policies Map

3.9 The purpose of the Policies Map is to illustrate the main proposals, designations and area based policies covering the Borough. The Policies Map will be developed alongside the Borough Plan Review, DPDs and AAPs. The map will be reviewed as each additional new policy document is produced.

Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocations DPD

3.10 The purpose of this policy document is to allocate sites to meet the Gypsy and Traveller needs from 2011 – 2031. The estimated timetable for developing the document is:

Stage Timescale Opportunity for Public Involvement Commencement February 2014 No Initial Consultation October – December Yes 2015 Consultation on Issues and May 2021 Yes Options Consultation on Publication Jan 2022 Yes version Submit to Secretary of State July 2022 No Examination July 2022 – Dec 2022 Yes Receipt of Inspector’s Report Jan 2023 No Adoption Feb 2023 No Table 2: Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocations Timetable

Town Centres Area Action Plan

3.11 The purpose of this policy document is to outline more detailed policies to assist the delivery of the strategic vision for the Nuneaton and Bedworth Town Centres. The estimated timetable for developing the document is:

7

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 298 Stage Timescale Opportunity for Public Involvement Commencement April 2019 No Consultation on Issues Sept 2020 Yes and Options Consultation on May 2021 Yes Publication version Submit to Secretary of Oct 2021 No State Examination Oct 2021 - Apr 2022 Yes Inspector’s Report Apr 2022 No Adoption May 2022 No Table 3: Town Centres Area Action Plan

Community Infrastructure Levy

3.12 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule outlines the fees the Council will charge for different types of development in order to assist in the delivery of infrastructure required to support development. This would bring in additional income for infrastructure in addition to the existing section 106 arrangements. However, it should be noted that the ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper proposes that existing planning obligation arrangements (e.g. section 106 payments) and local authority set Community Infrastructure Levies are to be replaced by a national infrastructure levy. As there is uncertainty over what the final reforms will be, and associated timescales for implementation, it is proposed that work on the CIL continues and is kept under review. Progressing the CIL will provide the Council with robust evidence in the event that the Government seeks views on appropriate levies to charge. The estimated timetable for developing the CIL Charging Schedule is provided below but the timetable will be kept under review:

Stage Timescale Opportunity for Public Involvement Commencement February 2013 No Consultation on October – December 2015 Yes Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Preparation of draft Feb 2020 – Aug 2020 No Charging Schedule Consultation on draft Oct 2020 Yes Charging Schedule Submit to Examiner Feb 2021 No Examination Feb 2021-Aug 2021 Yes Inspector’s Report Aug 2021 No Adoption Sep 2021 No Table 4: CIL Timetable

8

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 299 Supplementary Planning Documents

3.13 The Council is also preparing a number of SPDs that provide more detailed advice and guidance in relation to the implementation and interpretation of planning policies set out in the Borough Plan/DPDs. SPDs are not subject to examination, but are subject to public consultation. The following SPDs are due to be produced:

Supplementary Planning Consultation on draft Adoption Document document Health Impact Assessment SPD Jan 2021 Jun 2021 Open Space and Green Jan 2021 Jun 2021 Infrastructure SPD (or equivalent) Transport Demand Management May 2021 Oct 2021 Matters SPD Heritage, Conservation Area May 2021 Oct 2021 Appraisals and Management Plans SPD Table 5: SPD timetables

4. SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Evidence Base

4.1 Development Plan Documents must be based on up-to-date, robust evidence for them to be considered sound. In preparing the policy documents there is a need to undertake technical research and other background work. This work will be undertaken by the Council as well as external consultants on behalf of the Council where information of a specialist nature is required or where the time needed to undertake the work is not available in-house. All background/ technical documents will be made available alongside the policy document to which they relate. Details of the evidence base can be found on the Council’s website at: www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk.

Sustainability Appraisal (SA) / Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

4.2 Notwithstanding the planning reforms proposed in the ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper, existing guidance requires that all DPDs and AAPs will be subject to a SA (which incorporates SEA). The purpose of SA/SEA is to assess the likely environmental, economic and social implications of the policies/ proposals in the documents. External groups and organisations are consulted on the SA and invited to contribute to the appraisal. The key stages of SA preparation are provided in table 5 below.

9

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 300 Stage Key tasks Stage A –  Identify other relevant policies, plans, programmes and Development of the sustainability objectives SA framework and  Collect baseline information production of  Identify sustainability issues and problems Scoping Report  Develop the SA framework  Consult on the scope of the sustainability appraisal Stage B – Appraisal  Test the Plan objectives against the SA framework of plan options  Develop the plan options including reasonable alternatives  Assess the likely effects of each of the options  Consider ways of mitigating adverse effects and maximising beneficial effects  Propose measures to monitor the significant effects of implementing the plan Stage C –  Produce the final SA report based on the final plan (‘Publication’ Preparation of the version), documenting the appraisal process final SA report Stage D –  Consult on the options/policies and SA report at the ‘Publication’ Consultation on the (regulation 19) stage SA report Stage E – Post  Prepare and publish post adoption statement adoption monitoring  Monitor significant effects of implementing the Plan  Respond to adverse effects Table 5: SA process

4.3 SPDs are exempt from the requirements for SA. Unless significant environmental effects are likely to result from implementation of the SPD, SEA is not required.

Monitoring

4.4 The process of monitoring and review is an important part of the post 2004 planning system. Central to this is an Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) which will be published by December each year. The AMR will:

 Identify how well the Council is performing when assessed against the targets/ milestones set out in the LDS.  Examine the success of planning policies through the use of key indicators and targets.  Advise on the need to review the LDS and amend/ revise policies contained in policy documents.

Political Framework

4.5 Before submission to the Secretary of State for consideration, or formal adoption by the Council (in the case of SPDs), each document in the planning policy framework will require political approval. The level of approval will be

10

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 301 determined by the status of the document and the stage it has reached in the preparation process. Listed in table 6 below are the levels of approval different types of document will require at different stages of their preparation.

Document Stage of Preparation Level of Approval Local Development Cabinet Publication Scheme Full Council Issues and Options consultation Cabinet Development Plan Publication consultation Cabinet Documents Submission to Secretary of State Cabinet & Full Council Adoption Cabinet & Full Council Supplementary Consultation on Draft SPD Cabinet Planning Documents Adoption Full Council Authority Monitoring Publication - Report Table 6: Political Approval Framework

Resources

4.6 The work associated with the production of the planning policy framework, its monitoring and review will primarily be undertaken by the Planning Policy team with contributions from other services within the Council as and when required. Input from the Council’s other services will be particularly valuable at the evidence gathering stage of policy development to help ensure that the Council’s other Plans/ Strategies are integrated into the planning policy framework. In preparing documents, specialist services provided by consultants will also be utilised where necessary.

4.7 The cost of producing the planning policy framework is currently being met through the existing service budget. Both staffing and budgetary resources will need to be monitored to ensure that there is adequate provision to enable the delivery of the LDS.

Risk Assessment

4.8 This LDS has been drafted on the basis of what is considered deliverable, based on information available at the time of drafting. Nevertheless there are a number of risks which could jeopardise the Council’s ability to deliver the documents that make up the planning policy framework within the timeframe identified (such as the proposed Government planning reforms). The Council has however attempted to minimise the risks by putting in place mitigation measures. The risks, their rating (in terms of likelihood and impact) and the mitigation measures that have been put in place to moderate and manage the risks are summarised in the table 7. The risk rating scores included are net risk scores and account for risk control and mitigation measures.

11

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 302 Likeli- Impact Rating Risk hood Mitigation Measures (I) (L x I) (L)  Early identification of budget requirements. Internal Resources 2 3 6  Keep budget under review. Staff Turnover  Advertise posts as soon as possible to (Loss of staff and difficulty to minimise length of vacancy. 3 2 6 recruit replacements,  Appoint consultants. reflecting national shortage) Additional Unforeseen Work/ Pressure on Staff  Work associated with delivery of DPDs and 3 2 6 Time SPDs prioritised within work programme.

Lack of In House Expertise for Specialist Areas of Work  Employ consultants to undertake work. 2 3 6 (E.g. Sustainable Appraisal,  Train staff where appropriate. background work) Capacity is outside the Council’s control but will Capacity of External minimise impact by: Organisations  Sending organisations a copy of LDS so aware (Planning Inspectorate (PINs) 2 3 6 of timetable. and Statutory Consultees)  Maintain Service Level Agreement with PINs.  Consult statutory consultees as early as possible. New/ Replacement Government Policies and Guidance  Keep up to date on emerging policies and 3 3 9 (E.g. Planning for the Future guidance to enable early response to changes White Paper, revised NPPF/NPPG) Political Decision Making  Early involvement of Members in preparation of 3 3 9 documents to maximise support. Significant Opposition to  Early and effective engagement in the consultation process (however it is unlikely that Policy or Proposal 3 3 9 consensus will be reached between all stakeholders). Timing of Committee  Where necessary special meetings can be Meetings (Dates of meetings 3 1 3 only set on annual basis) called.

 Documents to be based on robust evidence.  Community engagement undertaken in line Soundness of DPDs with the Statement of Community Involvement. 3 3 9  Sustainability Appraisal undertaken.  Carry out soundness self assessment.  Work closely with PINs.  Ensure 2004 Act and associated regulations Legal Challenge followed. 3 3 9  Implement audit trail of processes and procedures. Table 7: Risks associated with delivery of LDS Key to Scoring

Likelihood Impact Rating 1. Low 1. Low 1 - 4 Low (green) 2. Significant 2. Moderate 5 - 9 Medium (orange) 3. High 3. Serious 10+ High (red) 4. Very High 4. Major

12

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 303

5. CONTACT DETAILS

5.1 For more information on this Local Development Scheme please contact: -

Planning Policy Team Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Town Hall Coton Road Nuneaton CV11 5AA

Tel: 024 7637 6328 Email: [email protected].

5.2 This document, and all other documents that make up the Planning Policy Framework can be made available to view upon request between the hours of 9.00am and 5.00pm, Monday to Friday at the Town Hall reception. All documents will also be available on the Council’s website: www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk

13

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 304 Appendix B

Local Development Scheme 2020 Gantt Chart

2020 2021 2022 2023 A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D DPDs and AAPs Borough Plan Review IO P S IR A Town Centres AAP IO P S IR A Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocations DPD IO P S IR A

CIL Charging Schedule C-DCS S IR A

SPDs Transport Demand Management Matters SPD (including car and cycle parking standards) C A Heritage, Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plan SPDs C A Health Impact Assessment SPD C A Open Space and Green Infrastructure SPD (or equivalent) C A

KEY IO = Issues and Options Pre-submis- P = Publication consultation sion S = Submission MM = Main Modifications Examination IR = Inspector's Report A = Adoption AdoptionA A

C-DCS - consultation on draft charging schedule

C = SPD Consultation

Period of public consultation

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 305 Agenda Item: 14

CABINET

Report Summary Sheet

Date: 9th September 2020

Subject: Nuneaton and Bedworth – Sport England “Facilities Planning Models”

Portfolio: Arts and Leisure (Councillor I. K. Lloyd)

From: Director - Leisure, Recreation and Health

Summary: This report provides Cabinet with an updated version of its Borough Councils “Facility Planning Model” data for swimming pools and dry sports hall provision. These were last undertaken in 2015/16 and to ensure the data used in refreshed 2020 Council leisure strategies, these have been refreshed.

Cabinet acknowledges the evidence and data provided from this 2020 modelling work in partnership with Sport England, and that this data is used in its planning of future leisure facilities and incorporated into the latest strategies.

. Recommendations:

1. Cabinet adopts the 2020 Sport England modelling data and that this evidence is used in its refreshed and leisure strategies and information for its Borough Plan.

Reasons: The Leisure Built Facilities Strategy provides up to date evidence for the Council in developing its future leisure facilities and is fundamental in supporting requests for S.106/CIL Developers Contributions towards increasing facility capacity to meet residents needs.

The Sport England modelling data is required to support the Leisure strategy outcomes, providing a robust and evidence trail mechanism in detailing the capacity and future needs of the borough.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 306

Options: Approve the recommendation. Do not approve the recommendation.

Subject to call-in: Yes

Forward plan: Yes

Delivering Our Future priorities:

 Theme 1 – Transformation  Theme 2 - Collaboration  Theme 3 - Investment

Relevant statutes or policy: Contract Procedures Rules

Equal opportunity implications: No direct equal opportunities implications

Human resources implications:

N/A

Financial implications:

N/A

Health Inequalities Implications:

N/A

Section 17 - Crime and Disorder Implications:

N/A

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 307

Risk management implications:

N/A

Environmental implications:

N/A

Legal implications: N/A

Contact details:

Kevin Hollis

Telephone 024 7637 6143

e-mail: [email protected]

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 308 AGENDA ITEM NO: 14

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Cabinet - 9th September 2020

From: Director - Leisure, Recreation and Health

Subject: Nuneaton and Bedworth – Sport England “Facilities Planning Models”

Portfolio: Arts and Leisure (Councillor I. K. Lloyd)

Delivering Our Future Theme: 1, 2 and 3

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 This report updates Cabinet on the completed Sport England Facility Planning Modelling data, undertaken in March 2020, as part of refreshing previous data from 2015/16.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That the Sport England data is approved and is used in the refreshing of the overall Leisure development strategies including the Built Facility Strategy.

3. Background

3.1 In 2015/16 the Council undertook drafting its previous leisure strategy, working with an external consultant and Sport England providing the facility planning modelling data at that time.

3.2 As part of good practice and ensuring that data is up to date, a refresh every five years of the information and evidence is recommended. The Sport England data was undertaken in March this year and now forms part of key information and evidence for the Councils leisure strategies.

4. Financial Implications

4.1 The Sport England data, provides evidence for the Council to act upon in its future leisure strategies, but has no financial impact on it direct. However, this data reinforces the ability for the Council to seek Developers Contributions towards S.106/CIL requests.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 309

KEVIN HOLLIS

Appendix A

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council – Sport England “Facility Planning Models” Summary findings Swimming Pools.

Appendix B

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council – Sport England “Facility Planning Models” Summary findings Sports Halls.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 310 Appendix A

Strategic Assessment for Provision of Swimming Pools

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

Sport England Facilities Planning Model Report

Date of report March 2020

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 311 1. Executive Summary of Key Findings and Overall Summary

Introduction

9.1 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council is reviewing the current provision of swimming pools and assessing the future provision required up to 2034 and beyond.

9.2 The Council has commissioned a Sport England facility planning model (fpm) local assessment to develop an evidence base for swimming pool provision. The evidence base will also inform the Council’s strategic planning for the future provision of swimming pools.

9.3 The overall aims of the fpm work are to:

• Assess the extent to which the existing supply of swimming pools meets current levels of demand in 2019, across the Council area and a wider study area;

• Assess the extent to which the existing supply of swimming pools would meet future demand and its distribution, taking into account population increases across the Council area and a wider study area up to 2034; and

• Assess the impact on supply, demand and access to swimming pools, from options to close Bedworth Leisure Centre and Pingles Leisure Centre. Then open a new Bedworth Leisure Centre in 2024 and Pingles Leisure Centre in 2025 - are these changes the most beneficial for Nuneaton and Bedworth residents?

9.4 The fpm work has four assessments (known as runs) and these include the swimming pool provision and population in the neighbouring authorities to Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough. The assessment is catchment area based across local authority boundaries.

1.1 The fpm separate modelling runs are:

• Run 1 – supply, demand and access to swimming pools, in 2019. This run provides a baseline assessment of current provision and from which to measure change. Run 1 also includes the Coventry Wave pool site which opened in2019;

• Run 2 – supply, demand and access to swimming pools in 2034, based on the impact the projected growth in population 2019 – 2034 across Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough and the neighbouring authorities. Run 2 also includes the new 50m swimming pool site in Coventry which is

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 312 scheduled to open in 2020 and replace the Coventry Sports and Leisure Centre swimming pool site.

• Run 3 – is based on run 2, and also includes the option to close the existing Bedworth Leisure Centre and Pingles Leisure Centre

• Run 4 is as run 3 and also includes the option to open a new Bedworth Leisure Centre in 2024, with a 25m x 8 lane main pool and a 17m x 10m teaching/learner pool. Run 4 also includes the option to open a new Pingles Leisure Centre in 2025 to include (1) a 25m x 8 lane main pool, (2) a 25m x 6 lane main pool and (3) a teaching/learner pool of 17m x 10m

9.5 This summary report sets out the key findings from the assessment under specific headings:

Swimming pool supply

9.6 The key findings on swimming pool supply are

• The average age of all the pool sites in 2019, including Nuffield Health, is 26 years, the oldest pool site is Bedworth Leisure Centre which opened in 1975 and was modernised in 2000. The Pingles Leisure Centre opened in 2003 and is the most recent centre to open, is the Nuffield Health swimming pool site in 2001

• The scale of the new public swimming pools sites is very extensive, the Bedworth Centre has both a main pool and a separate dedicated learner/teaching pool. Whilst the Pingles Centre includes both a 25m x 8 lane main pool, a 25m x 6 main pool, plus a dedicated teaching/learner pool.

• This means that both public leisure centre sites can provide for all the swimming activities of: developing confidence in water; learn to swim; public recreational swimming; lane and fitness swimming and swimming development through clubs.

• The total amount of water space in the Borough in runs 1 and 2 available for community use is 1,130 sq metres of water. In run 3 this decreases to just 157 sq metres of water, with the closure of both the Bedworth and Pingles sites and just the Nuffield Health centre open. This is an unrealistic option, but it does show the impact on the supply of water space from closure of the 2 public leisure centres.

• Then in run 4, the water space available for community use increases to 1,599 sq metres of water, with the new Bedworth and Pingles Leisure

Cabinet - WednesdayCentres. 9th September 2020 313 • The first key finding is the difference in water space when comparing the current Bedworth and Pingles Centres with the two new centres. The difference in the water space between the existing and new centre is an increase of 469 sq metres of water, a. 41% increase. The fpm findings will report whether this is the required amount of water space and balance in pool scale and configuration, to meet the demand for swimming up to 2034 and beyond.

• The two new centres do provide a very extensive public and club swimming offer, in modern fit for purpose pools.

Measure of Provision

9.7 A comparative measure of swimming pool provision, is water space per 1,000 population and in 2019 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough has 9 sq. metres of water per 1,000 population. This increases to 11 sq metres of water per 1,000 population in run 4.

9.8 In comparison to the neighbouring authorities, Nuneaton and Bedworth has the lowest supply in 2019, along with Hinckley and Bosworth. The highest supply is in Rugby which has 14.9 sq metres of water per 1,000 population.

9.9 The findings for West Midlands Region and England wide in 2019 are 10 and 12 sq metres of water per 1,000 population respectively.

9.10 The findings on water space per 1,000 population are set out, because some local authorities like to compare their quantitative provision with elsewhere, it is not setting a standard of provision. The supply and demand for swimming pools in Nuneaton and Bedworth is based on the findings from all seven headings analysed in the report.

Supply and demand balance

9.11 Supply and demand balance compares the total demand generated for swimming within Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough with the total supply of swimming pools within the Borough. It therefore represents an assumption that ALL the demand for swimming in is met by ALL the supply of swimming pools within Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough. This is set out in Table 9.1 for all four runs.

9.12 In short, supply and demand balance is NOT based on where the pools are located and their catchment area extending into other authorities. The more detailed modelling based on the CATCHMENT AREAS of pools is set out under Satisfied Demand, Unmet Demand and Used Capacity.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 314 9.13 The reason for presenting supply and demand balance is because some local authorities like to see how THEIR total supply of pools compares with THEIR total demand for pools.

Table 9.1: Runs 1 – 4 Supply and Demand Balance for Swimming Pools Nuneaton and Bedworth 2019 - 2034

Nuneaton & Bedworth RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

Supply/Demand Balance 2019 2034 2034 2034

Supply - Swimming pool provision (sq m) based 1,130. 1,130. 157. 1,599. on hours available for community use

Demand - Swimming pool provision (sq m) taking 1,322. 1,529. 1,529. 1,529. into account a ‘comfort’ factor Supply / Demand balance - Variation in sq m of provision available compared to the minimum -192. -399. -1,372. 70. required to meet demand.

9.14 As the table shows over runs 1 – 3 there is a negative balance of demand exceeding supply. The second key finding is that it is only in run 4, with the new and larger Bedworth and Pingles Leisure Centres that the Borough’s supply of water space exceeds the Borough’s demand and this is by 70 sq metres of water. (For context a 25m x lane pool is between 210 and 250 sq metres of water, depending on individual lane width).

9.15 So run 4 does provide the best option, in terms of overall supply and demand balance for swimming, with this balance of supply over demand of 70 sq metres of water.

9.16 However, to repeat, this is the closed quantified assessment and is simply comparing the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough demand for swimming with the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough supply

Access to swimming pools and satisfied demand

9.17 Satisfied demand measures the amount of total demand that is met by the capacity at the swimming pools from Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough residents, who live within the driving, walking or public transport catchment area of a pool. This includes pools located both inside and outside Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough

9.18 In runs 1 and 2 the amount of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough total demand that can be satisfied/met is 91% in run 1, and 90% in run 2. It Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 315 decreases to 68.6% of the Borough’s total demand in run 3, with the Bedworth and Pingles Leisure Centres closed.

9.19 This is still a high level given these changes, it is possible because the Borough can export a very high level of demand to swimming pools in neighbouring local authorities, and which are accessible to Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough residents.

9.20 The third key finding is that in run 4 some 90.4% of the Bedworth and Nuneaton demand for swimming can be met, when the two new centres are included, This finding is almost unchanged from the run 1 percentage of 90.8%.

9.21 The very significant difference is that demand is now being met in two new swimming pool sites, with a more extensive and higher quality swimming offer.

Retained demand

9.22 A subset of the satisfied demand findings is retained demand and this measures how much of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough demand for swimming is retained at the pools located within the Borough. The assessment is based on the catchment area of pools and residents using the nearest pool to where they live, and which is a pool located in Nuneaton and Bedworth – it is known as retained demand.

9.23 In runs 1 and 2, retained demand is 83% and 82% of the total 91% and 90% satisfied demand. The significant change is in run 3 when there is only the Nuffield Health pool site open, retained demand drops to 20% of the total satisfied demand. In this run the Borough is exporting the vast majority of its demand to pools in neighbouring local authorities, and which are accessible to Nuneaton and Bedworth residents.

9.24 In run 4 retained demand recovers, with the opening of the new Bedworth and Pingles Leisure Centres and retained demand is 91% of the total demand which is satisfied.

9.25 The fourth key finding is that in all runs, except run 3, retained demand is very high, with between eight and nine out of ten visits by a Borough resident to a swimming pool, being retained in the Borough.

9.26 The fifth key finding is that there is a very high correlation between the location and catchment area of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough pool sites, and the location of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough demand for swimming. In short, the pools are located in the right places to meet the CabinetB orough’s- Wednesday demand9th September for 2020 swimming pools. 316 Exported demand

9.27 The residual of satisfied demand, after retained demand, is exported demand. Again, based on residents travelling to and using the nearest pool to where they live. In run 1, 17% of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough demand for swimming is exported.

9.28 Exported demand increases to 18% of satisfied demand in run 2 and increases significantly to 80% of total satisfied demand in run 3 when there is just the Nuffield Health pool site open.

9.29 In run 4 exported demand reduces to its lowest level, at 8.5% of the Borough’s satisfied demand for swimming. The increase in the size of the pools at the new Bedworth and Pingles Leisure Centres, means they can retain more of the Borough’s demand for swimming.

Unmet demand

9.30 The unmet demand definition has two parts to it – demand for pools which cannot be met because (1) there is too much demand for any particular swimming pool within its catchment area; or (2) the demand is located outside the catchment area of any pool, it is then classified as unmet demand.

9.31 The sixth key finding relates to all the unmet demand findings:

• In both years and all runs, unmet demand is low in both percentage and, more importantly in sq. metres of water and within a range of 122 – 164 sq metres of water. For context, the total available supply of water space in Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough in run 1 is 1,130 sq metres of water and 1,599 sq metres of water in run 4.

• The major source of the unmet demand is from definition 2, demand located outside the catchment area of a pool, and is within a range of 85% - 96% of total unmet demand across the runs

• Unmet demand, in all runs from definition 1 – lack of swimming pool capacity to meet demand is within a range of 4 – 23 sq metres of water and is reviewed under the used capacity heading.

9.32 Unmet demand located outside catchment will always exist, because it is not possible to get complete spatial coverage, whereby all areas are inside the catchment area of a swimming pool.

9.33 This is especially true for the 20 minutes/1 mile walking catchment area, which, by definition, is quite a small catchment area. Some 21% of Nuneaton

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 317 and Bedworth 86residents do not have access to a car and either walk or use public transport to access a pool.

9.34 Residents who do not have access to a car and live outside the catchment area of a swimming pool, accounts for 86% in run 1, 76% in run 2 and 85% in run 4 of the total unmet demand.

9.35 The seventh key finding is, NOT that unmet demand outside catchment exists but the SCALE, and at a range of between 118 – 140 sq metres of water (from this definition) it is very small. As reported, the total available supply of water space in Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough in run 1, is 1,130 sq metres of water and 1,599 sq metres of water in run 4.

9.36 Unmet demand in both years is highest in the Stockingford area where it totals 45 sq metres of water. Unmet demand is then dispersed across the Borough in very low values of between 1 – 2 sq metres of water. (Maps 6.1. and 6.2).

9.37 The eighth key finding is that there is not an area of the Borough which has a cluster of unmet demand of sufficient quantity, to consider increasing swimming pool provision on grounds of increasing accessibility to swimming pools for residents. This would require a location with at least 160 sq metres of water. The total unmet demand (from both definitions) across the whole of the Borough, ranges from 122 sq metres of water (run 1) to 164 sq metres of water (run 2), excluding run 3 where there are no public swimming pool sites

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 318

Used capacity of swimming pools (how full are the pools?)

9.38 The facilities planning model is designed to include a ‘comfort factor’, beyond which the venues are too full. The pool itself becomes too crowded to swim comfortably and the changing and circulation areas also become too crowded. The model assumes that usage over 70% of capacity is busy and the swimming pool is operating at an uncomfortable level above that percentage.

9.39 Used capacity as an authority wide average, ranges from 79.7% in 2019 to 90.3% in the weekly peak period in run 4.

9.40 Used capacity increases because of the projected increase in demand for swimming pools from population growth. It also increases in run 4 because of the draw and attraction of the new swimming pool sites at both Bedworth and Pingles, replacing the older leisure centres at both locations.

9.41 The estimated used capacity for each pool site does vary from the authority wide average. The existing Bedworth Leisure Centre has an estimated used capacity of 63% in run 1 and then 94% in run 2 (with the projected increase in demand from population growth).

9.42 The new Bedworth Leisure Centre has an estimated used capacity of 100% in run 4, the increase is because of the draw and attraction of the new centre. Plus it is located in the area of the Borough with the highest access to swimming pools, based on car travel (Map 6.3), so a very accessible pool site. All these factors combine and contribute to the used capacity finding

9.43 The existing Pingles Leisure Centre has an estimated used capacity of 100% at peak times in run 1 and the new Pingles Leisure Centre 96% in run 4. The slight drop is because the new Pingles Leisure Centre is larger than the existing centre by 307 sq metres of water. It has a lower percentage but can accommodate far more actual use. The new centre has a 25m x 8 lane main pool, plus a 25m x 6 lane main pool and a l7m x 10m teaching/training pool, replacing the current 25m x 8 lane main pool and the leisure pool of 200 sq metres of water.

9.44 The estimated used capacity of the public swimming pool sites is higher than the Borough average, because both sites provide for the full range of swimming activities of: learn to swim; public recreational swimming; lane and fitness swimming; swimming development through clubs; and fun and family based activities.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 319 9.45 In addition, public swimming pools have the fullest accessibility, in terms of opening hours and access for swimming club and public use. The pools do not have limited access, based on the ability to pay a monthly membership fee. Finally, the public swimming pools are proactively managed to encourage and support swimming participation and physical activity.

9.46 For all these reasons of: (1) range of swimming activities available: (2) highest access for public and club swimming use; (3) hours of availability; and (4) proactive programmes of increasing participation - the public swimming pool sites have a draw effect, hence the findings on the estimated used capacity.

9.47 The Nuffield Health pool site has a much lower estimated used capacity, it being 38% in run 1, then 67% in run 2, 100% in run 3 (when it is the only pool site in the Borough) and 26% in run 4. This pool site will provide for recreational swimming by the centre membership and may also operate a swim school. So a more limited programme of use than the public leisure centre sites and hence the lower used capacity findings.

Given the findings on used capacity, should the new Bedworth and Pingles Leisure Centres be larger?

9.48 Based on the fpm findings the answer is no and it is important to consider the fpm findings.

9.49 The pools are estimated to be very full for all the reasons set out. Increasing the size of the pools could achieve two purposes. Firstly to accommodate unmet demand, however, as set out under the unmet demand heading, unmet demand from lack of swimming pool capacity is within a range of 4 – 23 sq metres of water by 2034. So increasing the pool sizes is not driven by meeting unmet demand.

9.50 Secondly, increasing the size of the pools will attract more demand to them – again for all the reasons set out. Plus they will be modern and more attractive to swimmers in the neighbouring local authorities and who live within the drive time catchment area of either location.

9.51 So bigger pools equals, more capacity and more attraction to residents in neighbouring local authorities. The fpm findings on imported demand are telling in this respect.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 320 Imported Demand

9.52 Imported demand is reported under used capacity because if residents in the neighbouring local authorities use the nearest pool to where they live, and this is a pool site in Nuneaton and Bedworth, then this becomes part of the used capacity of the Nuneaton and Bedworth pools.

9.53 Imported demand increases from 23% in run 1 to 26% in run 2 and 39% in run 4. it decreases to just 6% of used capacity in run 3, when there is just the Nuffield Heath pool site and the pool is full of use by Nuneaton and Bedworth residents.

9.54 The largest imported demand is from Coventry in both years, with 13% of the used capacity of the Nuneaton and Bedworth pools in 2019 and 27% in run 4. This assessment does include the Coventry wave pool site and the Coventry new 50m pool site.

9.55 The explanation for high imported demand from Coventry, despite new pools in Coventry, is most likely that the Bedworth pool site is the nearest pool site for a lot of Coventry residents.

9.56 Also, as set out in the supply and demand balance section, (Table 4.2), the Coventry demand for swimming pools exceeds the Coventry supply by 819 sq metres of water in run 1 and 1,636 sq metres of water in run 4, despite the pool changes. So some of the Coventry demand will be looking to access pools in neighbouring local authorities.

Export/Import Balance

9.57 The ninth key finding is that Nuneaton and Bedworth is a net importer of demand for swimming. In run 1 the Borough exports 1,231 visits per week in the weekly peak period and imports 1,803 visits, so a net importer of just 572 visits.

9.58 In run 4 the Borough exports just 704 visits, such is the draw and attraction of the two new sites that it is retaining more of the Borough’s demand. The Borough imports 4,892 visits, so the Borough is a net importer of 4,188 visits per week in the weekly peak period – a significant total and does support the viability and business case for the two new pool sites.

Overall Summary

9.59 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council is undertaking strategic planning for the future provision of swimming pools within the Borough. The objective being to provide a modern fit for purpose stock of public swimming pools that supports swimming participation and physical activity by its residents Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 321 9.60 The facilities planning modelling exercise has assessed the demand for swimming and its distribution up to 2034 and beyond. This is based on replacing the Bedworth and Pingles Leisure Centre swimming pools, with new and different configurations of swimming pools at both locations

9.61 The fpm findings do support the changes proposed, in terms of the type and scale of the pools and at the locations proposed. They do meet the projected demand for swimming and its distribution across the Borough. The swimming pool locations and their catchment areas do provide the best accessibility for Borough residents, based on the car, public transport and walking catchments for the pool sites.

9.62 Both new pool sites are estimated to be very full at peak times. This I because they provide for all swimming activities of: learn to swim; public recreational swimming; lane and fitness swimming; family based activities; and swimming development through clubs, with these activities taking place in dedicated pools.

9.63 There will be a draw and attraction to modern fit for purpose swimming pools and the findings are that a lot of the demand and usage of each pool site, is from outside the Borough.

9.64 Finally, swimming pools are very important facilities for helping to create an active and heathy lifestyle by residents. Swimming provides for participation by all age groups, from cradle to grave. Also, swimming is one of the few indoor activities where female participation is higher than male participation, and it is also a family-based activity.

The facilities planning model study

9.65 It is most important to set out that the fpm study is a quantitative, accessibility and spatial assessment of the supply, demand and access to swimming pools. It assesses how this changes based on projected population growth and options to change the swimming pool supply.

9.66 The fpm study provides a hard evidence base that can inform consultations, so as to then provide a rounded evidence base. This can then be used in the development of the Council’s strategic planning for the provision of swimming pools.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 322 Appendix 1: Swimming pools in the study area included in the assessment. Runs 1 – 4 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Swimming Pool Supply

Name of Site Type Dimensions Area Site Site Public/ Car % Public Walk % Year Year Comm Demand Tran % Demand Built Refurb ercial Demand

Nuneaton & Bedworth 80% 9% 11% BEDWORTH LEISURE CENTRE (Runs 1 Main/General 25 x 13 313 1975 2000 P 71% 10% 19% and 2)

BEDWORTH LEISURE CENTRE Learner/Teaching/ 10 x 7 70 Training NEW BEDWORTH LEISURE CENTRE (Run Main/General 25 x 17 425 2024 P 4)

NEW BEDWORTH LEISURE CENTRE Learner/Teaching/ 17 x 10 170 Training

NUFFIELD HEALTH (NUNEATON) (All Main/General 20 x 8 160 2001 C 91% 6% 3% runs)

PINGLES LEISURE CENTRE (Runs 1 and Main/General 25 x 17 413 2003 P 83% 9% 9% 2)

PINGLES LEISURE CENTRE Leisure Pool 25 x 8 200

NEW PINGLES LEISURE CENTRE (Run 4) Main/General 25 x 17 425 2025 P 90% 6% 4%

NEW PINGLES LEISURE CENTRE Main/General 25 x 13 325

NEW PINGLES EISURE CENTRE Learner/Teaching/ 17 x 10 170 Training

Swimming Pool Supply in the Neighbouring Local Authorities

Public Site Site Transport Year Year Car % % Walk % Name of Site Type Dimensions Area Built Refurb Demand Demand Demand HINCKLEY AND BOSWORTH 83% 5% 11% BOSWORTH ACADEMY Main/General 25 x 10 250 1969 2000 80% 5% 16% HINCKLEY ACADEMY AND JOHN CLEVELAND 25 x 8 200 1974 2012 SIXTH FORM CENTRE Main/General 86% 6% 8% HINCKLEY LEISURE CENTRE Main/General 25 x 17 425 2016 83% 6% 12% HINCKLEY LEISURE CENTRE Main/General 15 x 9 128 COVENTRY 66% 12% 22% BABLAKE SCHOOL Main/General 20 x 10 200 1960 2005 48% 9% 43% CALUDON CASTLE SPORTS CENTRE Main/General 25 x 13 325 2007 69% 13% 18% CENTRE AT7 Main/General 25 x 13 325 2014 66% 15% 18% CENTRE AT7 Leisure Pool 20 x 8 150 COVENTRY SPORTS & LEISURE CENTRE Main/General 50 x 17 850 1966 60% 13% 27% COVENTRY SPORTS & LEISURE CENTRE Leisure Pool 15 x 10 150 COVENTRY SPORTS & LEISURE CENTRE Learner/Teaching/ 10 x 5 50 Training COVENTRY NEW 50M POOL Main/General 50 x17 850 2020 78% 16% 7% DAVID LLOYD COVENTRY Main/General 25 x 10 250 1996 85% 6% 9% DAVID LLOYD COVENTRY Learner/Teaching/ 5 x 5 25 Training KING HENRY VIII SCHOOL Main/General 25 x 13 313 2009 68% 13% 19% PRESIDENT KENNEDY SCHOOL Main/General 18 x 9 162 1965 40% 6% 54% SPINDLES HEALTH & LEISURE (COVENTRY) Main/General 18 x 9 162 1999 2005 82% 7% 11% Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 323 THE WAVE COVENTRY Leisure Pool 25 x 8 195 2019 63% 13% 25% VILLAGE GYM (COVENTRY) Main/General 25 x 10 250 2000 73% 6% 20% WINDMILL VILLAGE HOTEL AND GOLF CLUB Main/General 20 x 8 160 1990 2007 75% 6% 19% XCEL LEISURE CENTRE Main/General 25 x 10 250 2008 70% 11% 18% NORTH WARWICKSHIRE 86% 6% 8% ATHERSTONE LEISURE COMPLEX Main/General 25 x 10 250 2002 86% 6% 8% ATHERSTONE LEISURE COMPLEX Learner/Teaching/ 12 x 10 120 Training KINGSBURY SCHOOL Main/General 25 x 10 250 1972 81% 6% 13% MARRIOTT LEISURE & COUNTRY CLUB 19 x 10 181 1989 2004 (FOREST OF ARDEN) Main/General 94% 6% 0% RUGBY 80% 7% 13% BILTON GRANGE SCHOOL Main/General 25 x 10 250 1983 2017 84% 6% 10% NUFFIELD HEALTH RUGBY FITNESS & 25 x 12 300 2001 WELLBEING GYM Main/General 87% 4% 9% NUFFIELD HEALTH RUGBY FITNESS & Learner/Teaching/ 5 x 5 25 WELLBEING GYM Training RUGBY SCHOOL SPORTS CENTRE Main/General 25 x 10 250 1991 2003 76% 8% 16% SPORTS DIRECT FITNESS (RUGBY) Main/General 20 x 7 144 1994 2007 76% 5% 19% THE QUEENS DIAMOND JUBILEE CENTRE Main/General 25 x 20 500 2013 78% 8% 14%

Appendix 2: Model description, Inclusion Criteria and Model Parameters

Included within this appendix are the following:

• Model description

• Facility Inclusion Criteria

• Model Parameters

Model Description

1. Background

1.1 The Facilities Planning Model (FPM) is a computer-based supply/demand model, which has been developed by Edinburgh University in conjunction with sportscotland and Sport England since the 1980s.

1.2 The model is a tool to help to assess the strategic provision of community sports facilities in an area. It is currently applicable for use in assessing the provision of sports halls, swimming pools, indoor bowls centres and artificial grass pitches.

2. Use of FPM

2.1 Sport England uses the FPM as one of its principal tools in helping to assess the strategic need for certain community sports facilities. The FPM has been developed as a means of:

• assessing requirements for different types of community sports facilities on a local, regional or national scale;

• helping local authorities to determine an adequate level of sports facility provision to meet their local needs;

• helping to identify strategic gaps in the provision of sports facilities; and

• comparing alternative options for planned provision, taking account of changes in demand and supply. This includes testing the impact of opening, Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 324 relocating and closing facilities, and the likely impact of population changes on the needs for sports facilities.

2.2 Its current use is limited to those sports facility types for which Sport England holds substantial demand data, i.e. swimming pools, sports halls, indoor bowls and artificial grass pitches.

2.3 The FPM has been used in the assessment of Lottery funding bids for community facilities, and as a principal planning tool to assist local authorities in planning for the provision of community sports facilities. For example, the FPM was used to help assess the impact of a 50m swimming pool development in the London Borough of Hillingdon. The Council invested £22 million in the sports and leisure complex around this pool and received funding of £2,025,000 from the London Development Agency and £1,500,000 from Sport England1.

3. How the model works

3.1 In its simplest form, the model seeks to assess whether the capacity of existing facilities for a particular sport is capable of meeting local demand for that sport, taking into account how far people are prepared to travel to such a facility.

3.2 In order to do this, the model compares the number of facilities (supply) within an area, against the demand for that facility (demand) that the local population will produce, similar to other social gravity models.

3.3 To do this, the FPM works by converting both demand (in terms of people), and supply (facilities), into a single comparable unit. This unit is ‘visits per week in the peak period’ (VPWPP). Once converted, demand and supply can be compared.

3.4 The FPM uses a set of parameters to define how facilities are used and by whom. These parameters are primarily derived from a combination of data including actual user surveys from a range of sites across the country in areas of good supply, together with participation survey data. These surveys provide core information on the profile of users, such as, the age and gender of users, how often they visit, the distance travelled, duration of stay, and on the facilities themselves, such as, programming, peak times of use, and capacity of facilities.

3.5 This survey information is combined with other sources of data to provide a set of model parameters for each facility type. The original core user data for halls and pools comes from the National Halls and Pools survey undertaken in 1996. This data formed the basis for the National Benchmarking Service (NBS). For AGPs, the core data used comes from the user survey of AGPs carried out in 2005/6 jointly with sportscotland.

1 Award made in 2007/08 year. Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 325 3.6 User survey data from the NBS and other appropriate sources are used to update the model’s parameters on a regular basis. The parameters are set out at the end of the document, and the range of the main source data used by the model includes:

• National Halls & Pools survey data –Sport England • Benchmarking Service User Survey data –Sport England • UK 2000 Time Use Survey – ONS • General Household Survey – ONS • Scottish Omnibus Surveys – Sport Scotland • Active People Survey - Sport England • STP User Survey - Sport England & sportscotland • Football participation - The FA • Young People & Sport in England – Sport England • Hockey Fixture data - Fixtures Live • Taking Part Survey - DCMS

4. Calculating Demand

4.1 This is calculated by applying the user information from the parameters, as referred to above, to the population2. This produces the number of visits for that facility that will be demanded by the population.

4.2 Depending on the age and gender make-up of the population, this will affect the number of visits an area will generate. In order to reflect the different population make-up of the country, the FPM calculates demand based on the smallest census groupings. These are Output Areas (OA)3.

4.3 The use of OAs in the calculation of demand ensures that the FPM is able to reflect and portray differences in demand in areas at the most sensitive level based on available census information. Each OA used is given a demand value in VPWPP by the FPM.

5. Calculating Supply Capacity

2 For example, it is estimated that 7.72% of 16-24 year old males will demand to use an AGP, 1.67 times a week. This calculation is done separately for the 12 age/gender groupings. 3 Census Output Areas (OA) are the smallest grouping of census population data, and provides the population information on which the FPM’s demand parameters are applied. A demand figure can then be calculated for each OA based on the population profile. There are over 171,300 OAs in England. An OA has a target value of 125 households per OA.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 326 5.1 A facility’s capacity varies depending on its size (i.e. size of pool, hall, pitch number), and how many hours the facility is available for use by the community.

5.2 The FPM calculates a facility’s capacity by applying each of the capacity factors taken from the model parameters, such as the assumptions made as to how many ‘visits’ can be accommodated by the particular facility at any one time. Each facility is then given a capacity figure in VPWPP. (See parameters in Section C).

5.3 Based on travel time information4 taken from the user survey, the FPM then calculates how much demand would be met by the particular facility having regard to its capacity and how much demand is within the facility’s catchment. The FPM includes an important feature of spatial interaction. This feature takes account of the location and capacity of all the facilities, having regard to their location and the size of demand and assesses whether the facilities are in the right place to meet the demand.

5.4 It is important to note that the FPM does not simply add up the total demand within an area and compare that to the total supply within the same area. This approach would not take account of the spatial aspect of supply against demand in a particular area. For example, if an area had a total demand for 5 facilities, and there were currently 6 facilities within the area, it would be too simplistic to conclude that there was an oversupply of 1 facility, as this approach would not take account of whether the 5 facilities are in the correct location for local people to use them within that area. It might be that all the facilities were in one part of the borough, leaving other areas under provided. An assessment of this kind would not reflect the true picture of provision. The FPM is able to assess supply and demand within an area based on the needs of the population within that area.

5.5 In making calculations as to supply and demand, visits made to sports facilities are not artificially restricted or calculated by reference to administrative boundaries, such as local authority areas. Users are generally expected to use their closest facility. The FPM reflects this through analysing the location of demand against the location of facilities, allowing for cross boundary movement of visits. For example, if a facility is on the boundary of a local authority, users will generally be expected to come from the population living close to the facility, but who may be in an adjoining authority.

6. Facility Attractiveness – for halls and pools only

6.1 Not all facilities are the same and users will find certain facilities more attractive to use than others. The model attempts to reflect this by introducing an attractiveness weighting factor, which effects the way visits are distributed between facilities.

4 To reflect the fact that as distance to a facility increases, fewer visits are made, the FPM uses a travel time distance decay curve, where the majority of users travel up to 20 minutes. The FPM also takes account of the road network when calculating travel times. Car ownership levels, taken from Census data, are also taken into account when calculating how people will travel to facilities. Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 327 Attractiveness, however, is very subjective. Currently weightings are only used for hall and pool modelling, with a similar approach for AGPs is being developed.

6.2 Attractiveness weightings are based on the following:

• Age/refurbishment weighting – pools & halls - the older a facility is, the less attractive it will be to users. It is recognised that this is a general assumption and that there may be examples where older facilities are more attractive than newly built ones due to excellent local management, programmes and sports development. Additionally, the date of any significant refurbishment is also included within the weighting factor; however, the attractiveness is set lower than a new build of the same year. It is assumed that a refurbishment that is older than 20 years will have a minimal impact on the facilities attractiveness. The information on year built/refurbished is taken from Active Places. A graduated curve is used to allocate the attractiveness weighting by year. This curve levels off at around 1920 with a 20% weighting. The refurbishment weighting is slightly lower than the new built year equivalent.

• Management & ownership weighting – halls only - due to the large number of halls being provided by the education sector, an assumption is made that in general, these halls will not provide as balanced a program than halls run by LAs, trusts, etc, with school halls more likely to be used by teams and groups through block booking. A less balanced programme is assumed to be less attractive to a general, pay & play user, than a standard local authority leisure centre sports hall, with a wider range of activities on offer.

6.3 To reflect this, two weightings curves are used for education and non-education halls, a high weighted curve, and a lower weighted curve;

• High weighted curve - includes Non-education management - better balanced programme, more attractive.

• Lower weighted curve - includes Educational owned & managed halls, less attractive.

6.4 Commercial facilities – halls and pools - whilst there are relatively few sports halls provided by the commercial sector, an additional weighing factor is incorporated within the model to reflect the cost element often associated with commercial facilities. For each population output area, the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score is used to limit whether people will use commercial facilities. The assumption is that the higher the IMD score (less affluence) the less likely the population of the OA would choose to go to a commercial facility.

7. Comfort Factor – halls and pools

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 328 7.1 As part of the modelling process, each facility is given a maximum number of visits it can accommodate, based on its size, the number of hours it’s available for community use and the ‘at one-time capacity’ figure (pools =1 user /6m2, halls = 6 users /court). This gives each facility a “theoretical capacity”.

7.2 If the facilities were full to their theoretical capacity, then there would simply not be the space to undertake the activity comfortably. In addition, there is a need to take account of a range of activities taking place which have different numbers of users, for example, aqua aerobics will have significantly more participants, than lane swimming sessions. Additionally, there may be times and sessions that, whilst being within the peak period, are less busy and so will have fewer users.

7.3 To account of these factors the notion of a ‘comfort factor’ is applied within the model. For swimming pools 70%, and for sports halls 80%, of its theoretical capacity is considered as being the limit where the facility starts to become uncomfortably busy. (Currently, the comfort factor is NOT applied to AGPs due to the fact they are predominantly used by teams, which have a set number of players and so the notion of having ‘less busy’ pitch is not applicable).

7.4 The comfort factor is used in two ways;

• Utilised Capacity - How well used is a facility? ‘Utilised capacity’ figures for facilities are often seen as being very low, 50-60%, however, this needs to be put into context with 70-80% comfort factor levels for pools and halls. The closer utilised capacity gets to the comfort factor level, the busier the facilities are becoming. You should not aim to have facilities operating at 100% of their theoretical capacity, as this would mean that every session throughout the peak period would be being used to its maximum capacity. This would be both unrealistic in operational terms and unattractive to users.

• Adequately meeting Unmet Demand – the comfort factor is also used to increase the amount of facilities that are needed to comfortably meet the unmet demand. If this comfort factor is not added, then any facilities provided will be operating at its maximum theoretical capacity, which is not desirable as a set out above.

8. Utilised Capacity (used capacity)

8.1 Following on from Comfort Factor section, here is more guidance on Utilised Capacity.

8.2 Utilised capacity refers to how much of facilities theoretical capacity is being used. This can, at first, appear to be unrealistically low, with area figures being in the 50- 60% region. Without any further explanation, it would appear that facilities are half empty. The key point is not to see a facilities theoretical maximum capacity (100%) as being an optimum position. This, in practise, would mean that a facility

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 329 would need to be completely full every hour it was open in the peak period. This would be both unrealistic from an operational perspective and undesirable from a user’s perspective, as the facility would completely full.

8.3 For example:

A 25m, 4 lane pool has Theoretical capacity of 2260 per week, during 52hour peak period.

4-5pm 5-6pm 6-7pm 7-8pm 8-9pm 9-10pm Total Visits for the evening

Theoretical 44 44 44 44 44 44 264 max capacity

Actual 8 30 35 50 15 5 143 Usage

8.4 Usage of a pool will vary throughout the evening, with some sessions being busier than others though programming, such as, an aqua-aerobics session between 7- 8pm, lane swimming between 8-9pm. Other sessions will be quieter, such as between 9-10pm. This pattern of use would give a total of 143 swims taking place. However, the pool’s maximum capacity is 264 visits throughout the evening. In this instance the pools utilised capacity for the evening would be 54%.

8.5 As a guide, 70% utilised capacity is used to indicate that pools are becoming busy, and 80% for sports halls. This should be seen only as a guide to help flag up when facilities are becoming busier, rather than a ‘hard threshold’.

9. Travel times Catchments

9.1 The model uses travel times to define facility catchments in terms of driving and walking.

9.2 The Ordnance Survey (OS) Integrated Transport Network (ITN) for roads has been used to calculate the off-peak drive times between facilities and the population, observing one-way and turn restrictions which apply, and taking into account delays at junctions and car parking. Each street in the network is assigned a speed for car travel based on the attributes of the road, such as the width of the road, and geographical location of the road, for example the density of properties along the street. These travel times have been derived through national survey work, and so are based on actual travel patterns of users. The road speeds used for Inner & Outer London Boroughs have been further enhanced by data from the Department for Transport.

9.3 The walking catchment uses the OS Urban Path Network to calculate travel times along paths and roads, excluding motorways and trunk roads. A standard walking speed of 3 mph is used for all journeys.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 330 9.4 The model includes three different modes of travel, by car, public transport & walking. Car access is also taken into account, in areas of lower access to a car, the model reduces the number of visits made by car and increases those made on foot.

9.5 Overall, surveys have shown that the majority of visits made to swimming pools, sports halls and AGPs are made by car, with a significant minority of visits to pools and sports halls being made on foot.

Facility Car Walking Public transport

Swimming Pool 76% 15% 9% Sports Hall 77% 15% 8% AGP Combined 83% 14% 3% Football 79% 17% 3% Hockey 96% 2% 2%

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 331

9.6 The model includes a distance decay function; where the further a user is from a facility, the less likely they will travel. The set out below is the survey data with the % of visits made within each of the travel times, which shows that almost 90% of all visits, both car borne or walking, are made within 20 minutes. Hence, 20 minutes is often used as a rule of thumb for catchments for sports halls and pools.

Sport halls Swimming Pools

Minutes Car Walk Car Walk

0-10 62% 61% 58% 57%

10-20 29% 26% 32% 31% 20 -40 8% 11% 9% 11%

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 332 Appendix B

Strategic Assessment for Provision of Sports Halls

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

Sport England Facilities Planning Model Report

Date of report March 2020

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 333

1. Executive Summary of Key Findings and Overall Summary

Introduction

9.1 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council is reviewing the current provision of sports halls and assessing the future provision required up to 2034 and beyond.

9.2 The Council has commissioned a Sport England facility planning model (fpm) local assessment to develop an evidence base for sports halls provision. This evidence base will inform the Council’s strategic planning for the future provision of sports halls.

9.3 The overall aims of the fpm work are to:

• Assess the extent to which the existing supply of sports halls meets current levels of demand in 2019, across the Council area and a wider study area;

• Assess the extent to which the existing supply of sports halls would meet future demand and its distribution, taking into account population increases across the Council area and a wider study area up to 2034; and

• Assess the impact on supply, demand and access to sports halls, from options to close the Jubilee Sports Centre in 2025. Then open a new Top Farm sports hall in 2023, a Bedworth Leisure Centre sports hall in 2024 and a Pingles Leisure Centre sports hall in 2025.

9.4 The fpm work has four assessments (known as runs) and these include the sports halls provision and population in the neighbouring authorities to Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough. The assessment is catchment area based across local authority boundaries.

9.5 This summary report sets out the key findings from the assessment under specific headings, the most important findings are introduced in bold typeface.

Sports hall Supply

9.6 The key findings on the sports hall supply are

• In 2019 there are 8 sports hall sites and 9 individual sports halls in Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough. This reduces by 1 site and 1 sports hall in run 2 with the closure of Jubilee Sports Centre.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 334 • Run 3 has 8 sites and 9 sports halls with the opening of Top Farm sports hall in 2023. Run 4 has the highest supply, with 10 sports hall sites and 11 individual sports halls, with the new Bedworth Leisure Centre opening in 2024, and the Pingles Leisure Centre 6 badminton court size sports hall opening in 2025

• The total number of badminton courts in the Borough in each of the four runs is, 33 courts, 29 courts, 35 courts and 45 courts (all rounded).The number of badminton courts available for community use in each of the four runs is, 26 courts, 22 courts, 28 courts and 38 courts (all rounded).

• The first key finding is the total number of badminton courts, aggregated across the education venues, which are unavailable for community use. It is an aggregate total of 7 badminton courts in each the four runs, and this represents 21% of the total supply in run 1 and 15% of the total supply in run 4.

• The average age of all the sports hall sites in run 1 is 30 years, the oldest sports hall site is the Jubilee Sport Centre, which opened in 1978.

• The scale of the sports hall provision is extensive, with seven of the nine individual sports halls having a main hall of four badminton courts. A four court badminton court size sports hall can accommodate all the indoor hall sports at the community level of participation.

• The dimensions for a 4 badminton court sports hall do vary because education authorities consider a 4 badminton court size sports hall, for curriculum use, can have dimensions of 33m x 18m.

• However, in 2013, Sport England and the National Governing Bodies for hall sports reviewed and set the size of a main 4 badminton court size sports hall at 34.5m x 20m. Halls below these dimensions do have the correct dimensions for the playing area but have limited space between the courts and run off space at the back of the courts.

• Four of the seven education sports halls have a main hall of 33m x 18m and two venues have a main hall of 34.5m x 20m, Higham Lane School (1997) and Nicholas Chamberlaine School (1988 and modernised in 2006). The St Thomas More Catholic School and 6th Form College (1997) has a three badminton court size sports hall 27m x 18m.

• The Jubilee Sports Centre (1978 and modernised in 2010) has a main hall of 34.5m x 20m and the new Bedworth Leisure Centre sports hall have dimensions of 34.5m x 20m.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 335 • The Top Farm and Pingles Leisure Centre sports halls are 6 badminton court sports halls with dimensions of 35m x 27m.

• Of the six sports hall sites which opened before 2000, four have been modernised and the unmodernised venues are, Higham Lane School (1997) and St Thomas More Catholic School and 6th Form College (1997). Modernisation is defined as one or more of the sports hall floor upgraded to a sprung timber floor, the sports hall lighting upgraded and the changing accommodation modernised.

Measure of Provision

9.7 A comparative measure of sports hall provision is badminton courts per 10,000 population and Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough has 2.6 courts per 10,000 population in 2019. This increases to 3 badminton courts per 10,000 population in run 4, with the Top Farm, Bedworth and Pingles Leisure Centre sports halls.

9.8 In comparison to the neighbouring authorities, Nuneaton and Bedworth has the lowest supply in 2019. The highest supply is in Rugby which has 5.4 badminton courts per 10,000 population. The findings for West Midlands Region and England wide in 2019 are 4.2 badminton courts per 10,000 population.

9.9 These findings are set out, because some local authorities like to compare their quantitative provision with elsewhere, it is not setting a standard of provision. The supply and demand for sports halls in Nuneaton and Bedworth is based on the findings from all seven headings analysed in the report.

Supply and demand balance

9.10 Supply and demand balance compares the total demand generated for sports halls within Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough with the total supply of sports halls within the Borough. Supply and demand balance is NOT based on where the sports halls are located and their catchment area extending into other authorities. These findings are set out under Satisfied Demand, Unmet Demand and Used Capacity.

9.11 The reason for presenting supply and demand balance is because some local authorities like to see how THEIR total supply of sports halls compares with THEIR total demand for sports halls.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 336 Table 9.1: Runs 1 – 4 Supply and Demand Balance for Sports Halls Nuneaton and Bedworth 2019 - 2034

RUN RUN RUN Nuneaton & Bedworth RUN 4 1 2 3

Supply/Demand Balance 2019 2034 2034 2034

Supply - Hall provision (courts) based on hours 26.5 22.5 28.4 38.3 available for community use

Demand - Hall provision (courts) taking into account 36. 39.9 39.9 39.9 a ‘comfort’ factor Supply / Demand balance - Variation in courts provision available compared to the minimum -9.5 -17.4 -11.5 -1.6 required to meet demand.

9.12 When looking at this assessment, runs 1 and 2 show the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough demand for sports halls exceeds the supply by 9.5 badminton courts and then 17.4 courts in run 2. In run 3 with the opening of the Top Farm sports hall, demand exceeds supply 11.5 badminton courts, then in run 4 with the Pingles and Bedworth sports halls included, demand exceeds supply by just 1.5 badminton courts.

9.13 So run 4 does provide the best option, in terms of overall supply and demand balance for sports halls, with this near balance.

9.14 Table 9.1 incudes the sports halls available for community use, and as set out in the supply findings, there is aggregated total of 7 badminton courts across the education venues, which are unavailable for community use, outside of education use.

9.15 It is unrealistic to assume that the shortfall in supply could be met by increasing access to this unavailable .Also it is not desirable, as four of the education main sports halls have the smaller dimensions. However, the findings do illustrate the impact and significance of the education sports hall sites in meeting demand

Access to sports halls and satisfied demand

9.16 Satisfied demand measures the amount of Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough residents’ total demand that is met. This includes sports located both inside and outside the Borough.

9.17 The second key finding is that the amount of the Nuneaton and Bedworth total demand for sports halls which is satisfied is very high, it is 92% of total Cabinetdemand - Wednesday in 9thrun September 1, 89% 2020 in run 2, 91% in run 3 and 93% in run 4. 337 9.18 The run 4 finding is very similar to run 1, but the difference is demand is now being met in three new modern and fit for purpose sports halls, so the actual offer to residents is very significantly improved.

Retained demand

9.19 A subset of the satisfied demand is how much of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough demand for sports halls, is retained at the sports halls located within the Borough. This assessment is based on the catchment area of the sports halls and residents using the nearest sports hall to where they live, and which is a venue located in the Borough – it is known as retained demand.

9.20 Retained demand is 72% of the 92% satisfied demand in run 1. In run 4 with the three new public leisure centre sports halls included, it is 81% of the total 93% satisfied demand.

9.21 The third key finding is that demand for sports halls by Nuneaton and Bedworth residents retained within the Borough is very high. Depending on which run, it is over seven or eight out of ten visits to a sports halls by a Nuneaton and Bedworth resident.

9.22 This finding is the same as for swimming pools, and means there is a very high correlation between the location and catchment area of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough sports halls sites, and the location of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough demand for sports halls. The sports halls are located in the right places to meet the Borough’s demand for sports halls.

Exported demand

9.23 The residual of satisfied demand, after retained demand, is exported demand, and again this is based on residents travelling to and using the nearest sports hall to where they live. In run 1, exported demand is 27% of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough satisfied demand for sports halls

9.24 Exported demand is 18% of the Borough’s satisfied demand in run 4, when the three public leisure centre sports halls are included. These new sports hall sites and their increase in capacity, means more of the Nuneaton and Bedworth demand is retained within the Borough and less exported.

9.25 The largest exported demand is to Coventry in both years, at 19% of the Borough’s satisfied demand in 2019 and 11% in run 4. Then 7% of the Borough’s satisfied demand goes to North Warwickshire in 2019 and 6% in run 4 in 2034

Retained and exported demand in visits Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 338 9.26 For context, in run 1 the Borough’s retained demand is 7,059 visits in the weekly peak period and the exported demand is 2,644 visits.

9.27 In run 4, retained demand is 8,763 visits in the weekly peak period and the Nuneaton and Bedworth exported demand is 2,022 visits in the weekly peak period.

Unmet demand

9.28 The unmet demand definition has two parts to it – demand for sports halls which cannot be met because (1) there is too much demand for any particular sports hall within its catchment area; or (2) the demand is located outside the catchment area of any sports hall and it is then classified as unmet demand.

9.29 Unmet demand is very low in terms of the number of badminton courts, it is 2.7 badminton courts in run 1, then 4.1 badminton courts in run 2, 3.6 badminton courts in run 3 and 2.8 badminton courts.

9.30 Nearly all of the unmet demand is from definition 2, unmet demand located outside catchment, it being 87% of total unmet demand in run 1 (2.3 badminton courts), 70% in run 2 (2.9 badminton courts), 77% in run 3 (2.8 badminton courts and when the new Top Farm sports hall is included) and 82% in run 4 (2.3 badminton courts with the new Bedworth and Pingles sports halls are included).

9.31 Unmet demand from lack of sports hall capacity is the reciprocal of the unmet demand outside catchment, and equates to less than 1 badminton court in each of the four runs, these findings are reviewed under the used capacity heading.

9.32 The key findings on unmet demand are that

• the fourth key finding is that in both years and all runs, unmet demand is low in both percentage and more importantly, in number of badminton courts and within a range of 2.7 – 4.1 badminton courts (from both sources). For context, the total available supply of badminton courts in Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough is 26 courts in run 1 increasing to 38 courts in run 4.

• The major source of unmet demand is definition 2, demand located outside catchment, and within a range of 70% - 87% of total unmet demand

• Unmet demand, in all runs from definition 1 – lack of sports hall capacity to meet demand – is very low and below 1 badminton court Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 339

9.33 Unmet demand located outside catchment will always exist, because it is not possible to get complete spatial coverage, whereby all areas are inside the catchment area of a sports hall.

9.34 This is especially true for the 20 minutes/1 mile walking catchment area, which, by definition, is quite a small catchment area. Also, as identified in the demand section (Table 3.1), some 23% of Nuneaton and Bedworth residents do not have access to a car, and either walk or use public transport to access a sports hall.

9.35 Residents who do not have access to a car and live outside the catchment area of a sports hall accounts for between 67% and 83% of the total unmet demand (Table 6.1).

9.36 The key point is, NOT that unmet demand outside catchment exists but the SCALE, and at a range of between 2.7 – 4.1 badminton courts from both sources it is very small.

9.37 Unmet demand is highest in the Stockingford area but it totals less than 1 badminton court in both years

9.38 The fifth key finding is that there is not an area of the Borough which has a cluster of unmet demand of sufficient quantity, to consider increasing sports hall provision on grounds of increasing accessibility for residents. This would require a location with unmet demand of at least 3 badminton courts, Given the total unmet demand for the Borough is between 2.7 – 4.1 badminton courts, it is not surprising there is not one location with a cluster of high unmet demand

Used capacity of sports halls (how full are the sports hall?)

9.39 The facilities planning model is designed to include a ‘comfort factor’, beyond which the venues are too full. The time taken to change the layout of the sports hall for different activities starts to impinge on the activity time itself. Plus the changing and circulation areas also become too crowded. The model assumes that usage over 80% of capacity is busy and the sports hall is operating at an uncomfortable level above that percentage.

9.40 In run 1 the sports halls as an authority wide average, are estimated to be 90% full at peak times. Used capacity increases to 100% in run 2, this is because of the projected increase in demand from population growth and no change/increase in supply.

9.41 In run 3 the estimated used capacity of the sports halls is 96% and it reduces because demand is unchanged and the Top Farm 6 badminton court size Cabinetsports - Wednesday hall is9th includedSeptember 2020 340 9.42 In run 4, the estimated used capacity reduces further to 87% because the new Bedworth and Pingles Leisure Centre sports halls are included, and a further 10 badminton courts are added to the supply from these two sites.

9.43 It is important to reiterate, there is a 10.8% increase in demand for sports halls from population growth in the Borough from 2019 to 2034 and this is a major driver for the high used capacity findings

9.44 These are the Borough wide average findings for sports hall capacity used, in each run. The estimated used capacity for each sports hall site, does vary from the authority wide average, Table 9.2.

9.45 As set out in the supply section and in the supply and demand balance section, the Borough’s demand for sports halls does exceed the available supply. Some venues are going to be full more full than others, as the used capacity also depends on the distribution of demand in the catchment area of each venue.

Table 9.2: Runs 1 - Used Capacity of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Sports Halls 2019 – 2034

RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 Individual Sites Utilised Capacity

2019 2034 2034 2034

Nuneaton & Bedworth 90 100 96 87 ETONE COLLEGE 100 100 100 93 GEORGE ELIOT SCHOOL 100 100 100 90 Cabinet - WednesdayHIGHAM 9th LANE September SCHOOL 2020 70 100 86 341 57 JUBILEE SPORTS CENTRE (NUNEATON) 100 0 0 0 NEW BEDWORTH SPORTS HALL 0 0 0 100 NEW TOP FARM SPORTS HALL 0 0 100 100 NEW PINGLES SPORTS HALL 0 0 0 100 NICHOLAS CHAMBERLAINE SCHOOL 91 100 100 70 (HALL) ST THOMAS MORE CATHOLIC SCHOOL & 100 100 100 100 SIXTH FORM COLLEGE THE NUNEATON ACADEMY SPORTS 100 100 100 100 CENTRE THE SPORT AND FITNESS CENTRE 74 100 82 52

9.46 The Jubilee Sports Centre has an estimated used capacity of 100% in run 1, it is the only public leisure centre sports hall. Public leisure centres provide for the full range of indoor hall sports for both sports club use/community groups/ pay and play.

9.47 In addition, they have the fullest accessibility, in terms of opening hours and access. Finally, public sports halls are proactively managed to encourage and support participation and physical activity.

9.48 For all these reasons of: (1) range of activities available: (2) highest access for public and club use; (3) hours of availability; and (4) proactive programmes of increasing participation – public leisure centres have a draw effect, hence the findings on the estimated used capacity.

9.49 In run 1 Etone College, George Eliot School St Thomas More Catholic School and 6th Form College and the Sports and Fitness Centre also have an estimated used capacity of 100% in the weekly peak period. The amount and type of community use at school/college venues does depend on the policy of each institution to community use and the actual hours the sports hall is available for hire. If there are just a few hours of community use, then it is quite easy to reach the highest percentage for used capacity. These venues will most likely only provide for local sports clubs and community groups use.

9.50 In run 2 all the venues have an estimated used capacity of 100% in the weekly peak period. This is created by two factors: firstly the closure of the Jubilee Sports Centre; and secondly run 2 includes the projected 10.8% increase in demand for sports halls between 2019 and 2034. So more demand to share between a more limited supply of sports halls in run 2

9.51 In run 3, the new Top Farm 6 badminton court sports hall is included and it has an estimated used capacity of 100% in the weekly peak period. It is high because of the explanations set out about the draw effect of public leisure centres. Also as this venue is new it will have a draw effect over the older and smaller education venues. Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 342 9.52 In run 4 the new Bedworth and Pingles Leisure Centre sports hall sites are included, and they both have an estimated used capacity of 100% in the weekly peak period. This finding is also because of the explanations set out for the public leisure centres.

9.53 Run 4 does include an increase in supply of 10 badminton courts and this does create a re-distribution in the demand going to some of the education venues, notably the Sports and Fitness Centre, which decreases to 52% of its capacity used in the weekly peak period in run 4, from 82% in run 3.

Do the used capacity findings mean there should be an increase in the sports hall supply?

9.54 When the model finds a sports hall has an estimated used capacity of 100%, it is important to know if there is demand that would like to access the sports hall but cannot do so because it is full.

9.55 The model tries to re-allocate this demand to other sports halls in the same catchment area and this is an iterative process, until there is no more capacity at the other sports halls to absorb demand. The demand that remains is known as “demand re-distributed after initial allocation” Table 9.3 sets out these findings, with the final column showing the demand re- distributed after initial allocation.

9.56 The sites with a minus sign in red, show how many visits would like to access a sports hall but cannot do so after the re-distribution, in effect what demand is left over. There are four sites:

• New Bedworth Leisure Centre sports hall with 1,029 visits per week in the weekly peak period

• New Pingles Leisure Centre sports hall with 954 visits per week in the weekly peak period

• New Top Farm sports hall with 545 visits per week in the weekly peak period

• Nuneaton Academy Sports Centre with 456 visits in the weekly peak period

9.57 The centres without a minus sign, shows the number of visits that would like to access these sports hall site and cannot but have been re-distributed to other sports hall sites in the same catchment area.

Table 9.3: Run 4 Sports Halls Demand Re-distributed After Initial Allocation 2034

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 343 Name of Site Type Dimensions Area No of Site Site % of % of Demand Courts Year Year Capacity Capacity Redistribute Built Refurb Used Not after initial Used allocation

NUNEATON & BEDWORTH 87% 13% -920 ETONE COLLEGE Main 33 x 18 594 4 197 2015 93% 7% 461 9 GEORGE ELIOT SCHOOL Main 33 x 18 594 4 200 90% 10% 454 2 HIGHAM LANE SCHOOL Main 35 x 20 690 4 199 57% 43% 427 7 HIGHAM LANE SCHOOL Activity 18 x 10 180 Hall NEW BEDWORTH SPORTS HALL Main 35 x 20 690 4 202 100% 0% -1,029 4 NEW PINGLES SPORTS HALL Main 35 x 27 932 6 202 100% 0% -954 5 NEW TOP FARM SPORTS HALL Main 35 x 27 932 6 202 100% 0% -545 3 NICHOLAS CHAMBERLAINE SCHOOL (HALL) Main 35 x 20 690 4 198 2006 70% 30% 354 8 ST THOMAS MORE CATHOLIC SCHOOL & Main 27 x 18 486 3 199 100% 0% 191 SIXTH FORM COLLEGE 7 THE NUNEATON ACADEMY SPORTS CENTRE Main 33 x 18 594 4 200 100% 0% -456 6 THE SPORT AND FITNESS CENTRE Main 33 x 18 594 4 199 2008 52% 48% 176 0

9.58 Do the findings in Table 9.3 suggest there should be an increase in the size of the three new public leisure centre sports hall sites? The answer to this question is no, because the amount of unmet demand from lack of sports hall capacity, equates to less than 1 badminton court in each of the four runs (Table 6.1)..

9.59 The high used capacity findings in run 4 are not driven by high unmet demand, but the sports halls are estimated to be very full at peak times. So the resolution is to manage the sports halls to accommodate more activities at off peak times. Also to co-ordinate the programming of all the centres, so there is the most effective use of the centres and not provide the same activities for the same demand at the same time but with a choice of venues.

Imported Demand

9.60 Imported demand is reported under used capacity, because if residents in the neighbouring local authorities use the nearest sports hall to where they live, and this is a sports hall site in Nuneaton and Bedworth, then this becomes part of the used capacity of the Nuneaton and Bedworth sports halls.

9.61 Imported demand increases from 19% in run 1 to 27% of the used capacity of the Borough’s sports halls in run 4. This is another explanation/contribution to the used capacity findings, with one in four visits to the Borough’s sports halls in run 4 being from outside the Borough

9.62 The largest imported demand is from Hinckley and Bosworth in both years, with 10.7% of the used capacity of the Nuneaton and Bedworth sports halls Cabinetin - 2019Wednesday and 9th 13.9% September in 2020run 4 for 2034. 344 Overall Summary

9.63 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council is undertaking strategic planning for the future provision of sports halls within the Borough. The objective being to provide a modern fit for purpose stock of public leisure centre sports halls that supports participation and physical activity by its residents

9.64 The facilities planning modelling exercise has assessed the demand for sports halls and its distribution from 2019 to 2034 and beyond.

9.65 There are two striking features, firstly a projected 10.8% increase in demand for sports halls between 2019 and 2034, and secondly that in 2019 eight of the nine sports halls sites are education sports halls. These venues have variable access for community use, and across the sites, there is an aggregate total of 7 badminton courts which are unavailable for community use, 24% of the total supply in 2019. This creases the shortfall in the supply of sports halls to meet the Borough’s demand for sports halls in 2019

9.66 This is re-dressed by the option to provide three new public leisure centre sports halls, at Top Farm, Bedworth and Pingles Leisure Centres and this increases supply by a total of 16 badminton courts.

9.67 So in 2034 the finding is that the Nuneaton and Bedworth demand for sports halls are almost in balance. However the provision of three new public leisure centres with full availability, and not restricted as at the education venues, does create a draw effect, with increased imported demand.

9.68 The collective effect of the changes in sports hall supply and the draw to modern fit for purpose sports halls, plus the 10.8% increase in demand for sports halls, does mean they are estimated to be very busy at peak times.

9.69 Not sufficient to justify further or larger provision of sports halls. The fpm finding is that the three new centres at the scale modelled and in the locations proposed, do provide the best overall balance in the supply and demand for sports halls to 2034 and beyond.

The facilities planning model study

9.70 It is most important to set out that the fpm study is a quantitative, accessibility and spatial assessment of the supply, demand and access to sports halls. It assesses how this changes based on projected population growth and options to change the sports hall supply.

9.1 The fpm study provides a hard evidence base that can inform consultations, so as to then provide a rounded evidence base. This can then be used in the development of the Council’s strategic planning for the provision of sports

Cabinethalls - Wednesday. 9th September 2020 345

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 346 Appendix 1: Sports Halls in the study area included in the assessment. Runs 1 – 4

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Sports Hall Supply

Name of Site Type Dimensions Area No of Site Site Car % Public Walk % Courts Year Year Demand Tran % Demand Built Refurb Demand

NUNEATON & BEDWORTH 78% 8% 14% ETONE COLLEGE Main 33 x 18 594 4 1979 2015 80% 8% 12% GEORGE ELIOT SCHOOL Main 33 x 18 594 4 2002 76% 7% 17% HIGHAM LANE SCHOOL Main 35 x 20 690 4 1997 87% 6% 7% HIGHAM LANE SCHOOL Activity 18 x 10 180 Hall JUBILEE SPORTS CENTRE (NUNEATON) Main 35 x 20 690 4 1978 2010 75% 9% 16% (Run 1) NEW BEDWORTH SPORTS HALL (Run 4) Main 35 x 20 690 4 2024 NEW PINGLES SPORTS HALL (Run 4) Main 35 x 27 932 6 2025 NEW TOP FARM SPORTS HALL (Run 3) Main 35 x 27 932 6 2023 NICHOLAS CHAMBERLAINE SCHOOL Main 35 x 20 690 4 1988 2006 75% 8% 17% (HALL) ST THOMAS MORE CATHOLIC SCHOOL & Main 27 x 18 486 3 1997 72% 8% 19% SIXTH FORM COLLEGE THE NUNEATON ACADEMY SPORTS Main 33 x 18 594 4 2006 75% 8% 17% CENTRE THE SPORT AND FITNESS CENTRE Main 33 x 18 594 4 1990 2008 86% 6% 7%

Sports Hall Supply in the Neighbouring Local Authorities

Name of Site Type Dimensions Area No of Site Site Car % Public Walk % courts Year Year Demand Tran % Demand Built Refurb Demand

HINCKLEY & BOSWORTH 86% 5% 10% BOSWORTH ACADEMY Main 35 x 20 690 4 1969 2001 92% 4% 4% BOSWORTH ACADEMY Activity Hall 18 x 18 324 BOSWORTH ACADEMY Activity Hall 18 x 10 180 GROBY COMMUNITY COLLEGE Main 35 x 20 690 4 1977 76% 5% 19% HEATH LANE ACADEMY Main 32 x 18 576 4 1998 2017 84% 4% 11% HINCKLEY ACADEMY AND JOHN Main 30 x 20 600 4 1974 2012 88% 5% 7% CLEVELAND SIXTH FORM CENTRE HINCKLEY ACADEMY AND JOHN Activity Hall 18 x 10 180 CLEVELAND SIXTH FORM CENTRE HINCKLEY CLUB FOR YOUNG Main 33 x 18 594 4 2010 83% 5% 13% PEOPLE COVENTRY 68% 10% 22% ALAN HIGGS CENTRE Main 33 x 18 594 4 2004 2008 75% 12% 13% BABLAKE SCHOOL Main 33 x 18 594 4 1960 46% 8% 46% BARKER'S BUTTS R.F.C Main 27 x 18 486 3 1985 92% 5% 3% BARRS HILL SCHOOL & COMMUNITY Main 33 x 18 594 4 1985 49% 9% 43% COLLEGE BARRS HILL SCHOOL & COMMUNITY Activity Hall 18 x 10 180 COLLEGE BLUE COAT CHURCH OF ENGLAND Main 33 x 18 594 4 1950 2004 61% 11% 27% SCHOOL & MUSIC COLLEGE BLUE COAT CHURCH OF ENGLAND Activity Hall 18 x 10 180 SCHOOL & MUSIC COLLEGE CALUDON CASTLE SPORTS CENTRE Main 33 x 18 594 4 2007 2010 68% 10% 23% CENTRE AT7 Main 35 x 27 932 6 1987 65% 12% 23% COVENTRY SPORTS & LEISURE Main 43 x 41 1734 10 1977 58% 11% 31% CENTRE COVENTRY UNIVERSITY SPORTS Main 34 x 18 622 4 2004 62% 12% 27% CENTRE

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 347

COVENTRY UNIVERSITY SPORTS Activity Hall 18 x 17 306 CENTRE DAVID LLOYD COVENTRY Main 45 x 18 810 5 1996 86% 6% 8% ERNESFORD GRANGE COMMUNITY Main 35 x 20 690 4 1972 1984 69% 11% 21% ACADEMY ERNESFORD GRANGE COMMUNITY Activity Hall 18 x 17 306 ACADEMY FINHAM PARK SCHOOL Main 35 x 20 690 4 1970 2005 65% 8% 28% FOXFORD LEISURE CENTRE Main 35 x 20 690 4 1997 2003 72% 10% 17% FOXFORD LEISURE CENTRE Activity Hall 18 x 10 180 GRACE ACADEMY COVENTRY Main 35 x 20 690 4 2010 80% 10% 10% GRACE ACADEMY COVENTRY Activity Hall 18 x 17 306 HENLEY COLLEGE COVENTRY Main 35 x 20 690 4 1989 64% 12% 24% HEREWARD COLLEGE SPORTS Main 33 x 18 594 4 1996 69% 9% 22% CENTRE KING HENRY VIII SCHOOL Main 33 x 18 594 4 2002 67% 11% 22% KING HENRY VIII SCHOOL Activity Hall 20 x 13 250 MOAT HOUSE LEISURE & Main 33 x 18 594 4 2009 63% 11% 26% NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE PRESIDENT KENNEDY SCHOOL Main 33 x 18 594 4 1965 55% 7% 38% SIDNEY STRINGER ACADEMY Main 35 x 20 690 4 2011 56% 11% 33% ST AUGUSTINE'S SPORTS CENTRE Main 35 x 20 690 4 1990 81% 7% 12% (COVENTRY) ST AUGUSTINE'S SPORTS CENTRE Activity Hall 18 x 10 180 (COVENTRY) ST AUGUSTINE'S SPORTS CENTRE Activity Hall 20 x 10 200 (COVENTRY) STOKE PARK SCHOOL & Main 33 x 18 594 4 1980 58% 10% 32% COMMUNITY COLLEGE STOKE PARK SCHOOL & Activity Hall 18 x 10 180 COMMUNITY COLLEGE THE WESTWOOD ACADEMY Main 33 x 18 594 4 1981 2006 77% 9% 14% UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK Main 28 x 18 495 3 1970 2006 79% 9% 12% (WESTWOOD CAMPUS) WEST COVENTRY ACADEMY Main 35 x 20 690 4 1956 75% 9% 16% WEST COVENTRY ACADEMY Activity Hall 18 x 10 180 WHITLEY ACADEMY Main 33 x 18 594 4 2009 78% 13% 9% WHITLEY ACADEMY Activity Hall 22 x 18 396 WOODLANDS ACADEMY SPORTS Main 33 x 18 594 4 2006 73% 7% 20% COMPLEX XCEL LEISURE CENTRE Main 33 x 27 891 4 2008 75% 9% 16% NORTH WARWICKSHIRE 85% 7% 8% ARLEY SPORTS CENTRE Main 27 x 18 486 3 1981 89% 6% 5% COLESHILL LEISURE CENTRE Main 35 x 20 690 4 2014 86% 11% 3% HARTSHILL SCHOOL Main 35 x 20 690 4 1958 69% 6% 25% KINGSBURY SCHOOL Main 35 x 20 690 4 2013 89% 6% 5% KINGSBURY YOUTH CENTRE & Main 33 x 18 594 4 1975 2004 89% 6% 5% SPORTS HALL POLESWORTH SPORTS CENTRE Main 33 x 18 594 4 1980 85% 5% 10% QUEEN ELIZABETH ACADEMY Main 33 x 18 594 4 2016 85% 7% 8% QUEEN ELIZABETH ACADEMY Activity Hall 18 x 10 180 QUEEN ELIZABETH ACADEMY Activity Hall 18 x 10 180 RUGBY 82% 6% 12% AVON VALLEY SCHOOL Main 33 x 18 594 4 1957 2009 77% 6% 17% BILTON SCHOOL Main 35 x 20 690 4 2015 78% 5% 18% BILTON SCHOOL Activity Hall 18 x 10 180 GRIFFIN CENTRE Main 35 x 20 690 4 1996 2006 72% 6% 23% HARRIS CHURCH OF ENGLAND Main 33 x 18 594 4 2007 77% 6% 17% ACADEMY HARRIS CHURCH OF ENGLAND Activity Hall 18 x 10 180 ACADEMY PRINCETHORPE COLLEGE Main 35 x 20 690 4 1984 2014 92% 6% 1% RUGBY SCHOOL SPORTS CENTRE Main 35 x 27 932 6 1991 2003 82% 6% 12% SPORTS CONNEXION LEISURE CLUB Main 52 x 27 1397 9 1989 2007 94% 5% 1% SPORTS CONNEXION LEISURE CLUB Main 40 x 35 1380 THE QUEENS DIAMOND JUBILEE Main 51 x 18 918 6 2013 82% 6% 11% CENTRE

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 348

WARWICKSHIRE COLLEGE (RUGBY Main 35 x 20 690 4 2010 78% 6% 16% CENTRE)

Appendix 2: Model description, Inclusion Criteria and Model Parameters

Included within this appendix are the following:

• Model description

• Facility Inclusion Criteria

• Model Parameters

Model Description

1. Background

1.1 The Facilities Planning Model (FPM) is a computer-based supply/demand model, which has been developed by Edinburgh University in conjunction with sportscotland and Sport England since the 1980s.

1.2 The model is a tool to help to assess the strategic provision of community sports facilities in an area. It is currently applicable for use in assessing the provision of sports halls, swimming pools, indoor bowls centres and artificial grass pitches.

2. Use of FPM

2.1 Sport England uses the FPM as one of its principal tools in helping to assess the strategic need for certain community sports facilities. The FPM has been developed as a means of:

• assessing requirements for different types of community sports facilities on a local, regional or national scale;

• helping local authorities to determine an adequate level of sports facility provision to meet their local needs;

• helping to identify strategic gaps in the provision of sports facilities; and

• comparing alternative options for planned provision, taking account of changes in demand and supply. This includes testing the impact of opening, relocating and closing facilities, and the likely impact of population changes on the needs for sports facilities.

2.2 Its current use is limited to those sports facility types for which Sport England holds substantial demand data, i.e. swimming pools, sports halls, indoor bowls and artificial grass pitches.

2.3 The FPM has been used in the assessment of Lottery funding bids for community facilities, and as a principal planning tool to assist local authorities in planning for the provision of community sports facilities. For example, the FPM was used to help assess the impact of a 50m swimming pool development in the London Borough of Hillingdon. The Council invested £22 million in the sports and leisure

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 349 complex around this pool and received funding of £2,025,000 from the London Development Agency and £1,500,000 from Sport England1.

3. How the model works

3.1 In its simplest form, the model seeks to assess whether the capacity of existing facilities for a particular sport is capable of meeting local demand for that sport, taking into account how far people are prepared to travel to such a facility.

3.2 In order to do this, the model compares the number of facilities (supply) within an area, against the demand for that facility (demand) that the local population will produce, similar to other social gravity models.

3.3 To do this, the FPM works by converting both demand (in terms of people), and supply (facilities), into a single comparable unit. This unit is ‘visits per week in the peak period’ (VPWPP). Once converted, demand and supply can be compared.

3.4 The FPM uses a set of parameters to define how facilities are used and by whom. These parameters are primarily derived from a combination of data including actual user surveys from a range of sites across the country in areas of good supply, together with participation survey data. These surveys provide core information on the profile of users, such as, the age and gender of users, how often they visit, the distance travelled, duration of stay, and on the facilities themselves, such as, programming, peak times of use, and capacity of facilities.

3.5 This survey information is combined with other sources of data to provide a set of model parameters for each facility type. The original core user data for halls and pools comes from the National Halls and Pools survey undertaken in 1996. This data formed the basis for the National Benchmarking Service (NBS). For AGPs, the core data used comes from the user survey of AGPs carried out in 2005/6 jointly with sportscotland.

3.6 User survey data from the NBS and other appropriate sources are used to update the model’s parameters on a regular basis. The parameters are set out at the end of the document, and the range of the main source data used by the model includes:

• National Halls & Pools survey data –Sport England • Benchmarking Service User Survey data –Sport England • UK 2000 Time Use Survey – ONS • General Household Survey – ONS • Scottish Omnibus Surveys – Sport Scotland

1 Award made in 2007/08 year. Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 350 • Active People Survey - Sport England • STP User Survey - Sport England & sportscotland • Football participation - The FA • Young People & Sport in England – Sport England • Hockey Fixture data - Fixtures Live • Taking Part Survey - DCMS

4. Calculating Demand

4.1 This is calculated by applying the user information from the parameters, as referred to above, to the population2. This produces the number of visits for that facility that will be demanded by the population.

4.2 Depending on the age and gender make-up of the population, this will affect the number of visits an area will generate. In order to reflect the different population make-up of the country, the FPM calculates demand based on the smallest census groupings. These are Output Areas (OA)3.

4.3 The use of OAs in the calculation of demand ensures that the FPM is able to reflect and portray differences in demand in areas at the most sensitive level based on available census information. Each OA used is given a demand value in VPWPP by the FPM.

5. Calculating Supply Capacity

5.1 A facility’s capacity varies depending on its size (i.e. size of pool, hall, pitch number), and how many hours the facility is available for use by the community.

5.2 The FPM calculates a facility’s capacity by applying each of the capacity factors taken from the model parameters, such as the assumptions made as to how many ‘visits’ can be accommodated by the particular facility at any one time. Each facility is then given a capacity figure in VPWPP. (See parameters in Section C).

5.3 Based on travel time information4 taken from the user survey, the FPM then calculates how much demand would be met by the particular facility having regard to its capacity and how much demand is within the facility’s catchment. The FPM includes an important feature of spatial interaction. This feature takes account of the location and capacity of all the facilities, having regard to their location and the

2 For example, it is estimated that 7.72% of 16-24 year old males will demand to use an AGP, 1.67 times a week. This calculation is done separately for the 12 age/gender groupings. 3 Census Output Areas (OA) are the smallest grouping of census population data, and provides the population information on which the FPM’s demand parameters are applied. A demand figure can then be calculated for each OA based on the population profile. There are over 171,300 OAs in England. An OA has a target value of 125 households per OA.

4 To reflect the fact that as distance to a facility increases, fewer visits are made, the FPM uses a travel time distance decay curve, where the majority of users travel up to 20 minutes. The FPM also takes account of the road network when calculating travel times. Car ownership levels, taken from Census data, are also taken into account when calculating how people will travel to facilities. Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 351 size of demand and assesses whether the facilities are in the right place to meet the demand.

5.4 It is important to note that the FPM does not simply add up the total demand within an area and compare that to the total supply within the same area. This approach would not take account of the spatial aspect of supply against demand in a particular area. For example, if an area had a total demand for 5 facilities, and there were currently 6 facilities within the area, it would be too simplistic to conclude that there was an oversupply of 1 facility, as this approach would not take account of whether the 5 facilities are in the correct location for local people to use them within that area. It might be that all the facilities were in one part of the borough, leaving other areas under provided. An assessment of this kind would not reflect the true picture of provision. The FPM is able to assess supply and demand within an area based on the needs of the population within that area.

5.5 In making calculations as to supply and demand, visits made to sports facilities are not artificially restricted or calculated by reference to administrative boundaries, such as local authority areas. Users are generally expected to use their closest facility. The FPM reflects this through analysing the location of demand against the location of facilities, allowing for cross boundary movement of visits. For example, if a facility is on the boundary of a local authority, users will generally be expected to come from the population living close to the facility, but who may be in an adjoining authority.

6. Facility Attractiveness – for halls and pools only

6.1 Not all facilities are the same and users will find certain facilities more attractive to use than others. The model attempts to reflect this by introducing an attractiveness weighting factor, which effects the way visits are distributed between facilities. Attractiveness, however, is very subjective. Currently weightings are only used for hall and pool modelling, with a similar approach for AGPs is being developed.

6.2 Attractiveness weightings are based on the following:

• Age/refurbishment weighting – pools & halls - the older a facility is, the less attractive it will be to users. It is recognised that this is a general assumption and that there may be examples where older facilities are more attractive than newly built ones due to excellent local management, programmes and sports development. Additionally, the date of any significant refurbishment is also included within the weighting factor; however, the attractiveness is set lower than a new build of the same year. It is assumed that a refurbishment that is older than 20 years will have a minimal impact on the facilities attractiveness. The information on year built/refurbished is taken from Active Places. A graduated curve is used to allocate the attractiveness weighting by

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 352 year. This curve levels off at around 1920 with a 20% weighting. The refurbishment weighting is slightly lower than the new built year equivalent.

• Management & ownership weighting – halls only - due to the large number of halls being provided by the education sector, an assumption is made that in general, these halls will not provide as balanced a program than halls run by LAs, trusts, etc, with school halls more likely to be used by teams and groups through block booking. A less balanced programme is assumed to be less attractive to a general, pay & play user, than a standard local authority leisure centre sports hall, with a wider range of activities on offer.

6.3 To reflect this, two weightings curves are used for education and non-education halls, a high weighted curve, and a lower weighted curve;

• High weighted curve - includes Non-education management - better balanced programme, more attractive.

• Lower weighted curve - includes Educational owned & managed halls, less attractive.

6.4 Commercial facilities – halls and pools - whilst there are relatively few sports halls provided by the commercial sector, an additional weighing factor is incorporated within the model to reflect the cost element often associated with commercial facilities. For each population output area, the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score is used to limit whether people will use commercial facilities. The assumption is that the higher the IMD score (less affluence) the less likely the population of the OA would choose to go to a commercial facility.

7. Comfort Factor – halls and pools

7.1 As part of the modelling process, each facility is given a maximum number of visits it can accommodate, based on its size, the number of hours it’s available for community use and the ‘at one-time capacity’ figure (pools =1 user /6m2, halls = 6 users /court). This gives each facility a “theoretical capacity”.

7.2 If the facilities were full to their theoretical capacity, then there would simply not be the space to undertake the activity comfortably. In addition, there is a need to take account of a range of activities taking place which have different numbers of users, for example, aqua aerobics will have significantly more participants, than lane swimming sessions. Additionally, there may be times and sessions that, whilst being within the peak period, are less busy and so will have fewer users.

7.3 To account of these factors the notion of a ‘comfort factor’ is applied within the model. For swimming pools 70%, and for sports halls 80%, of its theoretical capacity is considered as being the limit where the facility starts to become uncomfortably busy. (Currently, the comfort factor is NOT applied to AGPs due to

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 353 the fact they are predominantly used by teams, which have a set number of players and so the notion of having ‘less busy’ pitch is not applicable).

7.4 The comfort factor is used in two ways;

• Utilised Capacity - How well used is a facility? ‘Utilised capacity’ figures for facilities are often seen as being very low, 50-60%, however, this needs to be put into context with 70-80% comfort factor levels for pools and halls. The closer utilised capacity gets to the comfort factor level, the busier the facilities are becoming. You should not aim to have facilities operating at 100% of their theoretical capacity, as this would mean that every session throughout the peak period would be being used to its maximum capacity. This would be both unrealistic in operational terms and unattractive to users.

• Adequately meeting Unmet Demand – the comfort factor is also used to increase the amount of facilities that are needed to comfortably meet the unmet demand. If this comfort factor is not added, then any facilities provided will be operating at its maximum theoretical capacity, which is not desirable as a set out above.

8. Utilised Capacity (used capacity)

8.1 Following on from Comfort Factor section, here is more guidance on Utilised Capacity.

8.2 Utilised capacity refers to how much of facilities theoretical capacity is being used. This can, at first, appear to be unrealistically low, with area figures being in the 50- 60% region. Without any further explanation, it would appear that facilities are half empty. The key point is not to see a facilities theoretical maximum capacity (100%) as being an optimum position. This, in practise, would mean that a facility would need to be completely full every hour it was open in the peak period. This would be both unrealistic from an operational perspective and undesirable from a user’s perspective, as the facility would completely full.

8.3 For example:

A 25m, 4 lane pool has Theoretical capacity of 2260 per week, during 52hour peak period.

4-5pm 5-6pm 6-7pm 7-8pm 8-9pm 9-10pm Total Visits for the evening

Theoretical 44 44 44 44 44 44 264 max capacity

Actual 8 30 35 50 15 5 143 Usage

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 354 8.4 Usage of a pool will vary throughout the evening, with some sessions being busier than others though programming, such as, an aqua-aerobics session between 7- 8pm, lane swimming between 8-9pm. Other sessions will be quieter, such as between 9-10pm. This pattern of use would give a total of 143 swims taking place. However, the pool’s maximum capacity is 264 visits throughout the evening. In this instance the pools utilised capacity for the evening would be 54%.

8.5 As a guide, 70% utilised capacity is used to indicate that pools are becoming busy, and 80% for sports halls. This should be seen only as a guide to help flag up when facilities are becoming busier, rather than a ‘hard threshold’.

9. Travel times Catchments

9.1 The model uses travel times to define facility catchments in terms of driving and walking.

9.2 The Ordnance Survey (OS) Integrated Transport Network (ITN) for roads has been used to calculate the off-peak drive times between facilities and the population, observing one-way and turn restrictions which apply, and taking into account delays at junctions and car parking. Each street in the network is assigned a speed for car travel based on the attributes of the road, such as the width of the road, and geographical location of the road, for example the density of properties along the street. These travel times have been derived through national survey work, and so are based on actual travel patterns of users. The road speeds used for Inner & Outer London Boroughs have been further enhanced by data from the Department for Transport.

9.3 The walking catchment uses the OS Urban Path Network to calculate travel times along paths and roads, excluding motorways and trunk roads. A standard walking speed of 3 mph is used for all journeys.

9.4 The model includes three different modes of travel, by car, public transport & walking. Car access is also taken into account, in areas of lower access to a car, the model reduces the number of visits made by car and increases those made on foot.

9.5 Overall, surveys have shown that the majority of visits made to swimming pools, sports halls and AGPs are made by car, with a significant minority of visits to pools and sports halls being made on foot.

Facility Car Walking Public transport

Swimming Pool 76% 15% 9% Sports Hall 77% 15% 8% AGP Combined 83% 14% 3% Football 79% 17% 3% Hockey 96% 2% 2%

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 355

9.6 The model includes a distance decay function; where the further a user is from a facility, the less likely they will travel. The set out below is the survey data with the % of visits made within each of the travel times, which shows that almost 90% of all visits, both car borne or walking, are made within 20 minutes. Hence, 20 minutes is often used as a rule of thumb for catchments for sports halls and pools.

Sport halls Swimming Pools

Minutes Car Walk Car Walk

0-10 62% 61% 58% 57%

10-20 29% 26% 32% 31% 20 -40 8% 11% 9% 11%

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 356 Agenda Item 15

CABINET

Report Summary Sheet

Date: 9th September 2020

Subject: British Cycling – Stage Two Application

Portfolio: Arts & Leisure (Councillor I. K. Lloyd)

From: Director Leisure, Recreation and Health

Summary: This report provides Cabinet with an update of its recent successful acceptance to Stage 2 of the British Cycling – Places to Ride capital funding application.

That a Stage 2 application is submitted, taking into consideration feedback from the recent public Be-Nu consultation in February and how the application fits with future leisure facility development and concept planning of its Destination Parks.

Recommendations:

1. Cabinet supports a Stage 2 British Cycling application being submitted, with Officers taking into consideration all other leisure facility development / Parks concept plans to ensure future deliverability and timescales can be met.

Reasons: The opportunity to further develop and provide outdoor cycling opportunities for all age groups will support health and well-being over many years to come. It will also provide opportunities to take advantage of the Councils Destinations Parks and promote environmental / green modes of transport moving forward.

British Cycling have capital funding to support successful Stage 2 Applications up to 50% or a maximum of £500,000. Whilst there is no guarantee that NBBC will be successful in their application and there are many competing partners for this funding, unless a submission is forwarded, we will not be considered.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 357

The development of new infrastructure for cycling for all age groups in the Councils Destination Parks is detailed in the Councils Leisure Strategy and work has been undertaken in this area already working with Sport England.

Options: Accept the recommendation. Do not accept the recommendation.

Subject to call-in: Yes

Forward plan: Yes

Delivering Our Future priorities:

 Theme 1 –Transformation  Theme 2 - Collaboration  Theme 3 - Investment

Relevant statutes or policy: Contract Procedures Rules

Equal opportunity implications: No direct equal opportunities implications

Human resources implications:

The actions identified within this report will require a combination of internal officer support from Leisure, Parks & Countryside, Communications, Planning, Finance, Estates, Legal, Communities, and engaging with external consultants.

Financial implications:

There are financial implications relating to the application for the Council which will need to be addressed in future reports to Cabinet on decisions for new build of specific sites and locations of cycling infrastructure. These would form part of

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 358

the overall Leisure Development and Concept planning strategies work.

Health Inequalities Implications:

The strategy supports the Councils “Delivering Our Future” corporate agenda in providing opportunities for sport, physical activity and mental health and well- being provision.

Section 17 - Crime and Disorder Implications:

The opportunity to increase leisure facilities will provide residents additional opportunities to take part in physical activity. This will support improved outcomes for crime and disorder, whereby opportunities are taken up by young people instead of other less desirable activities.

Risk management implications:

There are risk management issues which will be forthcoming depending upon the delivery of the action/recommendations detailed within the report. These will need to be managed ongoing with the projects and ensure future sustainability, due diligence and best value is provided for the Council.

Environmental implications:

If facilities are built these will take into consideration environmentally friendly impact and how best to develop in Parks areas. The development and promotion of cycling for residents would be most beneficial for future green transport opportunities.

Legal implications:

Future procurement in accordance with NBBC’s Council’s Contract procedures Rules (CPR’s) will be followed and also take into consideration the Leisure Procurement Strategy working with partners.

Contact details:

Kevin Hollis Telephone 024 7637 6143

e-mail: [email protected]

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 359

AGENDA ITEM NO: .

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Cabinet - 9th September 2020

From: Director - Leisure, Recreation and Health

Subject: British Cycling – Stage Two Application

Portfolio: Arts & Leisure (Councillor I. K. Lloyd)

Delivering Our Future Theme: 1, 2 and 3

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 This report provides Cabinet with an update of its recent successful acceptance to Stage 2 of the British Cycling – Places to Ride capital funding application.

1.2 Following a Stage 1 application submitted in March this year, detailing the Councils future Leisure Strategy and making greater use of outdoor space for recreation, which included improving and developing cycling infrastructure a request for a Stage 2 application has been requested for future consideration.

1.3 Working with British Cycling and Sport England, whist no guarantees there is an opportunity to try and secure external funding to support NBBC match funding to develop cycling infrastructure at its two main leisure facility areas. (Riversley and Miners Welfare Parks)

2. Recommendations

2.1 Cabinet supports a Stage 2 British Cycling application being submitted, with Officers taking into consideration all other leisure facility development / Parks concept plans to ensure future deliverability and timescales can be met.

3. Background

3.1 In 2019 as part of the ongoing development of Leisure and Parks future strategies, meetings took place with Sport England and British Cycling to understand how these partners could support in improving outdoor recreation space and potential funding opportunities.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 360

3.2 In February this year following previous meeting with partners, specific questions were included in the Be-Nu public consultation to seek some high-level feedback around cycling facilities and future needs and opportunities.

3.3 In March this year Officers pulled together information from its Strategic Outcome Planning Guidance report to Sport England, including Parks Concept Planning work for Destination Parks (both reports previously reported to Cabinet) to submit an initial enquiry to British Cycling.

3.4 In July this year, following a delay due to COVID-19 the Councils Stage 1 application was reviewed and a request was received to submit a Stage 2 application for assessment by British Cycling.

3.5 Appendix A to this report provides a copy of the Stage 2 application now required to be completed and submitted within given timescales.

3.6 British Cycling received funding for its Places to Ride applications as a result of the 2019 UCI Road World Championships to deliver long lasting community facility legacies, within set timescales.

4. Current position

4.1 As reported to Cabinet in December 2019 and again March 2020, ongoing work around future leisure facility development has progressed and already been approved to move to RIBA stages 2 and 3 for Bedworth and Pingles sites.

4.2 Due to COVID-19 some delays have occurred in moving forward with actions. Feedback from the public consultation is soon to be provided to Cabinet, along with a refreshed Leisure Facility Strategy and revised Sport England Strategic Planning Guidance based upon the high-level feedback received from the public and refreshed Facility Planning Modelling data.

4.3 British Cycling have a strict timetable to deliver legacy facilities for their Place to Ride funding which must be adhered too, upon accepting the grant funds if successful. The project funding must be spent by March 2021.

4.4 It is recommended that consideration of Public feedback, architects and Sport England feedback and the siting of the proposed Bedworth and Pingles facilities are all taken on board before submitting a Stage 2 application to ensure that the Council can deliver its leisure facilities in the most efficient and economically way in conjunction with cycling facilities.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 361

4.5 Officers suggest that a Stage 2 application is worked up, with ongoing liaison with British Cycling and Sport England using the latest information and advice from its partners and seek to apply for funds that will support future overall infrastructure delivery.

5. Financial Implications

5.1 In the Council’s Stage 1 application an estimate based upon other similar facilities and information provided by British Cycling the overall scheme for Bedworth and Pingles infrastructure came to circa £1.2M British Cycling will support 50% or up to a maximum of £500,000 for any one project.

5.2 It would be sensible that any work around the cycling infrastructure is built into the overall Project Management of the leisure facilities procurement strategy to ensure consistently and an efficient use of resources. This forms part of a further report to Cabinet at this meeting.

5.3 The Council would be required to match fund any funds supported by British Cycling on a 50 – 50 ratio. Funds are being secured and will be in the future for cycling infrastructure through S.106/CIL requests, but these are dependent upon Developers completing their housing development and trigger points to release funds.

Kevin Hollis

Appendix A

Stage 2 Action Plan British Cycling

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 362 Places to Ride Programme | Project Action Plan

URN 2020010693 Applicant: Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council

Project Title: Development of new cycling facility

Congratulations on being selected as a project to progress through to Stage two of the ‘Places to Ride’ programme.

The programme will deliver a facilities legacy as a result of the 2019 UCI Road World Championships; seeking to inspire more people to ride, connecting communities through cycling and delivering a lasting community legacy.

This Action Plan has been created to support your project to make a final submission. This will include provision of the identified supporting information alongside a Stage 2 application form.

The Action Plan covers two areas:

SECTION 1 – ELIGIBILITY

The first section highlights what evidence is required to confirm your organisation is eligible to receive public funding. This includes for example, details about your organisation’s governance structure as well as site ownership.

SECTION 2 - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

The second section is focussed on the development of your project. This includes identifying the supporting information needed to respond to the key criteria areas of; why your project is needed, what you are seeking to achieve as well as how you will make it happen.

We will ask for specific evidence which will be mostly in the form of information you have either gathered or will need to deliver your project. For example, this could be the consultation you’ve undertaken with potential users, the designs for your facility right through to the business plan for how you will make it operational.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 363

Places to Ride Programme Background

Programme Objectives

• Inspired to Ride Encourage more people from a range of different backgrounds regardless of gender, age, ability or ethnicity to engage with cycling in all its forms. We want to provide more opportunities for people to enjoy riding a bike in an accessible and inclusive environment; focusing especially on provision that responds to the needs of women and girls and people with a disability.

• Connecting the community Invest in opportunities that connect local communities and address barriers to engaging with cycling. Recognise the wider benefits of riding a bike to enable societal benefits such as community cohesion, reducing social isolation and health and wellbeing.

• A Lasting Legacy Ensure we deliver a lasting legacy of active environments that provide high quality and affordable opportunities to engage with cycling now, that will continue to be deliverable in the future.

Programme Aspirations

✓ Deliver cycling facilities that are accessible by walking and cycling and are integrated into the local cycle network. This should be evidenced through the link to or inclusion in the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (CWIP) or other local sustainable transport strategy. ✓ Support projects which prioritise creating opportunities to engage people who are new to cycling, especially considering access for women and girls, young people and people with a disability. ✓ Double the investment in community cycling facilities through working with projects that can contribute partnership funding to grow the investment in the activity and their local community. ✓ Support a balanced geographical spread of facilities across England. ✓ Align with the 2019 UCI Road World Championships event delivery – creating inspiration and engagement opportunities linked to the major event. ✓ Support a diverse range of projects including those which offer innovative solutions that respond to the needs of different consumers. ✓ Support projects that embrace efficiency and appeal to a broader consumer base through co-location with different sports or community facilities responding to local needs

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 364

Programme Criteria

The programme criteria will be used to assess the extent to which your project delivers against the Places to Ride programme objectives and aspirations.

WHY This is simply why you have been motivated to apply. It will mean telling us more about your situation, the people you engage with through your Why is your project needed? organisation and who live in your community, and what they need. If you are asking for a large-scale request this should include information on the strategic need for your project. WHAT This is about the difference your project will make. It will mean telling us more about how the project will benefit the people you want to engage and What will you achieve as a result of the community. You’ll describe what you want to do and how that will meet the identified needs. the project? HOW This will mean explaining how you will deliver the project as well as providing information on how the project will be able to keep going over the How will you make it happen? longer term, including how it will help to develop cycling in your community over a period of time.

Next Steps

Your Case Manager Jon Couves will help you work through the Action Plan and will agree with you the evidence need and the timeframes for delivery. Please see Jon’s contact details below:

Jon Couves T: 07508030716 E: [email protected]

Completed Action Plans should be sent to [email protected]

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 365

Support and Guidance

Asset Transfer: https://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/community-asset-transfer/

Club Matters https://www.sportenglandclubmatters.com/

Governance: https://www.sportenglandclubmatters.com/club-planning/governance/

Facility and design guidance: https://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/design-and-cost-guidance/

Finances: https://www.sportenglandclubmatters.com/club-finances/

Safeguarding https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/safeguarding

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 366 Section 1: Governance and Eligibility

OBJECTIVE/REQUIREMENT ACTION EVIDENCE AGREED COMPLETE

Confirm Applicant / Security of Tenure • Who has the security of tenure on the site? • Evidence of sufficient freehold or leasehold for The applicant must be the organisation that has legal access to minimum of 15 years. the site either through ownership (freehold) or leasehold.

A minimum of 15 years of tenure is required.

Legal Charge (If over £150,000 funding request) • Sport England will require confirmation that the applicant organisation will permit Sport England to The applicant organisation to confirm they are aware of this enter into a restriction or caution in respect to the requirement. property of HM Land Registry in respect of the registered title or a legal charge over the property

Safeguarding • Please provide copies of safeguarding policy for children and vulnerable adults. The applicant organisation to provide evidence of suitable safeguarding and protection policies are adopted by the organisation. Approval • Written confirmation of approval or other appropriate evidence aligned with governance Evidence of approval to enter into the award agreement. requirements.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 367 Section 2: Assessment Criteria | Why this is the project needed?

OBJECTIVE/REQUIREMENT ACTION EVIDENCE AGREED COMPLETE Why this is important Insight & Consultation

You’ve previously described why your project is important to Please evidence of the insight you have used to inform your Community or organisation. We would now like you to your project. This could include strategic documents, provide more evidence of this to support your application. local customer analysis and consultation you have carried out or the feedback from surveys / In this section, we are interested in understanding more about questionnaires you’ve received that has informed your how: project idea. - You’ve understood what is important to your local community Facility availability / Local opportunities - You’ve reviewed what other facilities or opportunities are available to them at moment If you are planning to provide new facilities and - You’ve confirmed there is a need to improve or provide opportunities, it will be helpful if you can evidence a new facility how you’ve considered the existing facilities that are available for the community. This could be through a Local Facilities Strategy or other analysis

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 368 Section 3: Assessment Criteria | What you will achieve

OBJECTIVE/REQUIREMENT ACTION EVIDENCE AGREED COMPLETE What you plan to achieve Sport and community Development

In your initial application you outlined what you would like to Please tell us how the facility will be used, what achieve by delivering your project. activities will be offered and how you’ll make these happen. (A Development Plan template is available on We would now like you to detail each of the objectives within a request) development plan.

The plan should set out how the proposed grant will contribute to improved outcomes for Cycling, in particular: Active Travel and connectivity Please tell us the work you have undertaken on safe The Project must set out how the proposed investment will travel planning for people to access the proposed site. contribute improving Cycling, focusing on how you will: - Engage more people Cycling, Programme of Use - Reach different audience (especially considering W&G, people with a disability.) Please provide us with a Programme of use. If you plan - Support the wider community to make your facilities available for other groups to - Leave a lasting legacy use, please tell us about it.

Design for the audience

How has the need for the project informed the design proposals? (Identify how the activities asked for in the . consultation have led to the design proposals for the facilities).

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 369 Section 4: Assessment Criteria: How you will make it happen

OBJECTIVE/REQUIREMENT ACTION EVIDENCE AGREED COMPLETE How you will make it happen The project team

We would like you to tell us how you will deliver your project. Capital projects often involve several stakeholders and This will cover all phases of the design and build of your facility. regularly require a variety of professionally qualified If you have identified funding from partner organisations, then individuals. Please tell us about this team for your this needs to be confirmed. project.

It will also be a chance for you to tell us about your project team Cost and Design and the roles and responsibilities. The project will need a clear cost plan identifying the capital works, which should be accompanied by at least In addition to the design build / initial improvements, we would one quote. This plan should consider fees, planning and like to know how your facility will be financially viable for the VAT aspects. long term. This will cover ongoing maintenance and a facility sinking fund. It is essential that the design of the proposed facilities adheres to Sport England and BC design guidance. All projects involve risk; therefore we would like to you to provide more information about potential risks and how they can Programme Plan be mitigated. To provide an understanding of the phases, timescales and key constraints that will be present during the If you are a statutory body, we would like to know more the project. management structure and how you’ll embed community activity at your facility. Partnership Funding

Evidence of secured partnership funding Evidence that the project will source any shortfall for the capital project

Business Planning / Financial Forecasting / Facility

Operation

Overall business plan / Income and Expenditure

forecast (minimum of 5 years) showing how it will operate long term, partnership working models with partners, risk management, ring-fenced income to ensure long term sustainability to cover sports development and sinking fund for the facility.

Data collection and monitoring

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 370 OBJECTIVE/REQUIREMENT ACTION EVIDENCE AGREED COMPLETE

The applicant will need to identify the data collection requirements and have appropriate technology, systems and process for implementation.

Risk Register / Mitigation

The applicant will need to identify any risks and the mitigating actions for the project’s development, updated on a monthly basis. A project risk register will need to identify:

• The major risks affecting the delivery / success of the project. • The key risks associated with project costs and funding.

Procurement

The applicant will need to provide evidence of appropriate procurement including adherence with procurement best practice and where appropriate relevant legislation.

Planning Permission

If applicable, full planning permission for projects will be required and evidenced prior to any payments being released.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 371 Agenda Item: 16

CABINET

Report Summary Sheet

Date: 9th September 2020

Subject: NBBC - Leisure Procurement Strategy

Portfolio: Arts and Leisure (Councillor I. K. Lloyd)

From: Director - Leisure, Recreation and Health

Summary: This report provides Cabinet with a Leisure Procurement Strategy to support its future development and delivery of leisure facilities working with Sport England, its Project Management and Design & Cost Consultants and partners.

This procurement strategy will support the Council and its Officers in ensuring that the procurement of future leisure project management teams, specialist services, along with a future construction company/s are procured and managed in an effective way supporting the Council to achieve its future approved leisure strategy actions.

Cabinet adopts the Leisure Strategy Procurement as the most effective way for the Council to deliver its future leisure development actions.

. Recommendations:

1. That Cabinet adopts the NBBC Leisure Procurement Strategy to deliver its future leisure development actions.

Reasons: This procurement strategy provides an effective method to support the Council in delivering its leisure facility developments, previously reported, and approved by Cabinet.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 372 The specialist services now required to support the Council to deliver major capital leisure projects need to be engaged commencing with the agreed priority site of Bedworth Leisure Centre replacement.

The drafting of this Procurement Strategy was at the request of Sport England and its Project Management and Design & Cost Consultants with their input and comment. This strategy has been signed off as a recognised way forward and supported by Sport England.

Options: Approve the recommendation. Do not approve the recommendation.

Subject to call-in: Yes

Forward plan: Yes

Delivering Our Future priorities:

 Theme 1 - Transformation  Theme 2 - Collaboration  Theme 3 - Investment

Relevant statutes or policy: Contract Procedures Rules

Equal opportunity implications: No direct equal opportunities implications

Human resources implications:

The actions identified within this report will require a combination of internal officer support from Leisure, Parks & Countryside, Town Centres and Marketing, Communications, Planning, Finance, Estates, Legal, Communities, and engaging with external consultants.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 373 Financial implications:

There are significant financial implications relating to the delivery of this work that will require future planning and modelling to ensure financial viability and sustainability. Additionally, external funding will also be sought either for NBBC directly or through partnership working.

Capital Investment planning will also need to be considered by NBBC to support the delivery of the actions identified around modernised/refurbished or new facility builds.

The Council will work with Sport England’s Capital Investment Team and specialist consultants in the next stages of developing the three projects. Sport England has extensive knowledge and experience in delivering new leisure provision across the Country and will provide on-going support to the Council’s team through the RIBA planning stages for the projects. There will be an opportunity for Sport England to consider the Council’s plans and facility proposals under its Strategic Facilities Fund once they have been further developed.

Contract procedures rules will require to be followed.

Health Inequalities Implications:

The adopted leisure strategy supports the Council’s Delivering Our Futures Objectives in improving health and well-being by providing opportunities and facilities for residents to access and take part in physical activity at all levels across the Borough.

Section 17 - Crime and Disorder Implications:

The opportunity to increase, provide new or refurbished facilities or different leisure pursuits, will give the opportunity for more residents to take part in physical activities. This will support improved outcomes for crime and disorder, whereby opportunities are taken up by young people in particular instead of other less desirable activities.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 374 Risk management implications:

There are risk management issues which will be forthcoming depending upon the delivery of the action/recommendations detailed within the report. These will need to be managed ongoing with the projects and ensure future sustainability, due diligence and best value is provided for the Council.

Environmental implications:

If facilities are refurbished or new build, these will conform to the latest building regulations and consequently will provide a greener footprint and a more environmentally friendly impact on utilities going forward.

Legal implications:

Future procurement in accordance with this strategy, OJEU procurement process and the Council’s Contract procedures Rules (CPR’s) will be followed.

Contact details:

Kevin Hollis

Telephone 024 7637 6143

e-mail: [email protected]

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 375 AGENDA ITEM NO: 16.

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Cabinet - 9th September 2020

From: Director - Leisure, Recreation and Health

Subject: NBBC - Leisure Procurement Strategy

Portfolio: Arts and Leisure (Councillor I. K. Lloyd)

Delivering Our Future Theme: 1, 2 and 3

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 This report updates Cabinet on the drafted NBBC Leisure Procurement Strategy as an effective method to support the Council in delivering its leisure facility developments, previously reported, and approved by Cabinet.

1.2 The specialist services now required to support the Council to deliver major capital leisure projects need to be engaged, commencing with the agreed priority site of Bedworth Leisure Centre replacement.

1.3 The drafting of this Procurement Strategy was at the request of Sport England and its Project Management and Design & Cost Consultants and received their input and comment. This strategy has been signed off as a recognised way forward and supported by Sport England.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That Cabinet adopts the NBBC Leisure Procurement Strategy to deliver its future leisure development actions.

3. Background

3.1 In January 2017 the Council adopted its Leisure Strategy, providing a strategic way forward for improving leisure facilities based upon the Local Plan and future growth in the Borough.

3.2 On 11th April 2018 Cabinet approved a report recommending the outcomes from the Cross-Party Members Working Group becoming the Council’s Leisure Development Policy. This necessitated high level work around the collection of contributions to support additional capacity at

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 376 leisure sites. As part of this, projects were identified for high level feasibility/options work to extend/enhance or develop new, to support future leisure needs.

3.3 On 14th November 2019 a report and a full colour Strategic Outcomes Planning Guidance was presented to the Internal Overview Scrutiny Panel (ISOP) highlighting the work completed to date at a high level.

3.4 On 18th December 2019 a report was presented to Cabinet with information on the leisure Facilities Options review, following the ISOP feedback and approved public consultation to be carried out during February 2020 and RIBA design stages 2 and 3 be carried out for the replacement of Bedworth Leisure Centre and an enhancement or replacement Pingles Leisure Centre.

3.5 On 11th March 2020 summary feedback was reported to Cabinet from the public consultation.

3.6 Following the outbreak of COVID-19 in late March a delay has been occurred due to other priorities in moving forward with leisure actions.

3.7 On-going consultation with Sport England and their Major Capital Investment and Project Management and Design & Cost Consultants recommended the drafting of a Leisure Procurement Strategy to provide a clear way forward for procuring specialist services needed to support the next phase of delivery.

3.8 This report and Appendix A attached, provides that Strategy, encompassing Sport England and their specialist consultants feedback and input.

4. Financial Implications

4.1 The adoption of this strategy will subsequently require the Council to procure specialist services required to move to the next stages of RIBA 2 and 3 for the replacement of the Bedworth Leisure Centre as a priority for this Council.

4.2 The approved Capital budget is used to support the financial implications of reaching RIBA Stage 3 for the Bedworth Leisure Facility (Bedworth Physical Activity Hub) replacement.

KEVIN HOLLIS

Appendix A

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council – Leisure Procurement Strategy.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 377 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

Boroughwide Physical Activity Investment Project (Bedworth, Pingles and Top Farm)

Procurement Strategy

Version 8 August 2020

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 378

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Contents

1. Introduction and Context 1 Introduction 1 Project Context 2 Procurement Context 3

2. What are the key things we need to consider in Procuring a Delivery Team? 6 Professional Team 6 People and Partnerships 8

3. Appointment of Consultants 9 Options for Sourcing a Consultant Team 9 Tendering Options Overview 10 Framework Overview 11 Tendering Options Summary 17 Procurement of a Contractor 23

4. Our Preferred Option 25 Implementing our Procurement Strategy 25 Next Steps 25

Appendices

1. Fusion21 Consultants Framework User Guide 2. Fusion21 Construction Services 3. CCS Professional Services and Full Design Team Flyer 4. CCS Professional Services and Full Design Team Customer Guidance 5. Procurement Hub Major Works Framework 6. Procurement Hub Major Works Process Map 7. PAGABO Major Works & Professional Services Framework 8. CCS Construction Works Framework Overview 9. CCS Construction Works Framework Customer Guidance 10. Potential Contractor Frameworks

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 379

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

1. Introduction and Context

Introduction

1.1 This project-specific procurement strategy has been prepared to provide an overview of the available, and suitable, procurement options, for delivering the new physical activity hubs in Nuneaton and Bedworth borough.

1.2 The procurement strategy outlines:

 the available procurement routes for the project,

 options for appointing the core consultant team, e.g. Project Manager, Cost Consultant, Principal Designer, Architect, Civil/Structural Engineer and Services Engineer, and

 Indicative procurement timescales for both design team

1.3 The information contained in this paper will enable Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (NBBC) to make an informed decision on how to progress the initial stages of the boroughwide physical activity project.

1.4 The procurement strategy outlines the various procurement routes and options in relation to the procurement of the contractor and core consultant team. This is to assist NBBC to decide:

 The procurement route:  The most appropriate procurement route to achieve NBBC’s objectives for the delivery of the project;  The approach to tendering i.e. single stage versus two stage;

 The consultant appointments – Single appointment, separate appointment or a hybrid approach using a Framework or OJEU procurement process;

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 380 1

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

1.5 NBBC’s views on:

 Programme – time to centre opening;  Cost certainty;  Risk transfer;  Price versus value;  Competition in the market;  Flexibility of contract terms; and  Procurement costs;  Social value; and  Thinking local,

will be critical in determining how to proceed.

Project Context

1.6 Nuneaton and Bedworth Council (NBBC) has developed a transformational Vision for boroughwide investment in physical activity, health wellbeing and sport. The development of three strategic locations - 2 Destination Parks and 1 Active Campus - with physical activity hubs at their heart will provide high quality facilities to support increased participation and reduced health inequalities across the borough, linked to health, education, and the development of a Masterplan linking the Borough’s towns and green spaces. The three sites proposed for development are well-located (as evidenced by the updated Sport England Facility Planning Model 2020) to address the needs of both existing and new communities, given there will be 14,000 new homes in the Borough by 2034.

1.7 The development of this Vision has been realised in partnership with Warwickshire County Council, who is a key partner in the Top Farm proposal, as well as British Cycling, and the Football Foundation. Sport England is our key strategic partner in the delivery of our boroughwide Vision.

1.8 The three proposed sites for investment are:

 Bedworth Miners’ Welfare Park, Bedworth - the redevelopment of the existing ageing leisure centre to a physical activity hub (wet and dry) within a destination Park, to increase participation

 Pingles, Riversley Park, Nuneaton – the redevelopment of the existing leisure centre into a physical activity hub, with three pools and dryside facilities, to facilitate increased community participation, within a destination Park

 Top Farm, north of the borough - a new dryside physical activity hub (indoor and outdoor facilities), co-located with a new Free School (Academy), and a new GP Surgery

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 381 2

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

1.9 Our long-term Vision is about changing lives for the better in our community, through investment in physical activity places and spaces, the people.

1.10 Our business case is a fundamental health improvement and lifestyle change, across the Borough. Our Key outcome is improved quality of life at individual and community level.

1.11 The concept for this overall project and investment in boroughwide physical activity provision through three new hubs received unanimous support from NBBC Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 4 November 2020. On 18 December 2020 NBBC Cabinet also gave unanimous support to resourcing the project to move it to the next stage of work i.e. RIBA stages 2 and 3. The first of the projects is to develop the Bedworth site as priority.

1.12 Due to the current economic climate and challenges faced by the coronavirus, the Council has identified three options for delivering this project:

 Option 1: Develop the RIBA stages to level three for the Bedworth site and update as the Council progresses through the pre-construction stages.

 Option 2: Develop the RIBA stages to level three for the Bedworth site and Pingles site to run simultaneously.

 Option 3: Develop and deliver all three sites and run simultaneously

Procurement Context

1.13 Procurement embraces the whole of the supply chain and commissioning cycle from identifying need to contract management

1.14 NBBC has in place a Procurement Strategy 2017-2022 which recognises that procurement is an essential element of delivering cost effective efficient services and Social Value.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 382 3

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

1.15 The strategy has been designed to do this by focusing on 5 key elements (taken from NBBC’s Procurement Strategy):

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 383 4

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

1.16 NBBC’s procurement operating principles are to (taken from NBBC’s Procurement Strategy):

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 384 5

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

2. What are the key things we need to consider in Procuring a Delivery Team?

2.1 There are a number of key elements to consider about this project in terms of procuring a Delivery team. These divide into strategic and technical factors and are described in Tables 2.1 and 2.2

2.2 The Delivery team includes the Professional Team and the Contractor (not covered in detail in this strategy but referenced at the end of Section 2 and 3). It will be very important given the inclusion of off road cycling provision to ensure that both the professional team (architect) and the Contractor’s team (construction) include individuals with specific expertise in the design and construction of specialist cycling facilities e.g. BMX, Learn to Ride and skills areas, plus skateparks. NBBC will be seeking evidence of this expertise in their Delivery team.

Professional Team

2.3 Our consideration of the key elements reflects the fact that we are trying to achieve:

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 385 6

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Contractor

2.4 Our consideration of the key elements reflects the fact that we are trying to achieve:

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 386 7

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

People and Partnerships

2.5 Clearly managing the capital investment and its revenue implications are key to the long-term sustainability of this project. However, it is the people and partnerships behind the project that will make the difference in terms of its design, development and delivery and therefore its outcomes.

2.6 Selecting the right delivery team who understand what we aim to achieve, why and how, is critical.

2.7 Table 2.1 sets out the strategic factors we consider critical to this project, and therefore the context in which the Professional team and Contractor (when appointed) will need to work.

Table 2.1: Strategic Factors critical to this Project

Strategic Factors Why They Are Critical There are three separate but linked There is a need to understand and appreciate the differences – strategic, political and geographical between each site, but sites also that they are complementary

Top Farm already has partnerships with education and health, both of which will have an impact on how this site is procured and developed. Existing complex partnerships The partnership with WCC is key – outcomes, transformation, planning, land ownership and S106 contributions

High quality buildings are key in terms of visible transformation; the development and Insight behind the project will drive Transformation the transformation and must be retained throughout the design and construction process

The relationship between the built and active environment on all three sites is core-critical to achieving the identified Outcome-based outcomes, as are the partnerships established through the development process.

People-centric focus People are at the heart of our Vision for Change; the new buildings must reflect and deliver on this

Behaviour change will not simply happen because a new building is constructed; communication about the investment, to Behaviour change support and enable the community to become more active must be a core element of the construction process, exemplified through the design and its implementation.

Where possible, maximising the local economy by encouraging economic, social and environment development to support Social Value delivery of this project (social value is gaining a higher prominence in the procurement of contractors and sometimes consultants)

Designing and delivering a build that will adhere to the Council’s carbon neutral target set for 2030 as well as central Energy Sustainability government’s 2050 carbon neutral target.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 387 8

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

3. Appointment of Consultants

Options for Sourcing a Consultant Team

3.1. Table 3.1 summarises options for the procurement of Project Management, Quantity Surveying, Architecture, Structural/Civil Engineering and M&E Engineering i.e. the Professional Team.

Table 3.1: Options for Procuring the Professional Team

Type of Appointment Advantages Disadvantages OJEU Framework Separate Consultant  Total flexibility and ability  Time consuming to tender, put  Most key consultants likely  Not all frameworks allow appointment to appoint preferred team legal agreements in place and to be above the OJEU separate consultant members manage threshold of £189k appointments.

 No guarantee the individual consultants will work well as a team.

 No single point of contact /responsibility for consultant team unless in TOR for a specific consultant e.g. PM.

Single appointment for  Least time- consuming  Not as much opportunity to pick  Will be above OJEU  There are a number of a multi-disciplinary option and choose team members, threshold. frameworks that could team through lead although some frameworks do potentially be used. These consultant  Single point of provide this option.  Opens the opportunity to are explored further on the (using a Framework) responsibility. wider competition than a following pages.  Can be difficult to change framework, although this is  Lead consultant has individual consultants if they do much more time contractual control over not perform. consuming. Typically, an other consultants and can OJEU process could take a exert more control over  Project manager and cost minimum of 3-4 months. the performance of the consultant are not completely and needs an SQ stage ( team independent of the design team needed for all one off OJEU and other consultants. procurements)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 388 9

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Type of Appointment Advantages Disadvantages OJEU Framework Hybrid - separate  Able to select preferred  More time consuming than a  PM/QS team will be above  There are a number of appointment for PM/QS PM/QS team and single appointment. Ideally the the OJEU threshold (it frameworks that could team and design team separate design team. PM/QS team would be appointed does depend on the nature potentially be used. These first, which lengthens the overall of the appointment but just are explored further on the  PM and QS are timescale to appoint the entire to Stage 3 is likely to following pages. independent from the consultant team. exceed threshold and this design team. is impacted by the number  Design team still comes as a of projects in the  PM can be brought on package. brief),unless QS is an board quickly to put independent appointment delivery strategy in place  No guarantee PM and design (depends on client and run the design team team will work well together, but preference). tender. this is improved if the PM is involved in the selection of the  Combined design team  Single point of contact for design team. appointment will definitely the design team once on be over threshold. board.  More time consuming than frameworks (where available).

Tendering Options Overview

3.2. Once the decision has been made as to the approach to be taken in appointing the consultant team, a team will need to be procured in accordance with relevant procurement regulations i.e. UK Public Procurement Contracts Regulations 2015.

3.3. An alternative option would be to use either an OJEU Restricted Procedure or an OJEU Competitive Negotiation route. There are also other options that will comply with OJEU and may be more suited to a particular project.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 389 10

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

3.4. The following non-OJEU options rely on a number of the key consultant team fees being below the OJEU threshold:

 In-house Direct tenders for each discipline completed in accordance with the Council’s own procurement rules. This approach could potentially be used for a number of consultant appointments. It is expected that the PM, QS and maybe the Structural /civil and M&E engineer fees may be below the OJEU threshold (£189,330,) depending on the final development option chosen. The disadvantage of this option is that there would be at least one appointment that would have to be procured through an OJEU compliant route, the Architect, as their fees would be well above the threshold. The chosen route for this appointment could inform the approach that is sensible for the other key appointments. Each discipline would have to be tendered separately and the Council could not request a single appointment through a lead consultant.

 Procurement carried out by a third party on behalf of NBBC. This approach could provide greater flexibility in procuring the consultants. For example, a private sector organisation could procure consultants through OJEU; a framework route; or a mini competition held by the private organisation. Fewer internal resources would be required by outsourcing the procurement. The disadvantage of this option is that, depending on how much control Council would want over the final procurement route, managed through obligations attached to the grant funding, the flexibility may not be any greater than if the Council procured the works themselves.

Framework Overview

3.5. Table 3.2 summarises the perceived most appropriate OJEU compliant consultant frameworks for a large-scale leisure facility development project. The frameworks listed are being used across the public sector but, final checks on the ability for NBBC to access the frameworks should be made by the Council’s procurement and legal teams.

3.6. With any framework, it will be important to ensure that the people proposed have a track record of delivering sports and leisure facilities, and particularly pools.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 390 11

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Table 3.2: OJEU compliant consultant frameworks for a large-scale leisure facility redevelopment project

Companies on Services Covered (of relevance to a large-scale Framework Areas Covered Comment Framework leisure facility development)

Crown National Construction The biggest public procurement organisation in the Commercial framework UK. Services Professional Services (9) framework for Call-off process options: Project Many others n/a to this contract type Management  Further Competition (page 10 of Appendix 4) and Full Design  Direct Award (page 11 of Appendix 4) Team Services Call off required prior to 02/05/2021. CCS framework flyer found in Access to and use of The Purchasing Platform is free Appendix 3. to all qualifying central government and wider public sector organisations, including registered charities CCS framework and third sector organisations, as are any guidance found underpinning CCS Commercial Agreements in Appendix 4. (Frameworks, DPS, etc.) that support content on the platform.

Fees charged for each element of service required are evaluated against the Framework prices (median); suppliers pay a % of their fee to the Framework.

Pagabo National 77 regional and Professional Services Further competition or direct award framework national suppliers 19 Lots Appendix 7 - Faithful and Gould Major Works PAGABO Major lead supplier Costs are levied on a percentage (5%) of the price you Works & Medium Works pay the supplier through the Framework and spread Professional across the project. No upfront payments, engagement Services (plus other n/a to this investment project) fees, penalty fees or leaving fees (as set out on their Framework website)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 391 12

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Companies on Services Covered (of relevance to a large-scale Framework Areas Covered Comment Framework leisure facility development)

Pagebo has waived all fees applied to clients who use this framework under the procurement policy note (PPN) - responding to COVID-19, PPN 1/20. The Framework is free to access.

Fusion 21 National A mix of SME and Lot 1 – Programme and Project Management Direct call off or mini competition. Process is managed framework national providers. (including quantity surveying services) by Fusion 21. User Guide found in Lot 4 – Architectural The mini-competition process involves an individual Appendix 1 - project plan and takes between 4-8 weeks to Fusion21 Lot 5 – Structural implement. Consultants Framework User Lot 6 – Building Engineering Services Members tender to utilise Lot 1 – to appoint a multi- Guide disciplinary consultant who can manage all or the Lot 8 – CDM Coordinator duties requirements and services via one supplier. Or members can appoint PM and QS team then other Lot 10 – Renewable technologies, Insulation and consultants separately or could use it in conjunction Micro Generation Technologies Consultancy with another framework to appoint a full team. (as set out on their website)

Call off required prior to 21st September 2021.

For further details and pricing model information for the above call-off options, please review page 11 of Appendix 2 - Fusion21 Construction Works Framework User Guide.

Framework benefits located on page 6 of Appendix 2 - Fusion21 Construction Works Framework User Guide.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 392 13

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Companies on Services Covered (of relevance to a large-scale Framework Areas Covered Comment Framework leisure facility development)

Scape National The current Master Planning Whole Service Delivery Building Perfect Circle is the sole framework partner, National Asset relevant Scape Surveying Architectural Design Structural M&E supported by Tier 1 and Tier 2 supply chain. Management, Framework is the Consultancy Health and Safety Services Surveying and Built Environment It is possible to appoint specific companies directly Design Services Consultancy through the Framework, which would enable a team to Framework Services framework be appointed quickly. Alternatively, F+G can (AMS and DS). (BECS), led by administer a mini-tender for each discipline. Aecom, Gleeds and Pick Everard The framework covers the appointment of the design consortium aka team but can also include other appointments such as Perfect Circle. PM and QS.

Since the tendered framework rates are not relevant to this type of project, fees and scope of services would need to be agreed separately.

Scape National The current Project Management, Cost Management Client Pick Everard are the sole supplier Project relevant Scape Representation and Employer’s Agent Programme Management & Framework is the Management Procurement Strategy and Contractor Whilst this would enable the PM and QS to be quickly Quantity Built Environment Advice Risk Management Cost Estimating and appointed, the design team would need to be procured Surveying Consultancy Planning Lifecycle/Whole Life Costing Value separately, using either of the default OJEU routes, Services framework Management and Engineering BIM Integration and Scape AMS and DS framework, NHS framework or . (BECS), led by Management Tendering Docs, Evaluation and NEPRO. Aecom, Gleeds and Management Pick Everard consortium aka Perfect Circle.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 393 14

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Companies on Services Covered (of relevance to a large-scale Framework Areas Covered Comment Framework leisure facility development)

NHS The framework is A mix of SME and Architectural Service (Offer 1) Project Management The framework contains pre-agreed rates for different Construction broken down national providers. (Offer 2) Civil and Structural Engineering (Offer 3) types and sizes of projects. It is possible to select Consultancy geographically Quantity Surveyor (Offer 4) Mechanical and direct from the list of suppliers or to run a mini- Services into Lots. Electrical Services (Offer 5) CDM Coordinator (Offer competition. Where a mini-competition is run it is Framework 6) Health and Safety (Offer 9) possible to include other services, but not where a (Ref: company is appointed direct without competition. SBS/13/DM/PZR/ 8369) The scope of services is fairly high level and need to be further defined for each project.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 394 15

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

3.7. An alternative way of procuring services is through Bloom, although this is not actually a Framework.

Table 3.3: Alternative service Procurement Model

NEPRO (Bloom National Unclear, although The services are bespoke for each project and very Direct call off or mini competition. Process is is part of Nepro) framework (not preferred suppliers flexible managed by NEPRO. just north east of can be approached England) and added (based It is possible to appoint companies directly on website) through the Framework (subject to the framework call-off rules and procedures), which may enable a team to be appointed. Alternatively, mini-competition can be run where all companies listed on the framework are invited to bid.

Flexible, enabling single appointment, separate appointment or a mix. The scope of services can be defined for each specific project.

NEPRO enters into contracts with the client (Council) in this case and the supplier(s). Payments are also made through NEPRO. There is a %% charge levied on each supplier’s fees.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 395 16

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Tendering Options Summary

3.8. Table 3.4 summarises the approaches to tendering that can be used with each available procurement method, and the financial and programme implications associated with using them. A number of the options outlined below could be used individually, or together with other frameworks / OJEU routes, to appoint a full professional and design team.

Table 3.4: Approach to Tendering that can be used for individual Procurement Methods

Programme Implications

The NBBC position is that 6 weeks is realistic to Tendering Options Approach to Tendering Financial Implications cover tender period, evaluation and award) Regardless whether OJEU applies, NBBC’s standard is to allow 3-4 weeks’ ‘tender period’ followed by 2 week evaluation process.

Non-OJEU Direct A non-OJEU route could be used with the Direct tenders for a non-OJEU route could be Direct tenders could be completed within 6 tenders following approaches: Separate appointments used with the following approaches: Separate weeks with a further two weeks would be for each discipline on the basis the total appointments for each discipline. required to assess them. lifetime value of the contract is below the OJEU threshold This approach would use less resource than Depending on the number of projects and how an OJEU route. However, the Architect would the PM/QS is approached, the appointment of still have to be tendered through an OJEU the Architect (still needing to be completed compliant route, so there may be economies through an OJEU compliant route), is likely to of scale in running one OJEU compliant dictate the overall timescale for using this process with multiple Lots specific to each approach, especially if the preferred option is discipline. to undertake one competitive OJEU procurement with Lots for each discipline. This would be managed in-house by NBBC. OJEU – Either An OJEU route could be used with the The cost of using an OJEU approach is hard An OJEU approach could take approximately Restricted or Competitive Negotiation route to quantify but, the impact can be assessed on 12 weeks longer, from the beginning of a Competitive a qualitative basis: process to the end, than the average Negotiation framework approach. An OJEU approach would take three to four months to run. Council resources would be spent reviewing/approving documentation. There would be a cost to this time.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 396 17

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Programme Implications

The NBBC position is that 6 weeks is realistic to Tendering Options Approach to Tendering Financial Implications cover tender period, evaluation and award) Regardless whether OJEU applies, NBBC’s standard is to allow 3-4 weeks’ ‘tender period’ followed by 2 week evaluation process.

If a procurement specialist were appointed to run an OJEU process for the design team they would inevitably charge more to run an OJEU process than a mini competition through a framework. The employer would also run the risk of a non-compliant OJEU procurement process if undertaken by an external PM and QS.

The extended programme could increase the overall project programme by 8-12 weeks, which in the current market, would have a significant impact on inflation costs.

Pagabo  The Pagabo Framework could be used Only charge fees when project starts on site Direct Award, or further competition Two with the following approaches: Stage taking 4-6 weeks or a Single stage Fees are fully transparent and charged as an taking 8-10 weeks.  Separate appointments for each agreed percentage of the overall project. discipline;

 A single appointment for the whole team through a lead consultant; or

 A hybrid, with separate appointments for a PM/QS team and then designers appointed separately or as a team.

 Further competition or direct award

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 397 18

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Programme Implications

The NBBC position is that 6 weeks is realistic to Tendering Options Approach to Tendering Financial Implications cover tender period, evaluation and award) Regardless whether OJEU applies, NBBC’s standard is to allow 3-4 weeks’ ‘tender period’ followed by 2 week evaluation process.

 Three contractors appointed per lot, per region, that can only be used under certain conditions.

Crown Commercial The CCS Framework could be used with the  Maximum standard rates are fixed for the One can buy from this framework by further Services framework following approaches: first two years of the framework and may competition or direct award. Further for Project be reduced further by suppliers competition will take around 4 weeks, Management and Full  Separate appointments for each depending on the size and scale of the Design Team discipline;  Saving is embedded in the pricing models requirement. Services through competitive rates and continuous  A single appointment for the whole team improvement measures. Savings results through a lead consultant; or will be shared with customers regularly

 A hybrid, with separate appointments for a PM/QS team and then designers appointed separately or as a team.

 Provides a streamlined route for all customers to access a range of external suppliers through a Further Competition process or Direct Award

 Customers can either use a form of agreement based upon NEC3 Professional Service Agreement or a CCS standard form. CCS can support and advise on the benefits of each approach

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 398 19

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Programme Implications

The NBBC position is that 6 weeks is realistic to Tendering Options Approach to Tendering Financial Implications cover tender period, evaluation and award) Regardless whether OJEU applies, NBBC’s standard is to allow 3-4 weeks’ ‘tender period’ followed by 2 week evaluation process.

Scape (AMS and DS) The Scape AMS and DS route could be used If the framework were used as a conduit for Perfect Circle could be appointed to carry out – The current with the following approaches: the Council to access designers, Perfect PM/QS services or to act as a design relevant Scape Circle would want to play a role in the design coordinator on the project. If they acted as a Framework is the  Separate appointments for each discipline process to oversee and quality assure their design coordinator this would allow the Built Environment (as long as Perfect Circle are appointed in designers. This role is often a design Council to access designers through Perfect Consultancy a design coordinator role); coordinator role, which could cost an Circle and the framework. Either of these Services framework estimated £50,000. appointments (PM/QS or design coordinator) (BECS), led by  A single appointment for the whole team could be made within 12 weeks once the Aecom, Gleeds and through a lead consultant (Perfect Circle); Perfect Circle would also require a fee for Council had signed the Scape access Pick Everard or running the mini tender competition for any agreement. consortium aka designers (estimated at £10,000). Perfect Circle.  A hybrid, with separate appointments for It would then take up to a further 4 weeks to a PM/QS team (Perfect Circle) and then run a mini competition for the designers designers appointed separately or as a through Perfect Circle. team.

NHS The NHS Framework could be used with the It would take up to 6 weeks to run a mini following approaches: tender for a PM and full design team service If individual tenders were run, it is estimated  Separate appointments for each that each process would take up to 6 weeks. discipline; If direct appointments were made it is  A single appointment for the whole team estimated that the process would take up to 4 through a lead consultant; or weeks.

 A hybrid, with separate appointments for a PM/QS team and then designers appointed separately or as a team.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 399 20

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Programme Implications

The NBBC position is that 6 weeks is realistic to Tendering Options Approach to Tendering Financial Implications cover tender period, evaluation and award) Regardless whether OJEU applies, NBBC’s standard is to allow 3-4 weeks’ ‘tender period’ followed by 2 week evaluation process.

Fusion 21 The Fusion 21 framework could be used with Fusion 21 could be used to appoint each of the following approaches: the design disciplines separately as well as the PM and QS team.  Separate appointments for each discipline; or The programme is estimated as 6 weeks by Fusion 21, to make an appointment through  A hybrid, with separate appointments for the mini competition process. a PM/QS team and then designers appointed separately or as a team through A direct appointment could be completed the framework or another framework / within 2 weeks. OJEU.

Appointment through An appointment of the key design disciplines Depending on which framework, or if OJEU Using Scape as an example, Willmott Dixon a contractor through a main contractor would require a were used, the mark ups and potential could be appointed within 2 weeks of a PM/QS PM/QS team to be appointed separately to framework levies would vary. team being appointed. A mini competition for begin with (using OJEU or a framework noted the designers could then be concluded within above), and then the main design team would e.g. the Scape Major Works framework would 6 weeks. be appointed through a main contractor. generally mark-up sub-consultant fees by 10% and the scape levy is included in Willmott If an OJEU route were used, a PM/QS team This is not suitable for this NBBC project as no Dixon’s agreed rates of overheads and profit. would have to be appointed first and then an contractor is yet in board. If a contractor were appointed through OJEU OJEU process could be run. The OJEU it is estimated that they would mark up their process would take approximately 12weeks subconsultant fees by approximately 10-12%. following the appointment of a PM/QS team.

Procurement carried Depending on what restriction the Council The resources that the Council would have to Depending on the tendering route chosen, out by a private may place on a private entity that was tasked use to manage the procurement process timescales for appointing consultants could be entity tasked with with delivering the project, a private landlord / would reduce considerably, or maybe even very quick. delivering the project operator could potentially pursue all reduce to nothing. approaches, through a variety of tendering approaches, i.e.:

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 400 21

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Programme Implications

The NBBC position is that 6 weeks is realistic to Tendering Options Approach to Tendering Financial Implications cover tender period, evaluation and award) Regardless whether OJEU applies, NBBC’s standard is to allow 3-4 weeks’ ‘tender period’ followed by 2 week evaluation process.

 Separate appointments for each The employer would however run the risk of a discipline; non-compliant procurement process if undertaken by a third party.  A single appointment for the whole team through a lead consultant; The financial implication of any agreement with the third party are unknown.  A hybrid, with separate appointments for Once an indication of costs is available, these a PM/QS team and then designers should be taken into account and compared appointed separately or as a team; or alongside the costs of the other options.

 A PM/QS team appointed separately with the main design team then appointed through a main contractor.

3.9. An alternative way of procuring services is through Bloom, although this is not actually a Framework.

Table 3.5 Alternative service Procurement Model

NEPRO (Bloom is part of NEPRO could be used with the following approaches: A direct appointment could be made within 2 Nepro) weeks.  Separate appointments for each discipline; If the Council would like to run mini tenders for  A single appointment for the whole team through a lead consultant; or a number of the roles, these could be completed within 6 weeks.  A hybrid, with separate appointments for a PM/QS team and then designers appointed separately or as a team.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 401 22

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Procurement of a Contractor

3.7 The procurement of a contractor will be facilitated by the Consultant Team, once they have been appointed. Procurement options should feature in the relevant RIBA Stage report or subject to a separate strategy. Whichever approach is taken, it will be dictated by the Contractor Market Conditions at the appropriate time.

3.8 Given the scale of this project, OJEU procedures will have to be used i.e. either the full OJEU procedure or an OJEU compliant Framework. The four available OJEU routes that can be used for this NBBC project are:

 Open;

 Restricted;

 Competitive Dialogue; and

 Competitive Negotiation.

3.9 Alternatively, the Procurement of a Contractor may be undertaken via a Framework Agreement. Appendix A - Potential Contractor Frameworks outlines the options available to the Council when procuring a Contractor via a third party framework agreement.

3.10 Consultant contracts will be dictated by NBBC if the Council decides do their own procurement process, or as advised by the relevant framework

3.11 It is anticipated that NBBC will use either a JCT or NEC form of contract for the construction phase of the project. This would be amended by NBBC and their legal advisors, with input from the consultant team on project specific matters.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 402 23

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

3.12 The procurement options available to NBBC are summarised below;

Fig 2: Summary of Procurement Strategies

3.13 The Construction Management and Management Contracting routes will be or should be unsuitable for this project or projects. The Partnering route is also unlikely to be suitable for the NBBC project type.

3.14 The procurement options will be considered by the Professional Team once appointed and form part of a RIBA Stage 2 report. Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 403 24

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

4. Our Preferred Option

Implementing our Procurement Strategy

4.1. Based on the nature of the services NBBC wishes to procure, the scale of the proposed project, and the outcomes to be achieved, it is recommended that a Framework is used. NBBC has undertaken research with Sport England and relevant local authorities undertaking/completing development of major leisure projects to identify their views and experience, to further inform the decision on the preferred suppliers.

4.2. Project Management (PM) services are required for the technical aspects of procurement work, Strategic Leisure Limited (SLL) is already on board in the strategic PM role, with further PM procured where required.

 Programme including approval gateways;

 Likely cost of procurement;

 Consultant support; and

 Stakeholder input and sign off (i.e. SE).

4.3. Of the options identified at paragraph 1.12 the Option being considered is Develop the RIBA stages to level three for the Bedworth site and update as the Council progresses through the pre-construction stages.

4.4. It is absolutely critical, given the nature of this project, the level of investment and the timescale, that NBBC gets the right consultant team on board. This should have a strong track record in project management, designing and delivering public sector leisure facilities of a similar nature to those proposed for the Borough.

4.5. The choice of Framework and the Lot (where applicable) is therefore very important, as this will help to achieve the above.

4.6. In choosing a Framework, NBBC should consider one where Social Value is a strong point; this is increasingly a key point for local authorities in procuring works and services.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 404 25

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Next Steps

4.7. Based on the above, the next steps are to:

1. Obtain NBBC approval for Procurement Strategy

2. Approach preferred Framework for required services (September 2020)

3. Contact relevant suppliers with brief for services required

4. Receive Framework quotation

5. Appoint professional team (end of October 2020)

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 405 26

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Procurement Strategy – Boroughwide Investment in Physical Activity

Appendices

Please see attached to this document, the following appendices:

Appendix 1 - Fusion21 Consultants Framework User Guide

Appendix 2 - Fusion21 Construction Works Framework User Guide

Appendix 3 - CCS Professional Services and Full Design Team Flyer

Appendix 4 - CCS Professional Services and Full Design Team Customer Guidance

Appendix 5 - Procurement Hub Major Works Framework

Appendix 6 - Procurement Hub Major Works Process Map

Appendix 7 - PAGABO Major Works & Professional Services Framework

Appendix 8 - CCS Construction Works Framework Overview

Appendix 9 - CCS Construction Works Framework Customer Guidance

Appendix 10 - Potential Contractor Frameworks

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 406 27 Agenda item: 17

Cabinet Decision

Report Summary Sheet

Date: 9th September 2020

Subject: Report of the Climate Change Emergency Working Party

Portfolio: Planning, Development and Health (N. Phillips)

From: Executive Director - Operations

Summary: To make Cabinet aware of the work of the Climate Change Working Group and to present an Action Plan for consideration by Cabinet.

Recommendations:

That the Action Plan drawn up by the Climate Change Working Group and attached as Appendix A be recommended for approval at Full Council

That it be recommend to Full Council that an Elected Member be nominated to attend the Warwickshire wide Climate Change Group supported by an appropriate officer.

That regular updates on progress against the Action Plan be made to Cabinet

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 407 Options:

Not to nominate an officer to the Warwickshire wide group.

Not to agree that the action plan be considered by Council or any updates required.

Reasons: A climate change emergency for the Borough was declared at the Full Council meeting held on 4th December 2019 and Full Council resolved to:

A) Establish a cross party working group to investigate and subsequently advise on the actions and timescales require to make the Council’s activities carbon neutral by 2030. The working Group will report initial findings and recommendations back to Cabinet within 4 months with the ability to invite relevant external experts as appropriate

B) Engage with partner Council’s specifically Warwickshire County Council and Warwickshire 5 District and Borough Councils, local businesses, environmental groups and residents to inform our future actions and

C) Call on Government to provide the resources and where required the power to enable Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council to help deliver the UK’s carbon reduction targets.

Consultation undertaken with Members/Officers/Stakeholders:

This report arises from the work of the cross party Climate Change Working Group.

Subject to call-in: Yes

Ward relevance: All

Forward plan: No

Delivering Our Future Theme:

Theme 3

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 408 Delivering Our Future Priority:

Priorities 3.4 and 3.6

Relevant statutes or policy:

None

Equalities Implications: No specific implications

Human resources implications: None unless a dedicated post required

Financial implications: No specific implications

Health Inequalities Implications:

No specific implications

Section 17 Crime & Disorder Implications:

No specific implications

Risk management implications:

No specific implications

Environmental implications:

Throughout the report.

Legal implications:

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 409 No specific implications

Contact details: Brent Davis, Executive Director - Operations

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 410 AGENDA ITEM NO 17.

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Cabinet - 9th September 2020

From: Executive Director – Operations

Subject: Report of the Climate Change Emergency working Party

Portfolio: Planning, Development and Health (N. Phillips)

Delivering Our Future Theme: Theme 3

Delivering Our Future Priority: Priorities 3.4 and 3.6

1 Purpose of Report

1.1 To make Cabinet aware of the work of the Climate Change Working Group and to present an Action Plan for consideration by Cabinet.

2 Recommendations

2.1 That the Action Plan drawn up by the Climate Change Working Group and attached as Appendix A be recommended for approval at Full Council

2.2 That it be recommend to Full Council that an Elected Member be nominated to attend the Warwickshire wide Climate Change Group supported by an appropriate officer.

2.3 That regular updates on progress against the Action Plan be made to Cabinet

3 Background

3.1 A climate change emergency for the Borough was declared at the Full Council meeting held on 4th December 2019 and Full Council resolved to:

D) Establish a cross party working group to investigate and subsequently advise on the actions and timescales require to make the Council’s activities carbon neutral by 2030. The working Group will report initial findings and recommendations back to Cabinet within 4 months with the ability to invite relevant external experts as appropriate

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 411 E) Engage with partner Council’s specifically Warwickshire County Council and Warwickshire 5 District and Borough Councils, local businesses, environmental groups and residents to inform our future actions and

F) Call on Government to provide the resources and where required the power to enable Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council to help deliver the UK’s carbon reduction targets.

4 Report

4.1 Cross Party Working Group

4.1.1 The Working Group was set up and had 9 members from all parties. It was chaired by Councillor C Watkins and supported by the Committee Services Officer and the Head of Planning.

4.1.2 The first meeting of the Working Group was held on 9th January 2020, at which terms of reference were agreed, followed by face-to-face meetings every 2 to 3 weeks until the Covid-19 lockdown measures were instigated by Government. Once the Borough Council was able to hold virtual meetings via Microsoft Teams, additional meetings of the Working Group took place. A total of 5 face to face and virtual meetings were held.

4.1.3 The Working Group looked at the measures already in place or planned for, which could help the Council meet the target of being Carbon neutral in its activities by 2030. The Working Group received information from several officers of the Council either in person or as written statements.

4.1.4 Arising from the Working Group’s meetings and its consideration of the information presented to it the Action Plan attached as Appendix A has been produced. Covid-19 has prevented the Action Plan being produced in line with the 4 month timescale that Full Council set.

4.2 Engagement with Partner Authorities.

4.2.1 Many sections of the Council already work closely with other authorities on matters which would help have an impact on carbon reduction. However, there is a specific Officer and Member Group on Climate Change which is chaired by a Member of Warwickshire County Council to which it appears that all other Warwickshire Councils send both an Elected Member and an Officer. The then Head of Planning, Katherine Moreton attended one of these meetings on behalf of the Working Group, and was of the view that as the other Warwickshire authorities are considering largely the same issues, there would be much merit in shared learning and shared workload from participating fully in this Group. It also appears to be the forum where plans for reducing the

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 412 carbon footprint arising from transport in the county are shared by the County Council in their role as the strategic transport authority.

4.2.2 The county wide group above is also lobbing the Government for resources for Warwickshire to help deliver the UK’s carbon reduction targets.

4.2.3 Whilst all the other authorities in Warwickshire have declared climate emergencies some of them have not restricted the areas they are considering where as we have decided in the first instance to consider the Council services we can have a direct impact on.

4.2.4 The Council already has other measures in place around mitigating the impacts of climate change and the Working Group also considered the range of Local Plan policies to do with this subject. As with the other polices in the Local Plan there are a range of monitoring indicators for each of the Polices which are to be monitored annually and included in a report. There are also Supplementary Planning documents to guide the mitigation required.

4.3 Covid 19 impacts and Recovery

4.3.1 The environmental impacts both positive and negative of Covid 19 will not be fully know for some time but it will inevitably have an impact on climate change and this will need to be monitored and if necessary reacted to. Impacts on climate change will be considered in any action plans either by this authority or jointly with others and reported to members.

5 Conclusion

5.1 That the Action Plan produced by the Working Group be considered by Cabinet and recommend to Full Council for approval.

6. Appendices

6.1 Appendix A Action Plan

7 Background Papers

7.1 None.

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 413 Appendix A

AREA OF ACTIVITY ACTION EXISTING PROPOSED/TO BE CONSIDERED COMMENTS Council Buildings - Operational Lighting Ensure that all lights Ongoing Ongoing in Council owned buildings have LED bulbs in them where it is technically possible to do this. Overall Energy Consider collecting Our larger buildings already Consider collecting and publishing energy Usage and publishing have “Display Energy consumption figures energy consumption Certificates” within public figures to set a areas which are renewed on benchmark against an annual basis. which to measure actions Leisure Facilities Implement the Commence work on an Appointed project management team to deliver Leisure Facilities updated Leisure Contract stages 2/3 RIBA designs and costing for Strategy specification to be Bedworth Physical Activity Hub site implemented from 2024 Develop leisure procurement strategy, sign off with Sport England and tender for consultants for delivery of Bedworth Physical Activity Hub. The new leisure proposals provide an opportunity to drive towards the most energy efficient buildings, as required by Sport England, which would be cheaper to run and move the Council towards the goal of being carbon neutral. – although “offsetting” will still be required Also meeting all utility costs were to be included as the responsibility of the management company in future management contracts since given private sector companies inevitably look to minimise costs it is anticipated that the management

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 414 company will look to reduce energy consumption in an attempt to keep their operating costs to a minimum. Swimming Pools Consideration be given to reducing the water temperature in pools by a few degrees. Use of pool covers – to be included in new proposals. Recycling in Offices Ensure availability There are recycling bins in Recycling boxes for the 4 Committee Rooms. Regular of recycling facilities the following locations: feedback / in the Town Hall Ground floor kitchen Consideration be given to the following: information to First floor kitchen  Reduce the number of waste bins at employees to Top floor near room 206 Council properties in order to require staff encourage Top floor near room 21 to change behaviour and to recycle further use of Also have some small green  Recycling old uniforms at the depot, as all the facilities bins next to mains fed water clothing, even dirty and worn, can be machines in the following recycled in some way. locations:  Better locate and promote the crisp Ground floor opposite room packet recycling box in the Town Hall; T5  Install florescent tube collection boxes at Ground floor – outside the Town Hall and other Council locations meeting room 2 First floor – outside room T107 Second floor – outside meeting room 8 Crisp packet recycling boxes are located: Ground floor kitchen First floor kitchen Reception area for public to use We have a battery recycling box on reception A British Heart recycling bin is also located opposite room T7 on the ground floor. We collect food items for

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 415 Nuneaton Food Bank as well and have 3 boxes, 1 in the ground floor kitchen, 1 in the first floor kitchen and one in the Councillors room.

Recycling other than Already in place across the Ensure in place at Community Centres, Sports offices sites at Pingles, Bedworth Pavillions, etc. and Jubilee. This includes collections for Charities Plastic Usage Stop using single Completed where feasible. No control over use plastics individual wherever possible employees in the delivery of using single use Borough Council plastics Services and minimise their use where it is not possible to stop using them completely Council Buildings Housing Stock Existing Housing – Secure any national We consistently bid for any Continue to bid for suitable available funding or energy efficiency opportunities to funding available facilitate access to national funding where the improve domestic Council can support this in the private housing energy efficiency sector

Bid for suitable available funding as it becomes available for the Council’s housing stock Communal Consider the implementation of communal Composting composting at housing scheme sites

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 416

New build Housing Where possible site visits be arranged for Members to a module housing site during construction. Explore the use of Identified the carbon Explore opportunities for retrofitting green greener energy in emissions savings for a energy initiatives in the ‘Council’s existing the Council’s new variety of greener housing stock build programme installations. Explore the feasibility to install electric car and existing stock Produce a specification for points, alternative sources of power for use on use in the Council’s new new build programme build programme Install energy efficient gas boilers in existing stock Council Services Vehicle Fleet Renew around half Undertake appropriate market testing, of our vehicle fleet demonstrations of service specific vehicles and [35+ vehicles] with assessed current electric and dual fuel the most fuel capabilities and availability. efficient and low emission models Undertake customer consultation and an available. options appraisal for the procurement and supply of electric and dual fuel vehicles.

Bus Shelters and Consideration to be given to Street Furniture energy saving and climate change options be considered for implementation when / if the bus shelter and street furniture contract is renewed. Human Resources Continue to To be more fully assessed in light of Covid 19 encourage and experience facilitate greater working from from given its impact on

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 417 climate change Refuse and Waste Collection Have put in place Undertake market analysis of Have an informed view, of best options for Dry arrangements for DMR collection options, best Mixed Recycling (DMR) collection methods, the ongoing practice appraisals and based on assessment of legislative processing of dry resource and waste requirements, consumer ordering, shopping recyclable materials consultation habit changes and operational cost efficiencies collected from the recommendations. kerbside. Agreed via project board MRF operational material commitments and financial inputs and returns with partner authorities Procurement Are impacts on In support of Nuneaton and Liaison with other local Authorities that declared Implementing climate change Bedworth Borough Council’s a climate emergency earlier than NBBC to such practices considered Environmental Sustainability begin implementing practices throughout could have an Strategy, the Supplier will NBBC’s Procurement process. impact on cost. support the following There needs to principals and, if requested, Also review contract clauses related to be a suitable provide supporting evidence environmental practices in the Council’s balance between and a copy of their standard Terms and Conditions. cost, delivery environmental policy, Specifications created by Contract Managers and specifically addressing the will need to include environmental factors. environmental following criteria: Council tenders also need to ensure practices sustainability. Protection of Environment are captured in specifications as each contract In addition, Purchase materials from is different (both in terms of delivery, Contract sources that are sustainable requirements and scope for environmental Managers need Develop and implement a practices). to begin policy of waste reduction, re NBBC’s strategic building materials supplier is measuring use and recycling Bradford’s. Hold meeting to discuss sustainable carbon footprint Reduced usage – purchase materials and methods of delivery of materials with their as little as possible and within the borough (electric vehicle) or self- suppliers and reduced packaging generating electricity (solar). begin to Purchase equipment that is implement

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 418 energy efficient provisions within Apply an efficient specifications. procurement, sales and payment process with reduced paper flows and increased electronic transactions Hold or working towards ISO 14001/ISO 14002 Support of Fair Trade products Comply with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (As amended)

This section is a PASS/FAIL part of the assessment.

Use of Technology Adopt a renewed Have the Digital Strategy and action plan Digital Strategy approved Implement the action plan for 2020/21 Have increased the Increase self-serve transactions by 10% on the number of services 2019/20 volumes for the 3 highest volume available online and transactional services the number of Self i. Revenues & Benefits accounts created ii.Waste Management iii. Housing General Increase the use of the Open Portal for customer access to their Revenues and/or Benefits accounts online by 10% Continue to work with services to promote the availability of online services and Self Accounts with targeted campaigns Work with Service Managers to build upon the digital processes that have arisen from the impact of COVID19 Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 419 Reduce levels of Work with Service Managers to change delivery outgoing post by methods for high volume outgoing post 20% Establish and improve upon the digital processes that have been implemented following the impact of COVID19 Undertake a promotion to encourage a 10% take-up of customers using online methods in Revenues and Benefits (e-billing/notifications) Undertake a take-up promotion to increase customer Direct Debit take-up by 5% due to target not being met last year Other points to consider Tree Planting Other authorities At present we undertake tree Consider whether or not we can commit to have committed to planting to replace trees that anything further. large tree planting have been removed, plant programmes memorial trees in cemeteries and work with developers to plant on development sites. We plant approx 100 standard trees per annum. We do work with community groups to plant tree transplants on occasion, but do not have any spare land to start this process. We estimate we have 100,000 trees on our sites throughout the borough.

Resources Does the authority require a dedicated Officer and or/Budget to undertake coordination of the Climate Change agenda Promotion/Incentives Does the authority need to consider reduction in car park charges for Electric Vehicles Working with Others Warwickshire Local Member and Officer representation should be

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 420 Councils Climate agreed Emergency Group Transport Little NBBC can do as not Highways Authority. Work done by WCC will feed into the Group above Plastic kerbs Consider suggesting to the highway authority that they investigate the use of plastic kerbs Covid 19 recovery Any recovery Plan Assess waste and transport budget allocation should be in and resource requirements with regard to conjunction with service provision methodology in response to others across the the impact of Covid 19 and national guidelines region but the impact of measures If any working groups which include members will have a bearing are set up then consideration be given to on Climate Change include a member who also sat on the Climate and this is Change working group to consider the Climate acknowledged by change impacts . one of the streams of work being around impact on Climate Change

Cabinet - Wednesday 9th September 2020 421