DOCSLIB.ORG

JBA Consulting Report Template 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JBA Consulting Report Template 2015 LP/Ev/4h Bracknell Forest Council Water Cycle Study: Phase 2 Outline Report Final Report October 2018 Bracknell Forest Council Time Square Market Street Bracknell Berkshire RG12 1JD JBA Project Manager Paul Eccleston JBA Consulting 8a Castle Street Wallingford Oxfordshire UNITED KINGDOM OX10 8DL 01491 836688 Revision History Revision Ref / Date Amendments Issued to Issued Version 1.0 / 12 February 2018 Bracknell Forest Council Version 2.0 / Amendments in response to BFC Bracknell Forest Council 17 May 2018 and EA comments Version 2.1 Further amendments in response to BFC, TWUL, AW and SEW Bracknell Forest Council 04 July 2018 comments Version 2.2 FINAL Bracknell Forest Council 10 September 2018 Version 2.3 FINAL (including further comments Bracknell Forest Council 09 October 2018 from BFC) Contract This report describes work commissioned by Bracknell Forest Council, by an email dated 11th November 2017. Bracknell Forest Council’s representatives for the contract were Marie O'Sullivan and Julia Greene. Richard Pardoe, Nathan Chapman and Paul Eccleston of JBA Consulting carried out this work. Prepared by .................................................. Richard Pardoe MEng MSc Analyst Nathan Chapman BSc Assistant Analyst Reviewed by ................................................. Paul Eccleston BA CertWEM CEnv MCIWEM C.WEM Technical Director Purpose This document has been prepared as a Final Report for Bracknell Forest Council. JBA Consulting accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the Client for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared. JBA Consulting has no liability regarding the use of this report except to Bracknell Forest Council. 2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx i Acknowledgements JBA Consulting would like to thank Bracknell Forest Council, the Environment Agency and Thames Water for their assistance in preparing this report. Copyright © Jeremy Benn Associates Limited 2018 Carbon Footprint A printed copy of the main text in this document will result in a carbon footprint of 305g if 100% post-consumer recycled paper is used and 388g if primary-source paper is used. These figures assume the report is printed in black and white on A4 paper and in duplex. JBA is aiming to reduce its per capita carbon emissions. 2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx ii This page is intentionally left blank 2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx iii Executive Summary Introduction Following completion of the Phase 1 Water Cycle Study (WCS) for Bracknell Forest, JBA Consulting were commissioned in November 2017 by Bracknell Forest Council (BFC) to undertake a Phase 2 WCS in order to assess the potential issues relating to future development within Bracknell Forest and the impacts on wastewater collection and treatment, water quality and the impact of climate change on the assessments conducted. The Water Cycle Study is required to assess the constraints and requirements that will arise from potential growth on the water infrastructure. The Phase 2 WCS builds upon the Phase 1 study and, where assessments have been added to repeated, supersedes the Phase 1 study. New homes require the provision of clean water, safe disposal of wastewater and protection from flooding. The allocation of large numbers of new homes in certain locations may result in the capacity of existing available infrastructure being exceeded, a situation that could potentially cause service failures to water and wastewater customers, adverse impacts to the environment, or high costs for the upgrade of water and wastewater assets being passed on to the bill payers. In addition to increased housing demand, future climate change presents further challenges to the existing water infrastructure network, including increased intensive rainfall events and a higher frequency of drought events. Sustainable planning for water must now take this into account. The water cycle can be seen in Figure 1 below and shows how the natural and man-made processes and systems interact to collect, store or transport water in the environment. Figure 1: The Water Cycle Source: Environment Agency – Water Cycle Study Guidance This study will assist the council to select and develop sustainable development allocations where there is minimal impact on the environment, water quality, water resources, infrastructure, and flood risk. This has been achieved by identifying areas where there may be conflict between any proposed development, the requirements of the environment and by recommending potential solutions to these conflicts. Objectives As a WCS is not a statutory instrument, Local Planning Authorities are advised to prioritise the different phases of the WCS to integrate with their Local Plan programme. This Phase II outline study report is intended to form part of the evidence base for the Bracknell Forest Local Plan (BFLP) and to identify whether a detailed WCS is required. Specific requirements, specified by the project brief, were to: 2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx iv Provide an outline report, taking into account guidance in the NPPF, NPPG, The Water Framework Directive, The Thames River Basin Management Plan and the EA Water Cycle Study Requirements and Guidance – Thames Area (October 2016); Produce an effective water cycle study in the context of the outline phase so that: o New development takes place only within environmental constraints; o New development occurs in the most sustainable location, in relation to the water environment; o Water cycle infrastructure is in place before new development is occupied and; o Opportunities for more sustainable infrastructure options are realised. Identification of the issues and questions to be considered with regards to water quality; Gather, assess and use existing data and evidence available, in order to prepare the outline report and address specific questions; Specifically address the following questions with regard to water quality: o Can the proposed growth be accommodated at the Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTWs) being assessed without causing deterioration in water quality? o Will the proposed growth compromise the ability to achieve good ecological status (GES) or potential? o If growth is likely to impact on water quality, can the WWTW be upgraded to prevent any deterioration from occurring or is the permit already at current limits of technology? o Could the development cause greater than 10% deterioration in water quality? o Could the development cause deterioration in WFD class of any element? o Could the development alone prevent the receiving watercourse from reaching Good Ecological Status or Potential? Where relevant, cross reference with the replacement Strategic Flood Risk Assessment; Include the outcome of stakeholder engagement within the Outline Study, in particular, engagement with the EA and Thames Water; Establish whether a Detailed Study is required. Since the phase 1 scoping study, a number of new sites have been identified (and some removed as allocations having already received planning consent). A number of sites have also been allocated to different treatment works by Thames Water. Consequently, the assessments of wastewater network capacity and wastewater treatment capacity were updated based upon the latest site data. Assessments which concluded in phase 1 that no further assessment was required in phase 2 (odour and flood risk from additional wastewater flow) were repeated using the latest site information. The water resources and supply assessments were not affected by the change of sites and were not, therefore, updated. The odour assessment method was amended to take account of the size of the WwTW when assessing the potential extents of odour risk. Conclusions The phase 2 outline Water Cycle Study has been carried out in cooperation with Thames Water, and with the advice of the Environment Agency with respect to the water quality methodology. The overall assessment is that no strategic-scale water or wastewater constraints on growth have been identified within Bracknell Forest. Thames Water are in the process of preparing a growth study covering Bracknell Forest, but the timescale for this completing did not fit with the preparation of the Bracknell Forest Local Plan. Thames Water has, however, made sufficient assurances regarding the primary area of concern around wastewater treatment capacity at Ascot, Bracknell and Easthampstead Park to conclude that no additional Phase 3 water cycle study is required. A site-by-site summary of the results of the assessments undertaken is included in Appendix A. Development Scenarios and Policy Issues 2017s6937 - Bracknell Forest Council - WCS II v2.3.docx v In September 2017 the UK Government entered into a consultation entitled "Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals"1. This set out a new standard methodology to calculate a local authority's Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for new housing. This would result in an increase in Bracknell Forest Council's OAN from 635 units/year to 670 units/year, an increase of 6% or 630 homes over the 18-year plan period. Although this is yet to be adopted, BFC decided to use the higher figure within their Draft Bracknell Forest Local Plan in order to ensure the robustness of their housing supply, and this WCS is based on assessing growth at that rate over the plan period. This Water Cycle Study is an assessment of the impacts of planned
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LGA Special Interest Group Annual Report to LGA Leadership Board
    LGA Leadership Board LGA Special Interest Group Annual Report to LGA Leadership Board SIG Name: Unitary Councils’ Network Lead Member: Cllr Paul Bettison OBE – Leader of Bracknell Forest Council Lead Officer: Stuart McKellar – Borough Treasurer of Bracknell Forest Council Email: [email protected] Address: Time Square, Market Street, Bracknell, Berks, RG12 1JD Telephone: 01344 352041 Website: www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk Membership Bath & North East Somerset; Bournemouth Borough; Bracknell Forest Borough; Cheshire East; Leicester City; Luton, Medway; North Lincolnshire; North Somerset; Plymouth City; Portsmouth City; Rutland County; Slough Borough; South Gloucestershire; Swindon Borough; Telford & Wrekin; Torbay; West Berkshire; Windsor & Maidenhead Royal Borough; Wokingham Borough. Aim To promote, support and represent the aims and ambitions of the Unitary Councils of England. Key Activities / Outcomes of work undertaken The past year has been one of consolidation for the Unitary Councils’ Network, establishing itself as the unique voice and representative body of unitary councils throughout England to ministers and their civil service officials. Meetings and regular dialogue have been set up with ministers and MHCLG officials, as well as MHCLG briefing the network at its own regular meetings. To further the relationship between UCN and MHCLG, the services of an independent consultant have been engaged to further work on the unique offer that UCN can make to MHCLG in the furtherance of joint ambitions. LGA Leadership Board Councillor Paul Bettison OBE Leader of Bracknell Forest Council Chairman of the Unitary Councils’ Network .
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Accessibility Across UK Local Authorities
    Accessibility across UK Local Authorities Socitm and Sitemorse collaboration – supporting BetterConnected Introduction Digital accessibility regulation is challenging to manage and is negatively impacting those for whom the rules should be assisting. Public sector bodies must deal with accessibility, against a timetable. Now with a specific timeline in relation to the public sector achieving accessibility compliance for their websites, we have summarised our Q3 / 2019 results, reporting the position across the sector. For over 10 years Sitemorse have been in partnership with Socitm, working on numerous initiatives including BetterConnected. Sept. 29th 2019 | Ver. 1.9 | Release | © Sitemorse In Summary. For the Sitemorse 2019 Q3 UK Local Government INDEX we assessed over 400 authority websites for adherence to WCAG 2.1. The INDEX was compiled 37% following some 250 million tests, checks and measures across nearly 820,000 URLs. 17% Comparing the Q3 to the Q2 results; 49 improved, 44 dropped, with the balance remaining the same. Three Local Authorities achieved a score of 10 (out of 10) for accessibility. It’s important to note that the INDEX covers the main website of each authority. The law applies to all websites operated, directly or on behalf of the authority. 46% The target score is 7.7 out of 10. • Pages passing accessibility level A: 87.11% • Pages passing accessibility level AA: 12.2% • Of the 3,550 PDF’s 56.4% PDF’s passed the accessibility tests. Score 10 - 7 Score 5 - 6 Score 1 - 4 It is important to note that this score is for automated tests; there are still manual tests that need to be performed however, a score of 10 demonstrates a thorough understanding of what needs to be done and it is highly likely that the manual tests will pass too.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
    Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Published in December 2014 RBWM Local Flood Risk Management Strategy December 2014 2 RBWM Local Flood Risk Management Strategy December 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION .............................................................................................8 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................8 1.1 The Purpose of the Strategy ...........................................................................................8 1.2 Overview of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead ................................................9 1.3 Types of flooding ....................................................................................................... 11 1.4 Who is this Strategy aimed at? .....................................................................................12 1.5 The period covered by the Strategy ...............................................................................12 1.6 The Objectives of the Strategy ......................................................................................12 1.7 Scrutiny and Review ...................................................................................................13 2 Legislative Context ..........................................................................................................14 2.1 The Pitt Review .........................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Road Drainage and the Water Environment
    HIGHWAYS AGENCY – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY 15 ROAD DRAINAGE AND THE WATER ENVIRONMENT 15.1 Introduction 15.1.1 This chapter assesses the impacts of the Scheme on road drainage and the water environment during construction and operation, focussing on the effects of highway drainage on the quality and hydrology of receiving waters. In view of the long design-life of the Scheme (30 years for new gantries, 40 years for new carriageway construction, and 120 years for new bridges), the decommissioning phase of the Scheme has not been considered in this chapter because its effects are not predicted to be worse than the effects assessed during the construction and operational phases. The chapter assesses four principal impacts: a) effects of routine runoff on surface water bodies; b) effects of routine runoff on groundwater; c) pollution impacts from spillages; and d) flood impacts. 15.1.2 Although Interim Advice Note (”IAN”) 161/13 ‘Managed Motorways, All lane running’ (Ref 15-1) has scoped out the assessment of ‘Road Drainage and the Water Environment’ for smart motorway schemes, the assessment is required to ensure the protection of the water environment, to prevent its degradation, and ensure adequate mitigation measures are in place to prevent any adverse impacts. 15.1.3 The road drainage and water environment assessment for the Scheme has been undertaken in accordance with standard industry practice and statutory guidance. 15.1.4 This chapter details the methodology followed for the assessment, and summarises the regulatory and policy framework relating to road drainage and the water environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Loddon Catchment Implementation Plan
    Loddon Catchment Implementation Plan January 2012 – FOR COMMMENT (Version C2) Glossary.....................................................................................................................3 1 Introduction...................................................................................................6 2 Loddon catchment summary.......................................................................9 2.1 General Description .....................................................................................9 2.2 Catchment map........................................................................................... 10 3 Water body information ............................................................................. 11 3.1 Classification.................................................................................................. 11 3.2 Heavily Modified Water Bodies..................................................................... 11 4 Actions ........................................................................................................ 11 4.1 Operational monitoring (2010-12) ............................................................. 12 4.2 Investigations (2010-12)............................................................................. 12 4.3 Improvement actions (in place by 2012)................................................... 12 4.3.1 ‘Day Job’ activities.............................................................................................. 13 4.3.2 Field actions ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Local Authority / Combined Authority / STB Members (July 2021)
    Local Authority / Combined Authority / STB members (July 2021) 1. Barnet (London Borough) 24. Durham County Council 50. E Northants Council 73. Sunderland City Council 2. Bath & NE Somerset Council 25. East Riding of Yorkshire 51. N. Northants Council 74. Surrey County Council 3. Bedford Borough Council Council 52. Northumberland County 75. Swindon Borough Council 4. Birmingham City Council 26. East Sussex County Council Council 76. Telford & Wrekin Council 5. Bolton Council 27. Essex County Council 53. Nottinghamshire County 77. Torbay Council 6. Bournemouth Christchurch & 28. Gloucestershire County Council 78. Wakefield Metropolitan Poole Council Council 54. Oxfordshire County Council District Council 7. Bracknell Forest Council 29. Hampshire County Council 55. Peterborough City Council 79. Walsall Council 8. Brighton & Hove City Council 30. Herefordshire Council 56. Plymouth City Council 80. Warrington Borough Council 9. Buckinghamshire Council 31. Hertfordshire County Council 57. Portsmouth City Council 81. Warwickshire County Council 10. Cambridgeshire County 32. Hull City Council 58. Reading Borough Council 82. West Berkshire Council Council 33. Isle of Man 59. Rochdale Borough Council 83. West Sussex County Council 11. Central Bedfordshire Council 34. Kent County Council 60. Rutland County Council 84. Wigan Council 12. Cheshire East Council 35. Kirklees Council 61. Salford City Council 85. Wiltshire Council 13. Cheshire West & Chester 36. Lancashire County Council 62. Sandwell Borough Council 86. Wokingham Borough Council Council 37. Leeds City Council 63. Sheffield City Council 14. City of Wolverhampton 38. Leicestershire County Council 64. Shropshire Council Combined Authorities Council 39. Lincolnshire County Council 65. Slough Borough Council • West of England Combined 15. City of York Council 40.
    [Show full text]
  • Southend-On-Sea Borough Council Infrastructure Delivery Plan
    Southend-on-Sea Infrastructure Delivery Plan Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Infrastructure Delivery Plan Navigus Planning February 2015 0 Southend-on-Sea Infrastructure Delivery Plan Southend-on-Sea Infrastructure Delivery Plan CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 2 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND CONTEXT FOR GROWTH .............. 3 National policy ........................................................................................................ 3 Local context .......................................................................................................... 5 3 EDUCATION ........................................................................................ 11 Early Years and Childcare ...................................................................................... 11 Primary, Secondary and Sixth Form Education ........................................................ 12 Free Schools and Academies ................................................................................. 14 4 HEALTH AND SOCIAL WELLBEING ..................................................... 15 GP services .......................................................................................................... 15 Social care ........................................................................................................... 17 5 UTILITIES .......................................................................................... 19 Water – used water .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Style Guide Ensuring a Strong, Recognisable Brand and Identity
    Style Guide Ensuring a strong, recognisable brand and identity A shared service provided by Bracknell Forest Council, West Berkshire Council and Wokingham Borough Council Contents Introduction 3 The logo 4 The Partner footer 5 Fonts 6 Colour palette 7 Using our branding 8 How not to use our branding 8 Print design elements 9 Digital design elements 10 Stationery 11 Templates, forms and PPP PowerPoint template 12 Public Protection Partnership - Style Guide 2 Introduction The principal elements of the corporate identity are the: • Logos • Partner footer • Corporate colours and • Corporate fonts This Style Guide details the corporate identity of the PPP and how it should be applied across the service and its associated projects, either in print or digitally. There are no exceptions. This guide is aimed all PPP officers and explains what is allowed and what is not. The Style Guide racnell orest is also for all outside organisations who have been Public Protection authorised to produce information or publicity West ershire material on behalf of the PPP. Partnership Woinha In applying these brand rules, designers, as well as officers and members of the PPP, will be playing a vital role in upholding the consistent, corporate image presented by the PPP, contributing to it being a strong and recognisable brand. When creating stationery, printed or digital materials in the first instance please contact: Lead Officer – Community Engagement Claire Lockwood e-mail: [email protected] Tel: 01635 519507 Public Protection Partnership - Style Guide 3 The logo racnell orest This logo is at the heart of the PPP’s corporate Public Protection West ershire identity and it is the primary PPP logo.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Advisory Group Event Form
    Safety Advisory Group event form Name of event Address or location of event Local authority area Bracknell Forest West Berkshire Wokingham Date(s) of event Event start time Event finish time Name of organisation Contact name Phone Email Brief outline of event programme / activities Approximate number of people to attend Have you held this event before? Yes No Has the event changed at all? Yes No N/A If yes, please give details of changes Do you intend to have any of the following? Please tick relevant boxes and provide brief details overleaf Sale or supply of alcohol * Music * Exhibition of film or performance of dance * Food and drink stalls Fairground rides or inflatables Barriers / fencing Temporary stage Marquees Bonfire / fireworks / pyrotechnics Lasers Amplified speech / PA system Parking prohibition * Carnival / procession Banners or posters Portable power supply Road closure / traffic diversion * Motor vehicles Animals *Please note that applications for licences for these activities may take up to 8 weeks to be processed Please provide details reference any activities ticked on page 1: Please provide details of any toilet and sanitary facilities: Please provide details of method to be used to dispose of waste from the event: Please provide details of any car parking provision and how this will be managed: Please give details of any first aid provision: Please give details of any fire safety provision: Please give details of any noise control measures: Please give details of any temporary drinking water supplies to be provided: Please give details of any external contractors and/or concessions: Are you submitting a site/route plan? Site plans should be to scale and show the position of any stalls, stages or structures, toilets, first aid points, access/egress routes for emergency vehicles, car parking etc.
    [Show full text]
  • UASC Capacity Support - Proposed Distribution of £21.3M Allocation Is Based on Latest Available Home Office Management Data Capturing Numbers at September
    UASC capacity support - proposed distribution of £21.3m Allocation is based on latest available Home Office management data capturing numbers at September. The information on NTS transfers has been confirmed by the Strategic Migration Partnership leads and is accurate up to December 2017. Please see attached FAQ and methodology document for further information. Local Authority Amount Total 21,258,203.00 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham £ 141,094.00 London Borough of Barnet £ 282,189.00 Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Bath and North East Somerset Council £ 94,063.00 Bedford Council (Unitary) £ 94,063.00 London Borough of Bexley £ 282,189.00 Birmingham City Council £ 188,126.00 Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Bournemouth Borough Council £ 141,094.00 Bracknell Forest Council £ 94,063.00 Bradford Metropolitan District Council £ 94,063.00 London Borough of Brent £ 329,219.00 Brighton and Hove City Council £ 188,126.00 Bristol City Council £ 188,126.00 London Borough of Bromley £ 141,094.00 Buckinghamshire County Council £ 188,126.00 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Cambridgeshire County Council £ 235,157.00 London Borough of Camden £ 329,219.00 Central Bedfordshire Council £ 282,189.00 Cheshire East Council (Unitary) £ 94,063.00 Cheshire West and Chester Council £ 94,063.00 City of London £ 94,063.00 City of Nottingham Council £ 94,063.00 Cornwall Council (Unitary) £ 94,063.00 Coventry City
    [Show full text]
  • Winners of the Geoplace Exemplar Awards 2014
    Winners of the GeoPlace Exemplar Awards 2014 Exemplar Award 2014 Winner Joint Emergency Services Group (Wales) Runner-up Oxford City Council Highly commended Northumberland County Council Custodian of the Year 2014 Marilyn George East Riding of Yorkshire Most Improved Address Data Ribble Valley Borough Council Most Improved Street Data Milton Keynes Council Best Address Data in Region Best Address Data in East Midlands Region 2014 Mansfield District Council Best Address Data in East of England Region 2014 Huntingdonshire District Council Best Address Data in Greater London Region 2014 London Borough of Enfield Best Address Data in North East Region 2014 South Tyneside Council Best Address Data in North West Region 2014 Allerdale Borough Council 1 Best Address Data in South East Region 2014 Lewes District Council Best Address Data in South East Region 2014 Adur District Council Best Address Data in South West Region 2014 Torridge District Council Best Address Data in Wales Region 2014 Flintshire County Council Best Address Data in West Midlands Region 2014 Wyre Forest District Council Best Address Data in Yorkshire and the Humber Region 2014 Kingston upon Hull City Council and Sheffield City Council Best Street Data in Region Best Street Data in East Midlands Region 2014 Northamptonshire County Council Best Street Data in East of England Region 2014 Peterborough City Council Best Street Data in Greater London Region 2014 London Borough of Enfield Best Street Data in Greater London Region 2014 London Borough of Hillingdon Best Street Data
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Financial Statements 2018/19
    Draft Financial Statements 2018/19 CONTENTS Narrative Report 1 Annual Governance Statement 14 Independent Auditor’s Report 31 Statement of Accounts Approval of Accounts 34 Statement of Responsibilities 35 Comprehensive Income & Expenditure Statement 36 Movement in Reserves Statement 37 Balance Sheet 38 Cash Flow Statement 39 Notes to the Core Financial Statements 40 The Collection Fund 110 Notes to the Collection Fund 111 Group Accounts 113 Notes to the Group Accounts 118 Glossary of Terms 123 Index 130 Bracknell Forest Council i Draft Financial Statements 2018/19 Bracknell Forest Council ii Draft Financial Statements 2018/19 NARRATIVE REPORT 1 Introduction The Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 require the Council to produce a Statement of Accounts for each financial year giving certain specified information. This Narrative Report accompanies the accounts and provides a brief explanation of the financial aspects of Bracknell Forest Council’s activities and draws attention to the main characteristics of the Council’s financial position. To assist readers, a glossary of accounting terms is included on pages 123 to 129. Bracknell Forest is a Unitary Council and following the transfer of its housing stock accounts for its expenditure in two distinct categories: General Fund Revenue Account – This includes day to day spending on all services. Expenditure is financed mainly from government grant, a proportion of the Business Rates income collected, charges to users of services, and Council Tax. Capital – All improvements and additions to the Council’s assets and the creation of new assets with a life or more than one year are included in this category. This expenditure is primarily financed from the sale of capital assets, government grants, contributions from developers, and borrowing from internal and external sources.
    [Show full text]