Kingston Upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Kingston upon Hull City Council

Hull Infrastructure Study

Final Report Black

Kingston upon Hull City Council

Hull Infrastructure Study

Final Report

May 2010

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third Ove Arup & Partners Ltd party Admiral House, Rose Wharf, 78 East Street, Leeds LS9 8EE

Tel +44 (0)113 2428498 Fax +44 (0)113 2428573 www.arup.com Job number 209768

Document Verification

Page 1 of 1

Job title Hull Infrastructure Study Job number

209768

Document title Final Report File reference

Document ref

Revision Date Filename Draft Final Report 25 11 09.doc Draft 1 25/11/09 Description First draft

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name Team Tom Bridges Tom Bridges

Signature

Draft Final 22/12/09 Filename Draft Final Report_For Circulation.doc Report Description

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name Team Paul Wheatley / Jon Tom Bridges Sawyer Signature

Issue 10/05/10 Filename Hull Infrastructure Study_Final Report_Client_Issue.doc

Description Final Report for KHCC comment

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name Team Paul Wheatley / Jon Tom Bridges Sawyer Signature

Filename

Description

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name

Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE Ove Arup & Partners Ltd STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL Issue 10 May 2010 INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Contents

Page Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 22 2 Understanding the Infrastructure Planning Process 24 3 Context for Infrastructure Planning in Hull 30 4 Methodology 34 5 Transport 39 6 Utility Networks 44 7 Telecommunications 59 8 Flood Risk and Drainage 66 9 Waste 72 10 Green Infrastructure, Open Space, Sport and Recreation 75 11 Health Provision 86 12 Emergency Services 92 13 Education 97 14 Infrastructure Costs and Funding 109 15 Summary Matrix of Infrastructure Required and Costs 111 16 Prioritising Infrastructure Investment 119 17 Facilitating Infrastructure Delivery 120 18 Conclusions and Recommendations 133

Appendices Appendix A List of Consultees

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Executive Summary

Introduction

This Infrastructure study has been undertaken to inform the production of the Local Development Framework (LDF). It forms part of the evidence base and outlines the infrastructure required to deliver the aspirations of the Core Strategy. The study involves gaining an understanding of the infrastructure currently provided within Kingston-upon-Hull, whether this is fit for purpose and whether it will be able to meet the needs of the population in 2026. This involved an analysis of a wide range of types of infrastructure including transport, utilities, health, education and green infrastructure. Arup and Eye were commissioned to undertake this work by Kingston-upon-Hull City Council (KHCC). The Housing Green Paper (July 2008) and Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning (June 2008) put significant emphasis on developing the evidence base to ensure that the necessary infrastructure can be provided to support proposed levels of development (particularly housing and economic development). Establishing an infrastructure evidence base gives certainty to service providers, funders and developers, and informs the phasing of development as well as issues regarding funding. The challenge for KHCC and other local authorities is to plan positively for housing growth, whilst delivering sustainable communities; providing a commensurate level of economic development as well as the necessary physical, social and green infrastructure to support local communities. In Hull this challenge also includes delivering growth alongside housing market renewal, economic restructuring and regeneration - with specific challenges of remodelling existing communities as part of the Housing Market Renewal (HMR) Pathfinder programme. Whilst the recession has made the delivery of housing growth and renewal and economic growth a considerable challenge, the long term nature of infrastructure planning means that this will ultimately have less impact on this area with developments occurring over a longer time period than initially planned.

Understanding the Infrastructure Planning Process

Strategically important infrastructure considered to be of national importance will soon be decided upon by the recently formed and independent body the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). Taking account of National Policy Statements issued by Government, this will accept and decide upon planning applications submitted from the beginning of March 2010 that meet the criteria has been established for applications deemed to be of ‘national significance’. This respective criterion will be appropriate for transport, energy, water, waste water and waste applications. At a more local level, Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12 identifies the need for the LDF Core Strategy to incorporate strategic objectives, including a delivery plan identifying the quantum and location of development as well as the proposed timing or phasing of development. In order to robustly indentify the future pattern of development it is necessary to consider the impact of the development on the existing infrastructure and the potential additional infrastructure required over the plan period. Without this information the Core Strategy will not pass the ‘tests of soundness’ as part of its Independent Examination 1. Previously, the infrastructure planning process has faced significant structural problems, including over-centralisation, regulatory and financial fragmentation, poor coordination, and a lack of cross- sectoral understanding, and the relative autonomy of the infrastructure providers. The changing role of the planning system from land use planning to spatial planning provides an excellent medium around which partners can co-ordinate planning for growth and the delivery of infrastructure. A strategic spatial planning approach coupled with the changing statutory and policy framework for infrastructure planning allows for a more coordinated, multi-agency approach to

1 Test of Soundness for Core Strategy Development Plan Document and other Local Development Framework Development Plan Documents are set out in paragraphs 4.51 and 4.52 in Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning, DCLG, http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/pps12lsp.pdf \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE Ove Arup & Partners Ltd STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL Issue 10 May 2010 INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

assessing infrastructure need. This more joined-up approach to understanding strategic infrastructure issues in the context of local growth and change should ultimately deliver more efficient provision of services. As well as an appraisal of infrastructure need and a coordination of approach, an infrastructure study provides a means to facilitate discussion on infrastructure funding. This is particularly important in terms of the collection of developer contributions (when appropriate to do so) and development linked funding strategies. To enable the collection of these contributions it is particularly important to have a robust evidence base upon which assumptions can be made in relation to the amount of finance needing to be raised and that its use is maximised. Government legislation in the Planning Act 2008 sets out the introduction of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as a way of delivering greater transparency and certainty in the funding of infrastructure. This is as a response to the perception that current Section 106 obligations are not able to always provide the level of contribution required to deliver infrastructure due to a number of issues, including that contributions can be negotiated and so lack consistency and certainty, and the fact that contributions may be waivered due to development being sought to facilitate transformational change. Under the CIL Regulations 2010, CIL will come into effect as of April 2010. Section 106 obligations will remain, but only as a means to make acceptable development proposals which might otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms. The CIL Regulations do not currently require a local authority to determine a definitive list of projects or infrastructure to which CIL charges will be put against. However, the Planning Act 2008 does require local authorities to be able to demonstrate an evidence base which underpins the charging schedule, and any differential rates set for different areas or different intended uses. This study provides the evidence to underpin the development of a charging schedule; however, further work will be needed (if required) to translate the evidence into a definitive list of projects. It should be noted at this stage that it is not clear what effect the General Election will have on proposals for CIL. Irrespective of a change in Government, it is clear that there are amendments required to the process of capturing and collecting developer contributions towards infrastructure. If CIL did not materialise, then a thorough review of the current Section 106 mechanism would still be required so that it can be made to work more effectively in supporting infrastructure planning and delivery.

Context for Infrastructure Planning in Hull

As noted, KHCC is in the process of developing its Local Development Framework. The Core Strategy which sets the broad spatial vision for what the council wants to achieve is currently bring produced. Consultation on the “Issues, Options and Suggested Preferred Option” stage of the Core Strategy took place between July and September 2008, with the “Emerging Preferred Approach” stage scheduled for spring 2010. Having knowledge of the critical, strategic issues affecting infrastructure planning, investment and delivery has a direct consequence for the emerging Core Strategy. Incorporating the conclusions of the study into the Core Strategy will allow it to set a realistic and achievable spatial vision for the development of the city to the year 2026. As well as ensuring this study would align with the emerging policy framework, it was also necessary to determine what would constitute the study area. The administrative area of KHCC was adopted as the principal study area, however given that infrastructure has cross boundary impacts, interfaces with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) area were also an important part of the study. It was then necessary to set parameters on the assumed amount of development set to occur over the course of the study period and within the agreed area. This was compiled on assumptions made from information in existing documents including the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and Humber (the Yorkshire and Humber Plan, May 2008), the Core Strategy Issues, Options and Suggested Preferred Option, the three Area Action Plans (AAPs) developed as part of the LDF

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

process, and the Employment Land Review (July 2008). Discussions were also held with the consultants appointed to prepare the emerging Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.

Methodology

The approach adopted in undertaking this study fell in to four main stages. The first stage involved determining the scope of infrastructure to be included in the assessment. The nature of an infrastructure study means that it is important to adopt a strategic, settlement level assessment of infrastructure requirements. Such a response is required due to the breadth of issues that could be covered and the need to reflect on and investigate the infrastructure delivery issues which would fundamentally undermine the spatial vision of the Core Strategy. The scope of the study was discussed at an officer workshop to ascertain an agreed list of infrastructure types considered to be of strategic importance for the future of Hull. The second stage used the agreed scope and analysed the level of provision in Hull. This work looked to understand, in relation to each type of infrastructure, whether there is currently enough provision to cater to the existing demands and if that infrastructure is fit for purpose. This information formed a baseline against which it was possible to carry out a broad assessment of planned infrastructure improvements up to 2026. A comparison of current and planned provision then illustrated the gaps that exist between provision and the future vision for Hull in terms of desired landuse patterns and an ability to deliver growth, regeneration and sustainable development.. In certain cases it also identified gaps in the knowledge of key infrastructure planning bodies, for example where their own infrastructure planning timetable does not run up to 2026. Stages three and four were strongly interlinked elements of work. Stage three involved assessing the cost of planned and required infrastructure identified through Stage two. As part of this it was important to establish if there was any confirmed funding for planned infrastructure and to ascertain whether any planned infrastructure provision had a funding gap thus jeopardising its viability and deliverability. Finally, Stage four of the study considered potential sources of funding and mechanisms by which funding could be used to bridge the gap in infrastructure funding highlighted in Stage three. Where it was clear that gaps existed Stage four assessed to what extent the infrastructure gaps could be filled and by what mechanism.

Assessment of Infrastructure Types

Overview An analysis of the various types of infrastructure in Hull highlighted a number of areas where investment will be needed to deliver future aspirations. The key issues in relation to each infrastructure type are summarised below. The funding required to deliver this infrastructure is summarised in table ES1.1 this includes known sources of funding and any funding gaps that currently exist. Transport The A63 Castle Street has been identified as the most significant issue for Hull’s transport network. In terms of infrastructure it was deemed not currently fit for purpose due to the level of congestion that it experiences during peak hours, the restrictions it places on pedestrian movements and the fact that it acts as a physical barrier between the City Centre and the waterfront. As one of the main strategic routes through the city, the A63 should act as an enabler of development, but currently functions as a constraint on future growth. Improvements to the A63 Castle Street are earmarked for funding (£190m) in the Regional Funding Advice programme. Two sites are being pursued for park and ride facilities, which are located within East Riding of Yorkshire and so will require joint working between the two authorities. Additional improvements to public transport, walking and cycling are also planned within the three AAP areas in Hull. Improvements to Hull’s port facilities are likely to be delivered as part of a programme of investment by Associated British Ports, albeit this may take considerable time in the current market conditions.

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Utility Network s Based on analysis of the utility network in Hull, there will need to be investment made to improve the electricity supply to the city centre. This will be necessary to achieve the level of development planned for this part of Hull and will require a new primary sub-station. Whilst this could ordinarily be funded via the market, it may be some time before this new facility is guaranteed and a lack of clarity as to who (which developers) should pay causing uncertainty and potential delay to development. Investment will also be required to improve the existing network. This will be fundamental to achieving and unlocking some of the key development sites that exist within Hull. Major investment is not required for either gas or water supply in the city. Telecommunications Telecommunications form a more complex element in terms of utilities provision in Hull. Hull’s current dependence upon Kingston Communications is a unique situation within the country, as it is the only place not served by BT. The net effect of the regulatory framework applied to Kingston Communications reinforce its monopoly on infrastructure provision, while not effectively stimulating competitive provision at the service level. This has been experienced most acutely in relation to the provision of broadband, with few other companies willing to enter the market in Hull. As a result, Hull is at risk of having an increasingly out-moded telecommunications network. It is complex challenge to estimate the level of infrastructure investment required in new telecommunications infrastructure in Hull, or the timescale for its delivery, as any investment would need to be market led. The future delivery strategy for telecommunications, in particular digital services and broadband, should align with council plans for providing greater connectivity in the city. Opportunities exist for council to take a lead role in facilitating greater digital connectivity in the city, helping to meet wider objectives for developing the knowledge-economy, raising skills and attainment and delivering regeneration. Flood Risk and Drainage Hull is at significant risk of flooding and so it is of vital importance to have a sufficient level and standard of flood defences to ensure its long term protection. Existing flood defence infrastructure is in a very variable condition. As noted in he Flood Risk Management Plan (2008), hard defences on the River Hull are in a poor condition and whilst the new defences on the Humber are in good condition, the original defences are generally in a poor condition. There are a number of planned improvements to both the fluvial flood defences (particularly for the River Hull) and coastal flood defences in Hull between now and 2013, with some additional investments identified up to 2017. The medium to long term plan for improving the level of flood protection in Hull has yet to be determined. For the flood defences along the River Hull further work is required to understand the options and level of investment required. Waste and Recycling Waste management services are currently managed by Waste Recycling Group under the terms of a joint contract agreed with both KHCC and ERYC. This contract runs until 2024 and under the terms of this contract the Waste Recycling Group owns and manages all landfill and waste transfer stations used by the authorities and are responsible for developing the waste management infrastructure required in order to manage the Joint Authorities’ waste. Under the Joint Waste Management Strategy completed by KHCC and ERYC an Energy from Waste (EfW) plant was planned to help manage the area’s waste. KHCC and ERYC are no longer pursuing a PFI option to fund the EfW facility and the authorities and Waste Recycling Group are now reviewing alternative funding options.

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Green Infrastructure, Open Space, Sport and Recreation There is a deficit in the quantity and quality of green infrastructure, open space and sport and recreation facilities in Hull. Many of the current facilities are ageing and require significant maintenance and upkeep. Committed funding to deliver increased provision and/or new facilities is in short supply and to this extent, major decisions are required on Hull’s approach in order to deliver tangible health and well-being benefits, enhance the overall quality of place in Hull, and also bring about transformational change. Decisions are made all the more difficult when projects are within the wider context of helping shape regeneration in certain parts of Hull. These problems are acknowledged by KHCC and the Facility Improvement Service produced by the Culture and Leisure Department is driving the agenda. The finalisation of the strategy should help to understand the gap and begin to outline options for future provision and may also facilitate the commitment of funding to ensure the maintenance and necessary improvements to existing stock. This evidence will help inform the rationale for using developer contributions through a CIL charge to help deliver green infrastructure, open space, sport and recreation. If KHCC takes for a CIL then the evidence must be in place to demonstrate the link between using developer contributions to support green infrastructure and open space, and the positive benefits in can bring in terms of raising the overall quality of place across the city, stimulating improvements to the quality of the residential offer, supporting housing market renewal and encouraging greater economic competitiveness. Health Provision The Primary Care Trust (PCT) is responsible for the delivery of health care services, this includes hospitals, Humber Mental Health, specialist out of area providers, GPs, pharmacies, dentists, opticians, as well as PCT direct provision. At present future service provision has been planned until 2019. This includes a £250m capital investment programme being delivered in Hull and East Yorkshire. Meanwhile, two new mental health units are planned for the Hull, which are scheduled to open in 2010. Significant investment is also planned to deliver new Local Improvement Finance Trust centres within Hull. This includes six centres across the city. Whilst only planned to 2019, these facilities are designed with additional capacity. It is therefore anticipated that with the delivery of these investments further facilities will not be required within Hull over the course of the study period (2026). Accordingly it is not anticipated that funding for new physical healthcare infrastructure needs to be identified. Emergency Services The overall approach for emergency services is to develop efficiency within existing provision, buildings and infrastructure. Although this does not preclude the provision of new infrastructure, the reasons for new provision are as part of modernisation, improving efficiency and maximising effectiveness. Proposals for new station buildings for both Humberside Police and Humberside Fire and Rescue offers potential land release and development opportunities for Hull. Plans and strategies across all emergency services have short to medium term time horizons, and all recognise the current economic recession poses long term implications for investment and delivery of services. Humberside Police is in the process of developing a new Strategic Business Case to update their Estates Strategy; Yorkshire Ambulance Service has modelled demand up to and including 2013, as well as rolling-out its “Hub and Spoke Model” for future service delivery; and the Humber Fire and Rescue Service has plans and strategies in place to cater for demand and service provision up to and including 2012.

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Education There are number of planned improvements to education infrastructure in Hull. Whilst no investment requirement was identified for early years education facilities in Hull there is significant investment required in relation to primary schools, secondary schools, colleges and sixth form, and the University. Investments in primary, secondary, referral and special schools are designed to improve the quality of facilities and in turn the quality of service that can be delivered from them. Additionally, there is a further need to rationalise current school provision as there remains an excess number of places, which is a trend anticipated to continue. The Building Schools for the Future Programme will be responsible for delivering the necessary improvements in secondary schools, special schools and referral units. There is some uncertainty regarding future investment regarding further education facilities as a result of funding not being available via the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). However, significant investment is planned for the University to help improve its facilities between 2009 and 2024.

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Table ES1: Indicative costs, funding options and gaps for infrastructure in Hull

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap Govt KHCC Organisation / Other Institution

Transport

Highways £190m £190m - - - £Nil Cost relates to proposed improvements to A63 Castle Street. Highways Agency scheme fully funded (if DfT approval gained) from Regional Funding Allocation.

£5m - - - £5m £Nil Cost relates to short term highway Improvements (e.g. Mytongate Roundabout. S106 agreement will be pursued for any short term measures that need to be implemented to bring forward regeneration in advance of the A63 Castle St or for any fall back schemes if the A63 Castle Street scheme is postponed. This could include a minor £5m scheme for Mytongate Roundabout (currently under design).

Park & Ride (P&R) £9m - £9m - - £Nil Cost relates to North Hull P&R and East Hull P&R. Anticipated to be fully KHCC funded, although potential risks due to constraints in KHCC funding.

Rail (Passenger) £Nil - - - - £Nil No investment requirement identified.

Rail (Freight) £Nil - - - - £Nil No investment requirement identified. In the longer term there may be possibilities to do a full dualling scheme on the freight line. This would be market-led and only once existing capacity is taken up (unlikely in the next 10 years). Indicative cost of full dualling would include costs associated with replacing rail bridge over the River Hull, with funding to come from National Programmes and private contributions.

Bus Series of small scale measures identified in the AAPs (not currently costed). Funding would be from Local Transport Plan Integrated Transport Block (currently £4m-£5m per year, although uncertainty regarding future levels). Walking & Cycling

Port £Nil - - - - £Nil All investment to be met by ABP. However note that in the current economic climate such investment may be slow.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 7 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap Govt KHCC Organisation / Other Institution

Utility Networks

Electricity £10-£12m - - - £10 - £Nil Infrastructure requirements linked to provision of additional capacity over and £12m above natural growth levels. Half of costs related to provision of new primary substation. Rest of cost linked to new development triggering reinforcement of existing networks and cables. Funding also required for feasibility work and ongoing appraisal of development strategy and capacity of electrical network, including specific assessment of procurement routes for large developments. Electricity infrastructure provision under business as usual model would be funded by developers as part of development costs.

Gas £2.4-£3m - - - £2.4- £Nil Major investment in gas infrastructure is not required. Gas infrastructure provision £3m under business as usual model would be funded by developers as part of development costs.

Water Supply £2.1-£2.6m - - - £2.1- £Nil Major investment in water supply infrastructure is not required. Infrastructure £2.6m provision under business as usual model would be funded by developers as part of development costs

Tele- £Nil - - - - £Nil It is challenging to estimate the level of investment required in new telecoms communications infrastructure over the study period. Direct investment in infrastructure is likely to be market-led. Future delivery strategy should align with council plans for providing greater digital connectivity in the city

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 8 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Gap Comments Requirement Cost Govt KHCC Organisation / Other Institution

Flood Risk and Drainage

Flood Defences £98.4m £Unknown - - - £Unknown This represents the present value cost for infrastructure works on River beyond 2013 Hull, the Humber and the Hull Tidal Surge Barrier. Some funding confirmed by the Environment Agency from 2008 to 2013 from national flood and coastal defence budget however exact figure unknown. Longer term uncertainty over funds to deliver schemes identified in SFRA.

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Gap Comments Requirement Cost Govt KHCC Organisation / Other Institution

Waste and Recycling

Waste £Nil - - - - £Unknown Waste Recycling Group (WRG) management and service provision Management beyond 2024 contract runs to 2024. KHCC and ERYC are no longer pursuing a PFI option to fund the delivery of an Energy from Waste facility and the authorities and WRG are now reviewing alternative funding options.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 9 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap Govt KHCC Organisation / Other Institution

Green Infrastructure, Open Space, Sport and Recreation

Open Spaces £93.1m - £17.5m - £20m £55.6m Funding gap includes the £5m funding gap for West Park. £17.5m is from capital receipts for improvements in the Newington and St Andrew’s AAP and Holderness Road Corridor AAP. The £20m is for public realm within the Strategic Development Areas in the City Centre AAP and is funded by Hull Forward. Public realm outside of the SDAs to be funded by Section 106 contributions.

Play Areas £1.1m £1.1m - - - £Nil £1.1m capital funding and £45k revenue funding has been awarded from Department for Children, Schools and Family (DCSF).

Sports Pitches £0.25m - - - - £0.25m There is an immediate need for a decision about what should be done with the Rosemead STP and the Costello STP. Although a way forward has been provisionally agreed fir Rosemead STP. Both STPs are current closed, and in a dangerous condition. Renewal will cost around £120k per site.

Sports Centres £6.5m - £6.5m - - £Nil Most of the existing facilities are already beyond their economic life expectancy, & Pools (repairs) and when compared to modern leisure centres all of the facilities in Hull are relatively energy inefficient, costly to operate and have increasingly high repair and maintenance costs. By 2026 all of the existing Swimming Pools and Leisure Centres will be well beyond their life expectancy. Condition surveys indicate that over £1.3m per annum over the next five years will need to be invested in essential repairs alone.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 10 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap Govt KHCC Organisation / Other Institution

Sports Centres Approx - - - - Approx By early in 2010, the results of a series of modelling exercises will be available & Pools £20m £20m which will show how local needs can be met in the future, and beyond 2026. Investing in new facilities will be costly, but the ''whole of life'' cost of new facilities will be lower than compared to the existing / older swimming pools and leisure centres. Prudent investment in new facilities will reduce overall costs in the long term. New leisure centres can generate more income than old ones because they offer better facilities (especially for health and fitness) and they are less expensive to operate because they require less maintenance and are more energy efficient. Case Study - John Charles Centre for Sport (Leeds) – new facility delivered at cost of £16.5m includes: Aquatics Centre – 50 metre swimming pool; Eight-lane outdoor athletics track; Stadium for athletics and rugby league; 10 Third- generation outdoor football pitches; Tennis centre; Indoor bowling centre.

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap Govt KHCC Organisation / Other Institution

Health Provision

Community & £32m - - £32m - £Nil Planned to 2019 with some additional capacity. Assumed no further Primary Care infrastructure required to 2026.

Hospitals & £250m - - £250m - £Nil No gap identified. In practice some of this investment will come from Acute Care Government and other sources

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 11 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap

Govt KHCC Organisation / Other Institution

Emergency Services

Ambulance £Nil - - - £Unknown General trend is to move away from larger centralised buildings or facilities and Service beyond towards smaller, leaner rapid response service provision. Funding is sourced 2012 directly from Strategic Health Authority. YAS operated across boundaries of KHCC and ERYC, this has broader implications on delivery of services and location of rapid response facilities.

Fire & Rescue £Nil - - - - £Unknown Funding for future service delivery pegged to central government formula grant, beyond Council Tax precept and collection funds. 2012 Humber Fire and Rescue Service has plans and strategies in place to cater to demand and service provision up to and including 2012.

Police £Nil - - - - £Unknown Humberside Police currently in process of rationalising their estate and buildings. beyond Likely to result in changes in overall way that services are delivered and where 2012 they are likely to be delivered from. New Headquarters at Clough Road programmed to be completed by 2013. There are also proposals to relocate from buildings at Queens Gardens.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 12 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap Govt KHCC Organisation / Other Institution

Education

Nursery £Nil - - - - £Nil Assumed responds directly to market

Primary School £45m £9m - - - £36m Note £9m is secured to 31 st March 2011, with the remainder subject to the Comprehensive Spending Review

Secondary £400m £400m - - - £Nil Planned to 2019 with some additional capacity. Assumed no further School infrastructure required to 2026.

College & Sixth £106m - - £100m - £6m Plans of this level are identified which are subject to ongoing review in light of Form funding not being available via the Learning and Skills Council. A reduced capital programme may be confirmed in due course. However this is for each organisation / institution to resolve in funding terms. The £6m is required for the final phase of Wilberforce and has yet to be confirmed.

University £32.5m - - £32.5m - £Nil Total development cost of £2,500psm is assumed in relation to the gross development area. The University of Hull expects the bulk of its Masterplan to be delivered before 2014 with the residual elements by 2024. The University anticipates funding its estate development via its own funds and that of public bodies such as HEFCE, ERDF, NHS and Yorkshire Forward. The University does not expect the Council to contribute towards its capital programmes.

Community and Cultural

Local retail £5.2m - - - £3.2m £2.0m Orchard Park shopping centre has a gap of approximately £2m, KHCC are outlets actively engaged in helping to meet this. Local centre proposals in regeneration areas / areas of change likely to have gaps in viability under current economic model.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 13 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 14 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Infrastructure Costs and Funding

The previous set of tables highlight the scale of the challenge of providing the infrastructure required to deliver HulI’s goals and aspirations. In particular this highlights the scale of the challenge required to fund the necessary improvements. In light of the current economic climate and the likelihood of a constrained future fiscal environment it is imperative to ensure that the list of required infrastructure is prioritised to focus upon the elements most important to Hull. Consequently, infrastructure has been considered in terms of it playing a critical, place shaping or enabling role, and thus the study has endeavoured to move beyond a list of “nice to haves”. The nature and character of Hull does mean that in some areas place shaping infrastructure is critical to regeneration aspirations to improve quality of place and the residential and economic offer. This research has highlighted the fundamental importance of proactively planning the provision of infrastructure to ensure that it can be delivered and thus unlock wider opportunities.

Prioritising Infrastructure Investment

Building on the comments above, the infrastructure for which funding is currently required in Hull can be best understood as falling into one of the following three categories:

• Strategic infrastructure: infrastructure deemed to be of strategic importance at a national and/ or regional level is the A63 Castle Street improvements and the flood protection measures. The inclusion of the A63 within the Regional Funding Advice reflects its strategic importance. Subject to the existing allocation becoming a firm commitment there is no identified funding requirement for transport. In contrast the scale of flooding issues within Hull and the scale of investment required to prevent flooding emergencies, as occurred in July 2007, mean that this is an issue of strategic importance.

• Place shaping infrastructure: the need to regenerate existing places and improve the quality of the residential offer in Hull means that green infrastructure and the improvements to open space can be viewed to be important in terms of their place shaping role.

• Enabling infrastructure: several types of improvements to infrastructure can be viewed to play an enabling function in Hull. These include: a new primary substation for the City Centre; improved facilities at the Port; renewable energy generation; and broadband provision. The common theme within this type of infrastructure is that it is critical to the development of strategically important sites in Hull and East Riding or other infrastructure of strategic importance to Hull.

Facilitating Infrastructure Delivery

Securing Funding for Infrastructure In developing possible methods for the delivery of infrastructure we have researched a number of different approaches. This has included KHCC’s use of Section 106, the potential role of the CIL and the potential benefits of creating a Strategic Infrastructure Fund for Hull. A strong understanding of the existing committed and allocated funding programme for Hull was required, so that the options developed were realistic and appropriate to the unique circumstances facing Hull. In understanding which types of infrastructure funding mechanism are appropriate for Hull it quickly became apparent that different types of infrastructure - be it strategic, place shaping or enabling - require a different mechanism of funding. In identifying funding sources it should be noted that this study has worked upon the assumption that existing funding allocations will become firm funding sources in due course. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the composition of potential funding sources may change after the 2010 General Election.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 15 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Strategic Infrastructure The principal source of funding for strategic infrastructure would be Government funding; either given directly by Government or administered in some other means. In some cases where strategic infrastructure is promoted by Government such works could be 100% funded by Government. In other cases where strategic infrastructure is promoted locally KHCC would need to make a funding contribution. Place Shaping Infrastructure Place shaping infrastructure, or as identified above green infrastructure/ public open space, could be funded through a number of potential means. In the short to medium term Yorkshire Forward and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) are likely to be the key sources of funding. This includes investment channelled through Hull Forward and Hull Gateway. Additional funding may be explored through a number of means including:

• KHCC capital funding;

• KHCC borrowing;

• ERYC;

• other grant funding sources;

• businesses, residents and visitors; and

• landowners and property developers.

Identifying which of these potential funding sources might best meet the identified funding gaps in Hull will need to be informed by a number of factors including:

• suitability for funding the identified type(s) of infrastructure;

• timing/certainty of funding;

• ability to lever in other funding;

• political sensitivity; and

• ‘whole life’ benefits.

There are specific feasibility issues in utilising landowner / developer contributions to fund public open space. KHCC has operated a Section 106 policy for open space for a number of years, which demonstrates that there is a perceived benefit from developers in contributing towards high quality open space. Many of the issues associated with the current Section 106 mechanism would be removed if and when CIL comes into force and Section 106 obligations are restructured. Developers are generally prepared to contribute to something that they can see will deliver a direct benefit and therefore it would seem appropriate that CIL charges could be put towards delivering green space, open space and public realm. There is clearly likely to be political sensitivity associated with a CIL mechanism and restructured Section 106 and KHCC needs to be mindful that any mechanism must be found ‘sound’ (see Section 2) in planning terms, and subject to an Independent Examination. However with land values “rebased” in light of the economic downturn, now is arguably an appropriate time to introduce such a mechanism so that it can be reflected in land values before the economy improves and values rise. If a new landowner / developer contribution tool is to be developed from which green infrastructure and open space could be funded it would need to consider the following principles:

• an immediate commitment to, and commencement of, exploring the potential for a new mechanism so that it is embedded in the emerging Core Strategy and a clear signal is sent to landowners / developers about the significant challenges associated with funding open space and public realm;

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 16 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• increased transparency and certainty between what contribution needs to be paid, who should contribute, and what the contributions will be used, taking on board some of the points raised above;

• exploring mechanisms for developer contributions to be contributed on completion of development rather than (or in addition to) construction starts. Other mechanisms for risk sharing could also be explored; and

• a much tighter marginal viability test.

These principles, as well as being needed in their own right, would be central in the decision making on the introduction of CIL. If a CIL charge is to be determined, than a charging schedule must reflect on the evidence in this study and make a direct link between what infrastructure is required, the overall cost of infrastructure, and an assessment of whether there is a need for differential rates in different areas. Enabling infrastructure In addition to the funding gaps identified above, there are a number of strategically important sites in Hull and East Riding and other strategic infrastructure requirements of importance to Hull where investment would happen in the “market”, but due to current economic conditions and the difficulty in accessing finance this could take a considerable time. The impact of this would be to dampen housing and economic growth. An opportunity that emerged through the study is to create a Strategic Infrastructure Fund capable of investing in and facilitating such infrastructure provision ahead of the market. The Fund could offer a mixture of traditional “debt” funding (lower risk, lower return) and “equity” investment (higher risk, higher return). This would need to be on commercial terms. However this investment would potentially be on longer pay back periods than commercially available. The Fund could seek to access a range of funding. For its part, KHCC could endow the Fund with an asset base. The potential for additional ‘equity’ investment and assets could be explored from the HCA and Yorkshire Forward. This total investment package could be “leveraged” through investment from the EU (European Investment Bank (EIB), “JESSICA” etc) and/or other means, such as a bond issue. To access EIB investment, the fund would need to demonstrate both scale (including the backing of the HCA and Yorkshire Forward) and an alignment with strategic investment priorities of the EU (such as facilitating renewable energy projects). Such an approach is in line with current and emerging Government thinking on the steps Local Authorities should be taking to facilitate regeneration. Adopting such an approach to funding infrastructure follows emerging trends, such as the example of the Milton Keynes “Roof Tax” and could potentially be a low risk for KHCC if appropriately developed. It would also signal KHCC’s innovation and become part of Hull’s offer to future developers and aligning it with Government economic and wider regeneration strategies, differentiating it from other areas. There are clearly many practical issues associated with establishing a Strategic Infrastructure Fund. However this is timely given the ongoing exploration by KHCC of options for its assets and models such as Accelerated Development Zones and the “single conversation” with the HCA and Yorkshire Forward.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 17 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Conclusions and Recommendations

Overall Conclusion There is broadly sufficient infrastructure, either current or planned, to support the housing and economic growth aspirations for Kingston upon Hull up to 2026. As such, the current evidence shows that the strategy set out in the emerging Core Strategy and the City Centre AAP are broadly deliverable. However, there are uncertainties associated with the planning and delivery of some infrastructure. There are also some gaps in the ability of committed or allocated funding to deliver the necessary level of infrastructure. Specific risks are in relation to:

• solutions to address the impact of development on the transport network;

• the requirement for a new primary electricity sub-station in the city centre;

• maintaining a proactive approach to flood risk and surface water drainage issues

• formulating solutions to address the monopoly of provision in telecommunications; and

• overcoming the funding gap to deliver the required level of green infrastructure, open space, sport and recreation. These risks are manageable and solutions are available. Across these areas of risk, decisions will need to be made on priorities for infrastructure delivery. These decisions must factor in the timing and phasing of housing and economic development and also infrastructure investment cycles. Across certain infrastructure types KHCC will also need to consider a range of options and solutions to reflect uncertainties in delivery and uncertainties over funding and investment. Infrastructure-Specific Conclusions There are also a number of specific conclusions unique to each infrastructure type:

• Transport – overcoming capacity and congestion issues on the A63 Castle Street is a long standing and immediate constraint of future housing and economic growth. It specifically impinges on the future development of the Port of Hull and also serves as a physical barrier to other infrastructure providers, for example emergency services.

• Utility Networks – there is a need for a new primary electricity sub-station in the City Centre to enable the level and type of housing and economic growth planned.

• Telecommunications – complexities surround the future delivery of telecommunications and ICT in Hull due to the monopoly of operation by Kingston Communications. Investment likely to be demand-led and market-driven. To deliver on its other objectives, the Council could explore opportunities to bring about greater digital connectivity in the city. Investment by the Council would be as part of wider aims to develop the knowledge-economy, reposition sites and deliver regeneration.

• Flood Risk and Drainage – planned infrastructure improvements and programmed investments are set to provide Hull’s watercourses with the required standards of protection as set out in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments. The Council is in the process of carrying out a Surface Water Management Plan to further address drainage infrastructure in the district.

• Waste – KHCC and ERYC are no longer pursuing a PFI option to fund the EfW facility and the authorities and Waste Recycling Group are now reviewing alternative funding options.

• Green Infrastructure, Open Space, Sport and Recreation – There are significant costs and an identified gap in funding for the delivery of proposed green infrastructure and open space improvements. Many of the schemes proposed are in key strategic development areas and regeneration areas. The funding gap poses problem for the council’s long term transformational \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 18 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

change agenda. The role of CIL in bridging this funding gap requires further work and consideration.

• Health – Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust is in the middle of a £250m capital investment programme. Some facilities have already opened with others scheduled to open shortly. The £250million needed to deliver the programme is secured and as such its has been deemed that there are no infrastructure gaps or gaps in funding.

• Emergency Services – The general trend is for Emergency Services to move away from larger centralised buildings or facilities and towards smaller, leaner and more responsive service provision. Funding is allocated directly from central government and through local council tax and captured within Capital Plans and Programmes. Internal risk analysis undertaken by each emergency service results in bespoke service provision. Proposals for new station buildings for both Humberside Police and Humberside Fire and Rescue offers potential land release and development opportunities for Hull.

• Education – Demand projections for service provision in schools reflects growth up to 2019. Infrastructure costs associated with achieving the same standard of facilities in primary schools as is to be delivered through the proposed BSF secondary school programme equates to a cost burden of £45m over the next 15 years. Only £9m of this cost has currently been secured. The BSF programme itself will cover all new secondary school provision and is planned to be completed by 2014. The BSF programme is predicated on population projections up to 2019 with all funding confirmed. Other Conclusions for Infrastructure Planning and Delivery There are a series of general conclusions which impact upon infrastructure planning and delivery in Hull:

• Demanding housing and economic growth targets, alongside plans for regeneration and the need to deliver against housing market renewal objectives, sets a challenging context for infrastructure delivery in Hull. Meeting such wide-ranging goals, and providing the requisite level of infrastructure to facilitate, requires a well thought-out approach to infrastructure planning and delivery.

• Delivering infrastructure in Hull, especially in the short to medium term, is set within the context of a challenging housing market, challenging site conditions, low residual land values and limited private sector market activity.

• Delivery of strategic and local level infrastructure must enable and unlock plans for growth, regeneration, economic restructuring and housing market renewal.

• A vital part of infrastructure delivery in Hull is to positioning places and areas more favourably, raising the overall quality of place and the quality of the residential offer, so that places are more favourable to public and private sector investment.

• Spatial strategies at the regional, city-regional and local level set out a series of investment plans which programme short, medium and long term development. Under current economic conditions, these planned approaches are likely to suffer from programme delays. This is likely to have knock-on consequences for funding scenarios.

• Different funding and delivery mechanisms will be required for different types of infrastructure and a ‘cocktail’ of funding sources will be necessary to achieve infrastructure requirements. Although public sector finance will remain a major component of funding, there will be an increasing need to explore innovative and new funding mechanisms to realise different forms of infrastructure. This includes developing options for a CIL and a Strategic Infrastructure Fund, along with other mechanisms that can maximise public sector spending and stimulate and leverage private sector finance.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 19 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• Failure to invest and subsequently deliver the required infrastructure could hamper the delivery of KHCC’s Corporate Plan objectives, and jeopardise the delivery of the principal elements of the emerging Core Strategy and associated Local Development Framework Development Plan Documents. To avoid this scenario support must be gained for investment from a wide range of sources, including Government, the local authority itself, Building Schools for the Future, Private Finance Initiatives (where appropriate), Hull Gateway, Hull Forward, private developers, and other private investors (pension funds etc). Priority Infrastructure This study has highlighted some priority infrastructure types where short, medium and long term delivery will be important; they are categorised as follows:

• Strategic infrastructure of national / regional significance – in particular A63 Castle Street, flood protection, investment in primary schools after the current spending round, longer term funding for emergency services, and the delivery of an Energy from Waste facility;

• Place-shaping infrastructure – in particular for greenspace and open space; and

• Enabling infrastructure for strategic sites in Hull and East Riding or other infrastructure of strategic importance to Hull – in particular electricity capacity in Hull City Centre. There are also other investments which if left to the market would happen only slowly, including telecommunications investment.

Overcoming the identified infrastructure gaps will require a bespoke solution from KHCC, wider stakeholders, and the private sector; and may require a co-ordinated approach between these bodies. Furthermore, each infrastructure ‘type’ will require its own funding solution, categorised as follows:

• For strategic infrastructure of national/ regional significance – Government funding sources seem most appropriate.

• For place-shaping infrastructure – investment is initially likely to come from known public sector sources such as HCA and Yorkshire Forward along with some investment from KHCC and other grant sources. However this is likely to leave a residual funding gap that needs to be bridged, with landowners / developers the next most obvious source of investment. As of April 2010, KHCC will need to explore how CIL can meet corporate and infrastructure objectives, and/or how KHCC can revise its existing Section 106 obligations so as to gain greater, more consistent levels of developer contributions.

• For enabling infrastructure – it is recommended that the potential for a Strategic Infrastructure Fund is explored to accelerate the implementation of infrastructure ahead of market trends, helping to unlock housing and employment growth at an early stage.

The long term nature of this study means there are likely to be a number of financial fluctuations affecting the funding and delivery of infrastructure. In combination with the current uncertainty over existing funding allocations being formally committed, this could lead to significant additional funding gaps for infrastructure delivery. It is vital that KHCC and partners review the implications and findings from this study on a regular basis. This will ensure future plans reflect current thinking, but also allows scope for refinement and the ability to change to new circumstances in the future. Recommendations The findings of this study have raised a number of issues to consider as KHCC progresses in the short, medium and long term. Based upon knowledge gathered, it is recommended that KHCC proceeds with the following next steps: 1. Communicate and consult on the findings of this Infrastructure Study. Whilst the development of the study has been the subject of extensive consultation within KHCC and with partner organisations, there are no doubt many other parties with a view on the findings. KHCC should consult formally on the findings and reflect any consultation feedback within future iterations. \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 20 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

2. Develop a standard methodology to aid the review and update of the information contained within this Infrastructure Study. This study has helped KHCC reach a number of important conclusions about the infrastructure requirements of Hull. The process of understanding the infrastructure requirements should be an ongoing one, with regular reviews of as part of the Council’s overall “Plan-Monitor-Manage” procedures. Regular reviews will require:

• a commitment of time and resources by KHCC and partner agencies. This will be to review existing evidence, update with new information and provide revised analysis where circumstances have changed;

• the creation of an infrastructure planning partnership group. KHCC should create a partner group responsible for co-ordinating the collation of infrastructure and funding information and producing future updates of the infrastructure study; and

• the development of a methodology for capturing infrastructure requirements and funding need. This will lessen the burden of information gathering in the future by ensuring that KHCC and its partners record infrastructure requirements regularly and in a consistent manner, this in turn will create a stronger evidence base to support future funding bids. 3. Ensure that existing allocations are converted into funding commitments. KHCC needs to take all necessary steps to ensure that existing allocations become committed funding. This will involve continuous dialogue with local, city-region and regional partners to maintain Hull’s position as a vital component of the future of the Hull and Humber Ports City-Region and the Yorkshire and Humber region. 4. Irrespective of the long term future for CIL, KHCC should undertake further work to establish how it can make the process of capturing developer contributions more transparent and consistent. If KHCC does take forward a CIL, then further work is required to produce a charging schedule for CIL. This should reference the findings of this study and look to identify a series of infrastructure projects or types against which the CIL charge rate would contribute. Further work is also required to understand whether differential rates could be set for different areas of Hull, in order to balance the level of contributions required to invest in infrastructure against the viability of development coming forward across the city. Any further work should also include delivering training within KHCC to operate such a new mechanism. 5. It is recommended that KHCC explores in greater detail the available investment from HCA and Yorkshire Forward via the “single conversation” and in turn the extent of the funding gap that needs to be met by developer contributions. 6. Explore in greater depth the feasibility of a Strategic Infrastructure Fund. Further work is required to examine how a Fund might be structured and the type of projects it could support. This needs to be undertaken working closely with partners including the HCA and Yorkshire Forward.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 21 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

Kingston-upon-Hull City Council (KHCC) has commissioned Arup and Eye to undertake an infrastructure study for Hull. The purpose of this study is to provide technical evidence, analysis and conclusions to support the production of Kingston-upon-Hull’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document. This study will also form part of the overall Local Development Framework (LDF) evidence base which can then be used to support the delivery of other Development Plan Documents (DPDs) as scheduled.

1.2 The Challenge

In July 2007, the Government published the Housing Green Paper ( Homes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable ) incorporating the central aim of delivering an additional three million homes by 2020. This significant increase in the housing requirement is now included in the Regional Spatial Strategy, with the current Yorkshire and Humber Plan seeking to provide close to half a million new homes between 2008 and 2026. The challenge for KHCC and other local authorities is to plan positively for housing growth, whilst delivering sustainable communities; providing a commensurate level of economic development as well as the necessary physical, social and green infrastructure to support local communities and the economy. In Hull this challenge also includes delivering growth alongside housing market renewal, economic restructuring and regeneration - with specific challenges of remodelling existing communities as part of the Housing Market Renewal (HMR) Pathfinder programme. The Housing Green Paper and Planning Policy Statement 12 (Spatial Planning) put significant emphasis on developing the evidence base to ensure that the necessary infrastructure can be provided to support proposed levels of development. Establishing an infrastructure evidence base gives certainty to service providers, funders and developers, and informs the phasing of development as well as issues regarding funding. The recession has challenged and continues to challenge the economics of development. The long term nature of infrastructure planning means the recession is only likely to have a short to medium term impact. However, what it serves to highlight is that previous mechanisms for enabling infrastructure delivery may not work and may not be the most effective methods. As such alternative models, including local asset backed vehicles, funding mechanisms (and powers) available through the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), accelerated development zones, and others must be considered and may emerge as appropriate methods for individual local authority areas.

1.3 Role of this Study

The successful growth and renaissance of Hull as a Regional City and a focal point for the Humber Sub-Region relies on ensuring that Hull is equipped for growth and change. This study forms an important component of ensuring that this is achieved. To align with existing regional policy and the emerging Core Strategy, the study looks at infrastructure investment required between 2009 and 2026. To provide technical evidence, this study has sought to understand:

• what the current level of infrastructure provision is within Kingston-upon-Hull (from now on ‘Hull’);

• what the level of planned infrastructure is within Hull – as set out in plans and strategies adopted by KHCC and the organisations responsible for the delivery of planned infrastructure;

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 22 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• whether the current and planned infrastructure scheduled to be delivered will meet the requirements for Hull when set against proposed housing and economic growth aspirations – and whether a gap exists between supply and demand;

• the costs associated with planned infrastructure provision and whether there is a gap between committed, allocated and required investment; and

• the scale of the gap between committed, allocated and required investment in infrastructure and the potential means by which this gap could be bridged where no source has been identified; Identifying funding gaps where infrastructure is required but for which no source has currently been found is increasingly important in light of the recession and the subsequent reductions in public spending.

1.4 This Study

This study is structured around the following sections:

• Section 2 sets out the national policy context and the rationale for an infrastructure study;

• Section 3 sets out the local planning context, including the location of future housing and employment growth and regeneration;

• Section 4 sets out the methodology followed to carry out this study;

• Sections 5 to 13 sets out the current and future levels of infrastructure provision, ordered by infrastructure type;

• Section 14 provides a summary of infrastructure costs and funding;

• Section 15 provides a summary matrix of the investment required in Hull until 2026;

• Section 16 looks at prioritising infrastructure delivery;

• Section 17 outlines how to facilitate infrastructure delivery;

• Section 18 provides a summary and conclusions; and

• Section 19 sets out next steps.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 23 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

2 Understanding the Infrastructure Planning Process

2.1 Introduction

Achieving a sustainable future requires a more in-depth assessment of infrastructure planning. Planning should consider the infrastructure required to support development together with its associated cost, timescale for delivery, an outline of who is responsible for delivery, as well as identifying the availability of funding and mechanisms for delivery. Infrastructure planning forms an important part of the evidence base for the LDF, and especially for the Core Strategy DPD. The tests of soundness set out in PPS 12 include assessing whether the Plan is deliverable. An understanding of what infrastructure is needed and how it will be delivered is fundamental to ensuring the Core Strategy DPD and the LDF are found ‘sound’. This study provides the evidence to proactively plan the level of infrastructure needed during the lifespan of the Core Strategy. The evidence also allows KHCC to put infrastructure planning at the heart of its spatial plans and policies, ensuring it is a central component of the overall ambitions for the area. This study also provides the basis for KHCC to consider introducing a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The evidence provides a framework to develop individual funding responses to individual infrastructure requirements, although further work is required to develop a charging schedule and to produce specific charge rates. The challenge has been to deliver a study which gives a long term perspective to the delivery of infrastructure and which can robustly deal with the current fiscal climate, potential improvements in the economy and associated uplift in the development industry.

2.2 Delivering the Necessary Infrastructure to Support the Local Development Framework

Infrastructure planning provides an important basis for planning the delivery of new housing and economic growth. Opportunities for additional new developments must be supported by physical, social and green infrastructure to ensure that they form sustainable communities, become successful parts of existing communities, and do not unduly constrain existing services. The challenge for infrastructure provision is therefore to identify areas of potential constraint and the solutions required to enable future development (through a partnership approach) and to develop appropriate mechanisms for funding and delivery. New developments have traditionally provided infrastructure improvements directly related to the developments they serve, or partially contributed to larger infrastructure projects including new educational provision or flood infrastructure provision. Such an approach can lead to pockets of ‘infrastructure deprivation’ in areas which are not subject to demand from developers. Furthermore, this approach can also overlook the need for strategic infrastructure of benefit to large areas or an entire City, including utility connections and transport networks. This traditional approach to infrastructure provision can be problematic where sequential developments take advantage of capacity or headroom in existing infrastructure This usually results in either the first or last developer in an area contributing disproportionately to the cost of infrastructure required, because their development was the ‘tipping point’ for the need for a new piece of infrastructure. Other subsequent developments meanwhile make a low contribution (or no contribution at all) and are seen to not contribute to improved infrastructure but gain the benefits of the new infrastructure delivered. In the current economic climate, the challenge is to provide a clear steer as to the necessary infrastructure required to support the growth outlined in the LDF; providing certainty to both the Local Authority and the development industry that the growth outlined is achievable and \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 24 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

will not cause viability concerns for individual schemes. The infrastructure planning process can also provide an important evidence base for the Local Authority in identifying the need for infrastructure improvements and potentially contributions from developers towards the provision of such infrastructure.

2.3 The Infrastructure Planning Process

2.3.1 The Case for Infrastructure Studies Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1 places a duty on Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to ensure that development plans pursue sustainable development in an integrated manner. They are urged to bring forward sufficient development land taking into account issues such as accessibility and sustainable transport needs, the provision of essential infrastructure, including for sustainable waste management, and the need to avoid flood risk and other natural hazards (paragraphs 13 & 27). As infrastructure planning becomes more closely integrated with development planning, it will become necessary for LPAs and their partners to develop methodologies to assess the sustainability of different infrastructure options and service models. The document stresses that in order to achieve sustainable development LPAs should seek to achieve outcomes which enable social, environmental and economic objectives to be achieved together. PPS12 sets out Central Government guidance for LPAs in producing the LDF. The guidance clearly identifies the need for the LDF Core Strategy to incorporate strategic objectives, including a delivery plan identifying the quantum and location of development (including strategic allocations for growth) as well as the proposed timing or phasing of development. In order to robustly identify the future pattern of development, it is necessary to consider the impact of the development on the existing infrastructure and the potential additional infrastructure required over the plan period. The word infrastructure was original derived from a combination of “infra” meaning beneath and “structure” meaning buildings where the term was usually applied to services and facilities that are underground such as piped water and sewerage or that lie on the surface such as rail tracks and roads. As technology evolved the term was also applied to lines strung above ground on poles and pylons. The common characteristics were the use of networks that distributed goods and services over a geography involving extensive capital investment of a durable and immobile nature. Most of these networks require long, linear and contiguous rights of way which require some level of subjugation of private property rights (to allow networks to be extended or maintained without interruption or the extraction of excessive payments). Combined with extensive spill-over benefits created by these networks in terms of community health, safety and economic development, these characteristics have been a basis of Government involvement and regulation of infrastructure providers. However, the term “infrastructure” has now been broadened out to include a wide range of services associated with welfare provision through fixed facilities. To aid in planning for the delivery of necessary infrastructure, the development of the Core Strategy must encompass the infrastructure planning process. The process requires the engagement of infrastructure stakeholders and seeks to align the delivery of required infrastructure with the delivery timetable outlined within the Core Strategy. However, whilst PPS12 sets out the necessary stages required under the infrastructure planning process and a broad scope for the areas it should cover (the physical, social and green infrastructure needed to enable the amount of development proposed for the area, taking account of its type and distribution), it does not provide a clear steer for the range of utilities, services and facilities which should be encompassed within the process. The Planning Act 2008 provides a current definition of infrastructure which is a useful baseline for this infrastructure study. It states that infrastructure includes:

• roads and other transport facilities; \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 25 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• flood defences;

• schools and other educational facilities;

• medical facilities;

• sporting and recreational facilities;

• open spaces; and

• affordable housing.

The broad definition of infrastructure highlights the need for LPAs to actively define the infrastructure priorities for their areas; identifying specific infrastructure interventions which are necessary to enable development. The definition outlined in the Act is not exhaustive and there may be additional infrastructure challenges which should be investigated through the process, including:

• whether the scale of existing infrastructure provision is appropriate for planned future uses;

• whether it may be necessary to deliver infrastructure to facilitate rather than support developments;

• the implications of the current fiscal crisis on the delivery of infrastructure and its implications for the delivery of housing and economic growth; and

• identifying mechanisms and delivery vehicles to facilitate infrastructure delivery.

2.3.2 Tests of Soundness Planning Policy Statement 12 (Local Spatial Planning) sets out the new tests of “Soundness” by which each LDF Development Plan Document (DPD) will be judged before being formally ratified and subsequently adopted. PPS12 provides further clarification of what this means in relation to LPAs’ responsibilities for infrastructure planning and delivery in paragraphs 4.8 and 4.9. It states that:

‘The Core Strategy should be supported by evidence of what physical, social and green infrastructure is needed to enable the amount of development proposed for the area, taking account of its type and distribution. This evidence should cover who will provide the infrastructure and when it will be provided. The Core Strategy should draw on and in parallel influence any strategies and investment plans of the local authority and other organisations.’

Good infrastructure planning considers the infrastructure required to support development, costs, sources of funding, timescales for delivery and gaps in funding. This allows for the identified infrastructure to be prioritised in discussions with key local partners. This has been a major theme highlighted and considered via HM Treasury’s CSR07 Policy Review on Supporting Housing Growth. The infrastructure planning process should identify, as far as possible:

• infrastructure needs and costs;

• phasing of development;

• funding sources; and

• responsibilities for delivery.

This emphasis on delivery corresponds with the Government’s wider vision of a spatial planning approach, which goes beyond traditional land use planning, to bring together and

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 26 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they can function.

2.3.3 Enabling the Collection of Landowner / Developer Contributions Additionally, infrastructure studies occupy a role of some significance due to their crucial role in facilitating infrastructure funding through the collection of landowner / developer contributions 2. Establishing a robust evidence base to justify developer contributions and ensuring that the amount of finance that can be raised is optimised are clearly of importance. Both the spatial planning function and power to capture ‘Section 106’ developer contributions mean that LPAs have a key role to play in an infrastructure delivery partnership, but it is also suggested that the resourcing implications of producing a delivery plan should not fall solely with the LPA. A wide range of both public and private sector organisations have vested interests in ensuring that the planning, financing and delivery of infrastructure progresses as smoothly as possible. The production of a delivery plan will in any case depend on the timely provision of information by partner organisations and discussion of funding options. A partnership approach to delivery plan preparation led at a corporate level is therefore recommended. It should also be noted that infrastructure planning in this context is very much an emerging discipline. The CLG publication, Infrastructure Delivery – Spatial Plans in Practice: Supporting the reform of local planning (June, 2008), advises as follows:

‘One of the main challenges in addressing this topic is that relatively few local planning authorities have yet reached the stage of having an adopted core strategy or other development plan document which outlines infrastructure requirements. Many local authorities are only at an early stage of grappling with this aspect of the new spatial planning arrangements, and as a result, the extent of current experience and practice that can be drawn upon in the form of ‘good practice’ examples is relatively small.’

2.4 Moving towards the Implementation of a Community Infrastructure Levy

The principle of a CIL has been derived from the example of the Milton Keynes Roof Tax. It aims to get around the difficulties faced with the various tests associated with the use of Section 106 agreements as CIL recognises that new development (whether residential, commercial or otherwise) can lead to demands on infrastructure across a City / Sub-Region. It also recognises that by planning infrastructure needs over the long term the fact that one development can “trigger” new infrastructure and bear a disproportionate and unfair amount of the cost for its provision can be overcome. The draft CIL Regulations published on 10 th February 2010 set out provisions to enable Local Authorities to introduce a CIL and associated charging schedule in their area and how it would operate. The Regulations also provide details on how the CIL regime will work in conjunction with the current system of collecting developer contributions. The draft Regulations issued in February 2010 are due to be laid before Parliament on 6 th April 2010 and become effective on the same date.

2 Whilst technically it is the developer that makes this contribution, the proper implementation of a planning-based funding requirement should feed through to land values, meaning that the landowner also plays an important role in contributing towards infrastructure investment. Hereafter whilst it is referred to as a developer contribution, the mechanics of this should be borne in mind. \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 27 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

The Regulations set out that CIL rates will be set by “charging authorities” (CAs) – the local planning authority is the charging authority for its area. Differential rates can be set within different zones within a charging authorities’ area and for different uses of development. The charging schedule will be subject to consultation and independent examination. Under the proposals in the Regulations from April 2014, a Section 106 agreement cannot seek contributions for funding or the provision of relevant infrastructure. However, the restrictions will be introduced earlier to authorities that bring into effect a CIL charging schedule. These Regulations mean though that if local authorities want funding for infrastructure after 2014, they will have to adopt a CIL. They will no longer have a choice to continue with an alternative tariff system for infrastructure under Section 106. Therefore, a significant proportion of undecided authorities may consider that they have no choice but to adopt a CIL if they want to obtain funding for infrastructure in the longer term. The evidence set out in this study can form the first phase of KHCC producing a CIL charging schedule. Further work is required to look in detail at the format and content of the charging schedule, especially where KHCC may look at differential rates for different zones in which development would be situated or for different intended uses of development. Transparency is critical to this exercise to gain the support of developers, as is the mechanics then put in place to collect and deploy the investment (i.e. it must be seen that the sums invested result in the benefits for which they were originally secured). Whilst the theory of the CIL is therefore relatively straightforward, it is more difficult to apply in practice, with difficult market conditions, a weak negotiating position and a large number of smaller developments. Given the continuing importance for local authorities of investment in housing and economic growth and the current economic climate and uncertainty regarding the implementation of the CIL regime, it is now more important than ever to consider alternative options for delivering future infrastructure needs. Cashflow is now a vitally important consideration for developers, and it would be difficult in the short term to expect developers to make infrastructure contributions upfront. CIL may emerge as a fund, which is used to ‘frontload’ infrastructure provision, into which contributions are made by developers once development is completed, not dissimilar to the ‘Regional Infrastructure Fund’ that has been developed in the South West. Alternatively, KHCC itself might become involved in specific areas or specific developments to achieve the same outcomes, all of which rely on the medium to long-term recycling of existing capital (see section 17).

2.5 The Infrastructure Planning Commission

The Planning Act 2008 established the concept of a new, independent body, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). The IPC will be responsible for considering and making decisions on significant infrastructure planning applications. Schemes considered by the IPC will be large scale facilities that support the economy and vital public services, including railways, large wind farms, power stations, reservoirs, harbours, airports and sewage treatment works. The IPC was formally established on 1 October 2009 under powers provided in the Planning Act 2008 as a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB). The IPC is charged with speeding up the application process, making it fairer, easier and simpler to become involved in the planning of infrastructure that is of national significance. Once an application has been submitted it will be decided upon on the basis of its accordance with the information set out in the National Policy Statements (NPSs).

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 28 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Twelve NPSs are being prepared by the relevant Government departments, based on existing Government policy. Six NPSs will be produced in relation to energy, three in relation to transport and the final three will be on water, waste water and waste. Before being finalised, they will each be subject to public consultation and scrutiny by Parliament. Seven of these Statements have recently been put out for public consultation; this includes the six NPSs on energy, published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change and one NPS on ports, published by the Department for Transport. The Planning Act sets out the thresholds for which a proposal can be considered to be of national significance and therefore will be decided by the IPC. From the 1 st of March 2010 the IPC will be able to receive applications for nationally significant infrastructure. If the relevant NPS has been designated it will make decisions on project proposals. If not, it will examine applications and make recommendations to the relevant Secretary of State, who will make the decisions. The IPC has been created to specifically decide upon nationally significant infrastructure projects. The infrastructure delivery issues outlined in this study are not currently of a significant nature to merit referral to the IPC. However, future development linked to the Port of Hull, the delivery of flood defences, and opportunities linked to renewable energy generation may meet the requirements to be considered in the future.

2.6 Government economic policy

The Government has attached significant weight to the UK’s economic recovery being driven by a range of sectors in which Hull is already or has the potential to be strong, including advanced manufacturing, digital telecommunications and renewable technologies. Infrastructure is not only important to realising these economic goals, but developing / implementing the infrastructure itself could become an economic sector in its own right.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 29 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

3 Context for Infrastructure Planning in Hull

3.1 Introduction

As well as being framed in a national context, infrastructure planning must be directly linked to the plans and strategies at a local level. This section provides an overview of the planning policy context in Hull and sets out the growth assumptions used as a benchmark for the study.

3.2 Hull Local Plan

The Hull Local Plan was adopted in May 2000. Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 policies in old-style development plans are saved for a period of three years from September 2004, or from the date the plan was adopted. The Secretary of State has issued a Direction about policies in the Hull Local Plan (CityPlan). Policies contained in the Direction are ‘saved’ until they are replaced by new local development documents.

3.3 Emerging Local Development Framework

The Hull Development Framework Core Strategy: Issues, Options and Suggested Preferred Option Paper (June 2008) highlights the need to deliver appropriate infrastructure as part of the production of the development framework. This infrastructure message is actively implemented in the City Centre Area Action Plan (AAP), as well as the Newington and St Andrew’s AAP, which has encompassed investigation of the potential for exploring Low & Zero Carbon Energy Supply Options for future development opportunities, seeking to develop a new eco-community. The City Centre AAP recognises the need to improve the open space capacity in Hull as well as addressing congestion in the highways network, particularly in relation to the A63 at Castle Street. The City Centre AAP recognises that the development opportunities promoted will exacerbate the demand on this existing infrastructure, planning accordingly for the capture of charges on new development proposals to aid the overall regeneration agenda. The City Centre Utilities Study is identifying requirements for upgrading the electricity distribution network in the City Centre in order to fully realise the aspirations set out in the City Centre Masterplan

3.4 Understanding the Changing Nature of Hull

3.4.1 Overview This study considers the infrastructure needed to support the level of growth proposed for Hull between now and 2026. The level of growth was agreed to provide a benchmark against which to assess the requirement for infrastructure. In addition to the overall levels of growth in housing (population) and employment, the study considers the spatial distribution of this change across Hull. Development located in the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) but adjacent to Hull may also impact on the capacity of infrastructure serving both locations. An understanding of the scale of such changes was therefore also required.

3.4.2 Source of Evidence In establishing a growth scenario the starting point has been to take the figures from the issued Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), May 2008. Data on the distribution of growth in Hull is taken from the emerging Core Strategy, the emerging AAP documents and the ongoing work on the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Data for potential housing growth in the East Riding (around the Haltemprice settlements) has been derived from the emerging Core Strategy for the East Riding.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 30 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Employment land and employment space assumptions for Hull have been derived from the Employment Land Study. Employment land and employment space assumptions provided for the East Riding were derived from Existing Local Plan allocations, and the Employment Land Monitoring Report.

3.4.3 Working Assumptions The recession, economic uncertainty, lack of mortgage availability and a depleted private house-building sector has resulted in a reduction in housing completions over the course of the last 18 months. In recognition of this short term uncertainty, housing delivery targets are less likely to be met, with estimates suggesting that in the short term this may be by around 200 homes. This will essentially mean that more homes will be delivered in later years as the market recovers to ensure that 16,960 dwellings that are set out within the RSS are ultimately delivered. It is these levels of growth, set out in the tables below, that have been used as a baseline to determine the demand and impact on current and future infrastructure. Table 3.1: Distribution of Housing Growth

Dwellings Source

HULL

Hull 16,960 RSS 2004-2026

Holderness Road Corridor 2,300 (Working) Publication draft AAP 2009-2024 AAP

City Centre AAP 2,400 Publication draft AAP 2008-2016

Newington and St Andrews 768 Publication Draft AAP 2008-2024 AAP

Kingswood 4,400 Core Strategy I&O

Other – west of River Hull 7,100 Balance of RSS + SHLAA implications

EAST RIDING

Haltemprice 900-2685 2011-2026 Core Strategy I&O Table 3.2: Distribution of Employment

HULL Hectares Use Class

B1 (sq m) B2 (sq m) B8 (sq m)

Western Corridor 32 42,667 42,667 42,667

West of the City Centre 1.5 2,000 2,000 2,000

City Centre 6.5 53,500

Heartlands and Clough Road 31.5 42,000 42,000 42,000

Eastern Corridor 41 82,000 82,000

Port Area 0

National Avenue 0.5 1,000 1,000

Sutton Fields 6 8,000 8,000 8,000

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 31 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Kingswood 38 50,667 50,667 50,667

Total 157 Ha

Core Strategy range 113 Ha to 128 Ha

EAST RIDING Hectares Use Class

East of Hull B1 (sq m) B2 (sq m) B8 (sq m)

Saltend 60 320,000

Paull 1 2,000 2,000

Saltend Roundabout 3 4,000 4,000 4,000

Hedon 5 6,667 6,667 6,667

West of Hull

Elloughton cum Brough 50 100,000 100,000

Hessle 19 76,000

Willerby 4 16,000

Melton 60 80,000 80,000 80,000

Total 222 Ha The employment floorspace has been derived using a standard plot ratio (40%). The distribution across use classes assumes an equal share across each of the B1/B2/B8 use class (or each use class where specific reference is made in policy). The data for the City Centre however reflects the floorspace set out in the City Centre AAP.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 32 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Figure 3.1: Employment areas identified in the KHCC Employment Land Review

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 33 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

4 Methodology

4.1 Overview

This study is based on a four stage process to understand current and future infrastructure provision, taking into consideration the planned areas of growth and regeneration. This approach made it possible to identify areas in need of further investment, which also made it possible to allocate indicative costs to the provision of future infrastructure. Having established an indicative list of proposals and costs it was possible to identify potential funding methods. A summary of the staged approach is provided in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Methodological Approach

4.2 Stage One – Determining the Scope of Infrastructure

This report notes that there is a broad range of areas which constitute infrastructure and therefore need to be proactively planned for. Stage One of the study involved holding a workshop with KHCC and ERYC Officers to discuss what types of infrastructure should be assessed. The following types of infrastructure were agreed to be assessed:

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 34 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Table 4.1: Infrastructure to be included within the study

Infrastructure sector Sub sector

Transport Highways

Bus

Park and Ride

Rail

Walking and Cycling

Port

Utility Networks Electricity

Gas

Water Supply

Waste Water

Telecommunications

Flood Risk and Drainage Flood Risk and Drainage

Waste and Recycling Waste Management

Green Infrastructure , Sport and Recreation Open Spaces

Play Areas

Allotments

Sports Pitches

Sports Centres and Pools

Health Community and Primary Care

Hospitals and Acute Care

Education Nursery

Primary School

Secondary School

College and Sixth Form

Emergency Services Ambulance

Fire and Rescue

Police

Community and Cultural Local Retail Outlets

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 35 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Discussions at the Officer Workshop held on 7th July 2009 confirmed that the study should focus on the types of infrastructure which could impact on Hull’s ability to deliver the planned growth outlined within the Core Strategy. This study also considers those elements of ‘place-shaping’ infrastructure which, whilst not directly critical to the delivery of growth, will be beneficial by improving both the physical and social characteristics of Hull. Place- shaping infrastructure is fundamental to re-making places and so is particularly important in the AAPs and areas of housing market renewal. Another integral feature of this meeting was to share information on the above types of infrastructure, to understand the key issues affecting them and how they currently impact on Hull. This introductory phase therefore acted as an important foundation for the study, bringing partners together, and developing consensus which the following stages built upon.

4.3 Stage Two – Determining Current and Future Infrastructure Provision

4.3.1 Developing a baseline of current infrastructure Stage Two of the work focused on understanding the current level of infrastructure in Hull. At a basic level this involved a quantitative assessment of current facilities and infrastructure and their spatial distribution. This was principally achieved through an extensive review of secondary data sources; for example the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to understand the current issues facing Hull. This analysis was supplemented by a qualitative assessment that looked to understand if existing facilities were ‘fit for purpose’. Secondary sources were used to inform this work, with evidence supplemented by discussion with key stakeholders, including local service providers where appropriate.

4.3.2 Identifying planned infrastructure provision Utilising the baseline of current level and condition of infrastructure, it was possible to carry out a broad assessment of planned infrastructure improvements up to 2026. This was based on an analysis of secondary sources and discussions with stakeholders and Officers. Some infrastructure types and some infrastructure providers were unable to provide information on planned infrastructure delivery. Where this is the case, this report highlights where KHCC can carry out further analysis, and/or engage in ongoing dialogue with infrastructure providers to stay abreast of future plans and strategies.

4.3.3 Understanding gaps between future delivery and anticipated demand Where information was available on current, planned and committed infrastructure it was possible to identify whether delivery would be sufficient to meet the needs and demands in line with growth objectives. This assessment could therefore highlight where there may be gaps in future infrastructure provision. This assessment of current, planned and future requirements, and gap analysis was vital to identify the future infrastructure needs of Hull and enable the work undertaken as part of Stages Three and Four of this study.

4.4 Stage Three – Assessing the Cost of Infrastructure Provision

4.4.1 Understanding the cost of infrastructure There are two broad components to consider when seeking to assess and understand infrastructure costs. These stem from the work in Stage One and Stage Two which established the current level of infrastructure provision, whether it was fit for purpose, the level of planned infrastructure provision and whether there was an identified infrastructure gap. The components are:

• the cost of delivering planned infrastructure; and

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 36 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• the cost to deliver future infrastructure which has been identified, but not yet planned for (i.e. the cost of the infrastructure gap). The costs associated with each of these scenarios has, where possible, been determined and noted within each infrastructure section. Section 15 of this report details a cost for each infrastructure type.

4.4.2 Indentifying funding sources Having established a cost profile it was possible to identify funding options which could deliver the infrastructure needed. These options look to understand what funding sources are already committed, what funding sources have been allocated, and whether there is an indentified gap between need and committed/allocated funds. The options consider the following:

• funding required to meet the costs of delivering planned infrastructure, where funding is already committed and allocated;

• funding required to deliver planned infrastructure where funding is allocated, but not committed;

• funding required to deliver planned infrastructure where no funding source is identified; and

• funding required to deliver future infrastructure which has been identified, but not yet planned for, and has no funding source identified.

One of the challenges in considering funding its to identify what can be derived from the public sector and what may come from the private sector. This study has also explored traditional funding methods (such as Section 106 contributions), proposed new funding methods (such as a CIL) and more innovative methods such as Tax Incremental Financing / Accelerated Development Zones (borrowing against anticipated future gains). This stage required engaging with public sector organisations to discuss opportunities for securing public sector funding. This included, amongst others, discussions with Hull Forward and Hull Gateway as well as the Officers within KHCC responsible for developing the Integrated Investment Plan with Yorkshire Forward and the HCA. We also considered the implications of emerging infrastructure funding, including schemes such as the Government’s newly announced Infrastructure Investment Fund (which seeks to provide lending facilities to Private Finance Initiative schemes). We also assessed the extent and role of committed funding delivered through existing Section 106 contributions, through discussions with the KHCC Planning Officers. We sought to understand the constraints imposed on any contributions (for example, funding for the provision of affordable housing or public open space provision), as well as highlighting which unspent contributions should be spent as a priority to ensure a refund is not sought by the developer. The aim was to prepare a funding assessment which is clear about the source and application of funds and ensures that funding is clearly linked to need. This was important as different funding sources have different output requirements. We have also had regard to the leverage (match funding) required by different funders.

4.5 Stage Four – Assessing the Funding Gap for Infrastructure Provision

Having identified gaps in infrastructure required and funding, Stage Four considers to what extent these gaps can be filled and how. Innovative mechanisms for the delivery of infrastructure and options for the re-use and rationalisation of infrastructure are considered. This stage looks to answer the following questions, formed through discussions with stakeholders and KHCC (and where applicable ERYC) Officers: \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 37 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• the potential for front-funding infrastructure delivery through the establishment of an infrastructure fund;

• the effectiveness of the existing Section 106 mechanism in delivering infrastructure in a timely and effective manner; and

• the potential for developing alternative funding opportunities, including CIL.

4.6 Assumptions Underpinning Stage Three and Stage Four

Throughout this study the following set of assumptions has been used to guide the assessment and inform our findings:

• evidence is predominantly from secondary sources, stakeholder discussions, and feedback from KHCC and ERYC;

• it is assumed that the infrastructure identified includes any reactive and/or planned maintenance required during the period to 2026;

• unless otherwise stated, references to KHCC and ERYC are in their capacity as LPA and not land owner and/or regeneration agency;

• the study uses funding commitments and allocations as set out at the time of writing. Should allocated funding not become committed, alternative funding would also need to be identified;

• the overall findings of this report are also drawn at a particular point in time. It will be important to keep the findings under review as the Core Strategy is progressed, especially in the context of a changing property market and uncertainty over public and private sector funding (see section 19); and

• the financial analysis represents a high level analysis of funding options, based on the information available at the present time. Detailed financial analysis and other work (e.g. legal advice) will be required before implementing any of the financial mechanisms identified (see section19).

4.7 Following Sections of the Hull Infrastructure Study

Sections 5 to 13 work through the different types of infrastructure by sectors, as shown in Table 4.1. Each section provides an assessment of current infrastructure, planned future infrastructure and the cost of this planned infrastructure along with any identified funding gap.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 38 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

5 Transport

5.1 Overview of existing infrastructure

5.1.1 Highways The A63 Castle Street (a dual two lane, all purpose trunk road) provides Hull with its main artery of access to the strategic road network, the City Centre, the port and to key development sites. However, this vital link and its junctions (particularly Mytongate Roundabout) suffer a number of critical problems namely congestion, conflicts with pedestrian movements and severance between the City Centre and its waterfront. This heavily constrains Hull’s ability to function, regenerate and prosper. Options to provide solutions are being developed. Other radial routes suffer local congestion at peak times, but do not have the same strategic significance.

5.1.2 Park and Ride There are two existing park and ride sites in Hull, a purpose built site at Priory Park (west Hull) with approximately 600 spaces, and an historic site at Walton Street (west of the City Centre near the football stadium) with approximately 2,000 spaces. Priory Park is particularly well used but still only generates a relatively small intercept rate from the high volumes of in-scope traffic. There is potential for a number of additional park and ride sites on other corridors into Hull and the potential to expand the Priory Park site. Specific analysis of car parks has not been undertaken as part of this study due to its focus on the strategic issues that will affect Hull. Car parking provision in Hull is planned for by a series of measures and is intrinsically addressed through the Local Transport Plan.

5.1.3 Rail (Passenger) The main route into the City Centre runs east-west providing links to Leeds/Manchester, Doncaster/Sheffield and York. There are a number of constraints associated with this line including slow journey times, infrequent services and poor reliability. Due to the lack of automated crossings (and therefore shift patterns of signal operating staff) the line is not operational 24 hours day, providing constraints for passengers wishing to travel in the evening including weakening the benefits of Hull being linked to Manchester Airport for example. In addition, whilst being the longest straight line track in the country, the speeds achieved are relatively slow due to the out of date track and signals. In terms of frequency of service, there are two trains per hour (tph) to/from Doncaster/Sheffield, only 1tph to/from Leeds/Manchester and approximately one direct train per two hours to/from York. The route running north-south through Beverley to Bridlington has a better service frequency of up to 4tph in the peak and a half hourly daytime service, providing a competitive alternative to the private car through relatively fast journey times. The service is in turn popular and well used.

5.1.4 Rail (Freight) The rail freight line loops around the north of the City Centre and then terminates in the port, and is predominately used for transporting coal (no containers currently transported). The historical capacity of the line was ten trains per day in each direction, but through a scheme led by Yorkshire Forward and Network Rail the capacity was increased in 2008 to 22 trains per day in each direction. The actual level of use does not reach 22 at the moment. There is also a need to review in the future how goods within the docks are transported to the rail service. The potential for the freight network in Hull and capability at the port to be upgraded, so as to accommodate the high cube containers that predominate in the world market represents

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 39 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

a key opportunity. Further work is required to determine the accurate costs of upgrading the network to resolve any issues in terms of gauge clearance.

5.1.5 Bus Hull’s bus infrastructure is generally fit for purpose particularly with the new £16m bus interchange in operation. There are bus lanes on sections of the key routes into the City Centre and a real time system is being installed (it is already operational on several radial routes). There are very frequent daytime services along radial road corridors to and from the City Centre. Various small scale improvements to enhance the bus network are included in the AAPs (see section 5.3) and will be progressed through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) or other funding opportunities.

5.1.6 Walking and Cycling Walking is a particularly important mode of transport in Hull given the levels of deprivation in many of its wards and the low levels of car ownership. The LTP2 recognised that to increase the proportion of people walking to work a number of physical and attitudinal barriers need to be addressed, including the provision and improvement of appropriate facilities and infrastructure. Hull has one of the highest levels of cycling in the UK. The cycle infrastructure is good, with the LTP2 highlighting that Hull has over 40km of cycle lanes on the road and 38km of off- road cycle tracks. The lack of suitable, secure cycle parking facilities is perceived as a barrier to cycling in Hull. Various improvements to enhance Hull’s walking and cycling networks are included in the Area Action Plans and the Local Transport Plan (see section 5.3).

5.1.7 Port The Port of Hull is based around three dock systems: the Albert/ William Wright, Alexandra, and King George/ Queen Elizabeth docks and are owned by the Associated British Ports (ABP). Other important ports in the area include the inland port at Goole and Immingham. Currently the three docks in Hull comprise approximately 2,000 acres of land and processed approximately 12.25m tonnes of goods in 2008 ABP directly employ 500 staff to work at the port and it is estimated that the port generates indirect employment of between 25,000 and 30,000 people. The port contains the facilities and infrastructure to accommodate a range of products including:

• Containers – primarily at the Queen Elizabeth Dock, which annually handles 300,000 TEU (20ft equivalent units), providing 200 metres of storage space;

• Dry Bulk – providing 17 ha of covered storage for materials including aggregates, cement and coal;

• Paper and forest products – the port is the UK’s largest softwood timber-handling port, the Finland Terminal, which opened in 2000, provides over 70,000m2 of storage space;

• General Cargo – storage facilities include over 40 transit sheds covering 230,000m² and 65 ha of open storage;

• Liquid bulks – are forming an increasingly important part of the port’s business, with edible oil imports becoming a significant import;

• Minerals and ores;

• Passengers and cruises – nearly one million passengers a year pass through the port with daily ferry services provided to Rotterdam and Zeebrugge by P&O;

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 40 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• Roll-on/Roll-off (Ro-Ro) – represent the largest proportion of the port’s throughput and facilities have been expanded to meet these needs. There are 11 ro-ro births in the enclosed docks and one on the riverside; and

• Steel and other metals – the port’s all-weather steel terminal represents the country’s first fully enclosed steel handling facility.

5.2 Impact of development on requirements for transport infrastructure

The scale of housing and economic related development in Hull between 2009 and 2026 will have an impact on the current transport infrastructure. The A63 Castle Street is an enabler of development, but also a key constraint on future growth. Proposals for both housing and economic development in the City Centre will have specific impacts on the A63 in terms of building on adjacent sites, but will also lead to cumulative impacts due to the strategic focus on growth in the City Centre. Discussions with ABP highlighted that congestion on the A63 was a limiting factor in attracting new business to the port and in retaining the current level of throughput. The achievement of employment and housing growth and regeneration, as set out in the emerging Core Strategy and the RSS, is likely to occur over a longer period of time than previously anticipated due the to effects of the recession. Consequently, timescales involved are likely to be longer rather than schemes not occurring at all, which will have subsequent effects on the need for transport infrastructure to support plan led growth. Plans for growth and development at the Port of Hull are within the control of ABP. As part of the national policy on ports that govern their operation, ABP are responsible for securing the investment required to deliver any infrastructure improvements. There are plans for expansion, for example to strengthen the amount of freight being handled and to increase the role of passenger and cruise services currently serving the port. An increase in the amount of freight being handled will have a direct impact on the freight railway line and its current capacity and capability. This may also place pressures on the current provision of electricity and may necessitate a new supply of power. These expansion plans will aim to see emphasis shift away from the Albert and William Docks, potentially providing an opportunity to dispose of this site in the long term. This should be addressed through a Masterplan for the area. Further capacity improvements could be achieved/ delivered as market demand arises. It should however be noted that these expansion plans may be slow both due to the competing demands of other ports operated by ABP and because of the current market conditions. Plans for the growth and expansion of the Port of Hull will have a major influence on the city. Any growth proposals will also have a direct influence on the transport network, in particularly the A63 Castle Street. The capacity of the transport network, the future goals and objectives of the Port and the economic strength of the city are inter-linked. Proactive engagement is required with ABP to ensure that proposals to expand the Port are not hindered by capacity issues on the transport network.

5.3 Provision of future transport infrastructure

A major improvement scheme for the A63 Castle Street is currently supported by £190m of Regional Funding Allocation (RFA). The scheme includes plans for grade separation of Mytongate junction (A63/ A1079) plus various overground and underground options that are still being assessed, and seeks to improve access to the docks, relieve congestion, improve safety and reduce severance. In addition to the existing park and ride sites in Hull at Priory Park and Walton Street, there are two further sites that are actively being pursued:

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 41 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• New North Hull Park and Ride – site near Dunswell Roundabout (approx 800 spaces). This site is also included in the LTP and the emerging Core Strategy and

• New East Hull Park and Ride – KHCC are looking to provide a purpose built Park and Ride site to the east of Saltend on the former Hedon Airfield of approx 600 spaces. This site is included in the LTP and the emerging Core Strategy.

Both of these sites are located within the ERYC area and therefore joint working will be required between the councils to progress these proposals through the East Riding LDF and planning application process. The AAPs in Hull include a number of public transport and walking and cycling improvement measures:

• Holderness Road Corridor – extensions to bus lane operating hours, bus stop improvements, improvements for pedestrians and the provision of additional cycle lanes are proposed;

• Newington & St. Andrew’s – new and improved cycle and walking routes; and

• City Centre – in addition to including the Castle Street improvement options (both short and long term schemes), the City Centre AAP discusses better public transport links, including improvements in bus services particularly to serve Humber Quays and the Fruit Market. Pedestrian and cycle improvements include links across the River Hull. This will provide an opportunity for a series of well-designed foot and cycle bridges (one of which is already under construction), linked into continuous pedestrian access along both sides.

There are two committed RFA schemes in East Riding that are relevant for this study:

• Beverley Integrated Transport Scheme (£35m); and

• A164 Humber Bridge to Beverley Route Improvement Scheme (£14m).

The A164 Improvements Scheme includes increasing capacity on its roundabouts and partial dualling between the Humber Bridge and Beverley. This corridor acts as a main distributor link into Beverley, the mid area of the East Riding of Yorkshire, and the western parts of Hull from the A63/M62 corridor and the A15. It also provides accessibility to Castle Hill Hospital and Hull University and also facilitates access to the Beverley Park and Ride site to be developed as part of the Beverley Integrated Transport Plan incorporating a southern relief road.

5.4 Gaps in future provision of transport infrastructure

If the RFA Castle Street improvements are delivered there would be no substantial gaps in infrastructure provision. However, an upgrade to the rail network to address the headline issues identified above would be desirable (the inadequate service frequency is being looked at as part of the Yorkshire and Humber Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS)). In the context of current funding constraints, there is a prudent need to consider the options if the Castle Street RFA scheme does not go ahead and how to fill the gaps that this would leave. These options include:

• Considering a strategy for Hull with significantly less development, reducing the need for major transport improvements.

• Smaller scale Mytongate Roundabout improvement scheme including the provision of extra lanes and better signalling, that will facilitate some new development.

• A series of other small scale interim measures including small highway improvements, traffic management, Area Wide Travel Plans and Personalised Travel Plans that could

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 42 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

provide network capacity for new development. Further work (including modelling) is currently being undertaken by KHCC.

• Longer term options without Castle Street RFA scheme including measures such as Intelligent Transport Systems, ramp metering, a new footbridge across Castle Street (taking out one of the conflicting movements), park and ride (new sites Cottingham / Willerby and the Holderness Road Corridor, and also the expansion of Priory Park, to complete a ring of sites around the city, although no firm sites are currently identified).

5.5 Summary of transport infrastructure

Table 5.1 below provides a summary of planned infrastructure, the anticipated cost associated, funding already identified, and the funding gap to meet the infrastructure requirements. Table 5.1: Indicative costs, funding options and gaps for transport infrastructure

Infrastructure Schemes Expected Funding identified and any gaps Cost

A63 Castle Street £190m Highways Agency scheme fully funded (if DfT approval gained) from Regional Funding Allocation. However, in light of the recession and the anticipated cuts in Government spending this could mean a cut in investments allocated through the RFA process.

Short term highway £5m Should the comprehensive works to Castle Street not be improvements (e.g. undertaken (or if they are significantly delayed) some short Mytongate Roundabout term works (approx £5m) could be delivered via grant to unlock some City Centre sites. However significantly more investment would be required to deliver housing and economic targets by 2026. Almost certainly, in the absence of significant Government grant, this would require significant KHCC investment and/or developer contributions.

East Hull P&R £4m Anticipated to be fully KHCC funded, although potential risks due to constraints in council funding.

North Hull P&R £5m Anticipated to be fully KHCC funded, although potential risks due to constraints in council funding.

Bus Improvements Series of small scale measures identified in the AAPs (not currently costed). Funding would be from Local Transport Plan Integrated Transport Block (currently £4m-£5m per year, although significant Walking and Cycling uncertainty regarding future levels). Improvements

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 43 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

6 Utility Networks

6.1 Introduction

This section covers the primary utility networks linked to water supply, gas supply and electricity supply.

6.2 Overview of existing utilities infrastructure

Utility apparatus in the ground normally has a hierarchy governing its size, importance and purpose. In this respect most utility companies refer to the apparatus bringing the main supply into an area as a Trunk Main or Trunk Route. Some trunk mains/routes may go through areas without supplying them. A distribution system comes off the trunk main/route and this is typically known as the Distribution Main or Distribution Route. This apparatus takes the supply from the trunk system and distributes it throughout the streets, roads etc. From the distribution main/route individual or groups of buildings are connected via services. Services run from the distribution main/route in the public highway into the property or properties they supply and may have a meter on them which could be on the boundary between public highway and private land. This principle applies in reverse to sewers/drains which take waste or run-off from buildings and surfaces, rather than supplying them. All utility apparatus conforms to the above basic descriptions though the networks do vary in some details. Water and gas have flows though pipes and their systems in Hull are well established and robust. The supply enters the system under pressure which is well regulated and fairly constant. Water commences in large pipes at relatively high pressure and as it is distributed throughout the system and as it gets close and then into properties the pipes reduce in size. Gas commences at high pressure in relatively medium sized pipes. The pressure reduces as the gas is distributed into properties and this requires larger pipes for distribution within the low pressure system. Services into properties are generally small diameter. The appropriate distribution of valves enables reinforcement and diversity which supports a policy of continuity of supply. For gas this is particularly important because an interruption to the supply of gas requires the gas/network provider to visit all supplied properties to check internal gas systems, e.g. to check if all pilot lights on boiler systems have reignited correctly. The water network has sufficient valve arrangement to enable flow around an obstacle (like a burst main) to be restored and maintained within hours of the occurrence. The electricity network with its large number of well distributed substations can similarly redirect flow of power around obstacles and restore power within a short time of any interruption. Telecommunication networks tend to be based on feeds to distribution points in the form of streetside cabinets or point-to-point like the new fibre optic connection providers such as Thus and Global Crossing. Kingston Communications and BT tend to have a main optic fibre running from a switchroom/exchange or major street cabinet to standard distribution cabinets and hence into properties. Cabinets have a capacity by virtue of their size and need to be upgraded for additional customers. On the basis of this hierarchy, it can be easily seen that moving services only directly affects the properties that the services supply. Depending upon its extent, moving a distribution main affects a large number of properties, say up to 100. Moving a trunk main could affect many 1000’s of properties.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 44 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

6.3 Water

6.3.1 Water Supply The regulated water company in the area is Yorkshire Water (YW). Their regulator is Ofwat. YW is responsible for the full range of the water business from production, treatment, distribution, metering and billing. The potable water network has been upgraded and refurbished as part of the Asset Management Plans submitted by YW to Ofwat as part of the agreed investment plans. Hull receives water from more than one source. Water from boreholes on the Hull Aquifer at Springhead, Cottingham, Dunswell and Keldgate are treated at Keldgate Water Treatment Works northwest of Hull. An intake on the River Hull at Top Hill Low with an adjacent Water Treatment Works supplies treated water to East Hull and Holderness. Loftsome Bridge Water Treatment Works on the River Derwent also supplies treated water into Hull. Yorkshire Water has a supply grid enabling water to be transferred between areas served from different sources that ensure an even and reliable distribution of water. Figure 6.1: Yorkshire Water’s Supply Grid

Source: Yorkshire Water – www.yorkshirewater.com Whilst steps are being taken to open up the industry to competition, water has the least competition in the utility sector. There is a mechanism for competition in connection which is termed “self lay”, whereby a developer employs a qualified and registered contractor to build the infrastructure for eventual adoption by YW. This can be more economical for the developer depending upon specific circumstances. Despite the lack of competition in supplying water and operating water infrastructure, there are many civil contractors willing and able to self-lay water and sewerage infrastructure to be adopted by a network operator. It is possible for the area of a development to be separated from Yorkshire Water into an Inset Appointment. Such an arrangement requires the approval of Ofwat, but allows a

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 45 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

separate water company to operate the Inset. To date there have only been a handful of inset appointments.

6.4 Gas

The local gas distribution network in the Hull area is owned by Northern Gas Networks (NGN) and supplied by National Grid. Hull is well positioned on the East Coast adjacent to major gas import installations. Figure 6.2: Distribution Map of Northern Gas Networks

Source: Northern Gas Networks NGN receives gas at high pressure from National Grid’s main transmission lines. The gas enters the local network at high pressure and through a series pressure reduces, governors and gasometers and increased main sizes, the pressure is adjusted for distribution to premises.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 46 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Figure 6.3: Beach to Meter schematic

Source: Northern Gas Networks A major gasometer at St Marks regulates supply on the East Bank of River Hull and a series of gasometers at Bankside on the west side of the river regulates supply on the west. The gas industry is regulated by Ofgem. Northern Gas Networks is carrying out a major refurbishment programme of its gas mains throughout Hull. United Utilities Operations Ltd (UUOL) carry out the day to day maintenance of the system and are responsible for the engineering behind any necessary diversions or reinforcements. Other companies in the gas industry are responsible for production, metering and billing. The gas connections market is very competitive, and whilst Northern Gas Networks does have a connections business and they are the incumbent in the area, other operators will provide the service in Hull. The systems are very integrated and hence robust and resilient. Some local reinforcements may be required depending upon the local demand exceeding local capacity of the local distribution mains but the overall the flexibility and capacity of the gas network within the Hull area is more than sufficient to meet the demands of the foreseeable future. It should be noted that proximity to high pressure and hence high capacity systems and their pressure reducing and storage systems does not necessarily mean that high capacity is available at that location. The gas has to arrive at the threshold at the correct pressure and has to go into the network system to achieve this.

6.5 Electricity

6.5.1 Current Provision The main electrical infrastructure in Hull is operated by Yorkshire Electricity Distribution Ltd (YEDL). YEDL as a regional Distribution Network Operator (DNO) are required to produce a Long Term Development Statement (LTDS) giving detail of the current and proposed status of their network. This includes load forecasts for the next 5 years on their 132 kV and 66/33 kV equipment. \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 47 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

We have also been in contact with senior planning staff at CE-Electric, parent company of YEDL for further information at to status of the network in Hull. The electrical supply system in Hull originates at the grid supply point in Creyke Beck where YEDL’s system meets with National Grid’s national transmission system. The supply point feeds out to a small number of 132 kV supply points (illustrated below) which in turn feed primary substations around Hull. Primary (33 kV to 11 kV) substations generally feed out to secondary (11 kV to LV) substations which connect to local homes and commercial premises. However it is the primary substations that pose the biggest obstacles to development, as the triggering of works to upgrade or provide new primary substations can result in costs in the £Ms being passed on from YEDL to the developer. Figure 6.4: Extract from 132 kV system map covering Hull with aerial photographs

Background: ©Crown copyright. All rights reserved; Photos: ©2009 Google / ©2009 TerraMetrics Within the City Centre, there are currently primary substations at Clarendon Street and Alfred Gelder Street, Hull South supply point feeds both, though Alfred Gelder Street can be fed from Hull East via Westcott Street. Other primary substations further away from the City Centre are: West Docks, Plangeo, National Avenue fed from Hull South; Westcott Street fed from Hull East and Hessle Road fed from Hull East and Hull West. The primary substations feed a network of distribution substations throughout Hull. These distribution substations have varying capacities depending upon the extent and demands of the premises they supply. There is some competition in the provision of new connections and associated infrastructure which enables Independent Distribution Network Operators (IDNO) to design, install, own and operate independent systems. This approach can often significantly reduce capital costs for connections. There are significant shortfalls within Hull between proposed demand based upon proposed development quanta and existing capacity at some primary substations.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 48 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Figure 6.5: Main substations supplying Hull City Centre and routes of 33KV and 66KV cables

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 49 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

6.5.2 Demand assessment methodology Figures of annual electricity consumption for buildings are widely published; however the maximum instantaneous electrical demand for buildings is less well understood. Whereas consumption increases fairly linearly with development floor area, maximum demand per unit area is smaller for larger developments, as the proportion of equipment that can reasonably be expected to be operating simultaneously is less. Although published guidance is available for design of individual buildings this is less suited to larger developments where it can result in significant over estimation. For these reasons Arup has based demand projections for Hull on annual consumption benchmarks and half-hourly profiles used by energy suppliers. The resulting profiles have been applied to the assumed build-out for each development area with volatility factors being applied to allow for local and short term deviation from typical figures. Volatility factors for each year and building type have been derived from cumulative floor areas (or number of residential accommodation) using Arup experience from long term interaction with utility operators. Finally, profiles from the different building types were combined allowing the maximum demand for each development area to be identified.

6.5.3 Development schedule and programme For the purpose of demand projections, development in Hull has been assumed to follow the building schedules detailed in Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

6.6 Demand assessment and provision of future utilities infrastructure

From the methodology outlined in section 6.5.1 and the development parameters described in section 6.5.2, the graphs of projected demand over time have been derived. These graphs which are included in section 6.5.4 below show apparent power in MW along with real power in MVA based on an assumed power factor of 0.93 reflecting the increased use of power factor correction in new buildings. The projected figures for full build-out of the developments, is also tabulated in the separate development area descriptions below. The amount of spare capacity is derived from the figures of use and capacity given in YEDL’s LTDS, based on forecasted values for 2009/10 with actual figures for 2008/09 due to be published by October 31st 2009.

6.6.1 Western Corridor and Newington & St Andrews AAP Table 6.3: Housing and employment growth Western Corridor and Newington & St Andrews AAP

Development B1 (m²) B2 (m²) B8 (m²) Housing Load (MVA)

Western 42,667 42,667 42,667 3.37 Corridor

NaSA 768 1.39

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 50 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Figure 6.6: Western Corridor Demand Projection

3.50 4.00

3.13

2.97 3.50 3.00 2.81 2.65 3.37 2.49 3.19 3.00 2.50 2.33 3.02 2.85 2.17 2.68 2.01 2.50 2.51 2.00 1.85 2.34 1.69 2.16 2.00 MW 1.53 MVA 1.99 1.50 1.37 1.82 1.20 1.64 1.50 1.04 1.47 1.00 0.87 1.29 0.71 1.12 1.00 0.54 0.94 0.50 0.37 0.76 0.50 0.58 0.40

- - 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 Years

MW MVA

Figure 6.7: Newington and St Andrew’s AAP Demand Projection

1.40 1.60 1.29 1.23 1.40 1.20 1.16 1.39 1.09 1.32 1.02 1.24 1.20 1.00 0.95 1.17 0.88 1.09 0.80 1.00 1.02 0.80 0.73 0.94 0.66 0.87 0.80 MW MVA 0.59 0.79 0.60 0.52 0.71 0.60 0.44 0.63 0.55 0.40 0.37 0.47 0.29 0.40 0.39 0.21 0.20 0.31 0.20 0.22

- - 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 Years

MW MVA

The figures from the LTDS show a fair amount of capacity currently available for Newington and St Andrew’s AAP with the forecasts for both Plangeo and West Docks significantly short of their firm capacity giving a combined spare capacity of 5.68 MVA. The capacity from these substations may also be able to supply the Western Corridor together with Hessle Road. The LTDS refers to the two transformers at Hessle Road separately reflecting their separate origins of supply at Hull West and Hull South supply points. The difference between the forecast and firm capacity for the two adds up to 6.60 MVA.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 51 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

From the forecasts the areas appear to be well serviced, however the potential for change in available capacity due to alteration of equipment or demands for other developments needs to be considered. The area most at threat from this would seem to be the far west of the corridor which relies heavily on the capacity at Hessle Road, with the only other primary nearby being Elgar Road which currently has relatively little spare capacity. No proposed changes to capacity of primaries are identified in the LTDS, but capacity in the area should be monitored to determine whether this may obstruct developments such as Priory Park, particularly in their latter phases.

6.6.2 National Avenue Table 6.4: National Avenue

Development B1 (m²) B2 (m²) B8 (m²) Load (MVA)

National Avenue 1,000 1,000 0 0.08

Figure 6.8: National Avenue Demand Projection

0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 MW 0.03 0.04 MVA 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01

- - 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 Years

MW MVA

The National Avenue development area appears from forecasts in the LTDS to have an abundance of spare electrical capacity local to it, with County Road and National Avenue substations giving a combined capacity of 24.63 MVA. It should be noted that there is the possibility of YEDL making alterations to these substations which could reduce this capacity, however no such proposed works are listed in the LTDS. Discussions with YEDL have indicated that they are considering using capacity from the National Avenue Substation to supply development within the City Centre and this should be monitored to assess the impact on capacity in the area.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 52 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

6.6.3 City Centre and West of the City Centre Table 6.5: City Centre and West of the City Centre

Development B1 (m²) B2 (m²) B8 (m²) Housing Load (MVA)

West of the City Centre 2,000 2,000 2,000 0.19

City Centre 205,153 2,212 11.14

Figure 6.9: City Centre Demand Projection

5.00 6.00 4.63

4.50 4.13 5.00 4.00 4.97 3.64

3.50 4.45 3.15 4.00 3.92 3.00 2.65 3.38 2.50 3.00 MW 2.15 MVA 2.85 2.00 1.64 2.31 2.00 1.50 1.13 1.77

1.00 1.22 1.00

0.50

- - 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 Years

MW MVA Figure 6.10: West of the City Centre Demand Projection

0.20 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.10 MW 0.09 MVA 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02

- - 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 Years

MW MVA

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 53 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

The City Centre and the development area to its west are expected to be supplied by substations at Alfred Gelder Street and Clarendon Street. Although forecasts in the LTDS suggest these substations have a combined spare capacity of 5.49 MVA, recent discussions with YEDL suggest that the actual uncommitted capacity may be nearer to 1 MVA. The projected scale of development in the City Centre alone far in exceeds this figure. Development areas north of the City Centre may also look to utilise some of the capacity as they are somewhat remote from any of the primary substations. This indicates a serious lack of capacity which could prevent larger development taking place in the development area. YEDL has indicated that additional capacity may be brought in from National Avenue at a cost of around £450,000. However, depending on competition from development areas to the north, this may only be a short term solution. To be assured of a long term solution to support the programmes of proposed development considered, a new primary substation is expected to be required. This could be located either within the City Centre or alternatively land near to the City Centre in the development area to the north may offer a cheaper option.

6.6.4 Heartlands and Clough Road Table 6.6: Heartlands and Clough Road

Development B1 (m²) B2 (m²) B8 (m²) Housing Load (MVA)

Western Corridor 42,667 42,667 42,667 0 3.37

Figure 6.11: Heartlands and Clough Road Demand Projection

3.50 3.50 3.31 3.15 2.98 3.00 3.00 2.81 3.08 2.64 2.93 2.47 2.77 2.50 2.50 2.30 2.61 2.46 2.13 2.30 1.96 2.00 2.14 2.00 1.79 1.98 1.62 MW

1.82 MVA 1.45 1.50 1.67 1.50 1.27 1.51 1.10 1.35 0.93 1.19 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.02 0.57 0.86 0.70 0.50 0.39 0.50 0.53 0.36

- - 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 Years

MW MVA Despite the size and central location of this development area, no primary substations are located within it. Alfred Gelder Street and Clarendon Street to the south have limited capacity, and this is expected to be exceeded by development local to the substations, within the City Centre and immediately to the west of the City Centre. National Avenue may be able to contribute to this area as it appears to have plenty of spare capacity, but this is a significant distance away and development in other areas may compete for this capacity.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 54 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

In order to ensure available capacity for this area a new primary substation should be considered. If located in the Heartlands and Clough Road development area, this would also be able to help supply neighbouring development areas including the City Centre, Sutton Fields and Holderness Road which also have limited available electrical capacity.

6.6.5 Eastern Corridor Table 6.7 Eastern Corridor

Development B1 (m²) B2 (m²) B8 (m²) Housing Load (MVA)

Eastern Corridor 0 82,000 82,000 3.17

22% Holderness Road 506 0.54

Figure 6.12: Eastern Corridor + 22% Holderness Road Demand Projection

4.00 4.00 3.71 3.55 3.50 3.39 3.50 3.20 3.45 3.01 3.30 3.00 2.82 3.16 3.00 2.63 2.98 2.80 2.44 2.50 2.63 2.50 2.25 2.45 2.05 2.27 2.00 1.86 2.00

MW 2.09 MVA 1.66 1.91 1.47 1.73 1.50 1.50 1.27 1.55 1.07 1.37 1.00 0.86 1.18 1.00 0.66 0.99 0.80 0.44 0.50 0.61 0.50 0.41

- - 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 Years

MW MVA The Eastern Corridor development area benefits from spare capacity at both Kingeo and Hedon Road. The forecasts from the LTDS suggest a combined spare capacity of 13.91 MVA compare with a projected increase in demand, including employment figures and a proportion of housing for Holderness Road Corridor AAP, of 3.71 MVA. This suggests that capacity is unlikely to be exceeded by development in this area alone; however the situation should be reviewed later into development programmes to assess the impact of development in neighbouring development areas. It is also notable that Kingeo has a firm capacity of 12.5 MVA whereas other primaries around Hull have capacities of 23-24 MVA. This suggests that YEDL may consider upgrading the substations. The capacity figure suggests that the transformers themselves may only need the addition of fans and pumps for cooling to increase the capacity to that at other primaries. We would expect the 400 mm² aluminium cables between the Kingeo and Hull East to be suitable for this load, but cannot rule out issues with impedance. We would expect cable replacement if required to be circa £700k. Protective equipment at Hull East may also need upgrading to allow for this increase in capacity. Should Kingeo be upgraded to 23/24 MVA, this would provide significant capacity to this and the neighbouring Holderness Road Corridor AAP area.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 55 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

6.6.6 Holderness Road Corridor AAP Table 6.8: Holderness Road Corridor AAP

Development B1 (m²) B2 (m²) B8 (m²) Housing Load (MVA)

78% Holderness Road 0 0 0 1,794 3.04

Figure 6.13: 78% Holderness Road Corridor AAP Demand Projection

3.00 3.50 2.83 2.66

2.50 3.00 2.50 3.04 2.33 2.86 2.16 2.68 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.51 1.83 2.33 1.66 2.15 2.00 1.49 1.97 1.50 MW 1.32 1.78 MVA 1.15 1.60 1.50

0.97 1.42 1.00 0.80 1.23 1.00 1.05 0.62 0.86 0.44 0.50 0.67 0.50 0.25 0.47

0.26 - - 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 Years

MW MVA

Holderness Road Corridor AAP describes an area of housing development overlapping the Eastern Corridor, but also reaching far into North Hull. The area outside of the Eastern Corridor is relatively poorly served with Westcott Street only showing 0.93 MVA of spare capacity based on forecast figures. The significant capacity indicated at Kingeo and Hedon Road may be able to serve Holderness Road Corridor AAP in addition to the Eastern Corridor, however the long distances from these areas to the northern regions of this area may result in high costs. We would advise a review of capacity in this area following the early stages of development in this area. Consideration should also be given to the cost and feasibility of upgrading Kingeo as referred to above.

6.6.7 Port area The development information provided does not give any specific figures for development of the port area. Assuming this indicates development will be small, the spare capacity from substations in the Eastern Corridor Area should be able to support this development.

6.7 KHCC utilities network

The KHCC also has its own buried and surface apparatus. It has its own optic fibre network connecting various buildings and linked into the traffic management systems. It also connects CCTV cameras. The Council maintains all the street lighting, highway signs and litter bins. This apparatus is not covered by this report.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 56 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

6.8 Summary of utilities infrastructure

The existing potable water and gas supplies to Hull are robust, resilient and flexible networks and do not require any significant reinforcements to meet the demands of the proposed developments. Local reinforcements may be required to link developments back to suitably sized mains within the networks and this will be typical and commensurate with the type and size of the proposed development areas. The existing electricity network is, in parts, not so robust, resilient or flexible. There is a significant shortfall of capacity within the City Centre to support all the development proposals and this is also likely to occur in other parts of Hull.

6.8.1 Summary of electricity infrastructure Table 6.9: Electricity

Infrastructure Anticipated Additional information and Funding Cost

Electricity £10-£12m Infrastructure requirements linked to provision of additional capacity over and above natural growth levels. Half of costs related to provision of new primary sub-station. Rest of cost linked to new development triggering reinforcement of existing networks and cables. Funding also required for feasibility work and on-going appraisal of development strategy and capacity of electrical network, including specific assessment of procurement routes for large developments. Electricity infrastructure provision under ‘business as usual’ model would be funded by developers as part of development costs. Costs relate to provision of additional electrical capacity for development in excess of ‘organic’ growth allowed for by YEDL. Around half of the cost would be required for a new primary substation supplying the City Centre development areas, the location of this (100m × 80m preferred area) could be in the proposed Quay West development area or nearby within the development area to the north. The remainder of the cost would come from developments triggering costly network reinforcement, including alterations to primary substations and long distance cabling and overcoming significant physical obstacles. This could include provision of a further primary substation either to the east or far west of Hull, depending on actual levels and programmes of development including development in the port area. Further in-depth consideration of development rates and electrical capacity will determine when such reinforcements and associated costs are triggered. Hull City Centre Utility Report identified a possible £1.6m cost attached to possible works on an old oil filled 33kv cable within City Centre. A further assessment of the function and condition of this cable, and the programme of development works around it, would determine if works were required on it and who pays for them. Funding should also be made available to support assessment of alternative procurement routes for large developments (1MVA and above), which would help reduce costs. Funding should also be made available for periodic assessment of development strategy with respect to the capacity of the electrical network and proposed development demands. Frequency of such assessments should be in line with development rates. Under the ‘business as usual’ model, the costs associated with reinforcing, diverting and connecting to the network would be picked up by the developer and costs incurred as part of

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 57 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

the development. These costs have serious implications for developers under current economic conditions.

6.8.2 Summary of gas infrastructure Table 6.10: Gas

Infrastructure Anticipated Additional information and Funding Cost

Gas £2.4-£3m Major investment in gas infrastructure is not required. Gas infrastructure provision under ‘business as usual’ model would be funded by developers as part of development costs. Major strategic level infrastructure investment is not required. Future developments will be expected to provide connection to local gas network. Local reinforcements will be required for some developments. Information provided by Northern Gas Network indicates that the existing gas network is overall robust, flexible and sufficient to cater for future demand. Known estimated costs for diversions (primarily Quay West and East Bank) and for reinforcements (primarily Fruit Market and East Bank) within the City Centre (total amount circa £600k) are taken from the Hull City Centre Utility Report. Other costs are very approximate estimates for diversions/reinforcements for the other development areas. These other areas are spread throughout Hull and without detailed information of proposals and the locations of connections, the estimated cost of diversions/reinforcements are considered to be typically 3 to 4 times the City Centre costs. Under a ‘business as usual’ model, the costs associated with connection to the network would be picked up by the developer and costs incurred as part of the development. This has implications for developers under current economic conditions.

6.8.3 Summary of water supply infrastructure investment Table 6.11: Water Supply

Infrastructure Anticipated Additional information and Funding Cost

Water Supply £2.1-£2.6m Major investment in water supply infrastructure is not required. Infrastructure provision under ‘business as usual’ model would be funded by developers as part of development costs Major strategic level infrastructure investment is not required. Future developments will be expected to provide connection to the local water supply network. Assessment of Yorkshire Water’s network indicates that the existing water network is overall robust, flexible and sufficient to cater for future demand. Local reinforcements will be required for some developments. Costs shown are for diversions and reinforcements within City Centre (total amount circa £520k) taken from the Hull City Centre Utility Report. Other costs are very approximate estimates for diversions/reinforcements for the other development areas. These other areas are spread throughout Hull and without detailed information of proposals and location of connections the estimated cost of diversions/reinforcements are considered to be typically 3 to 4 times the City Centre costs. Under the ‘business as usual’ model, the costs associated with connection to the network would be picked up by the developer and costs incurred as part of the development. This has implications for developers under current economic conditions.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 58 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

7 Telecommunications

7.1 Introduction

This section addresses specifically whether adequate telecommunications infrastructure exists in the area to enable the demand for public telecom services to be met, and what additional infrastructure provision might be required. The telecom services considered in the paper comprise:

• fixed telecom services which are composed of telephone services and access to broadband services;

• cellular mobile services; and

• television distribution services, including cable TV.

The city of Hull occupies a unique position in the UK, being the only place not served by BT. For a century or more, telecommunication services have been provided in Hull by its own operator, now called Kingston Communications and part of the KCOM Group. Effectively, Kingston Communications performs the same role in Hull as BT does elsewhere in the country. In consequence, the regulations that apply to BT, in relation to universal service provision and to prevent the abuse of market power, also apply to Kingston Communications. The scope of this regulation, and the issues that arise under it, form essential background to consideration of the adequacy of telecoms infrastructure in Hull, and are discussed in the following section. Subsequent sections examine the state of provision of infrastructure to support the services listed. The final section considers how additional telecoms infrastructure might be provided in the Hull area.

7.2 Regulation

7.2.1 The regulation of the telecommunications market Telecommunications differs from other utility sectors in that any person may operate telecoms infrastructure and provide services to the public without prior approval or being expressly licensed, provided that certain general regulations are complied with. Accordingly, the market for telecommunication infrastructure and services in Hull, as elsewhere, is entirely open to competitive provision. Nonetheless, Kingston Communications retains a substantial monopoly, being the sole operator of infrastructure and the sole provider of services for almost all residents as well as for the great majority of business users in the Hull area. As the dominant operator, Kingston Communications is subject to several specific regulatory requirements, of which the most important are the Universal Service Obligation and service conditions resulting from its Significant Market Power. These are described below.

7.2.2 Universal Service Obligation The Universal Service Obligation (USO) is intended to ensure that basic fixed line services are available at an affordable price to all residential customers across the UK. The scope of the USO is defined by the EC Universal Services Directive; the Government specifies the services which must be provided throughout the UK; the requirement is implemented by Ofcom. BT for the rest of the UK and Kingston Communications in the Hull area have had such special conditions applied to them. USO services include the following:

• special tariff schemes for low income customers;

• a connection to the fixed telephone network, which includes functional internet access; \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 59 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• reasonable geographic access to public call boxes; and

• a range of services for customers with disabilities including the text relay service.

Of these, the most significant is the obligation to provide a connection to the fixed telephone network on demand. What this means in practice for Kingston Communications is that any resident in the Hull area who wishes to have telephone service may apply to it, and Kingston Communications is obliged to install the infrastructure necessary to provide the connection and to provide fixed telephone service for a standard price. It follows that infrastructure provision for basic telephony services is adequate for residents in the Hull area so long as Kingston Communications complies with its USO. Basic telephone services include functional internet access, which has hitherto been interpreted to mean access at a minimum of 28.8 kbit/s. This is now widely recognised as inadequate, and the Government proposes to increase the minimum speed to 2 Mbit/s by 2020 (as set out in the Digital Britain report, July 2009). In relation to new developments, whether housing or commercial, the norm in the telecoms sector is for the operator with USO (i.e. Kingston Communications in Hull) to design and install the network infrastructure without charge to the developer. Again, this arrangement is significantly different from other utility sectors, where developers are charged all or part of the cost of the infrastructure. In telecoms, developers and landowners are required only to provide the USO operator with access to its customers. A duct network may be laid for this purpose.

7.2.3 Significant market power Ofcom, the regulator for telecommunication networks and services, may impose specific regulations where an operator has been determined to have significant market power (SMP). Its very high market share in Hull means that Kingston Communications has been judged to have SMP in several aspects of telecommunication services in that area. In particular, Ofcom has imposed the following SMP services conditions on Kingston in the wholesale local access market and in respect of co-location in the Hull area:

• requirement to provide access to its network on reasonable request;

• requirement not to unduly discriminate;

• requirement to base charges on reasonable costs;

• requirement to publish a reference offer (standard terms and conditions);

• requirement to notify changes in charges and terms and conditions; and

• requirement to notify technical information.

The net effect of the regulatory framework applied to Kingston Communications is to reinforce its monopoly on infrastructure provision, while not effectively stimulating competitive provision at the service level. These effects can be seen most clearly in relation to broadband access. Both BT and Kingston Communications provide internet access by means of ADSL technology, which utilises the same copper cable that connects users to the local telephone exchange for telephone services. Internet service providers (ISPs) install their equipment in the local exchange in order to connect to their customers. The prices charged by BT and Kingston to ISPs for co-location are regulated by Ofcom. Despite this, Kingston Communications is the only ISP serving residential customers in the Hull area. The main reason for the lack of competitive provision of internet access in the Hull area is that the potential market is perceived to be too small to be cost effective. In short, the national policy for encouraging competitive broadband access via the telephone network has not worked in Hull. The consequences for residential users in Hull are a restricted choice of

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 60 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

service provider and higher prices, sometimes, for broadband access. However, Ofcom has not indicated that it will take any specific steps to remedy these deficiencies.

7.3 Provision of voice services

7.3.1 Fixed voice services As noted in Section 7.2 above, Kingston Communications provides fixed voice telephony services throughout the Hull area. Traditionally, Kingston Communications has used the same type of infrastructure as BT and offered similar basic telephone services to residential and business customers, but at lower prices than BT. This commercial approach continues today. Other telecom operators, such as BT or Virgin, are allowed to operate in Hull, but none have installed the infrastructure necessary to provide public telephone services in the area. A few commercial customers in the area do have direct connections to other networks, typically by microwave. There is no reasonable prospect that operators other than Kingston Communications will in the near future establish a presence in the area, as the potential demand is insufficient to induce the significant investment necessary.

7.3.2 Cellular mobile services All five cellular mobile networks provide services in the Hull area, on the same terms as elsewhere in the UK. Cellular mobile base stations in Hull are typically linked to the operators’ national networks via Kingston Communications’ public network.

7.4 Provision of broadband access

Broadband access via fixed telecom network in the Hull area is available only from Kingston Communications, using the same ADSL technology as BT. However, very few internet service providers (ISPs) are willing to provide services in Hull, leaving Kingston Communications and Karoo (KC’s consumer brand) with an effective monopoly. For example, Sky’s broadband service, which is provided nationally in association with BT, is not available in Hull as Sky has not entered into equivalent arrangements with Kingston Communications. TalkTalk, the market-leading ISP owned by Carphone Warehouse, is also not available in Hull. Broadband access via WiFi is also poor in Hull, compared with other cities in the UK. WiFi is a form of local access and needs to be connected to broadband infrastructure, which in Hull means Kingston Communications. The cellular mobile companies offer mobile broadband access in Hull as elsewhere in the UK. Mobile broadband is a premium service which has much lower download speeds than fixed broadband, and is mainly for business use.

7.5 TV distribution

Off-air TV distribution in the Hull area is the same as in the rest of the UK; the Digital Switch Over programme is expected to be completed by 2012. Obviously, satellite TV reception is also the same. There is no cable TV service in Hull. Kingston Communications has in the past provided Interactive TV and Video on Demand services over its network, but these were withdrawn in 2006.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 61 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

7.6 Provision of future telecommunications infrastructure

7.6.1 Is additional telecommunications infrastructure required? For a long period, having an independent telephone company of its own gave Hull a significant economic advantage. Kingston Communications offered basic telephone services to business and residential customers that were as good as BT’s yet significantly cheaper. When telephone networks began to be digitalised, Kingston Communications was at the forefront of the modernisation of network infrastructure. However, what was an advantage has now become a significant disadvantage. While Kingston’s basic telephone service is still cheaper than BT’s, customers in the Hull area are unable to take advantage of the many services offering cheaper calls over BT’s network. These service providers are not present in Hull for the reasons given. Broadband access is on the same basis in Hull as elsewhere, but customers have only Kingston Communications to choose from. Their services are satisfactory as regards quality, but are not the cheapest. Hull is also the largest urban area in the country without a cable TV network. The root cause of the shift from a position of advantage to one of disadvantage as regards telecoms services is the maintenance of Kingston’s de facto monopoly of network infrastructure. Kingston is too small a company to provide the full range of fixed telecom services that users expect – voice telephony, broadband access and TV distribution – and anyway users want choice. Hull is too small a market for national network operators to consider investment in it, or for service providers accustomed to dealing with BT. The absence of competition at either the level of infrastructure or of services results in lack of choice and higher prices. The economic disadvantage affects business as well as consumers. These harsh commercial facts are not mitigated by the regulatory framework, which is essentially designed to deal with BT’s dominant position in the national market. As described in Section 7.2, the same rules are applied to Kingston, but the problem in Hull is not the same and the rules are simply unhelpful in relation to the actual problems that businesses and consumers experience. It seems unlikely that Ofcom will develop separate rules tailored to deal with the predicament of the people of Hull. However, to give an indication of the type of regulatory action that might be taken, it is noted that TalkTalk now has a market share of about 25% of the UK market as an ISP but is not present in Hull. Ofcom could require it to install its equipment in Kingston’s exchanges as it has already done in all other cities in the UK.

7.6.2 What are the future options? As the telecoms market continues to evolve, it is now unrealistic to suppose that an additional telephone network based on copper cable could be set up in Hull in competition with Kingston Communications. Certainly, Openreach – BT’s connections business – has no intention, we understand, of connecting any customers in the Hull area to BT’s network. Nor is it likely that Virgin Media will set up a cable TV business in Hull. Virgin Media ceased expanding its network anywhere in the UK almost a decade ago and has no plans to resume. Finally, none of the optical fibre n etworks established in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s to serve businesses, such as those of Cable & Wireless and COLT, invested in the Hull area at that time. Now, when the sustained fall in prices for telecommunication transmission services means their businesses have less good commercial prospects, it seems very unlikely that such investment will occur.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 62 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

At the infrastructure level, then, the practical options for new telecom networks are wireless and optical fibre broadband networks:

Wireless Broadband Public WiFi in the centre of Hull may well be a desirable service to have on offer, but WiFi is not independent of the public telephone network and would not give access to additional services. A few wireless broadband networks have been established elsewhere in the UK, for example the UK Broadband network in the Thames Valley, but none yet has a national scope. UK Broadband, which operates WiMAX technology at 3.5 GHz, has a national radio frequency licence and so could in principle deploy its network in the Hull area. However its plans are focussed on providing services to schools and other public sector clients, indicating that it would require significant financial inducement to do so.

Optical fibre broadband Both BT and Virgin Media have announced plans to roll out optical fibre in their networks, though not all the way to the home. No doubt, Kingston Communications will follow suit in due course. However, it is rapidly becoming the norm for new developments of any size to provide for optical fibre network connections, which offer much faster broadband access. For new residential developments, managing broadband access networks is a commercially attractive option. Such access networks are separate from the incumbent operator’s network and so could form the basis for independent networks offering competition at the infrastructure level and additional choice at the service level. Additional telecom infrastructure operators might bring with them to Hull the service providers that serve their customers in the rest of the UK. As well, the potential competitive threat might galvanise Kingston Communications into accelerating its roll-out of optical fibre connections and into improving its services.

7.7 Summary of telecommunications infrastructure

Hull occupies a unique position in the UK, being the only place not served by BT. For a century or more, telecommunication services have been provided in Hull by its own operator, now called Kingston Communications and part of the KCOM Group. The net effect of the regulatory framework applied to Kingston Communications is to reinforce its monopoly on infrastructure provision, while not effectively stimulating competitive provision at the service level. These effects can be seen most clearly in relation to broadband access. Broadband access via fixed telecom network in the Hull area is available only from Kingston Communications, using the same ADSL technology as BT. However, very few internet service providers (ISPs) are willing to provide services in Hull, leaving Kingston Communications and Karoo (KC’s consumer brand) with an effective monopoly. Interestingly, what previously gave Hull a significant economic advantage has now become a significant disadvantage. While Kingston’s basic telephone service is still cheaper than BT’s, customers in the Hull area are unable to take advantage of the many services offering cheaper calls over BT’s network. Delivering greater levels of digital connectivity across Hull is a high priority for the council. The council can play a major role in helping to overcome the apparent monopoly of provision in the city. The nature of the current situation means that over the medium to long term the council must explore innovative mechanisms to deliver digital services. The council is helped by the dynamic nature of the marketplace. Changes to the way services are procured and delivered (i.e. BT allowing shared use of its ducts) and the move towards Next Generation broadband provision gives the council an opportunity to explore new approaches. In seeking to deliver greater digital connectivity across the city the council can \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 63 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

help deliver wider ambitions to facilitate a step-change towards the knowledge economy. Such an approach also aligns with council-led plans such as the Building Schools for the Future Programme. Developing joint service provision through regeneration initiatives has the potential to help tackle social exclusion and develop skills.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 64 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Table 7.1: Telecommunications

Infrastructure Anticipated Additional information and Funding Cost

Telecommunications £Unknown It is challenging to estimate the level of investment required in new telecommunications infrastructure over the study period. Direct investment in infrastructure is likely to be market-led. Future delivery strategy should align with council plans for providing greater digital connectivity in the city. It is challenging to estimate the level of investment required in new telecommunications infrastructure over the study period. Direct investment is likely to be market led. In the current economic climate such investment may be slow. The future delivery strategy for telecommunications, in particular digital services and broadband, should align with council plans for providing greater connectivity in the city.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 65 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

8 Flood Risk and Drainage

8.1 Background

Flood risk and drainage issues pose acute problems for Hull. This in turn has a direct impact on the scale, location and layout of future development opportunities. The Environment Agency Flood Zone maps indicate that the majority of Hull has a high risk of flooding, with approximately 95% located within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The high flood risk that exists can be attributed to ground levels in Hull being predominantly lower than the high tide level of the Humber - consequently there is significant need for flood defences. Findings from the Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (November 2007) 3 confirm that the majority of land within Hull has a high risk of flooding and therefore the Sequential Test alone cannot identify sufficient development sites within Hull. The Exception Test will need to be applied where development is proposed within high risk land. Hence, the Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) was followed by a Level 2 SFRA to provide the necessary information to enable the application of the Sequential Test and Exception Test for development within Flood Zone 3. The implications for future infrastructure provision which have stemmed from the conclusions of the SFRAs are noted in Section 8.3.

8.2 Overview of existing flood protection and drainage infrastructure

8.2.1 Nature of flood risk The nature the flood risk in Hull means that this infrastructure study must look wider than the administrative boundary of Hull to understand the existing and required flood risk infrastructure.

8.2.2 How the provision of the service is planned The responsibility for maintenance of the flood defences within Hull is not clearly defined. The Kingston upon Hull Act 1984 provides KHCC with the power to enforce landowners to maintain flood defences to the statutory level. However, it is not easy to enforce owners to maintain the quality of the defences if they do not meet the required crest level. There have been incidences of overtopping within Hull due to the poor repair of landowner maintained defences. The Environment Agency (EA) also has powers and responsibilities in relation to flood risk associated with the River Hull.

8.2.3 Current flood risk management measures The main watercourses within KHCC boundary are the River Hull, Beverley and Barmston Drain, and Holderness Drain. The Beverley and Barmston Drain outfalls to the River Hull approximately 1.5 kilometres upstream of the Humber while the River Hull and Holderness Drain discharge to the Humber.

River Hull Existing defences on the River Hull consist of steel piling, timber wharfs, concrete walls and masonry walls within Hull. The flood defence infrastructure on the River Hull is in a variable condition; with some parts in a poor condition. It should be noted though that defences in poor condition may not necessarily mean that they provide a low standard of protection and vice versa.

Humber Within Hull, the Humber flood defences consist of a mixture of vertical sea walls and concrete revetments. Some of the defences have been raised by the construction of new

3 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, November 2007, Hull City Council, Halcrow Group Limited, http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/HOME/PLANNING/PLANNING%20POLICY/FLOOD%20RISK%20ASS ESSMENT/SFRA_NOVEMBER%202007.PDF \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 66 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

wave return walls along the length of the crest of the existing structure. To the west, the defences abruptly change from sea walls to natural marshland. Along this length ‘Clive Sullivan Way’ is on a raised embankment and effectively forms the defence. This embankment extends to Hessle Haven, where it affords protection to Waterside Business Park. The defences here consist of an unprotected earth embankment. The defences vary in age, with the original dock structures dating mainly from the late 19th century and the early 20th. The area along the east side of St Andrews Quay was upgraded between 1997 and 1999. Whilst the new defences are in good condition, the original defences are generally in a poor condition. The area immediately to the west of the Hull Barrier consists of a mixture of different defences in poor condition. Part of the defence along this frontage is formed by the walls of various buildings and abandoned warehouses.

Hull Tidal Surge Barrier The Hull Tidal Surge Barrier has been in operation since 1980 to prevent high sea levels caused by surge tides overwhelming river defences. It is approximately 30 metres wide and takes roughly 30 minutes to open or close. The Barrier is closed when a tidal level greater than 4.6 metres AOD is forecast. The reliability of the Barrier is reducing with age and a refurbishment of drive and control mechanisms was planned to be implemented by Environment Agency to improve the reliability of the barrier. The highest tide in Hull since the Barrier was built was in late February 1990 when a level of 5.18 metres AOD was reached. There were two other tides around the 5.00 metres AOD mark in the same week. More recently, a North Sea tidal surge of approximately 1 metre occurred on the evening of 12 January 2005 resulting in a level at Hull of 4.85 metres AOD. The tidal event passed without significant flooding because of the Hull Tidal Surge Barrier.

Flood Forecasting and Flood Warning Systems Regional Flood Forecasting teams, the Met Office Weather and the storm tidal warning service forecast tidal events and pass any warnings to local operatives. Local operatives are on call 24 hours a day and monitor river and sea levels using forecasting technology. This information is used to operate pumping stations and the Hull Tidal Surge Barrier, as well as to issue flood warnings. The EA operates a total of 24 overlapping flood warning areas within and immediately adjacent to the Kingston upon Hull administrative boundary. In the event of a flood warning being declared within any of these areas, a range of methods would be used to inform the population including the warning being broadcast by loudhailer, automated voice messaging (AVM) or media broadcast. As well as any identified flood risk being shown on the Environment Agency web site and via the flood information telephone service ‘Floodline’.

8.2.4 Current drainage management measures KHCC is responsible for surface water drainage and for dealing with blocked drains and flooding caused by blocked grates or gullies. Yorkshire Water is responsible for all public sewer systems in Hull. Yorkshire Water is not responsible for private sewers, which are the joint responsibility of each property that drains into it. Post 2011 responsibility for sewers is set to change with Yorkshire Water taking over responsibility for the majority of private sewer pipes. In addition to flood defences, the following assets have a flood risk management aspect:

• Beverley and North Holderness Internal Drainage Board drains, this provides drainage for rural areas to the north of Hull;

• Preston Internal Drainage Board drains, this provides drainage for rural areas to the east of Hull; and

• watercourses maintained by KHCC provide drainage for urban and some rural areas within and adjacent to Hull and include Sutton Cross Drain and Foredyke Stream.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 67 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Only limited information on the above assets has been provided for the formulation of this Infrastructure Study, and so represents an area requiring further investigation. The waste water treatment works (WWTW) which serves Hull is actually located at Saltend, within the ERYC area. In developing the current and future Asset Management Plan, Yorkshire Water has factored in natural growth and growth figures in line with the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy.

8.3 Provision of future flood risk and drainage infrastructure

8.3.1 The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, (November 2007) The Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) sets out a series of likely policy options for the future upkeep, maintenance, and future delivery of flood defences in Hull.

River Hull The likely future policy for the River Hull flood defences, as preliminarily advised by the preferred River Hull Flood Risk Management (FRM) Strategy solution, is to maintain the flood defence levels to the statutory levels as defined in the Kingston upon Hull Act 1984. Assuming the Hull Tidal Surge Barrier continues to function, maintaining this level will provide a standard of protection of 1% (1 in 100 years).

Humber The likely future policy for the Humber flood defences adjacent to Kingston upon Hull, as advised by the preferred Humber Strategy option, is to provide a 0.5% (1 in 200 years) standard of protection.

Hull Tidal Surge Barrier The likely future policy for the Hull Tidal Surge Barrier, as preliminarily advised by the River Hull FRM Strategy, is to continue to maintain and refurbish the Barrier, as necessary in order to continue to protect Hull from tidal surge levels greater than 4.6 metres AOD. The extent and cost of works required have been obtained from the SFRA and are summarised in the table below. Table 8.1: Extent and Cost of future work on the River Hull and the Humber Estuary to prevent flooding

River Hull (and the Beverley and Barmston, and Holderness Drains)

Continue to maintain and repair flood defences through Hull in order to sustain a standard of protection of 1% (1 in 100 years) for the next 100 years; and Construct a flood defence embankment adjacent to the Bransholme area in the east of the city to provide the Bransholme area with a high standard of protection from flooding from the Holderness Drain. The present value cost for the above work has been estimated at £60.59 million (not including any work to the Hull Tidal Surge Barrier).

Hull Tidal Surge Barrier

Continue to maintain and refurbish the Barrier, as necessary in order to continue to protect Hull from tidal surge levels greater than 4.6 metres Above Ordnance Data (AOD). The present value cost for this work has been estimated at £7.8 million.

Humber

The Humber defences adjacent to Kingston Upon Hull are included under Management Unit 2 (MU- 2) of the Humber Strategy. This unit extends from North Ferriby in the west to Paull village in the east and is separated into two Flood Cells (2/1 and 2/2). The present value costs over 100 years for MU-2

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 68 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

for the preferred option is approximately £30 million .

Improvement of the defences between the Hull Barrier and Victoria Pier to provide 0.5% (1 in 200 years) standard of protection comprising:

Construction of a new concrete wall from a point of high land near to the Hull Tidal Surge Barrier along the western edge of an unused dry dock. This new wall runs through an area of derelict land and some of the existing structures will have to be demolished to make space for the new wall. Continuation of the new wall by raising the level of the existing seawall, from the derelict area along the existing alignment of the defence which is partially formed by the walls of existing office buildings. The walls of the office buildings will be strengthened to provide adequate protection against extreme storm events and shutters be provided to protect openings such as office windows. Refurbishment of the existing defences to improve condition and stability over a 50 year design life. Replacement of a section of sheet piling to provide an improved condition and a design life of 50 years. Raise the level of the engineering brickwork wall along the existing alignment of defence along the southerly section of the frontage.

Improvement of the defences between St Andrews Quay and Albert Dock to provide 0.5% (1 in 200 years) standard of protection comprise:

Raising of an existing embankment running from the edge of St Andrews Quay to high ground at Clive Sullivan Way. The defences will run along the western end of the retail park on St Andrews Quay, protecting the assets against outflanking of the defences. Construction of a new wave return wall along the crest of the existing defences at Albert Dock, running from the eastern end of the scheme completed in 1999 to the newly replaced lock gates at the entrance to Albert Dock. Refurbishment of the seaward face of the quay walls from St Andrews Quay to Albert Dock.

Hedon Haven Clough and the east bank of the River Hull

The review of defence standards undertaken for the Key Issue Assessment showed that the standard of protection is satisfactory, and it was decided that works would not be needed on this frontage within the first 15years. However, further analysis of the existing standard of protection should be carried out during the next five years to establish when it may be necessary to improve these defences.

Source: SFRA, KHCC It has been assumed that these works will have a design life of 50 years, and as such a cost has been allowed for reconstruction/ refurbishment of the works 50 years after the initial implementation date. To account for the need for more robust structures due to climate change and sea level rise, and future increases in material costs, future rebuild costs have been increased by 30%. The SFRA states that at present there is no agreed timetable for these works to be undertaken. Once this has been agreed then further work will be required to assess the stability and strength of existing structures. Consequently, the SFRA suggests that construction of these defences will occur in years six to ten of the strategy (i.e. between 2013 and 2017), but could be brought forward if these investigations reveal an urgent need for action.

8.3.2 Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy (2008) Under the proposals in the Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy (2008), the EA will continue carrying out routine maintenance to all the defences around the estuary for which they are responsible and where it is economically worthwhile. The EA will improve the defences as set out in the strategy programme subject to review arrangements and the \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 69 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

availability of funding from the national flood and coastal defence budget. Where the standard and condition of defences for which the EA is not responsible, and if they are below the required standard, they will seek to get them improved. Before improving any defences the EA will carry out a detailed assessment of the case for doing so, considering a wide range of options and taking technical, social, environmental and economic issues into account. If this confirms that funding is likely to be available, the EA will carry on designing the works, obtaining the appropriate approvals and building them when the funding comes through. If it is not, they are likely to withdraw maintenance in the future so will start the withdrawal process. The Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy outlines seven priority areas for defence improvements to be made between 2008 and 2013. The table below sets out the planned improvements that will be made within this Hull Infrastructure Study area. The Humber Flood Risk Strategy states that the longer term improvements (between 2018 and 2023) have yet to be decided upon and require further work to determine appropriate actions. Table 8.2: Planned improvements between 2008 and 2013

Flood Area Location Work Planned

5 Paull Village Review risk of waves overtopping sea wall and flooding adjacent properties, carrying out improvements if necessary.

Source: Environment Agency (2008) Planning for the Rising Tides the Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy

8.3.3 Hull Surface Water Management Plan KHCC received £50,000 from DEFRA to be one of the six pilot authorities to produce a first edition surface water management plan (SWMP). This work was completed in December 2009 and identifies the level of surface water risk posed across Hull. In addition the study identified six area of high surface water risk across Hull and proposes the storing of water on greenfield sites to mitigate this risk. Investment will therefore be required beyond the KHCC boundaries, within all BSF schemes and across the existing green open spaces across Hull to ensure the potential of these areas as aqua greens is maximised. Total investment in water storage options is likely to run into tens of millions of pounds and further detailed investigation of specific locations will be required to ensure Hull has an appropriate drainage infrastructure for the twenty first century. Any investment into infrastructure will require funding from all the local drainage authorities and should look to be met collectively by KHCC, EA, Yorkshire Water and where appropriate ERYC. In the Asset Management Plan 5 period 2010 to 2015, Yorkshire Water plan to invest in a Network Model for Hull. This will be delivered though a multi agency approach, and will allow a detailed model to be developed, ensuring a bespoke strategy for water management in Hull.

8.4 Summary of flood risk and drainage infrastructure

The above evidence illustrates that existing flood defence infrastructure is in a very variable condition. Hard defences on the River Hull in some parts of Hull are in a poor condition; and whilst the new defences on the Humber are in good condition, the original defences are generally in a poor condition. A review of the evidence also shows that there are a number of planned improvements to flood infrastructure in Hull. These improvements relate to both fluvial flood defences (particularly for the River Hull) and also coastal flood defences (those linked to the Humber and Humber Tidal Surge Barrier). Most of these are planned for between now and 2013, with some additional investments identified up to 2017. The medium to long term

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 70 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

improvements although noted as likely policy options are not yet fully known due to ongoing research into the nature of work required. The scale of flooding in Hull and its social, economic and environmental impact is of national importance. As such, the investigation of further infrastructure required, the analysis of viable delivery mechanisms and the assessment of funding options to secure investment are on the agenda of local, regional and national government. Table 8.3: Funding Summary – Flooding and Drainage

Infrastructure Anticipated Additional information and Funding Cost

Flood Risk and £98.4m This represents the present value cost for infrastructure works on River Drainage Hull, the Humber and the Hull Tidal Surge Barrier. It has been assumed that these works will have a design life of 50 years, and as such a cost has been allowed for reconstruction/ refurbishment of the works 50 years after the initial implementation date. Table 8.4: Funding Summary – Flooding and Drainage

Infrastructure Planned Funding Funding Gap Identified

Infrastructure investment in flood Some funding confirmed by the No direct funding gap defences is planned from between 2008 Environment Agency from 2008 identified. However, to 2013, with some additional to 2013 from national flood and uncertainties remain over investment identified through to 2017. coastal defence budget funding for schemes Medium to longer term priorities are Longer term uncertainty over identified in SFRA. being assessed. funds Environment Agency’s Humber Management Strategy (2005) outlines that they initially expect the bulk of the funding needed to come from the national flood and coastal defence budget. There is a general appreciation that this budget is limited, however, and will become increasingly difficult to obtain as the effects of a changing climate cause the demand from other parts of the country to increase. EA is therefore looking for funding from other sources and in particular will seek contributions to new defence works from major beneficiaries and developers, liaising with local and regional planners as appropriate.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 71 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

9 Waste

9.1 Overview of existing waste infrastructure

KHCC is responsible for the management of all domestic waste produced in Hull. The Sustainable Waste Management Strategy (2006) notes that KHCC also offers the ability to collect and dispose of hazardous waste, commercial waste, bulky waste, and clinical waste. However it does not have a monopoly on these services with competitors free to provide these services subject to permits from the Environment Agency. KHCC has adopted a joint approach to waste management with the ERYC due to the interconnectedness of these two authorities. The two authorities have a joint waste management contract with Waste Recycling Group who is entirely responsible for the management of waste in the two areas over the length of the 25 year contract period. This contract commenced in 1999 and includes all household waste excluding Bring Site material. Waste Recycling Group owns all landfill and waste transfer stations used by the authorities and are responsible for developing the waste management infrastructure required in order to manage the Joint Authorities’ household waste. Facilities currently used for waste transfer, landfill and recycling located in Hull and the East Riding are as follows: two landfill sites currently in operation, located at Winterton (North Lincolnshire) and Gallymoor (near Market Weighton); and a Waste Transfer Station situated at Wilmington in Hull. The majority of Hull’s residual waste is currently sent to Winterton landfill in North Lincolnshire. Energy recovery is currently taking place on the landfill sites in which council waste is disposed. This involves capturing methane and using it for power generation at other sites. KHCC’s website identifies that Hull has four household waste recycling centres. These are:

• Sutton Fields Household Waste Recycling Centre;

• Wiltshire Road Household Waste and Recycling Centre;

• Burma Drive Household Waste Recycling Centre; and

• Wilmington Household Waste Recycling Centre.

This represents an increase on the number of recycling facilities documented in the 2006 Sustainable Waste Management Strategy which stated that there were only two such facilities (Burma Drive and Wilmington) available at that time. This Strategy also identified that there were 67 community recycling centres in Hull, this has now increased to 70. Domestic waste is collected via a weekly service with a new kerbside collection service for glass, cans, aerosols, foil, plastics, paper, textiles, garden and kitchen waste being introduced to all households between September 2009 and March 2010. Additionally, a free monthly paper collection service is offered to all businesses. All four of the Household Waste Recycling centres in Hull are owned by the local authority.

9.2 Provision of future waste infrastructure

9.2.1 Context In 2004, the authorities conducted a Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) appraisal to assess the environmental impact of a wide range of waste management scenarios. The various scenarios included a range of recycling and residual waste arrangements involving both proven and emerging technologies. Based on the outcome of

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 72 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

this appraisal, the authorities adopted EfW as the chosen solution to deal with residual waste after achieving a minimum recycling and composting performance of 45%. The outcome of the BPEO was enshrined in the authorities’ Joint Waste Management Strategy, Target 45+. The Joint Strategy between the two authorities was adopted in 2006. The document sets out the strategic aims and targets for waste collection, recycling and disposal over a 15 year period up to 2020. The strategy outlines that the two authorities have set a local target of recycling in excess of 45% of domestic waste by 2010. This is a higher target than that set within the RSS which specifies that 40% of waste should be recycled or composted by 2010, rising to 45% by 2015 and 50% by 2020. The RSS also sets a standard regional target across all local authorities for the recovery of municipal waste – which equates to 53% of waste by 2010, 67% by 2015, and 75% by 2020. Evidence from the Joint Waste Management Strategy reveals that the overall rate of recycling has increased significantly from a base of 7.9% in 2001/02. The most recently published data for Hull (2008 / 2009) illustrates that 25.95% of household waste was recycled or composted, with 72.11% being landfilled and 0.17% used for Energy from Waste (EfW). Although this represents one of the lowest recycling rates in the region, with a significant gap to meeting the 2010 target, the new comprehensive kerbside collection service introduced from September 2009 will improve performance towards meeting the 2010 target. The Joint Waste Management Strategy also set a target of having an Energy from Waste (EfW) plant operational by 2009/10. Although planning permission for a 240,000 tonne EfW was approved in 2007, a facility has not yet been developed and the authorities recently announced that they are not pursuing a PFI financing option because the effects of the global financial crisis have made this form of financing unaffordable. Costs have also risen as a consequence of the sterling exchange rate against the euro. The authorities remain committed to developing an EfW facility and are working with Waste Recycling Group Ltd to review funding options available to them. The proposed EfW plant will be capable of dealing with 240,000 tonnes of waste per annum and will have sufficient capacity to process the two authorities’ residual waste beyond 2026. To enable KHCC to roll out their new recycling collection service from September 2009, recyclable material is being processed at a third party Materials Recycling Facility at Aldridge, Walsall. Kitchen and garden waste is being processed at a third party In-Vessel Composting facility at Melbourne, East Yorkshire. In the medium term, a MRF capable of processing recyclables from Hull and East Riding (combined total of c50,000 tonnes per year) in the central Hull area will be required. This is in an area with significant existing waste management activity. For IVC, Waste Recycling Group have obtained planning approval for a 50,000 tonne facility capable of processing all of the organic waste collected in Hull at Gallymoor in the East Riding, next to an existing landfill site. A facility is therefore not required in Hull.

9.2.2 Planning future development The Joint Waste Management Strategy re-emphasises that service provision is planned until 2024 under the terms of the 25 year contract with Waste Recycling Group. KHCC and ERYC are also currently producing a Joint Waste Development Plan Document (DPD), which will form part of the Local Development Framework. Waste management policy in Hull has been strongly informed by the European Union Landfill Directive, or what has become known in the UK as the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS). Under this scheme each local authority has been provided with a fixed amount of biodegradebale waste that can be sent to landfill annually. For every tonne of waste that exceeds this limit a fixed level fine of £150 per tonne will be applied.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 73 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

9.3 Summary of waste infrastructure

Current provision of waste management services is provided by Waste Recycling Group under the terms of the joint contract agreed with both KHCC and ERYC. This contract runs to 2024 which is beyond the current timeframe of the Joint Waste Management Strategy developed by KHCC and ERYC. Waste Recycling Group also owns and manages all landfill and waste transfer stations used by the authorities and is responsible for developing the waste management infrastructure required in order to manage the Joint Authorities’ waste. Within the Joint Waste Management Strategy it is noted that the main options for improving waste management and the meeting of targets is through a coordinated approach with the Local Strategic Partnerships to ensure engagement with partners and communities, and that the waste strategy contributes to sustainable communities across Hull and the East Riding. The main focus is on altering behaviour and bringing about behavioural change to increase levels of recycling and move waste management practice up the waste hierarchy. Table 9.1: Summary of Waste Infrastructure

Infrastructure Planned Anticipated Costs Funding Confirmed Funding Gap Identified

Waste Recycling Group Under Landfill Committed contract No funding gap management and Allowance Trading with WRG runs to identified. service provision Scheme (LATS), 2024. Consideration required contract runs to 2024. continuing to send KHCC and ERYC for infrastructure delivery Energy from Waste waste to landfill are no longer post-2024 when WRG plant was planned to be could lead to pursuing a PFI contract runs out. operational by significant increased option to fund the 2009/2010, now unlikely costs between EfW facility and the prior to 2012. 2009/10 and 2020. authorities and WRG are now reviewing alternative funding options. Further discussions with the Environment Agency in relation to commercial waste management are needed to further understand this issue more fully. This is recognised as being a market driven service

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 74 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

10 Green Infrastructure, Open Space, Sport and Recreation

10.1 Background

Green infrastructure, open space and facilities for recreation and leisure are integral to achieving a high quality of place and are fundamental components of delivering sustainable communities. KHCC’s corporate objectives are to bring about transformational change, help improve the overall quality of place to improve the quality of the residential offer and stimulate economic competitiveness. Investment in green infrastructure and open space is critical to securing a higher quality of place. Securing investment and funding in green infrastructure and open space has historically been difficult and challenging. The main source of current investment is from public sector sources, including HCA, Yorkshire Forward, and KHCC. This funding has been supplemented with income from developer contributions secured through Section 106 agreements. In light of impending public sector spending cuts, KHCC will require a more certain mechanism for capturing developer contributions to deliver the level of green infrastructure and open space required. Current legislation sets out how local authorities can utilise a CIL to bring transparency and certainty to the funding of infrastructure. Irrespective of the long term future of CIL, it is clear that a revised approach to the way that KHCC captures developer contributions is required, so that it can utilise contributions more effectively to fund green infrastructure and open space provision.

10.2 Overview of existing green infrastructure, open space, sport and recreation

10.2.1 Context Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation states that well designed open space, supported through planning policy, can help to realise the broader objectives of:

• supporting an urban renaissance;

• promoting social inclusion and community cohesion;

• promoting health and well-being; and

• promoting more sustainable development.

Open space in Hull is planned under the auspices of several different departments within KHCC including:

• Culture and Leisure;

• Parks and Gardens; and

• Children and Young People’s Services. The provision of open space within Hull has recently been analysed in an Open Space Assessment (OSA). This document provides a detailed assessment of the open space currently available and any areas where further provision is required. The structure of the OSA is based upon the seven area committee areas as defined by KHCC 4.

4 The seven area committees aim to bring about faster decision-making, greater openness, better quality services and greater public participation in local government. The seven area committees are – Riverside Area, East Area, North Carr Area, Northern Area, Park Area, West Area, and Wyke Area. \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 75 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

PPG 17 provided the basis for the assessment to ensure that it complied with national planning guidance on this topic. In this study open space was assessed in relation to the following categories:

• parks and gardens;

• natural and semi-natural open space;

• amenity green space;

• provision for children and young people;

• outdoor sports facilities;

• allotments;

• cemeteries and churchyards;

• green corridors; and

• indoor sports facilities.

The results of this assessment demonstrate that a significant proportion of the parks and gardens found within Hull are towards the north, whilst outdoor sports facilities tend to be located to the west. Consequently, the main conclusions from the report identified several aspects where the provision of open space could be improved in terms of both quality and quantity. This was an important distinction within the results of this study, as in many instances it was deemed more appropriate to address the quality of current facilities in preference to creating new ones. At present Section 106 agreements are one of the main means of funding improvements to green infrastructure within Hull. This method forms a core means of ascertaining funds from developers to improve the quality of place in Hull. Current legislation and the CIL Regulations would restructure Section 106 and require KHCC to consider how a CIL charge could fund green infrastructure in Hull. Irrespective of the long term future of CIL, it is clear that amendments are required to the way KHCC captures and collects developer contributions towards infrastructure. If CIL does not materialise, then a thorough review of the current Section 106 mechanism would still be required so that it can be made to work more effectively in supporting infrastructure planning and delivery.

10.2.2 Parks and Gardens Within the OSA recreation grounds were included in the park and gardens category. East Park in east Hull, and Pickering Park and West Park in west Hull are the largest facilities in the city. Overall, the distribution of parks across the city is uneven with Riverside area having seven parks within its boundary and Northern area having none. The greatest current provision per 1,000 population is to be found within the Park area, which aptly contains the single largest park in Hull (East Park). In terms of quantity of provision, the residents to the south of Orchard Park, Greenwood and University Wards, all found in the Northern area, are outside of the appropriate catchment for access to parks and gardens. However, if amenity green space is factored in, the residents of the Northern area do have appropriate access to these facilities. The role of the Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields plays a particularly prominent role here in providing access to such opportunities; nevertheless as part of the BSF programme this potentially faces closure. If this closure does occur, the Northern area may require the provision of new facilities; replacing these facilities will therefore be an important consideration. Overall, the application of quantity standards suggests that Hull has sufficient provision of parks and gardens to meet demand. While the level of provision meets the needs of the \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 76 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

current population the study illustrated that it may fall slightly short of meeting future demand should the population grow. As parks and gardens were defined in the study to have a relatively large catchment area, it was identified as more important to improve the quality of parks and gardens rather than developing new facilities. The OSA revealed that the quality of parks was generally good across Hull, but that there were few excellent facilities. Only two parks have currently received the Green Flag Award, the national standard for parks and greenspace, these were East Park and Oak Road Playing Fields. Improving the quality and offer of existing facilities should also be supported through improvements to sustainable transport links to these sites to increases their accessibility. This will need to be supported by a degree of new provision in some areas, such as Northern, to ensure appropriate provision.

10.2.3 Natural and Semi-Natural Open Space Natural and semi-natural open space was defined to include woodlands, urban forestry, scrubland, grasslands, wetlands, nature reserves and wastelands. These sites fulfil the primary role of ensuring biodiversity and wildlife conservation. Such spaces had the potential to be double counted within the study due to their alternate function as parks or amenity spaces for residents. The study identified that the key priority for natural and semi-natural open space is to improve the quality of the existing sites. There are identified quantitative deficiencies in terms of the provision of natural and semi-natural open space. However, the even distribution and the accessible nature of the current range of sites means that the majority of residents fall within a catchment area. At present issues of low quality are more apparent within parts of Hull where Park, Riverside and West areas should act as a focus for improvements. The OSA set a local standard of 0.62 hectares per 1,000 people, with current provision failing to meet this level as they stand at 0.58 hectares per 1,000 people. The Riverside, Northern, and Wyke areas in particular experience a more limited supply of natural open space. The OSA recognises that providing additional natural space could be achieved through the inclusion/adaptation of space within other categories such as parks or amenity green space and therefore may not require an entirely new site to be developed.

10.2.4 Amenity Green Space This type of open space is most commonly found in residential areas. It includes informal recreation spaces and green spaces in and around housing, and fulfils a primary purpose of providing opportunities for informal activities close to home or work. Amenity green space is also often used for landscaping purposes. It can have an overlapping function with parks, recreation grounds and natural areas and provide informal opportunities for children’s play where there are no other facilities. Its role within residential areas means that the catchment area for the facilities is much smaller than for other types of provision of open space. In total, there are 168.97 hectares of amenity space across Hull. This is fairly evenly distributed with the greatest level of provision found in the East area (49.08 hectares) and the smallest in the Wyke area (4.62 hectares). In the short term, the priority for amenity spaces is to improve the quality of existing amenity spaces in all areas of Hull. However, special attention should be paid to those areas that currently experience lower quality spaces, thus particular focus should be given to Park, Riverside and Wyke areas. The OSA indicated a fundamental need for additional amenity space in five of the seven areas within Hull, with only North Carr and East having an appropriate future level of provision. The Assessment recommends that consideration in the Core Strategy should be given to new provision in the Park, Riverside and Wyke areas of Hull. Wyke in particular is \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 77 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

anticipated to have the largest deficit of amenity open space in Hull of 17.01 hectares by 2026.

10.2.5 Provision for Children and Young People PPG 17 sets out the importance of providing recreation space for children and young people. PPG 17 also highlights that the needs of young people in particular are frequently ignored, with the focus often centred on the needs of younger children. This issue was recognised in the OSA for Hull, which sub-divided the analysis into facilities for children and facilities for young people, defined as those over the age of 12. Facilities for young people comprised:

• multi use games areas (MUGAs);

• skateparks;

• basketball courts;

• youth shelters;

• informal kickabout areas; and

• BMX tracks.

The provisions of open space facilities for children and young people emerged as a particularly prominent issue through the OSA. Significantly, it was highlighted as the main issue within the public consultation phase of the study with local residents identifying deficiencies in the provision of these facilities. Across Hull there are 70 facilities for children covering a total 6.65 hectares. The majority of these facilities are distributed relatively evenly across the city. One of the main exceptions to this is the Riverside area, which has an over-representation of facilities, incorporating 22 sites. Contrastingly, the Northern area is significantly under-represented in terms of facilities, with provision equating to 0.009 hectares per 1000 population. The provision of facilities for young people appears to be insufficient to meet current needs and demand as there are currently only 34 facilities across Hull equating to 4.90 hectares. The greatest number of these facilities is located within the Park area, which has nine, whilst Northern, West and Wyke have the lowest number with only 3 sites each. There also issues surrounding the quality of the available facilities for children and young people. While the average score for Hull indicated quality to be between average and good, there were significant variations on this. The lowest recorded score for example was in the Park area and was only 24%, whereas full marks of 100% were awarded in some instances. The quality of the facilities on offer for young people also varied considerably from 20% to 100%, with the East area having the lowest average score in terms of quality. The OSA recommended the need to improve the quality of the facilities available in Hull for both children and young people to provide challenging and exciting opportunities for these groups to engage in. Additionally, the study raised the need to consider the provision of new facilities for children and young people to help address this shortfall. The areas of Wyke, West and Northern were highlighted to require new opportunities. The potential to utilise school facilities outside of school hours was also suggested by the Assessment. Meanwhile the need to improve public transport links to facilities for young people is another potential means of improving the service.

10.2.6 Outdoor Sports Facilities Outdoor sports facilities are a wide-ranging category of open space which includes both natural and artificial surfaces for sport and recreation. Facilities taken into consideration within the OSA could be owned and managed by councils, sports associations, schools and individual sports clubs. Examples facilities include:

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 78 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• playing pitches;

• athletics tracks;

• bowling greens; and

• tennis courts.

In total there are 429.40 hectares of outdoor sports facilities within Hull. These are distributed across 170 sites including school facilities. The broad-ranging nature of this category means that the size of sites ranges from 0.06 hectares to 24.04 hectares. There is a good, if spatially uneven, distribution of the range of outdoor sports facilities across Hull, with the majority of residents within a catchment area. Exceptions to this include the provision of tennis courts, synthetic pitches and bowling greens in the North Carr area. This area has a less diverse provision of facilities, with these predominantly being grass playing fields. Meanwhile, the Riverside area has the lowest amount of open space relative to the size of its population. The deficiencies that do exist in terms of the quantity of provision are anticipated to be addressed through the BSF programme, which will seek to improve the specialisms and facilities of Hull’s schools. While this will maximise the returns of the BSF programme it does raise potential conflicts relating to community access, the requirements of the school and the need to ensure the safety of children. . Addressing the issue of quality was an important dimension that emerged through consultation on the OSA; the results of which suggested this tended to be viewed as more important than quantity. The need to improve the quality of existing facilities was raised in reference to bowling greens, synthetic pitches, grass pitches and the associated support facilities that accompany these facilities across Hull.

10.2.7 Indoor Sports Facilities The OSA considered the provision of these sports facilities in Hull, specifically in relation to swimming pools, sports halls, indoor bowls and indoor tennis. There are 16 sports halls which contain at least three badminton courts (providing 71 courts in total) and an additional 13 sports halls that have either one or two courts. There are a further 20 badminton courts located at community school sites across Hull that can also be accessed by members of the surrounding communities. At present the supply of facilities does not meet the demand within the population. However, proposals under the BSF schemes will see the addition of at least five new facilities in Hull. If these facilities are delivered and are open to the wider community outside of school hours then the OSA estimates that supply will exceed demand and no further facilities will be required. The main issue that surrounds the provision of sports halls is the time taken to access these facilities by foot or public transport. Thus accessibility should be an integral element of the design of any new facilities and proposals to increase the use of existing facilities. Hull currently has 11 swimming pools in operation, which are relatively evenly distributed. Many of these facilities are deemed to be of poor quality and in need of modernisation. Through a programme of modernisation it is hoped that the rate of use of these facilities may increase, as they are currently only needing to operate at 43% of capacity. The provision of swimming pools was identified as the most acute issue for indoor sports provision. There are two indoor bowls facilities in Hull providing a total of ten rinks. While there are indications of unmet demand, the OSA consultation did not identify demand for additional bowls provision as a priority. Facilities for indoor tennis are provided at three locations in Hull; equating to 15 courts in total. Analysis completed as part of the OSA suggested that at present there may be some \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 79 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

unmet demand for these facilities currently being experienced, which requires further monitoring. If additional facilities were to be considered, the east of Hull may prove the more desirable location for new facilities due to the current bias towards the west.

10.2.8 Allotments KHCC own 22 allotment sites in Hull, which contain a total of 1768 plots. The allotment site at Newland Avenue is the largest in Hull, with 245 plots. Distribution of allotment sites is somewhat uneven with limited provision in Riverside (1), North Carr (2), Northern (1), and East (1) areas. The greatest provision per 1000 population is within the Wyke area. The OSA states that demand for allotments in Hull appears to be increasing. It recommended that additional land for the provision of allotments should be allocated in the Northern, East and Riverside areas of the city. In particular, the document highlights that the additional provision of allotments within the Newington and St Andrews wards would also have the potential to contribute to the wider HMR programme being delivered here. Concerns were raised in regard to the quality of some facilities available in Hull, which needs addressing.

10.2.9 Green Corridors Green corridors are linear routes with a primary purpose of providing opportunities for walking, cycling and horse-riding, whether for leisure purposes or travel. This category also includes footpaths along drains and riverbanks, cycleways, rights-of-way and dismantled railway lines. In line with PPG17 which states that “there is no sensible way of stating a provision standard” for green corridors, the OSA does not attempt to measure or set specific standards of provision on the provision of this type of open space. However, it does make recommendations for a city-wide effort to improve the quality of the green corridors on offer. It also acknowledges the need to create and implement a Rights of Way Improvement Plan and the need to undertake a green infrastructure assessment with conjoining local authorities.

10.2.10 Cemeteries and Churchyards In the initial stages of this work it was agreed that cemeteries would not occupy a significant part of this study. However, it should be noted that this type of open space was examined as part of the OSA, which concluded that at present there are 75 years worth of supply, assuming demand remains constant, at the Eastern and Priory Road Cemeteries. The allocation of the land at Priory Road Cemetery has made it possible to create this supply in response to demand. The OSA does observe though that demand for these facilities does need to be continually monitored and reviewed.

10.3 Provision of future green infrastructure, open space and sports and recreation

10.3.1 Overview The future provision of green infrastructure, open space, and sport and recreation could be challenging for Hull, particularly in the short term with little identified or committed funding to deliver projects. Drivers of change within Hull – an ageing population, general health and obesity trends, current under-provision of facilities in certain parts of the city, and the increasing age of existing facilities - pose real challenges for Hull in its attempts to bring about more sustainable communities and deliver on its corporate objectives. Improvements to current infrastructure and the provision of new facilities and infrastructure which have been planned are outlined below:

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 80 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

10.3.2 Hull City Centre Area Action Plan Improvements to green infrastructure and public open space are central objectives of the City Centre AAP. This document outlines that the first priority in terms of improvements to be the public realm and delivery of the City Centre Strategic Public Realm Framework. This focuses on improving the structural elements that enhance the quality of the City Centre, reinforcing its role as a Regional City. These improvements include:

• strategic walks including an east-west walk, outer walk, Inner Dock walk, Green Walk and Riverside Walk which would seek to connect key destinations though green space;

• strategic public spaces;

• new public spaces including: a major public space within Quay West; a large public plaza on the Humber Quays; a new public park on the Albert Dock, new public space at Central Dry Dock, new pocket parks as East Bank and Blaydes Dock; and a new public space at Albion Square;

• a new landscape scheme for Queen's Gardens;

• a new landscape for Queen Victoria Square;

• a reconsidered design approach at Beverley Gate;

• the development of the primary retail circuit; and

• new feature foot and cycle bridges across the River Hull.

Additionally, public realm improvements are also planned to increase the capacity and quality of existing green infrastructure and public open space and improve connectivity and movement. Overall these improvements will be made for a cost of £42.3 million.

10.3.3 West Park and Newington St. Andrew’s AAP Plans are currently being consulted on to improve the range of facilities on offer in West Park to regenerate the leisure offer for local residents and visitors. Such plans could see £7 million invested into West Park over the course of the next five to six years. Proposals under this scheme include:

• a new entrance into the park and KC Stadium from Anlaby Road, based on the original 1890's design;

• lighting displays designed to interact with park users and create a talking point;

• exciting public artworks and sculptures;

• a new ‘paddling lake' - four times the size of the existing paddling pool - incorporating an island at its heart; and

• restored historic features and bandstand.

Currently Gateway has committed £1.4 million to begin work in early 2010 on the improvements to the entrance from Anlaby Road. Meanwhile the larger plans are being consulted on to ensure that the final design reflects the public’s aspirations and needs for the site. The proposals to regenerate West Park are an integral component of the Newington St. Andrew’s AAP. The “Green Lung” proposals (see below), which will see West Park linked by new or enhanced green space to Hessle Road, will be a fundamental means of achieving the transformational change that lies at the heart of the aspirations of the AAP. This also includes plans to regenerate Massey Street Playing Fields and Boulevard Stadium. As well as plans for specific projects, the Newington and St Andrew’s AAP also identifies general public realm improvements across the whole area. The planned investment includes the provision of green spaces, accessibility improvements, and public art. A key component \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 81 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

of the package of investments is the delivery of the Green Lung which will not only serve as a amenity open and green space but will form a continues walking route linking West Park with new or enhance urban/green spaces and Hessle Road. As a total package the public realm investments are scheduled to cost £41.6million over the AAP period.

10.3.4 Holderness Road Corridor AAP The Holderness Road Corridor AAP is currently at Preferred Options stage. Although not yet subject to stakeholder consultation, the AAP does give an indication as to the approach that will be taken in relation to public open space. Green space is highlighted as one of the four guiding principles for change in the Holderness Road Corridor, and is seen as a key means of achieving transformational change in the area. This will in part be achieved by creating new green links between key open spaces, such as East Park, Holderness Drain, Ings Playing Fields (Bluebell Fields), to help improve access and to encourage movement between areas. In particular the document identifies that there is significant potential to improve the offer of existing open spaces to maximise their contribution to quality of life. The opportunity to increase the role of East Park in particular as a city park is an identified strength for the Holderness Road Corridor area. Meanwhile strengthening the role of Craven Park as a venue for leisure activity and open space will also improve the provision of public open space infrastructure in Hull more widely. Strengthening the offer of green space in the area is considered to be a fundamental to stimulating housing market renewal in the area. This document identifies that these improvements will be delivered by KHCC, Gateway and its partners and developer contributions.

10.4 Other programmed investments for green infrastructure, open space, sport and recreation

10.4.1 Building Schools for the Future Programme The Building Schools for the Future (BSF) Outline Business Case includes a sports strategy that highlights the sports requirements for the programme and the potential opportunities of further investment from the Sports Governing Bodies. The outline business case is still being progressed by KHCC and partners and will be progressed further with the Selected Partner for the BSF programme. In terms of the curriculum requirements for mainstream secondary schools under BSF, the elements of provision which will be funded through the core BSF funding are summarised below. Any provision over and above this for which there is a clear community need will have to be funded outside the BSF programme through other Council capital, sale of assets, prudential borrowing, grant-aid etc. In new schools of over 450 places, BSF will therefore deliver the following minimum provision at each of the schools:

• a main hall sufficient for assemblies of at least half the school at one time, examinations, public performances, parents evenings and community events;

• a four badminton court hall, which should be designed to Sport England’s specification, including the critical dimensions (18m x 33m x 7.6m);

• an activity studio of at least 145m2, with a minimum internal width of 10m and height of 3.5m and a sprung floor, suitable for some gymnastics activities, dance and examinations if required;

• playing fields area falls into a number of categories; sports pitches, game courts, soft informal and social, hard informal and social and habitat areas;

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 82 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• in terms of sports pitches core requirements are to provide the equivalent of 7 pitches, configured to meet curriculum needs e.g. winter pitches for preferred team games and overlapping summer pitches for athletics, cricket etc;

• synthetic turf pitches can be provided for up to half size (60m x 50m) and would be counted twice in terms of pitch numbers, due to the intensive use;

• a multi-use games area, with 3 netball courts overlaid with critical dimensions of 60m x 33m and further tennis and netball courts; and

• ancillary provision: indoor changing, outdoor changing, reception area, toilets, office and storage all separate to the school to service community use.

10.4.2 Play Builder Initiative As part of the Department of Children Schools and Families (DCSF) Play Builder Initiative, KHCC have been awarded £1.1 million capital and approximately £45,000 revenue funding to spend on play spaces in Hull. This investment will be delivered within a two year timeframe between April 2009 and March 2011. This money will be utilised to develop a minimum of 22 play facilities across Hull. Play spaces could incorporate natural features, fixed equipment and adventure play which may be developed by significantly refurbishing existing parks, or developing new sites, such as pocket parks, routes to schools, and natural sites/ areas of land. In selecting the locations for these improvements, local need was a strong consideration and heavily informed this process. A key ambition of the project is to create spaces that are challenging, engaging and exciting for the children and young people of Hull aged between eight and 13. An integral means of achieving this is envisaged to be involving these groups and local communities in the design of these facilities.

10.4.3 Facilities Investment Schedule KHCC has embarked on a study which is being supported by the Sport England ''Facility Improvement Service''. The study will provide an evidence base and a strategic framework for decisions to be taken by KHCC about investments in facilities used for sport and recreation (such as swimming pools and sports halls). The emerging ''Facility Investment Strategy'' will complement the finalised open space assessment and will also be used to inform the LDF helping put forward a new approach to place-shaping for different parts of Hull. The Facilities Investment Schedule (FIS) shows that Hull has a reasonably good ''quantity'' of swimming pools and sports halls, but the ''quality'' of these facilities is the major concern. Most of the existing facilities are already beyond their economic life expectancy and when compared to modern leisure centres, all of the facilities in Hull are relatively energy inefficient, costly to operate and have increasingly high repair and maintenance costs. The FIS outlines that by 2026 all of the existing swimming pools and leisure centres will be well beyond their life expectancy. Condition surveys indicate that over £1.3m per annum over the next five years will need to be invested in essential repairs alone - just to keep the existing swimming pools, leisure centres and arena ''fit for purpose’’. This cost does not include any investment for facility improvements or major refurbishments which might encourage and increase participation. As the existing facilities become less and less attractive, utilisation levels will continue to decline. In total over the next five years, the seven existing leisure facilities noted in the FIS will demand around £23.5m in Council funding - Including essential repairs and other subsidies. Older facilities are less attractive to the very sections of the Hull community who are the least active - such as young women. KHCC has declared ambitious plans to increase participation in Sport and Healthy Physical activity - not least to address health inequalities. For these plans to be realised, Hull will need to have a range of modern, attractive and

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 83 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

accessible swimming pools and leisure centres which are well designed and well located. By early 2010, the results of a series of modelling exercises will be available which will show how local needs can be met in the future, and beyond 2026. New facilities which are being built as part of the Building Schools for the Future programme will help to meet future needs for indoor sports, but generally these facilities will have limited community access and so they are only part of the long term solution. The FIS identifies that investment in new facilities will be costly, but that ''whole of life'' costs of new facilities will be lower when compared to the existing / older swimming pools and leisure centres, and that prudent investment in new facilities will reduce overall costs in the long term. Evidence from the FIS shows that new leisure centres can generate more income than old ones because they offer better facilities (especially for health and fitness) and are less expensive to operate because they require less maintenance and are more energy efficient. Sports and Leisure facilities can play an increasingly important role in the transformational agenda for Hull; by improving health, reducing crime, improving social inclusion and leading the physical and social regeneration of the City Centre and other areas of Hull.

10.5 Summary of green, sport and recreation infrastructure

The Open Space Assessment, along with current plans and strategies show that delivery, management and investment in green infrastructure, open space and sport and recreation is a complex and challenging issue for Hull. In summary there is a deficit in overall current provision, current facilities are ageing and require significant maintenance and upkeep, and committed funding to deliver increased provision and/or new facilities is in short supply. To this extent, major decisions are required on an approach to deliver tangible health and well-being benefits, enhance the overall quality of place in Hull, and also bring about transformational change. Decisions are made all the more difficult when projects are within the wider context of helping shape regeneration in certain parts of Hull. These problems are acknowledged by the KHCC and the development of the FIS by the Culture and Leisure Department is driving the agenda. The finalisation of the strategy should help to understand the gap and begin to outline options for future provision and may also facilitate the commitment of funding to ensure the maintenance and necessary improvements to existing stock. There is the potential to use developer contribution to improve the provision of green infrastructure, open space and sport and recreation in Hull. As noted above, the rationale for seeking contributions through KHCC introducing a CIL is to utilise payments to drive up the quality of place across the city, stimulate improvements to the quality of the residential offer, support housing market renewal and encourage greater economic competitiveness. Introducing a CIL charge for green infrastructure, open space, and sport and recreation will require a well thought out approach. Further work is required to ensure that KHCC strikes an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding green infrastructure and open space from CIL; and the potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 84 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Table 10.1: Summary of green infrastructure, open space, and sport and recreation

Infrastructure Planned To Anticipated Costs Funding Confirmed Funding Gap Identified

Delivery set out in KHCC’s Costs set out in AAPs: DCSF Playbuilder fund £55.6m in the AAPs: Newington and St commits £1.1m over three AAP Newington and St. Andrew’s AAP = £41.6m two years (2009 to areas* 2011). Andrew’s AAP sets out City Centre = £42.3m infrastructure planning to Hull Gateway Holderness Road Corridor 2024. committed £1.3m for = £9.2m projects in NASA AAP Holderness Road Corridor Total Costs = £93.1m area. AAP sets out infrastructure planning to 2024. Existing sports and recreation facilities as set City Centre AAP sets out out in FIS = £1.3m per infrastructure planning to annum in repairs and 2016. maintenance * This is based on a series of assumptions made regarding funding for green infrastructure and public realm in the AAPs. These documents identify that funding for public realm improvements will be delivered through a combination of capital receipts, the private sector and the public sector. Assumptions have been made regarding how much of the total cost of public realm improvements will be met through capital receipts, including:

• Using 50% of the total capital receipts from the Newington and St Andrew’s AAP (circa £12.5m) to reduce the NaSA AAP funding gap to £29.1m. (The £29.1m gap includes £5m for West Park);

• Using 25% of the total capital receipts from the Holderness Road Corridor AAP (circa £5m) to reduce the HRC AAP funding gap to £4.2m; and

• Using £20m of committed Hull Forward funds to deliver public realm in the City Centre AAP, leaving a funding gap of £22.3m for City Centre AAP.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 85 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

11 Health Provision

11.1 Overview of existing healthcare services provision

The Hull Teaching Primary Care Trust (PCT) purchases public healthcare for Hull’s residents. The PCT receives money from the Department of Health and pays for services from: hospitals, Humber Mental Health, specialist out-of-area providers, GPs, pharmacies, dentists, opticians as well as PCT direct provision. This is illustrated in Figure 1 below. Figure 11.1: Summary of health care provision

Department of Health

Provides funding to local PCT

PCT

Commissions all primary health care in city

GP’s, Dentists, PCT – district Humber Mental Specialist (Out of Hospital (Trust) Pharmacies, nursing and Health area services) Opticians other

Source: Eye It should be noted that the PCT direct provision (which includes district nurses) is in the process of being separated from the PCT into a different organisation, which will be self governed. The PCT will then be purely a purchaser of health care and not a provider.

11.1.1 Hospitals The hospital service provision within Hull is managed by Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust. This is one of the largest acute Trusts in England with a turnover of over £444 million per year and employing over 8,000 staff. There are two main hospitals as well as the smaller Princess Royal Hospital. It should be noted that the majority of services delivered at Princess Royal Hospital have now transferred to Castle Hill Hospital (East Riding of Yorkshire) and the hospital has now been decommissioned. Hull Royal Infirmary - Hull Royal Infirmary is one of the two main hospitals for Kingston upon Hull (the other being Castle Hill Hospital). The hospital is based on Anlaby Road just outside of the City Centre. The hospital provides the accident and emergency department for Hull, extensive inpatient care, an intensive care unit, pharmacy, laboratories, a High Dependency Unit, radiology, operating theatres, mortuary and outpatient facilities. On the same site are the Hull and East Yorkshire Women and Children's Hospital and the Hull and East Yorkshire Eye Hospital. The East Riding Medical Education Centre is located within the grounds of Hull Royal Infirmary. Castle Hill Hospital –Castle Hill Hospital is based at Cottingham in the East Riding. This centre provides outpatient care covering cardiology outpatients, antenatal, women’s health services, breast screening, ECG, plastic surgery outpatient department and other therapies.

11.1.2 GP Surgeries Within the boundaries of KHCC there are around 120 practicing GPs. Hull has a lower GP per head of population relative to the national average. This is partly due to difficulty in attracting GPs to practice in Hull, and partly to a reduced level of demand for health services

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 86 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

from Hull’s population, which is attributed to relatively low aspirations for health and well- being. Therefore despite having fewer GPs per head of population, it is not necessarily the case that supply of services is not meeting demand.

11.1.3 Dentists Within Hull there are a mixture of private dental practices and NHS practices. There are in total c.30 NHS dental practices that are funded through the PCT.

11.1.4 Health Centres In addition to (and in some cases replacing) the existing health centres within Hull there is an identified need for new centres that provide modern facilities for a variety of PCT funded services. Across the country there is a drive to provide one-stop-shop health centres that serve local community needs. These can offer a variety of services such as GP surgeries, dentists, opticians, pharmacies, counselling services and district nursing within the same building. These will provide a more holistic approach to primary care. There is also a benefit in providing a critical mass of facilities which makes the provision of new infrastructure more efficient and can make PFI finance feasible. On behalf of the PCT, many of these new centres are being provided by the Hull Citycare Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). Hull has already overseen the delivery of six LIFT centres with a combined investment of over £35m. These are:

• Newington Health Centre;

• Marfleet Primary Health Centre;

• Alexandra Health Centre;

• Park Health Care Centre;

• Longhill Health Care Centre; and

• Calvert Lane Health Care Centre.

In addition there are three LIFT health care scheme that are under construction and due to open in 2009. These are:

• The Orchard Centre;

• Kingswood Health Centre; and

• Bilton Grange.

After procurement and delivery is secured for the above LIFT centres, no further rounds of new LIFT centres are planned.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 87 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Figure 11.2: New Orchard Centre

11.1.5 Opticians and pharmacies There are many pharmacies and opticians across Hull. Whilst the PCT pays for elements of their service, they are privately run and commercially driven services. Future provision and planning for future delivery is therefore not something that the PCT gets involved with. If there was a future need for a pharmacy or opticians due to population growth, it would be expected that the market would respond to this demand. The delivery of new facilities would be paid for by the private operators, with the PCT then supporting service delivery from the new facility.

11.1.6 Out-of-area providers For specialist treatment the PCT may pay out-of-area providers. These are varied and geographically spread throughout the UK, although where possible the PCT will look to the closest provider. Due to these specialist out-of-area providers being beyond the influence of Hull and serving national markets, we do not mention them any further in this study.

11.1.7 Mental Health The delivery of mental health care in Hull is through the Humber Mental Health trust. The Trust has an annual turnover approaching £80m and employs nearly 2000 staff. The main physical infrastructure of the Mental Health trust is The Humber Centre. This comprises four parts, these are:

• the Humber Centre main hospital which is a 32-bed medium secure forensic unit for adults with a range of mental health difficulties;

• the County Unit which is a 10-bed unit which provides care for adults with mental health problems who also have a learning disability;

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 88 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• the Greentrees centre which is a 15-bed unit for adults who need long term forensic care; and

• a medium secure 4-bed community preparation unit.

In addition to services run from these centres, the Mental Health Trust provide an in-reach service for prisoners with mental health difficulties, the Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU which is a 12-bed unit and provides treatment in a specialist environment for people who require an enhanced level of specialist care for a short period of time) and a diversion from custody service.

11.1.8 Provision of future healthcare infrastructure

Hospitals The Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust is in the middle of a £250m capital investment programme. Facilities that have already opened include:

• £48m Heart and Surgical facility at Castle Hill;

• £12m Medical Research and Day Surgery Unit; and

• £67m Oncology and Haematology Centre.

In addition the Trust purchased the former Nuffield Hospital on its Castle Hill site for £10m last July and has transferred its Breast Surgery patients to that building. We have assumed as part of this study that the £250m needed to deliver the programme above is secured and that there are no further infrastructure investments planned. These assumptions have not been confirmed by the NHS Trust and should therefore be treated with caution.

Mental Health Through the Humber Mental Health Trust capital investment is secured from NHS Hull to modernise and rebuild inpatient facilities for learning disability patients. In March 2010 two new units at the Willerby Hill site will open, including:

• a Personality Disorder Unit: a 15-bed medium secure inpatient unit for patients who require forensic care and who have a primary diagnosis of personality disorder; and

• a Learning Disability Unit: a reprovision and relocation of the existing learning disability service to provide care for 12 inpatients. This will create a dedicated service for learning disability patients.

Through desk based research we have not found any further plans for expansion or improvements to the Mental Health trusts facilities although this position has not been confirmed by the trust themselves.

Local Improvement Finance Trust Centres In addition to the completed or ongoing developments outlined above, the PCT is planning a number of new LIFT centres. The most progressed development plans of the PCT are:

• a new Primary Care facility in the City Centre on Albion Street. This will provide sexual health and homeless care. It will provide GP Healthcare to non-registered users. It is estimated to cost £12.2m and will open in 2 years;

• Kingswood Integrate Care. Subject to planning consent, this centre will be a 5,500 sq m community hospital. It will cost at least £12.5m. It is proposed to open in Easter 2012; and

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 89 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• Bransholme, North Point shopping centre. Re-provision of existing facilities to accommodate 10 independent contractors. 3,500 sq m at a cost of £7-8m, planning to open in summer 2012.

The PCT is also looking to develop three further LIFT centres for which the plans are yet to be finalised. Current intentions are the re-provision of what is currently on Marmaduke Street, a 2,500 sq m centre at Springhead which would accommodate large GP practices and the re-provision of Morrill Street centre. The costs and timings of these developments are as yet to be finalised. The capital costs of these centres would be paid for by Private Finance sought by Hull Citycare which has an exclusive arrangement to deliver all future schemes, subject to continued ability to deliver value for money. The PCT will then repay Hull Citycare over a 25 year period from its revenue funding. The PCT do not foresee any funding gaps occurring that would prevent the delivery of these future schemes. These projects therefore provide an important opportunity to improve healthcare provision, without requiring additional public sector funding. The PCT do not foresee or have planned any other major capital projects beyond the next five years and the delivery of the LIFT centres listed above.

11.2 Summary of healthcare infrastructure

11.2.1 Planning future development The PCT has planned the infrastructure required to deliver primary care up until 2019. As healthcare is delivered to individual residents, rather than households, these calculations are based on population projections. The population projections are sourced from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). These are the same projections as used by KHCC when planning school provision. These projections take account of projected birth and death rates as well as inward and outward migration. The Office for National Statistics projections are based on current levels of population and then projected forward using death rates, birth rates and net immigration estimates until 2019. The ONS projections show a trajectory of on average c.2,000 more people in Hull per annum. There is therefore a gap in planning for provision between 2019 and the planning period for this study of 2026, and a possible gap should the planned development in Hull create a population growth significantly different from the ONS projections. The PCT also stressed it would be very difficult to plan provision for future development because the market would dictate how quickly new developments would be delivered, and to predict the market in 10 years time would be impossible. The PCT stated that where there is known large-scale development they would informally acknowledge it within their population projections and planning. For example they have planned service delivery taking into account proposed future development at Kingswood. The PCT made clear that due to the LIFT centres being delivered via a PFI contract, it would be impossible to reconfigure these services geographically for the next 25 years. However, if there was an increase in population between 2019 and 2026 that demanded an increase in the primary care capacity of the city, then the PCT stated that this would not necessarily require an increase in the physical infrastructure. Capacity could be increased by accommodating more GPs within the existing surgeries (in which there is some spare capacity designed in) or by extending opening hours of the various facilities. Without preparing detailed projections, the PCT are unable to confirm when the existing facilities would be saturated and when new facilities might be required, but it is anticipated that this would be significantly beyond 2026 due to the 25 year PFI period. Accordingly it is

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 90 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

not anticipated that funding for new physical healthcare infrastructure needs to be identified within the study period. Under the patient choice agenda, all patients have a choice as to where they wish to receive their care - both primary and secondary. Realistically, the LIFT scheme in the City Centre (now the Wilberforce Health Centre) is likely to attract East Riding residents as it has a GP- led health centre for both registered and non-registered patients, which will be a new list and open to people who work in Hull. There will also be specialist services provided from that site. The PCT is also developing an integrated care centre in the Kingswood area, which will provide care which might previously have been provided from Hull Royal Infirmary or Castle Hill Hospital. As this is accessible to the East Riding, it is anticipated that it might attract some attendees from those populations but the provision has not been "planned" on this basis. It is anticipated that in addition to the PCT funded healthcare provision, privately funded provision will be developed when and where it is required by the market. Whilst the PCT is not aware of any planned development by the University, we have not been able to confirm this directly with the University.

11.2.2 Funding Table 11.1: Funding Summary – Hospitals

Infrastructure Planned To Funding Confirmed To Funding Gap Identified

No gap identified. In practice 2019 No gap identified. some of this investment will come from Government and other sources Table 11.2: Funding Summary – LIFT programme

Infrastructure Planned To Funding Confirmed To Funding Gap Identified

Planned to 2019 with additional Costs yet to be finalised. No gap identified. capacity offering potential scope Funding to be sourced via to meet anticipated needs for 25 Private Finance. There is a year PFI concession period. partnering arrangement in place and no anticipated shortfall in funding. Table 11.3: Funding Summary – Other PCT funded provision

Infrastructure Planned To Funding Confirmed To Funding Gap Identified

Infrastructure planned using No other major development No gap identified, although projections up until 2019. anticipated. PCT trying to pool health needs beyond 2019 not other services via LIFT Health currently identified. Care centres

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 91 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

12 Emergency Services

12.1 Overview of existing infrastructure provision

This section reviews the current provision of emergency services infrastructure within Hull. For the purposes of this study, emergency services include the provision of fire services, police services and ambulance services.

12.1.1 Fire and Rescue Service The provision of fire and rescue services within Hull is undertaken by Humberside Fire and Rescue Services (HFRS). The operational area covered by HFRS also includes the unitary authority areas of the East Riding of Yorkshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire. Each of the four unitary authority areas covered by HFRS has its own Central Protection Unit. The HFRS headquarters is located in Hessle, within the administrative local authority boundary of East Riding of Yorkshire. The aim of establishing CPUs is to bring risk reduction into the local communities more effectively. By design, a CPU is not an individual station or building, but an administrative area encompassing groups of stations. The CPU concept creates a platform from which to launch prevention initiatives directly into the community, work more effectively with partners, ensuring a multi-agency approach, as well as providing an administrative structure and base service delivery. In total, the HFRS employs 1034 operational personnel, 30 Control Room staff and 220 support staff. These work from the 31 fire stations, offices and workshops strategically located across the four unitary authority areas. There are currently 5 fire stations located within the local authority boundary of Hull, situated in Hull North, Hull West, Hull Central, Hull East, and Bransholme.

12.1.2 Police Service The provision of police services within Hull is undertaken by Humberside Police (HP). As a force, HP covers the districts of North-East Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire, and the East Riding of Yorkshire, along with the urban area of Kingston-upon-Hull. There are four Basic Command Units (BCUs) or Divisions, which are almost coterminous with the local authority area boundaries. The Divisions consist of teams based at Neighbourhood Policing Team buildings situated throughout each area and clustered response teams and investigation teams. Humberside Police employs 2116 police officers, 1,741 police staff, 335 Police Community Support Officers and 355 special constables (as of 30 November 2008). Services in Kingston upon Hull are delivered by D Division, with headquarters based at Queens Gardens in central Hull. The D Division in Hull is split into seven Neighbourhood Policing Areas – Riverside, East, Park, North Carr, Northern, West, and Wyke, which broadly correspond to area committee boundaries. Each Neighbourhood Policing Area is made up of a number of Neighbourhood Teams covering areas of Hull which broadly correspond with ward area boundaries.

12.1.3 Ambulance Service The provision of ambulance services in Hull is carried out by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust. The Yorkshire Ambulance Service (YAS) was formed on 1 July 2006 bringing together South Yorkshire Ambulance Service, West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service and the North and East Yorkshire parts of Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service. The Yorkshire Ambulance Service employs 3,900 staff, over 80% of whom are operational and working on the frontline. Headquarters for the YAS are located in Wakefield, with the

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 92 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

service operating from 61 ambulance stations located across the county running over 435 emergency vehicles and over 520 patient transport service (PTS) vehicles. Service delivery in Kingston upon Hull is currently delivered through Ambulance Stations at Osborne Street in central Hull and Sutton Fields in north Hull. Both of these stations sit within the Hull Teaching Primary Care Trust boundary area. The provision of services in Hull is not restricted to the two stations in Hull; given the nature of the YAS, there is effective cross-boundary working drawing on resources and ambulance stations in East Riding of Yorkshire as and when required.

12.2 Provision of future emergency service infrastructure

12.2.1 Fire and Rescue Service The future provision of service by HFRS has been indentified through the Strategic Plan 2009 – 2012, the Integrated Risk Management Plan 2009 – 2012, and the Medium Term Financial Plan 2009 – 2012. These documents work in conjunction to outline the short term aspirations for HFRS. To identify target areas to deliver services, and to identify at risk areas (and communities), HFRS uses the Fire Service Emergency Cover Toolkit (FSECT). The FSECT is a software- based toolkit which can be used to assist fire services and fire authorities to reduce the number of fatalities and casualties in their area. The FSECT can also be used to identify, and hence help to reduce, the number of people at significant risk and the amount of property, environment and heritage at significant risk from fire and other emergencies within the community. To achieve this aim, FSECT provides a way of undertaking a robust and evidence-based assessment of the risks from fires and other incidents within an area. The use of FSECT allows a consistent approach which has been thoroughly tested and independently validated. FSECT is based upon a geographical information system and uses bespoke software to calculate the probable losses based on a particular set of response strategies in terms of lives lost and property costs. Evidence from the FSECT has been used to classify the ‘at risk’ groups and locations within Hull. This information has in turn shaped the location of HFRS’ stations and informed their future plans and strategies. The plans and strategies put in place, plus a commitment to multi-agency working alongside the Primary Care Trust, Humberside Police and the Local Strategic Partnership identify that the current service provision offered by HFRS will meet the current and future demands linked to housing and economic growth forecast by KHCC. As with other public sector organisations, HFRS is facing possible funding cuts of up to 15% between 2011 and 2014. This cut to funding, plus greater efficiencies outlined in plans and strategies, indicates that no new station buildings or fire service infrastructure will be provided in the short term. The station at Hull Central is to be closed down, with a replacement built on a new site at Blundells Corner, off Beverley Road.

12.2.2 Police Service Humberside Police have an adopted Estates Strategy which was published in 2006. The broad objective for future service provision is to achieve a more efficient utilisation of resources, creating efficiencies which generate savings that can be reinvested back to increase capacity (being able to do more) and improve the service being delivered. These efficiency measures include changing processes, team structures and the workforce mix, for example converting some police officer posts to police staff, performing tasks that do not require police powers. The budget set by the Police Authority for 2009/10 is £183.886 million. The budget is fixed in the context of a five-year medium term financial strategy which will govern the approach to managing resources over that timescale, identifying the expected funding and cost

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 93 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

pressures. The strategy also identifies indicative budgets of £185.756 million in 2010/11 and £188.638 million in 2011/12. The Force’s planned use of resources is based on these budgets. Humberside Police will continue to invest responsibly in the development of the corporate estate. A new divisional headquarters for Hull (D Division) which will incorporate a major custody facility is to be located at Clough Road. Work started during 2008/2009 and is expected to be complete during 2011/12. The cost of this significant project is £26.39 million. Overall, and particularly in the short to medium term, Humberside Police is looking to rationalise its current estate and buildings. This process will include a reassessment of the geographic location of buildings so as to cater for the demands of population growth, key growth locations and changing demographics and area profiles. The Police Authority has also agreed a Capital Programme of £8.796million for 2009/2010. This includes investment on estates (£3.748million), vehicles/equipments (£1.622million), and IT/communications (£3.426million).

12.2.3 Ambulance Service The Yorkshire Ambulance Service has carried out a number of assessments to understand the key factors driving future demand. The research makes demand projections for emergency incidents over the next five years. It utilises historical trend information for emergency calls across the county’s former Ambulance Trusts, as well as YAS, to produce an overall expectation of future demand. The results show the following:

• Demand will increase annually for both A&E and Patient Transport services;

• There is a high correlation between demand and population at the PCT level; and

• The Yorkshire population will increase by around 3.75% between 2009 and 2013.

The research concluded that there is no relationship between the age profile of a population and its propensity for generating emergency demand. Nevertheless, there is a high correlation between demand and population at the PCT level. Therefore, differential rates of increase in population at PCT level can be expected to result in corresponding differential rates of increase in emergency demand. Demand projections for each category of emergency demand were produced based on the following population projections: Table 12.1: Population Growth by PCT and Yorkshire and Humber (2009 to 2013)

Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Change (%)

Hull PCT 262.3 264.5 266.8 269.1 271.3 3.4%

Y& H Total 4954.7 5001.1 5047.6 5094.2 5140.4 3.7% Investment in improving the Estate to cope with additional demand is expensive, takes time and is complex. In order to continue to deliver a changing mix and pattern of services, it will be necessary to maintain and upgrade current premises whilst a programme of strategic replacement is carried through. The top priorities for refurbishment will be built into the Trust’s Capital Plan, making use of the limited sums available for this purpose. Funds for strategic development are scarce. Where appropriate, YAS is currently engaged with LIFT projects for investment linked to Primary Care premises. The other principal sources of funding for investment are Private Finance through PPP schemes or specific development packages with developers interested in acquiring elements of the YAS Estate. The availability of this source of funding may mean that the

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 94 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

pace of investment in the Estate can be much faster than would be the case if the Trust had to rely on NHS capital funding alone. In considering how the Estate will support front line service delivery in the future, the operational model for Kingston upon Hull will come under the “Hub and Spoke Model” applicable to all towns and cities. This model moves YAS away from the traditional station- based model of delivery. The Hub and Spoke Model of delivery is designed to allow for the efficient delivery of vehicle and staff support whilst maximising the appropriate distribution of the available response vehicles at all times to ensure the most effective response for patients. A ‘Hub’ will be based at a strategic location to appropriately support the distribution of vehicles to ‘Spoke’ facilities from where the vehicles will respond. The Hub will be designed to support a flow of work as vehicles and staff, start or end their shift. If a Hub is in a good location a ‘Five Star Response Point’ will be provided. Hubs will feed vehicles out to strategically located Five Star Response Points from which the vehicles will be responded to meet patient need. Currently, funding comes via the Strategic Health Authority, but the Yorkshire Ambulance Service is seeking Foundation Trust status next year. Any future demand in rapid response facilities in Hull in the medium to longer term will be demand led, with expansion not currently budgeted for. Investment in Hull is taking place with the provision of a Hub and Spoke Fleet Workshop on the west side of the river, both of which will be operational by the end of 2009. Another Hub facility to the east of the river will be fully commissioned early next year. Typical costs associated with a rapid response facility are approximately £35,000 - £40,000.

12.3 Summary of emergency service infrastructure

The overall approach for emergency services is to develop efficiency within existing provision, buildings and infrastructure. Although this does not preclude the provision of new infrastructure, the reasons for new provision are as part of modernisation, improving efficiency and maximising effectiveness. Plans and strategies across all emergency services have short to medium term time horizons, and all recognise the current economic recession poses long term implications for investment and delivery of services. Humberside Police is in the process of developing a new Strategic Business Case to update their Estates Strategy; Yorkshire Ambulance Service has modelled demand up to and including 2013, as well as rolling-out its Hub and Spoke Model for future service delivery; and the Humber Fire and Rescue Service has plans and strategies in place to cater for demand and service provision up to and including 2012.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 95 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Table 12.2: Summary of Fire and Rescue Infrastructure Provision

Infrastructure Planned To Funding Confirmed To Funding Gap Identified

Strategic Plan, Integrated Risk Funding for future service No direct funding gap. Further Management Plan, and Medium delivery pegged to central consideration required as to Term Financial Plan identify government formula grant, medium to longer term funding provision up to and including Council Tax precept and beyond 2012. 2009 – 2012. All plans and collection funds. strategies are updated annually.

Table 12.3: Summary of Police Infrastructure Provision

Infrastructure Planned To Funding Confirmed To Funding Gap Identified

Humberside Police currently Funding for future service No funding gap. Further developing Strategic Business delivery pegged to central consideration required as to Case for future service government formula grant, medium to longer term funding provision. Council Tax precept and beyond 2012. collection funds. West Yorkshire Police Authority budgets set to 2011/12.

Table 12.4: Summary of Ambulance Service Infrastructure Provision

Infrastructure Planned To Funding Confirmed To Funding Gap Identified

Yorkshire Ambulance Service Funding for future service No funding gap. Further has modelled demand up to delivery comes from Strategic consideration required as to 2013. Hub and Spoke Model Health Authority. medium to longer term funding developed for towns and cities. If successful in gaining beyond 2013. Foundation Trust Status, Yorkshire Ambulance Service will have greater independence in determining funding and investment strategy.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 96 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

13 Education

13.1 Overview of existing education infrastructure

In this section we provide an overview of the learning infrastructure in place in Hull and what is planned in the future. Reflecting the Government drive towards ‘life long learning’ and ‘widening participation’, there is a broad range of education providers meeting the needs of people of all ages and people with all levels of education needs. This includes:

• early years;

• primary schools;

• secondary schools;

• Further Education (Covering both 16-19 provision but also Adult Education provided by colleges or KHCC);

• Higher Education;

• private schools; and

• private training institutes.

Reflecting the breadth of services available, the delivery of these services is managed and funded from different sources. Early year provision is funded by KHCC and is provided with the necessary funding by central government. The revenue funding for primary and secondary schools primarily comes from the Local Education Authority which sits within the Council. 16-19 and most of the Adult Education is funded through the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Higher Education funding comes from Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and students as well as businesses involved in commercial research. Private Training Institutes are funded primarily by student fees or employers, however some will also manage contracts on behalf of the public sector and thus receive funding from bodies such as Job Centre Plus, Yorkshire Forward or the LSC. This is illustrated in the Figure below.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 97 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Figure 13.1: Overview of existing education infrastructure delivery

Department for Communities Schools and Families

Provides funding to various bodies to administer education provision locally

Hull City Council LSC HEFCE

Higher Education Further Education – Early years Secondary (University of Primary schools including: colleges , education schools Hull and SFCs and Hull CC as colleges) provider of adult education

Other funding sources Which is especially important for Higher Education where funding also comes from student tuition fees, commercial enterprise, private investment and sponsorship

Source: Eye As this Study is aimed at looking at what infrastructure the public sector will be required to fund, we assume that the Private Schools and Private Training Institutes will not require intervention by the public sector and we therefore do not mention them any further. This however is not intended to down-play their crucial role. We should also mention that in terms of Higher Education (HE) provision, from here on we concentrate on the University of Hull whilst recognising there are other HE providers in Hull (in the form of Lincoln University and Hull College), as the University of Hull is the largest and most significant provider..

13.2 Early years education provision

13.2.1 Current Provision Every child in Hull is entitled to a free nursery education place, starting from the term after their third birthday. The free place is for 12.5 hours a week and 38 weeks a year. Providers of Early Years education includes:

• registered childminders;

• private day nurseries;

• maintained nurseries;

• playgroups; and

• pre-school (i.e. primary schools offering early years provision).

At January 2006, there were three maintained nursery schools in Hull and nursery units at 55 primary schools offering Early Years provision.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 98 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

13.2.2 Planned future proposals Through desk-based research, we could find no evidence of significant development plans for public sector run nurseries. We have however assumed that the pre-school provision would form part of the Primary School development plans. We have also assumed the market is well positioned to respond to population growth and an increase in demand for early years provision.

13.2.3 Planning future early years provision Unfortunately we have been unable to obtain details as to how early years infrastructure is planned.

13.3 Primary schools provision

13.3.1 Current primary school provision There are currently 71 primary schools in Hull, providing education for nearly 24,000 pupils. Over recent years there has been an effort to reduce surplus capacity in the primary school provision which has come about from a reduction in birth rates and a net outward migration of families. This has resulted in 6 schools closing since 2006. The 71 primary schools are dispersed relatively evenly throughout Hull with most serving a local catchment area but with some voluntary aided schools serving wider catchment areas. It is important to remember that the ‘travel to school’ patterns for primary schools are much different than for secondary schools. Primary schools pupils, because of their age, are more dependent on their parents. They are therefore unable to take public transport or walk unaccompanied. This requires that primary school provision is much more localised. Whereas secondary schools, to some degree, represent citywide capacity, primary schools represent the neighbourhood capacity for primary education. Anecdotally, the quality of primary school provision is reasonable in Hull with the flight of students that occurs at secondary level not occurring at primary school age. In recent years, there has been significant planning and important initiatives to raise primary school standards, and to achieve results that compare favourably with other areas. This will be continued via the Primary School Capital Programme mentioned below.

13.3.2 Planned primary schools development There is a recognised need to invest in primary school facilities across Hull in order to improve the quality of facilities and in turn the quality of services that can be delivered from them. There is also a continued need, notwithstanding the closure of schools referred to above, to further rationalise current primary school provision as there remains a surplus of primary school places and this is predicted to continue with demand for places predicted to fall. Investment in primary schools over the next 15 years will be at a rate of approximately £3m per annum. This will be channelled through the Primary School Investment Programme which will be managed by the KHCC’s BSF team, who are also responsible for the implementation of the secondary schools’ BSF programme. The exact details of the Primary Schools Investment Programme are being developed at the same time as we are producing this study and we cannot therefore comment further on them. The programme will be paid for by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). Of the £45m mentioned above, £3.2m is confirmed for 2009/10 and £5.8m for 2010/11. The remaining funding is not secured. Since the timescales for the primary school programme is anticipated to span fifteen years, it is not possible to secure funding that far in advance due to the three year Comprehensive

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 99 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Spending Review cycles. Therefore whilst some of the funding in later years is not secured, it does not necessarily mean there is a gap in funding that needs to be met locally. However with the political landscape uncertain and government department budgets under pressure, there is the distinct possibility that the level of funding available would fall short of the £3m per annum mentioned above.

13.3.3 Planning the future provision of primary schools The development of the Primary Schools Investment Programme is being undertaken through a series of consultations with stakeholders. The scale of the primary school capital programme is reported to have been driven by the likely funding available rather than a bottom up approach. It is suggested that if the primary school capital programme was set out to achieve the same standard of facilities as the BSF secondary school programme then the £45m earmarked above would need to increase significantly. There is reported to be a backlog of maintenance work that needs to be funded in the region of £20m (although this was not confirmed at the completion of this report). Through this consultation specific area needs are being highlighted so that provision can be aligned to the needs of communities in the future. For example, consultation with the two Gateway HMR neighbourhoods has identified the future level of need in those areas and how best primary schools can be delivered to complement the wider regeneration plans. The plans for the Primary Schools Investment Programme will be predicated on projections for demand up until 2019. This is based on population projections supplied by the Local Health Authority and taking into account net migration in the area and demand for primary schools in East Riding versus Hull. This signifies that although the programme for investment in Primary Schools runs until 2024, the programme is predicated on meeting the needs of the population as projected to 2019. There is therefore a gap in planning capacity for potential population growth between 2019 and 2026. The Council uses a benchmark of 21 primary school places per 100 houses. This would require that for every 100 net additional households developed the primary school capacity would need increasing by 21 places. If there was a spike in population growth, caused by development attracting people to Hull or other demographic shocks, then there would be the possibility of accessing targeted capital funding from central government. This would be in order to assist the Council with increasing capacity of the primary schools to accommodate the increased demand. This is a competitive funding pot which the Council would have to bid for.

13.4 Secondary schools provision

13.4.1 Current secondary schools provision There are currently 14 secondary schools in Hull. Of these, eleven have a local catchment area and three have Citywide catchment areas. Two of these schools are voluntary aided schools and one a voluntary controlled school. The current provision provides c.16,000 secondary school places. The current secondary school student population is c.14,700. There is therefore currently a surplus provision of secondary school places. Many of the schools in Hull are in need of major investment to bring them up to a desirable standard. There is currently an outward movement of secondary school students to the East Riding area. This is either through parents relocating out of Hull when their children reach

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 100 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

secondary school age to be within the catchment area of a ‘better’ school or through those on the edge of the city choosing schools in East Riding above those in Hull. Within Hull there are also two private secondary schools: Collegiate and Hymers. As these schools sit outside publicly funded provision we do not cover them further in this study, assuming that any future growth will be funded by the institutions themselves.

13.4.2 Planned secondary school development In order to tackle the poor quality of physical facilities and the surplus in capacity, KHCC has devised a comprehensive programme of secondary school capital works. These identified works will be delivered via the BSF programme. Hull BSF was an early wave of the national BSF programme and is the largest across the UK. The programme outlines £400m of capital investment in secondary school facilities up until 2014. The current BSF programme is based on a revised strategy whose business case was approved in August 2008. In September 2008 an OJEU tender notice was released to procure the private sector contractor to deliver the entire Hull BSF programme. The winning bidder, which was recently selected, will have exclusivity rights to develop the entire BSF programme via a new Public-Private Local Education Partnership (LEP). In addition the LEP will be expected to deliver Hard Facilities Management (with the potential to extend to Soft Facilities Management) services and a single Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Management Service across the estate. The BSF programme will reduce the current 14 secondary schools to 12. It will provide capital investment into every remaining secondary school in Hull. The specific elements of the programme include:

• three newly built academies, these are:

• Sirius Academy (currently Pickering High School Sports College): sponsored by Hull College with a proposal to remain on its existing site. This will be delivered pre-LEP through the National Academies Framework Programme;

• Archbishop Sentamu Academy: sponsored by the Church of England (through the Diocese of York) with a proposal to relocate to a site along Preston Road near to the Freedom Centre and next to Bilton Grove. This will be a sample scheme for procurement of the LEP; and

• Northern Academy (currently Sir Henry Cooper School): sponsor to be confirmed with a proposal to relocate on the Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields as an early Phase 1 development.

• a Pathfinder Trust (Andrew Marvell Business and Enterprise College). This will be a newbuild facility on its existing site and provide 1,300 places.

• capital works to five other secondary schools. The works will include:

• Kelvin Hall School will be remodelled and extended to accommodate 1,500 pupils;

• Kingswood College of Arts will be replaced by a new build facility on its existing site. This will accommodate 1,300 places;

• Malet Lambert School will be remodelled;

• Endeavour School will remain on its existing site and have its IT infrastructure upgraded; and

• Winifred Holtby School will be a new build on its existing site. Its capacity will be reduced to 1,350 places. \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 101 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• capital work on three non-catchment schools:

• Hull Trinity House School (all boys) will double in size to around 600 places; • Newland School for Girls will be remodelled and provide for 750 places; and

• St. Mary’s College (single denomination) will be remodelled and provide for c.1300 places (plus a 350 place sixth form).

• the closure of two secondary schools (Sydney Smith School and David Lister School).

Within the BSF programme there are also a series of developments planned for Hull’s special schools and referral units. The BSF programme will be fully delivered by 2014 with some residual demolitions taking place in 2015. The programme will cost an estimated £400m. It will be delivered through a variety of PFI finance and traditional design and build using development grant. All of the £400m is within the Business Case that was approved by central government in August 2008. All of the funding for the BSF programme is therefore accounted for and there will be no gaps in funding that will require local or regional bodies to fill.

13.4.3 Planning the future provision of secondary schools The BSF programme is based on the strategy and business case which was approved in August 2008. The programme was devised through an extensive process of consultation with stakeholders. As with the primary school planning, the planned capacity of secondary schools is based on the needs of the future population of Hull as at 2019. There could therefore be a gap between the capacity in 2019 and what will be required by 2026. The schools within the BSF programme have been designed with spare capacity (c.10%) to accommodate an increase in demand, which it is assumed at this time is sufficient to meet the infrastructure needs to 2026. Further exploration of this will however be required by the Council in due course. As the project is structured as a PFI/PPP, it is assumed that once the £400m investment is committed this is not subject to downward review through future Comprehensive Spending Reviews. Investment in BSF therefore provides an important source of infrastructure funding to provide the required infrastructure provision up to 2026, with the potential to review further infrastructure provision as part of a future review of the Core Strategy. Failure to secure additional provision through BSF could increase pressure on the education authority resources to fund additional development; either through the provision of new schools or extension of existing. Due to the longer travel patterns of secondary school students, a geographically focussed increase in population could be dissipated throughout Hull within the spare capacity. A larger increase in population could result in the existing secondary schools needing extensions. Circumstances arising that would require new secondary schools to be built are unlikely but would need to be kept under review. Alongside the BSF programme, an improvement in the economic climate could provide opportunities for education infrastructure contributions to be sought from developments. This however, would be a long term option and dependent on the economic viability of developments. KHCC currently use the benchmark of 14 secondary school places per 100 households. If future growth required investment in secondary schools facilities then KHCC would be able to bid for targeted capital funding from central government in the same manner as explained for Primary Schools.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 102 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

13.5 Special Schools and Referral Units

13.5.1 Current provision of special schools and referral units Throughout Hull there are a number of specialist education facilities that are attended by pupils with physical disabilities, learning difficulties or specialist medical needs. There are also a series of referral units for pupils expelled from schools or needing a specialist learning environment. These include:

• Centre for Hearing and Visual Impairment currently based at a number of schools around Hull;

• Tweendykes School proving 83 places for pupils aged 3-16 years with severe learning difficulties;

• Bridgeview School, an 88 place school with provision for pupils aged 7-16 years with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties. The school is a residential establishment and contains accommodation for staff and 54 pupils;

• Frederick Holmes School, a 93 place school with provision for pupils aged 3-19 years with physical disabilities and profound and multiple learning disabilities;

• Schoolgirl Mums Unit, a Pupil Referral Unit currently with 32 pupils (May 2007), which provides support and the education of schoolgirls who are pregnant or are young mothers;

• Children with Medical Needs Unit, a 20 place unit which provides support and the education of children with severe medical needs. The administration for this unit is based at the Priory Centre and the teaching facilities operate from a variety of locations;

• Fountain House, a 30 place Pupil Referral Unit with provision for Key Stage 4 pupils. The unit provides temporary placement for excluded pupils who require further intervention and support;

• Northcott School currently, a 90 place school for pupils aged 5-16 years in need of a protective environment. It also has 18 places for autistic pupils aged 3-16 years;

• Ashwell, a 40 place Pupil Referral Unit with provision for Key Stage 3 pupils. The unit provides temporary placement of excluded pupils who require further intervention and support; and

• Oakfield School (formerly Teskey King School), a 60 place school with provision for pupils with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties for up to 60 pupils aged 5-16 years.

There is also capacity to educate children with special needs in mainstream schools through specialist supervision. Hull’s capacity is currently for 20 such pupils.

13.5.2 Planned future development for special schools and referral units Planned redevelopment of the special schools and referral units form part of the £400m BSF programme. They will be delivered between 2009 and 2014. The planned developments include:

• the relocation of the Ganton School to the Pickering site with a marginal increase in capacity;

• the relocation and co-location of the Centre for Hearing and Visual Impairment facilities on the Pickering site;

• the relocation of the Tweendykes School to the site of the Winifred Holtby School;

• the remodelling of the Bridgeview School on its existing site;

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 103 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• the remodelling of the Frederick Holmes School on its existing site;

• Schoolgirls Mums referral unit will be refurbished;

• the Medical Needs Unit will have an IT upgrade;

• Fountain House referral unit will be remodelled;

• Ashwell referral unit will be remodelled; and

• Northcott School will be remodelled.

13.5.3 Planning the future provision of special schools and referral units The future provision of special schools and referral units is managed in much the same way as the BSF Secondary School and Primary Schools Investment Programmes. Indeed the proposed developments to special schools and referral units form part of the overall BSF programme. The special schools and referral units provision is therefore planned taking account of population up until 2019 leaving the same gap in planning between then and our timeframe of 2026. It should be noted however that since such a small proportion of the population require specialist school facilities or referral units, it would take an exceptional increase in population for a significant increase in their capacity to be required.

13.6 Further Education

13.6.1 Current provision of Further Education There are a series of providers of Further Education (FE) in Hull for both 16-19 and adults. The main providers are listed below along with a summary of the institution and their facilities: Hull College: This caters for c.3,800 students and offers a range of FE and HE courses. Its accommodation includes traditional teaching and administration space as well as: Cafés and Restaurants, Hair and Beauty Salons, gym and studios, libraries/Learning Resource Centre and childcare centres. The College has a presence in four locations across Hull: The Queen's Gardens Centre, Wilberforce Drive; The Learning Zone, Kingston Communications Stadium; The Cannon Street Centre, Cannon Street; and The Park Street Centre, Park Street. Wilberforce Sixth Form College: This caters for c.1,200 pupils and is based in the east of Hull within one campus. The college provides a variety of A-Level, BTEC and GCSE course primarily to pupils aged 16-18. In recent times the college has seen investment in a new sports hall development, a media centre and student services, cafeteria and social area. Wyke Sixth Form College: This caters for over 800 pupils and is based in the west of Hull within one campus. It caters for 16-18 year old school leavers who can study A-Levels, BTECs or GCSEs. Its classrooms, laboratories and workshops have been completely re- built over the last three years. The final stage of more than £20 million worth of investment is nearing completion and will provide a new library, theatre, sports hall and social spaces. Wyke also has an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) department. St Mary’s Sixth Form: This is the Sixth Form component of the St Mary’s secondary school. It has c.300 sixth form places primarily for students leaving the school after completing their GCSEs. The Sixth Form uses the wider school’s facilities. Adult Education: KHCC run adult education classes. There are centres located across Hull which are dedicated Adult Education facilities that run a wide range of courses. These include: The Avenues Adult Education Centre, Eastfield Adult Education Centre, Ings Road Adult Education Centre, Preston Road Adult Education Centre and The Priory Centre.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 104 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Work-based learning: There are a series of work based-learning providers across Hull (15- 16). These provide training for apprenticeships and other work-based learning. The Council operates a number of these centres.

13.6.2 Planned future development for Further Education provision In recent years Hull College has invested extensively in its Hull Campus this has included three new build facilities and the modernisation of its large high-rise tower. Hull College have made an application to replace their high-rise block with a newbuild at a cost of c.£100m. This funding is not secured as they missed the latest round of the LSC capital programme. The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) believes it is unlikely that this funding would be granted over the forthcoming years. However the LSC also believes that whilst the proposed development would enhance the provision, it is not vital. Wilberforce College has received significant capital investment over recent years. It has already delivered £20-25m worth of capital expenditure. The final phase of this programme of development is expected to cost in the region of £6m. The funding for this final phase has yet to be secured. Due to the current funding difficulties experienced by the LSC it is not certain this £6m of funding will be met. Wilberforce College may therefore look at other funding options. Beyond this last phase of development there are no other capital developments planned. Wyke College is in the final stages of completing a capital investment programme costing over £40m. Once completed it is envisaged that the College’s estate would meet the needs of the next ten years. There are no other capital developments planned. The current buildings would allow for alteration should capacity need to be increased if demand increased significantly beyond those used in the ten year projections. There are no current plans to increase the physical infrastructure associated with Adult Education. KHCC believe that should there be an increase in demand, more use could be made of existing infrastructure (schools, libraries, community centres) to deliver adult education.

13.6.3 Planning the future provision of Further Education provision The level of student places and necessary infrastructure is planned over a ten year time frame. To plan over a ten year time frame the LSC use population projections supplied by the Local Authority. They then model participation rates internally to project estimated student numbers over a ten year time frame. Currently there are ongoing discussions around the level of sixth form provision in the BSF schools. The LSC opinion is that Sixth Provision in the BSF schools would not result in an efficient delivery of 16+ education. It believes there needs to be a critical mass of students to allow a wider choice of subjects and specialist facilities. The LSC believe that should population increase beyond the projections then there may be a need to invest in the infrastructure of Wilberforce and Wyke colleges. The LSC believes that Hull College currently has some spare capacity and flexibility in the use of space to absorb a small increase in population beyond the projections. The LSC believes that a growth in the economic base, in terms of number of firms and employees, would increase demand for adult education and training. However it also believes that this form of education and training requires flexible provision (on the job training, evening classes) which would not necessitate increased physical infrastructure of training providers.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 105 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

13.7 University of Hull

13.7.1 Current provision The primary provision of HE courses in Hull is via the University of Hull. Hull College also provide HE course but their development needs are covered within the FE section above. Historically Lincoln University had a strong presence in Hull but has since relocated many of the departments in Hull to its Lincoln campus. Lincoln University does have a residual presence in Hull but this is not expected to grow and accordingly no infrastructure requirements are anticipated. The University of Hull currently provides HE courses to c.11,000 FTE students. In common with most Universities, the majority of students come from beyond the local area, although 30% come from the East Yorkshire and Humber area. It offers a broad curriculum, which includes the Hull and York Medical School, which is operated in partnership with York University. The University of Hull currently has an estate comprising of 156,000 sqm, with 11,000 sqm of that in Scarborough. The majority of its provision in Hull is at its Hull Campus on Cottingham Road in the northwest of Hull. The University does have a limited presence in the City Centre in the form of: Blades House (Maritime Institute), Oriole Chamber (Slavery Research Centre) and Hull Heritage Centre (in which the University owns a 30% stake). The University of Hull, which is an autonomous body governed by a board of trustees, is a major employer with a total turnover of £150m. It plays a role in a number of partnerships within Hull, but is responsible for its own decisions in terms of estate development, curriculum offer and governance and funding. The University’s activities are funded by a variety sources:

• for teaching activities, they receive funding directly from the government (HEFCE) and students;

• for research activity, they receive funding from a mixture of government (primarily the Research Council) and businesses;

• for outreach activities, they receive funding from individuals and employers for private training provision and from a variety of public sector bodies such as the RDA; and

• the University also receives income from its own commercial activity and patents.

The University manages a level of student accommodation and receives income from this source. Currently the University owns and manages accommodation with 2,600 bed spaces which has an annual turnover of £8m-£9m. On top of the accommodation it directly owns and manages, the University also has an accreditation scheme for private landlords providing student accommodation. Through this accreditation scheme there is the provision of an additional 3,000 bed spaces in student accommodation. The University of Hull has found that the local housing market can quickly respond to demands for student accommodation. This is evidenced by the landlords within the accreditation scheme providing additional properties at short notice if asked to by the University.

13.7.2 Planned future development at the University of Hull The University of Hull’s estate development is outlined in the University of Hull, Hull Campus Masterplan, 2009-2024. The delivery of this masterplan would provide a net increase in floor space of 7,000 square metres. This comprises a gross development of 13,000 square metres and the removal of 6,000 square metres. The core projects within this include:

• refurbishment of general teaching rooms and upgrading of the Wilberforce Building; \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 106 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• refurbishment of research space for the Faculty of Science;

• refurbishment of the 2nd Floor of University House as a student service hub;

• a new social learning centre for students or student commons;

• refurbishment of the Brynmor Jones Library;

• refurbishment of Venn Building as a corporate head quarters;

• improvements to the front entrance of the Hull campus; and

• new modern en-suite halls of residence.

For the purposes of costing this development a total development cost of £2,500 per square metre is assumed in relation to the gross development area, leading to an assumed cost of £32.5m. The University of Hull will need to increase the site’s utility capacity to accommodate this Masterplan. This will include upgrading gas pipes and increasing electricity sub-station capacity. However they expect to have to contract and fund this work themselves. The proposed Halls of Residence mentioned above is a 1,800 bed spaces unit on the northwest of its Hull Campus. This will replace some accommodation planned to be decommissioned and will result in a net increase of 240 bed spaces. This growth in student accommodation is expected to meet the demand for on-campus accommodation. The reason student accommodation is not planned to grow in line with the projected student growth is that University of Hull expects the number of students studying part-time, studying remotely or already living or working locally to increase as a proportion of total students. These students will demand less accommodation. The University of Hull expects the bulk of its Masterplan to be delivered before 2014 with the residual elements by 2024. As the Masterplan was not published at the time of meeting the University, the cost figures associated with its implementation are not available. However the University anticipates funding its estate development via its own funds and that of public bodies such as HEFCE, ERDF, NHS and Yorkshire Forward. The University does not expect the Council to contribute towards its capital programmes. If there is not the public sector funding available to deliver the Masterplan to the specified programme, the University would look to slow down development or explore other funding mechanisms. It would not expect the Council to fill any funding gaps that appear. The development of the University of Hull estate is not dependant on other infrastructure within Hull. The University of Hull sees the current transport infrastructure as adequate to accommodate their projected growth. There is a need to improve flood defences, specifically to increase the drainage capacity along Cottingham Road. The University campus has flooded in recent years causing damage to several buildings. However this is an existing need and not a demand caused by future growth plans. Other infrastructure improvements that would enhance the University would be a park-and- ride scheme from the South Bank to the University, improvements to the street scene on Cottingham Road and swimming pools (which are underprovided across Hull). It should be noted however that these are ‘nice-to-haves’ and are not critical to the growth of the University.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 107 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

13.7.3 Planning the future provision of University provision The University has a strategy that is based on predicted student growth rates to 2024. The University believes that any planned population growth in Hull will have only a negligible impact on demand for HE courses provided by the University. This is due to the local population being only a relatively small proportion of its student intake. Whilst plans have not yet been developed to 2026, it can be assumed from the current arrangements that such plans, if they entail growth of the University’s facilities, will be funded entirely by the University / public funding sources from outside Hull.

13.8 Summary of education infrastructure

Table 13.1: Funding Summary – Early years

Infrastructure Planned To Funding Confirmed To Funding Gap Identified

Not confirmed but assumed until Unknown Unknown 2019 in line with primary school and secondary schools education. Table 13.2: Funding Summary – Primary schools

Infrastructure Planned To Funding Confirmed To Funding Gap Identified

£3m expected to be spent every Funding is confirmed until Of the £45m within the year for next 15. This is based 2011. programme £9m is secured. on meeting population projected The remainder will be sought in until 2019. future Government funding rounds but remains uncertain Table 13.3: Funding Summary – Secondary schools

Infrastructure Planned To Funding Confirmed To Funding Gap Identified

BSF programme covering all All funding for planned work by No funding gap. secondary schools provision 2014 confirmed. planned to be delivered by 2014. This is predicated on population projections up to 2019.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 108 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

14 Infrastructure Costs and Funding

14.1 Introduction

This section takes the evidence and analysis from Sections 5 through to 13 and sets out how the level of current, planned and future infrastructure will / could be delivered. This section:

• presents the indicative costs associated with delivering the planned and future infrastructure required to support the long term growth objectives in Hull;

• outlines how KHCC could look to prioritise and facilitate the delivery of infrastructure; and

• summarises potential funding sources and innovative funding mechanisms that KHCC could explore to deliver on its infrastructure requirements.

In simple terms, this part of the report takes the overall cost of each infrastructure type and sets that within the context of any existing funding, so as to determine any funding gaps. From here it will be possible to identify potential options for bridging the funding gaps and ensure Hull can be proactive in looking to deliver its infrastructure requirements whilst recognising the difficult funding climate expected ahead. The costs and information shown have been determined through analysis of the evidence base and discussions with relevant contacts in KHCC, other public and private sector organisations and wider stakeholders.

14.2 Funding Context: Overview

In light of the current economic climate and a constrained future fiscal environment, it is imperative to ensure that the list of required infrastructure is prioritised to meet the goals and aspirations for Hull. Uncertainties exist in existing and proposed funding and the council’s own capital programmes are under threat from public sector spending cuts. This highlights the importance of seeking alternative mechanism to help realise the level of infrastructure required in the city. Consequently, infrastructure has been categorised in terms of it playing a critical, place shaping or enabling role. The nature and character of Hull does mean that in some areas place shaping infrastructure is critical to regeneration aspirations to improve quality of place and the residential and economic offer. The evolution of the funding matrix (shown below) has endeavoured to move beyond a list of “nice to haves” and focus on the factors that are critical to achieving the objectives of KHCC and its citizens. This research has highlighted the fundamental importance of proactively planning the provision of infrastructure to ensure that it can be delivered and thus unlock wider opportunities. In developing possible methods for the delivery of infrastructure we have considered a number of different approaches and possible alternative funding mechanisms. This has included KHCC’s current use of Section 106 agreements, the potential role of the CIL following the new CIL Regulations 2010, and the potential benefits of creating a Strategic Infrastructure Fund for Hull. A strong understanding of the existing committed and allocated funding programme for Hull was required, so that the options developed were realistic and appropriate to the unique circumstances facing Hull.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 109 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

14.3 Methodology

14.3.1 Approach The approach adopted to develop this part of the report has been to:

• Identify the infrastructure required within each infrastructure category;

• Identify the cost associated with the infrastructure requirement;

5 • Identify the funding committed and/or allocated towards meeting the identified cost ;

• Determine the funding “gap” (i.e. the cost of the identified infrastructure less the funding committed and/or allocated); and

• Consider the potential funding sources available to meet the identified funding gap.

This approach is summarised in the following diagram: Figure 14.1: Methodology

5 Committed funding means funding that is the subject of a binding legal agreement, whereas allocated funding indicates that the relevant infrastructure is on a priority list but is not yet the subject of a funding commitment (e.g. RFA funding for transport projects) \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 110 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

15 Summary Matrix of Infrastructure Required and Costs

15.1 Hull’s infrastructure requirements

The table below represents a summary of the infrastructure required in Hull up to 2026. This includes an indicative assessment of costs, committed funding sources and the subsequent funding gaps that exist 6 Table 15.1: Hull Infrastructure Funding Matrix

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap

Govt KHCC Organisation Other / Institution

Transport

Highways £190m £190m - - - £Nil Cost relates to proposed improvements to A63 Castle Street. Highways Agency scheme fully funded (if DfT approval gained) from Regional Funding Allocation.

£5m - - - £5m £Nil Cost relates to short term highway Improvements (e.g. Mytongate Roundabout.). S106 agreement will be pursued for any short term measures that need to be implemented to bring forward regeneration in advance of the A63 Castle St or for any fall back schemes if the A63 Castle Street scheme is postponed. This could include a minor £5m scheme for Mytongate Roundabout (currently under design).

Park & Ride £9m - £9m - - £Nil Cost relates to North Hull P&R and East Hull P&R. Anticipated to be fully KHCC (P&R) funded, although potential risks due to constraints in KHCC funding.

Rail £Nil - - - - £Nil No investment requirement identified. (Passenger)

6 This table represents a summary of the evidence and analysis gathered from secondary sources, and discussions with stakeholders and Hull City Council. Figures correct as at December 2009. \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 111 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap

Govt KHCC Organisation Other / Institution

Bus Series of small scale measures identified in the AAPs (not currently costed). Funding would be from Local Transport Plan Integrated Transport Block (currently Walking & £4m-£5m per year, although uncertainty regarding future levels). Cycling

Port £Nil - - - - £Nil All investment to be met by ABP. However note that in the current economic climate such investment may be slow.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 112 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap

Govt KHCC Organisation Other / Institution

Utility Networks

Tele- £Unknown - - - - £Unknown It is challenging to estimate the level of investment required in new telecoms communications infrastructure over the study period.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 113 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap

Govt KHCC Organisation Other / Institution

Flood Risk and Drainage

Flood Defences £98.4m £Unknown - - - £Unknown This represents the present value cost for infrastructure works on River Hull, beyond the Humber and the Hull Tidal Surge Barrier. Some funding confirmed by the 2013 Environment Agency from 2008 to 2013 from national flood and coastal defence budget however exact figure unknown. Longer term uncertainty over funds to deliver schemes identified in SFRA.

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap

Govt KHCC Organisation Other / Institution

Waste and Recycling

Waste £Nil - - - - £Unknown Waste Recycling Group (WRG) management and service provision contract Management beyond runs to 2024. Provision of infrastructure and funding post-2024 requires 2024 further investigation. KHCC and ERYC are no longer pursuing a PFI option to fund the delivery of an Energy from Waste facility and the authorities and WRG are now reviewing alternative funding options.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 114 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap

Govt KHCC Organisation Other / Institution

Green Infrastructure, Open Space, Sport and Recreation

Open Spaces £93.1m - £17.5m - £20m £55.6m Overall funding gap includes the £5m funding gap for West Park. £17.5m of investment is from capital receipts for improvements in the Newington and St Andrew’s AAP and Holderness Road Corridor AAP. The £20m of investment is for public realm within the Strategic Development Areas in the City Centre AAP and is funded by Hull Forward. Public realm outside of the SDAs to be funded by Section 106 contributions.

Play Areas £1.1m £1.1m - - - £Nil £1.1m capital funding and £45k revenue funding has been awarded from Department for Children, Schools and Family (DCSF).

Sports Centres £6.5m - £6.5m - - - Most of the existing facilities are already beyond their economic life expectancy, & Pools (repairs) and when compared to modern leisure centres all of the facilities in Hull are relatively energy inefficient, costly to operate and have increasingly high repair and maintenance costs. By 2026 all of the existing Swimming Pools and Leisure Centres will be well beyond their life expectancy. Condition surveys indicate that over £1.3m per annum over the next five years will need to be invested in essential repairs alone.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 115 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap

Govt KHCC Organisation Other / Institution

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap

Govt KHCC Organisation Other / Institution

Health

Community & £32m - - £32m - £Nil Planned to 2019 with some additional capacity. Assumed no further infrastructure Primary Care required to 2026.

Hospitals & £250m - - £250m - £Nil No gap identified. In practice some of this investment will come from Government Acute Care and other sources

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 116 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap

Govt KHCC Organisation Other / Institution

Education

Nursery £Nil - - - - £Nil Assumed responds directly to market

Primary School £45m £9m - - - £36m Note £9m is secured to 31 st March 2011, with the remainder subject to the Comprehensive Spending Review

Secondary £400m £400m - - - £Nil Planned to 2019 with some additional capacity. Assumed no further infrastructure School required to 2026.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 117 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Investment Anticipated Identified Funding Sources Funding Comments Requirement Cost Gap

Govt KHCC Organisation Other / Institution

Emergency Services

Ambulance £Nil - - - - £TBC General trend is to move away from larger centralised buildings or facilities and Service beyond towards smaller, leaner rapid response service provision. Funding is sourced 2012 directly from Strategic Health Authority. YAS operates across boundaries of KHCC and ERYC; this has broader implications on delivery of services and location of rapid response facilities.

Fire & Rescue £Nil - - - - £TBC Funding for future service delivery pegged to central government formula grant, beyond Council Tax precept and collection funds. 2012 Humber Fire and Rescue Service has plans and strategies in place to cater to demand and service provision up to and including 2012.

Police £Nil - - - - £TBC Humberside Police currently in process of rationalising their estate and buildings. beyond Likely to result in changes in overall way that services are delivered and where 2013 they are likely to be delivered from. New Headquarters at Clough Road programmed to be completed by 2013. There are also proposals to relocate from buildings at Queens Gardens.

Community and Cultural

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4- Page 118 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY Issue 10 May 2010 VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

16 Prioritising Infrastructure Investment

16.1 Overview of infrastructure investment

What is noticeable from an analysis of Table 15.1 is that a number of elements of Hull’s infrastructure already have firm funding or funding allocations. This includes secondary schools and local health provision. This currently puts Hull in a relatively positive position in terms of funding infrastructure, subject to existing funding allocations becoming firm funding commitments. It must be highlighted though that there are uncertainties surrounding funding allocations turning into formal commitments. To this extent, KHCC must be proactive in considering alternative funding sources so that it can maintain momentum on infrastructure delivery. Furthermore, there are certain infrastructure types where funding gaps do exist. This relates to infrastructure which will play an important role in delivering the future housing and economic growth of Hull. The infrastructure for which funding is currently needed (i.e. situations where funding is neither committed nor allocated) falls into three main categories:

• Strategic infrastructure that is nationally and/or regionally significant;

• Place shaping infrastructure that is critical to strategic regeneration areas; and

• Enabling infrastructure that is critical to the development of individual strategically important sites in Hull and East Riding or other infrastructure of strategic importance to Hull.

These are each considered in turn within this section.

16.2 Strategic infrastructure

Given that the A63 Castle Street improvements are the subject of an existing Regional Funding Allocation, the infrastructure falling into this category comprises:

• comprehensive flood protection measures;

• investment in primary schools after the current spending round;

• longer term funding for emergency services; and

• the delivery of an Energy from Waste facility.

16.3 Place-shaping infrastructure

The infrastructure falling into this category is principally open space.

16.4 Enabling infrastructure

The infrastructure falling into this category includes:

• A new primary substation for the City Centre;

• Improved facilities at the Port;

• Renewable energy; and

• Broadband provision.

A common feature of this form of infrastructure is that it will probably be funded through the “market” at some stage, but this may take significant time to happen due to a variety of “market failures”, including the effects of the current recession. The challenge for KHCC is therefore how to accelerate the implementation of this infrastructure and in turn accelerate housing and economic growth.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 119 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

17 Facilitating Infrastructure Delivery

17.1 Overview

This section examines how the infrastructure funding gaps identified in Section 15 can be met. It firstly explores how funding can be found for the identified gaps. It then considers how KHCC can manage risks associated with funding moving forwards.

17.2 Exploring opportunities for securing funding

17.2.1 Securing funding for infrastructure This section sets out how Hull’s prioritised infrastructure needs could be funded. It focuses on securing funding where there are identified funding gaps for priority infrastructure. It assumes that existing funding allocations will become firm funding sources in due course. Should this not be the case, KHCC will need to review the findings of this Study, including considering additional and/or alternative funding options. The available principal funding sources for infrastructure are summarised below. In each case we have identified our understanding in simple terms of the issues surrounding each potential funding source to inform below our emerging thinking on potential preferred funding options. It should be noted that the composition of potential funding sources is subject to change as a consequence of the 2010 General Election (see Section 17.3).

17.2.2 Strategic infrastructure The principal source of funding for strategic infrastructure would be Government funding, either given directly by Government or administered in some other means (e.g. via Regional Funding Allocations and administered by Regional Planning Bodies). In some cases where strategic infrastructure is promoted by Government such works would be 100% funded by Government. In other cases where strategic infrastructure is promoted locally, KHCC would need to make a funding contribution. In the latter case, the severe shortage of funding available from KHCC means that KHCC will need to make a clear case to Government as to why certain identified funding gaps arise due to nationally significant strategic infrastructure. A case in point is flood protection which features in this category because of the significant national costs to Government of dealing with flood related emergencies, as was demonstrated for example in the 2007 floods that affected Hull as well as other locations in the Region and further afield. As identified in Sections 13, 11 and 9, there may also be some need for funding towards schools and health facilities beyond 2019 and waste beyond 2024. However given the capacity built into current plans, it is difficult at this time to determine when additional infrastructure would be required and the most appropriate funding mechanism. However as each of these are currently due to be funded via Government PFI Credits, it is assumed that any future provision, should it be required beyond 2019, would be the subject of Government investment.

17.2.3 Place-shaping infrastructure

Options for funding public open space The Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) and Yorkshire Forward are likely to be the main sources of funding for new open space and open space improvements in strategically important areas in the short to medium term. This includes investment channelled through Hull Forward (as Economic Development Company), and Hull Gateway (as HMR Pathfinder). A Hull Investment Plan is currently being developed by KHCC with HCA and Yorkshire Forward. The general direction of these discussions is placing increasing emphasis on fewer intervention areas with each intervention area needing to demonstrate

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 120 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

how it will meet housing and economic growth goals and deliver successful and sustainable places.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 121 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Emerging priorities include:

• Hull City Centre (AAP area);

• Newington and St Andrews (AAP area);

• Holderness Road Corridor (AAP area);

• Orchard Park; and

• Kingswood.

For example, as identified in Section 10, the HCA (via Hull Gateway) is investing £1.4m in West Park in Newington and St Andrews during 2009/10 and 2010/11. Having maximised funding from the HCA and Yorkshire Forward, any additional funding gaps need to be met through other means, including:

• KHCC Capital Funding: KHCC does not have significant capital available to invest in public open space and this is one of a number of calls on its investment. Whilst KHCC may therefore be able to make some investment in open space (e.g. where essential as match funding to other public sector funding applications), this is likely to be very limited and not meet the full funding gap after HCA and Yorkshire Forward investment is secured.

• KHCC Borrowing: There may be some situations in which KHCC could explore borrowing, either via prudential borrowing (although again there are likely to be a number of calls on this investment) and/or Government sponsored Accelerated Development Zones (ADZs). ADZs are an innovative tool which the Government is currently exploring whereby regeneration investment can be borrowed initially and future Council Tax and/or Business Rates can be reused to meet interest payments and ultimately to repay the borrowing. Use of such funding tools are likely to be limited however to cases where a clear case can be proven in terms of long term tax revenues to repay initial borrowing. This is therefore likely to be limited to large, long-term regeneration projects (e.g. Hull Fruit Market).

• ERYC: Some sites within the study are located in East Riding. Some of the infrastructure required to serve these will be located in Hull. Similarly some of the infrastructure for sites in the Hull administrative area may be located in East Riding. It may therefore be appropriate to explore some joint funding arrangements, although in practice it should be recognised that there is unlikely to be any “net” investment from ERYC to Hull.

• Other grant funding sources: KHCC actively pursues a range of grant funding sources towards open space. However a recent unsuccessful lottery bid for West Park in Newington and St Andrews AAP area has clarified that investment above £1m towards open space for any project is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. This makes grant a useful contributor to some projects, subject to them meeting relevant eligibility criteria, but unlikely to bridge the existing viability gap.

• Businesses, residents and visitors: Generally all of these groups would be reluctant to make significant contributions and KHCC needs to be mindful of the effect on Hull’s popularity as a place to work, live and visit. There is already one example of additional levies being applied, the Hull City Centre Business Improvement District (BID), but, as is the nature of a BID, this is very much with the support of local businesses because the money collected from businesses is reinvested within a tight geographical area and in a transparent manner. . It is therefore anticipated that such funding avenue would again only be suited to larger, long-term projects/regeneration areas.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 122 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• Landowners and property developers: Generally landowners and property developers will be reluctant to contribute significantly and KHCC needs to be mindful about the effect on future development, particularly given the historic marginal viability of large parts of Hull which has been reinforced by the current economic climate. KHCC has an existing Section 106 policy that covers open space. This represents an established mechanism for securing investment towards this infrastructure requirement. However there are a number of practical issues with the operation of the existing arrangements, not least that a number of existing planning permissions with associated Section 106 agreements are not being implemented due to the current economic circumstances. Given that the CIL Regulations set out that Section 106 obligations will be restructured so that they will only be taken into account if they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, they are unlikely to continue to be a mechanism through which to gain contributions to open space. The introduction of a CIL would offer the opportunity to fund or part fund open space provision. Further work is required to ensure that if KHCC takes forward a CIL that it strikes an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding from CIL the actual total cost of infrastructure required to support the development; and the potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development.

Which infrastructure funding source(s) might best meet the identified funding gaps will be informed by a number of criteria:

• Suitability for funding the identified type(s) of infrastructure - Certain funding sources are only available to fund certain types of infrastructure (e.g. PFI funding). There are also funding conditions associated with the majority of funding sources. The type(s) of funding selected must match the infrastructure that needs to be funded;

• Timing/certainty of funding - Some funding sources are more/ less certain than others. This is particularly true in the current economic climate and in light of a General Election in 2010. Additionally some funding sources are new and untested, presenting other types of uncertainty;

• Ability to lever in other funding - Some funding sources/ mechanisms may offer scope to secure match funding;

• Political sensitivity - Levies can be sensitive politically and may only be supported when absolutely essential; and

• ‘Whole life’ benefits - Having implemented infrastructure, it is clearly important that it is maintained throughout this period and beyond. Earlier sections of this report confirm that in many cases maintenance proposals are built into the planning of infrastructure funders/ providers. For example in the case of health centres, the LIFT proposals involve a 25 year PFI concession which includes maintenance obligations. Where considering funding identified infrastructure gaps, similar thought needs to be given not only to the costs of implementation but the costs of management/ maintenance.

As already partially illustrated above, meeting the open space funding gap should be explored through a number of staged approaches:

• Stage 1 – working with key partner funding agencies the HCA and Yorkshire Forward to develop a Hull Investment Plan which recognises the important value of investing in public open space;

• Stage 2 – a limited amount of KHCC investment and use of prudential borrowing / ADZs in appropriate large, long-term regeneration areas, as well as securing (both capital and, where applicable, borrowing) and other grants where possible; and

• Stage 3 – further exploration of a CIL and the implications of restructured Section 106 obligations. At this stage it is important to stress that a restructured Section 106 and CIL \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 123 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

are unlikely to be capable of being supported either financially or politically if they are to levy charges immediately. However there is a tension here in that the most appropriate time to introduce new measures, and thereby ensure they are reflected in the planning system and filtered through to land values, is at the bottom of the property market cycle when landowners / developers are re-evaluating (and where appropriate writing down) land values.

Feasibility of landowner / developer contributions to public open space Developers are generally prepared to contribute to something that they can see will deliver a direct benefit. The fact that KHCC has operated a Section 106 policy for open space for a number of years demonstrates that there is a perceived benefit from developers of high quality open space. The CIL Regulations set out proposals to restructure Section 106 obligations so that as of April 2010 they will only be taken into account if necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. By April 2014 (at the end of the four year transition period) it will also be unlawful for Section 106 obligations to fund or provide infrastructure which could be funded from a CIL. This will effectively remove Section 106 as a long term proposition for funding, or part funding, public open space. Whilst it is not clear what effect the General Election will have on proposals for CIL, this period provides KHCC with the opportunity to consider a more strategic approach to capturing developer contributions. If CIL does not materialise as a long term approach, then a thorough review of the current Section 106 mechanism would still ensure that KHCC is better positioned to make contributions work more effectively in supporting infrastructure planning and delivery. In considering the merits of a CIL (including a charging schedule and options for differential rates) and / or a restructured Section 106 mechanism, KHCC will have to be mindful of a number of issues, such as:

• creating clearer linkages between investment and outcome. KHCC is working hard via the production of AAPs to identify this within certain areas although it is likely that there are some requirements beyond the AAP areas. Greater linkage is needed between these and the Open Space Assessment and a clearer ‘map’ of public open space requirements needs to be prepared on which future planning tools can clearly rely. This includes more clarity on whether certain open space resources are for the benefit Hull as a whole – thus supporting the case for seeking city-wide CIL contributions.

• ensuring that any charging schedule reflects the fundamental importance of high quality open space to place-shaping and regeneration as well as local amenity. If setting differential rates for different zones in which development would be situated and for different intended uses of development then it may be appropriate to consider a dual policy with a level charged towards citywide open space and a level charged for development within designated AAP areas towards local, strategically important open space.

• being mindful of the marginal viability of a significant number of sites in Hull. The CIL Regulations permit exemptions in ‘exceptional circumstances’ – such as where the cost of complying with CIL would have an unacceptable impact on the economic viability of the development or where the cost of complying with the cost of an obligation (under s.106) is greater than the CIL payment. However, arguably this test can be met too frequently as land values are either not accurately reflecting the existing Section 106 policy (outside regeneration areas) or in regeneration areas the application of additional grant funder requirements is depressing land values and viability in general in order to achieve wider regeneration outcomes. Such a viability test is difficult to apply

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 124 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

consistently across Hull over a long period of time and it should be KHCC’s aim to apply any new CIL charging schedule more robustly with a view to land values then being adjusted to compensate for the additional costs and development returns not being unduly affected.

• exploring a CIL mechanism that defers more of the contribution to the end of the development, linked to its success, would de-risk developments and make them more likely to proceed. Whilst theoretically this exposes KHCC to some risk of non-payment, in practice it should realise higher contributions as more development should proceed.

There is clearly likely to be political sensitivity associated with a CIL mechanism and restructured Section 106 and KHCC needs to be mindful that any mechanism must be found ‘sound’ (see Section 2) in planning terms, and subject to an Independent Examination. However with land values “rebased” in light of the economic downturn, now is arguably an appropriate time to introduce such a mechanism so that it can be reflected in land values before the economy improves and values rise. Table 17.1 illustrates that at 2009 values and costs an indicative brownfield site for 200 homes would not be viable under existing market conditions and could not therefore afford to contribute a contribution to public open space. However it also demonstrates that subsequently as the market rises up to 2026 viability has the potential to improve considerably. In the absence of a strong tool for securing landowner/developer contributions the effect of this will be that land values increase and the landowner will be the principal beneficiary of the market upturn (aside from any reasonable development return). Conversely with a strong tool there could be considerable scope for extracting development contributions towards public open space over the next 17 years (roughly corresponding to the next property market cycle). Table 17.1: Indicative development appraisal

2009 2014 2019 2024 2026

Market Sales Income £27,000,000 £27,000,000 £28,377,271 £31,330,801 £32,596,565

Total Income £27,000,000 £27,000,000 £28,377,271 £31,330,801 £32,596,565

Land Value £1,057,500 £1,057,500 £1,057,500 £1,057,500 £1,057,500

Construction £19,000,000 £19,000,000 £19,000,000 £19,000,000 £19,000,000

Professional Fees £950,000 £950,000 £950,000 £950,000 £950,000

Surveys & Other Costs £500,000 £500,000 £500,000 £500,000 £500,000

VAT £0 £0 £0 £0 £0

Finance £806,531 £806,531 £806,531 £806,531 £806,531

Developer Return £6,750,000 £6,750,000 £6,750,000 £6,750,000 £6,750,000

Total Costs £29,064,031 £29,064,031 £29,408,349 £30,146,731 £30,463,172

Surplus / Deficit -£2,064,031 -£2,064,031 -£1,031,078 £1,184,069 £2,133,392

N.B. Assumptions:

• 200 unit scheme • All homes 3 bed semi detached properties

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 125 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

7 • No affordable housing • Average market sale value of £135k • No grant funding available • Land value of £5,000 per plot plus 5.75% acquisition costs (including SDLT) • Construction costs of £70k per unit plus £10k per unit of abnormal costs and average of £10k per unit for on site infrastructure 8 • Assumes no renewable energy / code for sustainable homes requirements • Professional fees at 5% of construction costs • Surveys and other costs on average of £25k per unit • All homes are new build and developer "opts to tax" (and is therefore able to recover VAT costs) • Finance costs of 7.5% (including arrangement fees and bank due diligence) and assumes debt of 50% of costs • Gross Developer Return of 25% of value (including marketing/sales costs) • Net sales inflation (after deducting cost price inflation) of 0% to 2014, 1% to 2019and 2% thereafter Indeed the development of open space, as a key form of place-making infrastructure, as illustrated in Figure 17.1, can itself contribute to the improvement of development returns and thereby benefit developers in the long term. The situations in which this will not work in the manner described is in the case of sites already acquired by developers at the height of the market or more generally at ambitious land values that do not anticipate revisions to Section 106 contributions and the emergence of CIL. In these cases KHCC will need to work closely with developers to explore means to secure the development of these sites and in the case of strategically important sites, encourage dialogue with the HCA and Yorkshire Forward. That said, in some cases landowners will simply have to review their expectations and, if appropriate, write down their acquisition costs. Figure 17.1: The Value Creation Curve

7 It remains a KHCC aspiration to secure affordable housing where viability permits (to be negotiated on a scheme specific basis). 8 KHCC is also currently exploring the feasibility of a renewable energy requirement. \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 126 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 127 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Taking account of emerging Core Strategy housing output targets and bearing in mind the assumptions from Table 17.1 that contributions cannot be afforded initially, Table 17.2 shows that there is still scope for a potential tariff in later years of the infrastructure study period. This indicates that, dependent on the level at which any CIL tariff is set, there may be scope for a significant contribution towards open space (and where applicable other planning requirements)9. Table 17.2: Scope to raise open space contributions through a CIL mechanism

Total 2009-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-2026

Completions per annum 650 880 1,380 1,380

Number of units 17,310 3,250 4,400 6,900 2,760 completed

Number units 3,105 0 0 1,725 1,380 contributing

Amount contributed (£ per unit)

£1,000 £3,105,000 £0 £0 £1,725,000 £1,380,000

£2,000 £6,210,000 £0 £0 £3,450,000 £2,760,000

£3,000 £9,315,000 £0 £0 £5,175,000 £4,140,000

£4,000 £12,420,000 £0 £0 £6,900,000 £5,520,000

£5,000 £15,525,000 £0 £0 £8,625,000 £6,900,000

N.B. Assumptions:

• Based on scheme viability outlined in Table 17.1 • On average 50% of schemes fail viability test and do not contribute • Number of units contributing in 2020-2024 is only 25% due to viability only being achieved halfway through this period. It is also important to note that the indicative feasibility analysis carried out in Tables 17.1 and 17.2 only applies to residential development. The scope for economic development to contribute to funding of public realm should also be further explored. The ability to draw contributions from economic development is included under the CIL Regulations.

Important points to consider for a new landowner / developer contribution tool The following are important principles to consider in creating a new contributions mechanism:

• increased transparency and certainty between what contribution needs to be paid, who should contribute, and what the contributions will be used, taking on board some of the points raised above;

9 It should be noted that the levels set in this table are indicative and are not intended to indicate a suggested pricing structure which will require further feasibility work (see Section 19). \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 128 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• a much tighter marginal viability test.

17.2.4 Enabling infrastructure There are a number of strategically important sites in Hull and East Riding and other strategic infrastructure requirements of importance to Hull where investment would happen in the “market”, but due to current economic conditions and the difficulty in accessing finance this could take a considerable time. The impact of this would be to dampen housing and economic growth. One opportunity that emerged through the study is to create a Strategic Infrastructure Fund capable of investing in and facilitating such infrastructure provision ahead of the market. The Fund could offer a mixture of traditional “debt” funding (lower risk, lower return) and “equity” investment (higher risk, higher return). Such investment would need to be on commercial terms, unless a State Aid exemption existed to permit alternative investment models. However this would potentially be on longer pay back periods than commercially available, taking into account that some investment (such as in renewable energy) make take 25 years or longer to pay back. The Fund could seek to access a range of funding. For its part, KHCC could endow the bank with an asset base. Additional ‘equity’ investment and assets could be obtained from the HCA and Yorkshire Forward. This total investment package could be “leveraged” through investment from the EU (European Investment Bank (EIB), “JESSICA” etc) and/or other means, such as a bond issue. To access EIB investment, the fund would need to demonstrate both scale (including the backing of the HCA and Yorkshire Forward) and an alignment with strategic investment priorities of the EU (such as facilitating renewable energy projects). The potential model is illustrated in the following diagram:

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 129 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

Figure 17.2: Model for the potential strategic infrastructure fund

This concept follows emerging trends. For example the Milton Keynes “Roof Tax” is a mechanism to forward-fund infrastructure to unlock development sites, with the Tax then paid and the funding repaid. A venture such as this could be a relatively low risk for KHCC, as considered further in Section 17.4. At the same time, it would signal KHCC’s innovation and become part of its “offer” to future developers, differentiating it from other areas, and demonstrate its innovation to Government as this approach is closely aligned with emerging Government policy. The Government has signalled its interest in models such as this through for example, the PFI Infrastructure Fund it established in 2008 to lend to well advanced PFI projects unable to access acceptable bank terms to ensure that they do not stall. In other locations similar but subtly different proposals are emerging, such as several Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) exploring infrastructure funds. The Government is also exploring the potential for Accelerated Development Zones for strategic sites and area based regeneration. Whilst very similar in its nature, ADZs are not likely to be of the same scale as the Fund proposed here, nor are they likely to be applicable to major citywide infrastructure investment (such as broadband). There are clearly many practical issues associated with establishing a Strategic Infrastructure Fund. However this is timely given the ongoing exploration by KHCC of options for its assets and models such as ADZs and the “single conversation” with the HCA and Yorkshire Forward.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 130 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

17.3 Considering the Future for Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy

Under current Government legislation, CIL is a new planning charge that will come into force on 6 April 2010 through the CIL Regulations 2010. CIL is a new charge which local authorities in England and Wales will be empowered, but not required, to levy on most types of new development in their areas. The proceeds of the levy will provide new local and sub-regional infrastructure to support the development of an area in line with local authorities’ development plans. CIL would run alongside a scaled back planning obligations system, whereby Local Authorities would still be able to secure contributions that would make development as long as it is a necessary requirement in order to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Local Authorities would as of April 2014 also be unable to introduce a tariff or pooled contributions through the Section 106 route, with CIL the desired approach for pooled contributions. The intention of CIL is to ensure that developments pay their ‘fair share’ of infrastructure costs, independent of whether additional infrastructure is required to allow the commencement of development. The introduction of CIL would provide certainty to developers on the potential level of charge (and therefore allow developers to incorporate the charge in calculating the maximum land cost to ensure future development viability). Furthermore, there is the potential for any future role of CIL to be increased over time to respond to changes in the market and land values. Given the current challenging viability issues in Hull, an initial CIL could be set at a nominal fee to ensure that it does not inhibit viability, with the potential to review the charging schedule through the life of the Core Strategy. Given the 2010 General Election there are some uncertainties over the long term future for CIL. Irrespective of these uncertainties KHCC needs to review how it can make the process of capturing developer contributions more transparent and consistent. If KHCC does take forward a CIL, then the following issues need to be discussed, referencing the findings of this study:

• what further work is required to link a charging schedule to a series of infrastructure projects or types;

• what level KHCC should set the base CIL charge so as to ensure contributions but also ensure that viability of development is not compromised;

• how to balance creating certainty of costs for the development industry against determining differential rates which may be required in different areas so as to ensure viability of development; and

• how to deliver training within KHCC to operate such a new mechanism.

17.4 Managing Risks

The timetable of this Infrastructure Study is such that the recommendations will be made prior to a General Election. We are also facing a slow economic (and property market) recovery and a tightening public sector spending climate. To manage these risks KHCC needs to:

• make the strongest possible case for Government investment where there are allocations but not yet committed funding (This includes the A63 Castle Street improvements and the BSF programme) and new funding requirements, such as the programme of primary school maintenance required beyond 2010/11;

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 131 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• ensure that landowners/developers make an appropriate contribution to funding infrastructure necessitated from development, taking advantage of future economic and property market recovery;

• strengthen understanding on what a charging schedule for CIL could look like, linking it to infrastructure projects or types and also consider differential rates for different areas;

• explore innovative means for capitalising on KHCC’s assets to help fund infrastructure; and

• access European investment which is not affected in the same way as Government funding.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 132 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

18 Conclusions and Recommendations

18.1 Overall Conclusion

The conclusion from this study is that there is broadly sufficient infrastructure, either current or planned, to support the housing and economic growth aspirations for Kingston upon Hull up to 2026. As such, the current evidence shows that the strategy set out in the emerging Core Strategy and the City Centre AAP are broadly deliverable. However, there are uncertainties associated with the planning and delivery of some infrastructure. There are also some gaps in the ability of committed or allocated funding to deliver the necessary level of infrastructure. Specific risks include:

• devising a series of short, medium and long term solutions to address the impact of development on the transport network, especially A63 Castle Street;

• the requirement for a new primary electricity sub-station in the city centre so as to facilitate and enable new development;

• maintaining a proactive approach to flood risk and surface water drainage issues and ensuring a long term funding and delivery strategy is developed;

• formulating solutions to address the monopoly of provision in telecommunications, with decisions required on whether KHCC takes a more active role in facilitating the transition to Next Generation Access; and

• overcoming the funding gap to deliver the required level of green infrastructure, open space, sport and recreation, and reaching agreement on how the revised approach to developer contributions through a CIL can help fill funding gaps.

Across this areas of risk decisions will need to be made on priorities for infrastructure delivery. These decisions must factor in the timing and phasing of housing and economic development and also infrastructure investment cycles. Across certain infrastructure types KHCC will also need to consider a range of options and solutions to reflect uncertainties in delivery and uncertainties over funding and investment.

18.2 Infrastructure-Specific Conclusions

The following section details the specific conclusions in relation to each infrastructure type:

• Transport – capacity and congestion issues on the A63 Castle Street is a long-standing and constraint on future housing and economic growth. It specifically impinges on the future development of the Port of Hull and also serves as a physical barrier to other infrastructure providers, for example, emergency services;

• Utility Networks – there is a need for a new primary electricity sub-station in the City Centre to enable the level and type of housing and economic growth planned. This a vital piece of enabling infrastructure to help secure the long term future of development viability in the city centre;

• Telecommunications – complexities surround the future delivery of telecommunications and ICT in Hull due to the monopoly of operation by Kingston Communications. Investment is likely to be demand-led and market-driven. To deliver on its other objectives, the Council could explore opportunities to bring about greater digital connectivity in the city. Investment by the Council would be as part of wider aims to develop the knowledge-economy, reposition sites and deliver regeneration;

• Flood Risk and Drainage – planned infrastructure improvements and programmed investments are set to provide Hull’s watercourses with the required standards of

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 133 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

protection as set out in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments. The Council has recently completed a Surface Water Management Plan to further address drainage infrastructure in the district;

• Waste – The contract established with WRG will deliver waste management services up to 2024. An infrastructure and funding gap may emerge post 2024. There are uncertainties surrounding the future of a proposed Energy-from-Waste plant. Funding such a facility through a PFI contract is no longer deemed an option and the KHCC and ERYC are actively pursuing alternative options for financing the EfW plant;

• Green Infrastructure, Open Space & Public Realm – There are significant costs and an identified gap in funding for the delivery of proposed green infrastructure and open space improvements. Many of the schemes proposed are in key strategic development areas and regeneration areas. The funding gap poses problem for KHCC’s long term transformational change agenda. As highlighted in Section 10, understanding the role of developer contributions (i.e. CIL or a revised Section 106) in bridging this funding gap requires further work and consideration;

• Health – Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust is in the middle of a £250m capital investment programme. Some facilities have already opened with others schedule to open shortly. The £250million needed to deliver the programme is secured and as such it has been deemed that there are no infrastructure gaps or gaps in funding;

• Emergency Services – The general trend is for Emergency Services is to move away from larger centralised buildings or facilities and towards smaller, leaner and more responsive service provision. Funding is allocated directly from central government and through local council tax and captured within Capital Plans and Programmes. Internal risk analysis undertaken by each emergency service results in bespoke service provision. Proposals for new station buildings for both Humberside Police and Humberside Fire and Rescue offers potential land release and development opportunities for Hull; and

• Education – Demand projections for service provision in schools reflects growth up to 2019. Infrastructure costs associated with achieving the same standard of facilities in primary schools as is to be delivered through the proposed BSF secondary school programme equates to a cost burden of £45m over the next 15 years. Only £9m of this cost has been secured. The BSF programme itself will cover all new secondary school provision and is planned to be completed by 2014. The BSF programme is predicated on population projections up to 2019 with all funding confirmed.

18.3 Other Conclusions for Infrastructure Planning and Delivery

The following general conclusions are a summary of the strategic issues affecting the overall delivery of infrastructure:

• Demanding targets for housing and economic growth, strategies for regeneration, and the need to deliver against housing market renewal objectives, set a challenging context for infrastructure delivery in Hull. Meeting such wide-ranging goals, and providing the requisite level of infrastructure to facilitate, requires a well thought-out approach to infrastructure planning and delivery.

• Delivery of strategic and local level infrastructure must enable and unlock plans for growth, regeneration, economic restructuring and housing market renewal.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 134 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

• A vital part of infrastructure delivery in Hull is to position places and areas more favourably, raising the overall quality of place and the quality of the residential offer, so that places are more favourable to public and private sector investment.

• Spatial strategies at the regional, city-region and local level set out a series of investment plans which programme short, medium and long term development. Under current economic conditions, these planned approaches are likely to suffer from programme delays. This is likely to have knock-on consequences for funding scenarios.

• Different funding and delivery mechanisms will be required for different types of infrastructure and a ‘cocktail’ of funding sources will be necessary to achieve infrastructure requirements. Although public sector finance will remain a major component of funding, there will be an increasing need to explore innovative and new funding mechanisms to realise different forms of infrastructure. This includes developing options for CIL and a Strategic Infrastructure Fund, along with other mechanisms that can maximise public sector spending and stimulate and leverage private sector finance.

18.4 Priority Infrastructure

This study has highlighted some priority infrastructure types where short, medium and long term delivery will be important; they are categorised as follows:

• Place-shaping infrastructure – in particular for greenspace and open space.

• Enabling infrastructure - for strategic sites in Hull and East Riding or other infrastructure of strategic importance to Hull, in particular electricity capacity in Hull City Centre. There are also other investments which if left to the market would happen only slowly, including telecommunications investment.

Overcoming the identified infrastructure gaps will require a bespoke solution from KHCC, wider stakeholders, and the private sector. Many solutions will require a multi-agency approach with partners working together to maximise possibilities. Equally, each infrastructure ‘type’ will require its own funding solution, categorised as follows:

• For strategic infrastructure of national / regional significance – Government funding sources seem most appropriate.

• For place-shaping infrastructure – investment is initially likely to come from known public sector sources such as HCA and Yorkshire Forward along with some investment from KHCC and other grant sources. However this is likely to leave a residual funding gap that needs to be bridged, with landowners / developers the next most obvious source of investment. As of April 2010, KHCC will need to explore how CIL can meet corporate and infrastructure objectives, and / or how KHCC can revise its existing Section 106 obligations so as to gain greater, more consistent levels of developer contributions.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 135 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

18.5 Recommendations

The findings of this study have raised a number of issues to consider as KHCC progresses in the short, medium and long term. Based upon knowledge gathered, it is recommended that KHCC proceeds with the following next steps:

1. Communicate and consult on the findings of this Infrastructure Study. Whilst the development of the study has been the subject of extensive consultation within KHCC and with partner organisations, there are no doubt many other parties with a view on the findings. KHCC should consult formally on the findings and reflect any consultation feedback within future iterations.

• A commitment of time and resources by KHCC and partner agencies. This time will be required to review the existing evidence, update with new information and provide revised analysis where circumstances have changed;

• The creation of an infrastructure planning partnership group. KHCC should create a partner group responsible for co-ordinating the collation of infrastructure and funding information and producing future updates of the infrastructure study; and

• The development of a methodology for capturing infrastructure requirements and funding need. This will lessen the burden of information gathering in the future by ensuring that KHCC and its partners record infrastructure requirements regularly and in a consistent manner. This in turn will create a stronger evidence base to support future funding bids.

3. Ensure that existing allocations are converted into funding commitments. KHCC needs to take all necessary steps to ensure that existing allocations become committed funding. This will involve continuous dialogue with local, city-region and regional partners to maintain Hull’s position as a vital component of the future of the Hull and Humber Ports City-Region and the Yorkshire and Humber region.

4. Irrespective of the long term future for CIL, KHCC should undertake further work to establish how it can make the process of capturing developer contributions more transparent and consistent. If KHCC does take forward a CIL, then further work is required to produce a charging schedule for CIL. This should reference the findings of this study and look to identify a series of infrastructure projects or types against which the CIL charge rate would contribute. Further work is also required to understand whether differential rates could be set for different areas of Hull, in order to balance the level of contributions required to invest in infrastructure against the viability of \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 136 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

development coming forward across the city. Any further work should also include delivering training within KHCC to operate such a new mechanism.

5. It is recommended that KHCC explores in greater detail the available investment from HCA and Yorkshire Forward via the “single conversation” and in turn the extent of the funding gap that needs to be met by developer contributions and CIL.

6. Explore in greater depth the feasibility of a Strategic Infrastructure Fund. Further work is required to examine how a Fund might be structured and the type of projects it could support. This needs to be undertaken working closely with partners including the HCA and Yorkshire Forward.

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL Page 137 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP Issue 10 May 2010 REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Appendix A List of Consultees

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

A1 List of Consultees

Kingston upon Hull City Council / East Riding of Yorkshire Council Departments Engaged in the Infrastructure Study

East Riding of Yorkshire Council Planning Department

KHCC Adult Education

KHCC Asset Management

KHCC Culture and Leisure Services

KHCC Education

KHCC Planning Department

KHCC Play Development

KHCC Streetscene

KHCC Transportation Department

KHCC Building Schools for the Future

Infrastructure Providers Engaged in the Study

ABP Associated British Ports

Environment Agency

Highways Agency

Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

Hull College

Hull Forward

Hull Gateway

Hull Learning and Skills Council

Humberside Fire and Rescue Service

Humberside Police

Kingston Communications

NHS Hull / Hull Teaching Primary Care Trust

Network Rail

Northern Gas Networks

University of Hull

University of Lincoln

Yorkshire Ambulance Service

Yorkshire Electricity

Yorkshire Water Services

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRAST RUCTURE Page A1 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL Issue 10 May 2010 REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC

Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report

\\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRAST RUCTURE Page A2 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL Issue 10 May 2010 REPORT\HULL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC