Draft Community Infrastructure Plan 2012 - 2025

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

December 2011

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 6

Section 1: Planning for Community Infrastructure ...... 9

1.1 Purpose 9 1.2 Background 9 1.3 New Legislation and Policy 9 1.4 Stakeholder Consultation 12 Section 2: Community Infrastructure Plan Methodology ...... 12

2.1 Determining the Level of Growth 12 2.1.1 Introduction 12 2.1.2 Development Vision 12 2.1.3 Housing 13 2.2 Calculating Demand 14 2.2.1 What is the age profile of population growth associated with new development? 14 2.2.2 New Housing Developments and Total Population Growth 15 2.2.3 Scope of Infrastructure 15 Section 3: Community Infrastructure Appraisal ...... 16

3.1 Education 16 3.1.1 Education - Current Provision 16 3.1.2 Education – Existing and projected shortfall/surplus 17 3.1.3 Education – identifying demand arising from new housing 21 3.1.4 Education – Costs and Funding Sources. 24 3.1.5 Education Funding Sources 25 3.1.6 Further Education and Adult Community Learning - Current Provision 27 3.1.7 Further Education and Adult Community Learning - Existing shortfall/surplus 28 3.1.8 Further Education and Adult Community Learning - Projected shortfall/surplus 28 3.1.9 Further Education and Adult Community Learning – Costs and Funding Sources 28 3.2 Transport 29 3.2.1 Transport – Current Provision 29 2

3.2.2 Transport - Existing Shortfall/Surplus 29 3.2.3 Transport – Projected shortfall/surplus 33 3.2.4 Improving Connectivity and Tackling Congestion 34 3.2.5 Transport - Costs and Funding Sources 36 3.3 Health 39 3.3.1 General Health – Current Provision 39 3.3.2 General Health - Existing shortfall/surplus 41 3.3.3 General Health - Projected Shortfall/Surplus 41 3.3.4 Intermediate Care – Current Provision 42 3.3.5 Intermediate Care - Existing and projected shortfall/surplus 42 3.3.6 Hospitals – Current Provision 42 3.3.7 Hospitals - Existing shortfall/surplus 42 3.3.8 Hospitals - Projected Shortfall/Surplus 42 3.3.9 Health (all provision) – Costs and funding sources 43 3.4 Public Realm 45 3.5 Open Space 47 3.5.1 Open Space - Current Provision 47 3.5.2 Open Space – Existing shortfall/surplus 49 3.5.3 Open Space – Projected shortfall/surplus 50 3.5.4 Open Spaces – Costs and Funding Sources 52 3.6 Allotments 53 3.6.1 Allotments - Current Provision 53 3.6.2 Allotments - Existing shortfall/surplus 54 3.6.3 Allotments - Projected shortfall/surplus 55 3.6.4 Allotments - Costs and Funding Sources 55 3.7 Leisure 56 3.7.1 Indoor Leisure - Current Provision 56 3.7.2 Indoor Leisure - Existing Shortfall/Surplus 57 3.7.3 Indoor Leisure - Projected shortfall/surplus 58 3.7.4 Land and build requirements for 11.2 leisure centre courts 58 3.7.5 Land and build requirements for 406 sq m of pool. 58 3.7.6 Other facilities coming forward. 58 3.7.7 Indoor Leisure - Cost and Funding Sources 59 3.7.8 Outdoor Leisure - Current Provision 60 3.7.9 Outdoor Leisure - Existing shortfall/surplus 60 Multi-Use Games Areas 62 3.7.10 Outdoor Leisure - Projected shortfall/surplus 63 3.7.11 Outdoor Leisure - Costs and Funding Sources 64 3.8 Play 66 3.8.1 Play - Current Provision 66 3.8.2 Assessing Areas of Deficiency 66 3.8.3 Play - Existing shortfall/surplus 69 3.8.4 Play - Projected shortfall/surplus 70

3.8.5 Play - Costs and Funding Sources 71 3.9 Children’s Centres 71 3.9.1 Children’s Centres – Current Provision 71 3.9.2 Children’s Centres – Existing shortfall/surplus 72 3.9.3 Children’s Centres – Projected shortfall/surplus 72 3.9.4 Children’s Centres – Costs and Funding Sources 72 3.10 Cemeteries 73 3.10.1 Cemeteries - Current Provision 73 3.10.2 Cemeteries - Existing Shortfall/Surplus 74 3.10.3 Cemeteries - Projected Shortfall/Surplus 74 3.10.4 Cemeteries – Costs and Funding Sources 75 3.11 Libraries 75 3.11.1 Libraries– Current Provision 75 3.11.2 Libraries – Existing shortfall/surplus 77 3.11.3 Libraries – Projected shortfall/surplus 78 3.11.4 Libraries - Costs and Funding Sources 78 3.12 Flood Defences and Mitigation Measures 79 3.12.1 Introduction 79 3.12.2 Tidal and Fluvial Flooding 79 3.12.3 Potential Flood Defence and Mitigation Projects Tidal and Fluvial Flooding 81 3.12.4 Surface Water Flooding 82 3.12.5 Surface Water Flooding - future flood risk management 83 3.12.6 Potential Flood Defence and Mitigation Surface Water Flooding 84 3.12.7 Flooding - Costs and Funding Sources 88 3.13 Employment/Local Labour 89 3.13.1 Training 89 3.13.2 Business Enterprise Centres 89 3.13.3 LBBD Employment/Local Labour Costs and Funding Sources 90 3.14 Neighbourhood Planning 90 3.15 Emergency and Essential Services 91 3.15.1 Emergency and Essential Services - Current Provision 91 3.15.2 Emergency and Essential Services - Existing Shortfall/Surplus 91 3.15.3 Emergency and Essential Services - Projected Shortfall/Surplus 92 3.15.4 Emergency and Essential Services - Cost and Funding Sources 93 Section 4: Delivery ...... 95

4.1 Overall Community Infrastructure Requirements 95 4.2 A Viable Level of CIL 96

4.2.1 Viability testing for residential developments 96 4.2.2 Viability testing for commercial development 100 4.3 How much development will be eligible for CIL? 100 4.4 Exemptions and zero rated development 103 4.5 Reliefs and exemptions 103 Section 5: Appendices ...... 105

Appendix 1: Calculating the population gain from 14,910 new homes. 105 Appendix 2: Calculating the average floorspace of new residential units coming forward. 107

Executive Summary

The Council’s Local Development Framework plans to deliver 17,850 new homes by 2025 (a minimum annual housing growth of 1,190 additional homes). However, the London Plan (2011) establishes a minimum 10 year target of 10,650 and a revised annual monitoring target of 1,065. Over the 14 years from 2012/13 to 2025/26, this equates to 14,910 new homes and 36,082 additional people. If they are to enjoy a good quality of life without placing an over-demand on existing services, and compromising the quality of life of existing residents, then they must be provided with adequate community facilities.

The purpose of this plan is to establish the community infrastructure requirements to support the growth planned in Barking and Dagenham. These fall into the following categories:

• Education • Transport • Health • Public Realm • Open Space (publicly accessible open space and allotments) • Leisure (indoor, outdoor and play) • Children’s Centres • Libraries • Flood Defences • Local Labour • Emergency Services

It identifies what facilities exist now and whether these meet current demand. It also identifies what facilities will be required to meet the needs of the additional population and estimates the capital costs of providing these. Finally, the plan identifies the plan looks at funding sources to meet infrastructure costs and identifies any shortfall from this assessment.

This plan provides the justification for the Council applying a standard developer charge known as the Community Infrastructure levy. Currently, developer contributions are known as ‘planning obligations’ and are secured through Section 106 agreements. However, new legislation, the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010, came into force on 6th April 2010 (now amended by the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2011). The Community Infrastructure Levy is a new levy that local authorities can choose to charge on new developments in their area. The money can be used to support development by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods want.

S106 agreements have been retained but will be scaled back to focus on direct site specific mitigation and affordable housing. The regulations allow for a transition period until 2014, within which s106 agreements can be retained to deliver wider 6

planning benefit, pending the adoption of a Community Infrastructure Levy but after then S106 agreements will be scaled back significantly so they only focus on site specific mitigation. Therefore if the Council does not have a Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule in place by 2014 it will not be able to secure developer contributions towards wider infrastructure needs.

The table below summarises the costs and identified shortfalls of meeting future community facility need generated by 36,082 new residents.

Table 1: Cost of Community Infrastructure to support growth in Barking and Dagenham to 2025.

Type of Facility Existing shortfall Council’s Responsibilities Education (incl. land for 4 additional primary schools £147,613,529 and 2 additional 8FE secondary schools all on confined sites. Also includes 6398 primary school places and 4,570 primary school places) Transport (incl. £500m for DLR Extension, £52m for £633,511,000 Renwick Road Junction Improvements) Public Realm (incl. London Road/North Street Market £2,660,000 Square, A406 roundabout, BTC East Street, Street Scene Enhancement, Becontree Station Improvements, Creekmouth Industrial Area) Open Space (incl. Abbey Green, Mayesbrook Park) £7,540,000 Allotments (maintenance and creation of allotment £649,476 space) Leisure (Indoor) (Build and land costs for 2 additional £4,032,900 4 court leisure centres. This assumes Barking Riverside will provide land and building for 8 lane swimming pool) Leisure (Outdoor) (additional 17.76 hectares of £6,814,140 playing pitches, 1.5 tennis courts, 1 bowling green and upgrading of sports pavilion in eight strategic parks) Play (play provision for 5-9 year olds. Under 5s to be £1,049,920 provided through S106 agreements (doorstep play)). Children’s Centres £5,600,000 Cemeteries No information Libraries (Revenue costs for Barking Riverside £3,600,000 Library, Ongoing maintenance costs of existing estate) Flood Defences (Measures to manage surface water £56,310,823 flooding in LBBD. Does not include fluvial or tidal flooding) Employment and Local Labour (Revenue £2,600,000 requirements for Barking Business Centre. Local Labour agreements to be provided through S106

agreements) Emergency Services None.

NHS Outer North East London’s responsibilities Health (capital requirements for 36,082 people) £22,144,757

Further Education Provider’s Responsibilities Further Education No information Total £894,126,545

Section 1: Planning for Community Infrastructure

1.1 Purpose

The Community Infrastructure Plan identifies the amount, cost and sources of funding for the main types of community infrastructure needed to support the growth planned in Barking and Dagenham until 2025. It provides an evidence base to justify the need for the Council to apply a Community Infrastructure Levy on development coming forward in the borough.

1.2 Background

Where significant population growth is proposed, it is essential that the supporting community infrastructure needs are considered, such as schools, health centres, and sports facilities. This helps to ensure that these new residents, and the existing population, have a good quality of life.

Community infrastructure is provided by different agencies and tiers of Government and the overall infrastructure needs of an area are not always co-ordinated with new development. Funding is often an issue where the existing local tax base cannot meet the cost of the entire required infrastructure.

New community infrastructure is often sought in connection with new development to mitigate its impact. Until now, this has been done through contributions known as ‘planning obligations’ which are secured through Section 106 agreements. This can be a monetary contribution or an ‘in kind’ contribution, negotiated as part of the planning process. The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 state that planning obligations must be:

• Necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; • Directly related to the proposed development; • Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and

1.3 New Legislation and Policy

New Government legislation and policy requires a much stronger link between plan making and infrastructure delivery, with a new approach to developer contributions.

The Planning Act 2008 contains enabling provisions for a new infrastructure funding mechanism known as the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which can be used for the following types of infrastructure: 9

• Roads and other transport facilities; • Flood defences; • Schools and other educational facilities; • Medical facilities; • Sporting and recreational facilities; • Open space; and • Affordable housing.

This list is not exhaustive and is intended to demonstrate the types of infrastructure which should be considered by local authorities. The Government favours a wide definition of community infrastructure and has stated that it will be possible for local authorities to collect CIL for types of infrastructure which are not specifically listed. Although the Act provides the power to apply CIL for affordable housing purposes, the Government has stated that its intention is to continue to deal with affordable housing through Section 106 Agreements.

The operational detail of CIL is outlined in new legislation, The Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010, which came into force on 6th April 2010 (now amended by the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2011.

The Government has decided that this tariff based approach provides the best approach to fund infrastructure and unlock land for growth. CIL is fairer, faster and more certain and transparent than the system of planning obligations which causes delay as a result of lengthy negotiations. Levy rates will provide developers with much more certainty ‘up front’ about how much money they are expected to contribute.

CIL will differ from Section 106 in a number of ways:

• The purpose of CIL is to contribute towards the provision of infrastructure required to support growth, whereas Section 106 is for the mitigation of the impact of a specific development.

• All eligible development will be required to pay CIL.

• CIL will not be a matter that can be appealed through the planning system, and there can be no negotiation on it.

• CIL is intended to fund infrastructure required to support growth across the development plan area.

• CIL will not have a time limit on its spending.

• It must be spent on infrastructure and local authorities will be under a duty to report (on an annual basis) how much CIL has been received, how much CIL has been spent and on what, and how much CIL is held.

Developer contributions may only be levied to recover costs generated by new development. They should not be used to deal with existing deficiencies or need arising from general population growth unless those deficiencies are made more severe by new development. The levy can be used to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure or to repair failing existing infrastructure, if that is necessary to support development.

CIL is to be paid according to a Charging Schedule prepared by the Charging Authority, which in this case is the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. The Charging Schedule must be subjected to independent examination before it can be adopted, and must be informed by appropriate evidence which should include:

• An up-to-date development plan; • Infrastructure planning consistent with PPS12; • A broad assessment of the potential impact of CIL on the viability of development.

Barking and Dagenham’s Development Plan is the Local Development Framework which superseded its Unitary Development Plan in 2011.

The Community Infrastructure Plan is intended to provide the key piece of evidence to support Barking and Dagenham’s Infrastructure Charging Schedule. It will be supplemented by economic viability assessments of different types of development in different parts of the borough in order to assess what scope there is in the borough to apply CIL and how this will impact upon the delivery of growth identified in the Core Strategy. The economic viability assessment will take into account the policies in the Development Plan which will have an impact on build cost (e.g. Code for Sustainable Homes/BREEAM requirements). The assessment will also assume a certain level of S106 contributions for different types of development in order to manage onsite impacts (e.g. local labour agreements and highways improvements).

London is the only place where a strategic tier authority may also set a CIL. The Greater London Authority is currently consulting on a draft CIL for Crossrail which aims to secure £300million towards the £14.5 billion Crossrail development. This commences on 1st April 2012 and will be payable for most new development in London until 2019 or until £300 million has been secured. The suggested rate for Barking and Dagenham is £20 per sq m of net additional increase in floor space. The rate charged in Barking and Dagenham will take into account this additional charge from the GLA.

‘In-kind’ and ‘on-site’ provision

The regulations allow a charging authority to accept one or more land payments in satisfaction of the whole or part of the CIL due in respect of a chargeable development. Where CIL is paid by way of a land payment the amount of CIL paid is an amount equal to the value of the acquired land. The value of acquired land must be determined by an independent person and is the price that the land might reasonably be expected to obtain if sold on the open market on the day the valuation takes place. 11

1.4 Stakeholder Consultation

While there is no statutory requirement to consult on the preparations of a Community Infrastructure Plan, extensive consultation has taken place with the following Council service areas and non-Council agencies:

• Culture and Sport, Adult and Community Services • Community, Heritage Services and Libraries, Adult and Community Services • Parks and Leisure Development, Leisure and Arts, Adult and Community Services • School Estate and Organisation Group, Children's Services • Transport Planning, Regeneration and Economic Development, Resources • Skills, Learning and Enterprise, Regeneration and Economic Development, Resources • NHS Outer North East London • Environment Agency • Barking and Dagenham College

Section 2: Community Infrastructure Plan Methodology

2.1 Determining the Level of Growth

2.1.1 Introduction

This Community Infrastructure Plan has been prepared using the guidelines set out in Planning Policy Statement 12 and the Governments statutory guidance document on implementing the CIL (Charge setting and charging schedule procedures, CLG 2010).

2.1.2 Development Vision

The Core Strategy (LBBD July 2010) includes a vision for the future of Barking and Dagenham, which supports the Boroughs Community Plan. The vision states that by 2025 the opportunities for growth in the borough will have been seized bringing 60,000 new people to the borough and 12,000 new jobs and the focus of this growth will take place in Barking Riverside, South Dagenham, Dagenham Dock and Barking Town Centre. The vision states provision of new schools, health facilities and other community facilities will have gone hand in hand with new housing development.

From this vision, Strategic Policy CM1 sets out the general principles for development. This policy states that residential development should be located in the key regeneration areas such as Barking town centre, Barking Riverside and South

Dagenham and on previously development land in other areas which have high Public Transport Accessibility Levels (i.e. levels 4 – 6). Employment growth will be focussed on Dagenham Dock as well as the other designated Strategic Industrial Locations and Locally Significant Industrial Sites as defined in the reasoned justification to Policy CE3 and as shown on the Proposals Map. Retail and other town centre development will be focussed within the centres set out in the hierarchy defined in Policy CM5. The Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and other important open spaces will be safeguarded from development.

The policy also states that development should meet the needs of new and existing communities. A sustainable balance will be sought between housing, jobs and social infrastructure to ensure Barking and Dagenham can continue to function successfully as a community in its own right, and does not become a commuter dormitory. Development should contribute to the regeneration of the borough by providing suitable housing, social, cultural and economic choices for all, improving health and well being, supporting town centres and enhancing the image of the borough

Policy CM1 (above) outlines the key regeneration areas of Barking Town Centre, Barking Riverside and South Dagenham, and emphasises the need to locate new development where there is already sufficient infrastructure to support it or provide it in association with the development.

The infrastructure plan identifies all of the necessary infrastructure required by the new population that will be living in proposed new housing development in the Borough. Costs are then estimated so that an appropriate levy can be set.

2.1.3 Housing In respect of new housing, strategic Policy CM2 outlines the amount and locations of new growth. The policy states the Council will plan for a minimum annual housing growth of 1,190 additional homes in the fifteen year period to 2024/25. This equates to at least 17,850 new homes in Barking and Dagenham between 2010/11 and 2024/25.

Policy CM2 recognises that new housing growth will put pressure on the existing infrastructure and that additional infrastructure must be planned for so it can be funded and provided at the appropriate time.

Revised Housing Targets

Policy CM2 outlines minimum housing targets to the year 2024/25 which must be planned for. However, the Mayor has more recently revised housing targets for London to a more realistic level as over 96% of housing output comes from brownfield land and many of these sites are currently in other active uses. In the case of Barking and Dagenham, housing delivery is below original forecasts and for this reason a lower target has been set in the London Plan 2011.

The new target set out in the London Plan for London Borough of Barking and Dagenham which will be used for the purpose of calculating projected growth and related infrastructure requirements is as follows:

LBBD Annual Average Housing Provision Monitoring Targets 2011 - 2021 Minimum 10 year target Annual Monitoring Target 10,650 1,065

For the 14 years from 2012/13 to 2025/26, this will equate to 14,910 new homes for the Borough.

2.2 Calculating Demand Demand for additional community infrastructure is not directly generated by new homes, but from the people who live in those homes. It is therefore necessary to estimate how many people will live in those 14,910 Homes planned for Barking and Dagenham.

Appendix 1 provides an analysis of population growth based on 14,910 new homes and identifies the figure of 2.42 people per household to be the most appropriate for the purpose of calculating this.

Using this figure, population growth linked to new housing development would amount to about 36,082 people.

2.2.1 What is the age profile of population growth associated with new development?

The population figures outlined in table 2 below are taken from the Community Mapping Administrative Population Count (LBBD, March 2011). This information has been collated using administrative sources (e.g. child benefit data, GP registers, Electoral register, benefits data etc) and indicates that the Borough population is 4,816 higher than the comparable GLA 2011 estimate. The fourth column provides a breakdown of what the new population would be if it followed the same pattern as the existing population.

Table 2: % Age Breakdown of Borough Population in 2011 and of projected new population.

Population Projected new Age Range (adjusted) % of total population 0 ‐ 4 18056 9.8031338 3537.166734 5 ‐ 9 14136 7.6748504 2769.23953 10 ‐ 14 12106 6.5727037 2371.562942 15 ‐ 19 11795 6.4038526 2310.638105 Total age 0‐19 = 10989 20 ‐ 24 12196 6.6215673 2389.193924 25 ‐ 29 14127 7.6699641 2767.476431 14

30 ‐ 34 15153 8.2270097 2968.469623 35 ‐ 39 14432 7.8355575 2827.22587 40 ‐ 44 14216 7.7182848 2784.911513 45 ‐ 49 12749 6.9218073 2497.526511 50 ‐ 54 10370 5.6301782 2031.480894 55 ‐ 59 7772 4.2196475 1522.533222 60 ‐ 64 7124 3.8678293 1395.590153 65 ‐ 69 4944 2.6842431 968.5285961 70 ‐ 74 4455 2.4187506 872.7335954 75 ‐ 79 3830 2.0794197 750.2962223 80 ‐ 84 3151 1.7107706 617.2802602 85 ‐ 89 1992 1.0815154 390.2323955 90 + 906 0.4918941 177.485216 age unknown 676 0.3670203 132.4282627 184186 99.63298 36,082

The figures in the fourth column of Table 2 do not take into account the specifics of the population moving into newly built properties in the borough. The Barking Town Centre New Housing Survey (LBBD, 2010) for instance would indicate that the child yield of new housing is much higher than that suggested in table 2. Section 3.1 which looks specifically at the child yield of new developments has used data from the Barking Town Centre New Housing Survey, existing pupil yield models as well as the GLA’s child yield as set out in Annex 1 to the Supplementary Planning Guidance Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation. This report concludes that 14,910 new homes being delivered in accordance with adopted planning policy on provision of family homes will yield as many as 14,624 new children where as the figures show the projected total population of the 0 to 19 age group to be 10,989.

The only data available specific to the age profile of newly completed developments is the Barking Town Centre new Housing Survey and therefore for the purpose of assessing impact on school, leisure and play space provision the figure of 14,624 under 19 year olds is used.

2.2.2 New Housing Developments and Total Population Growth

It is important to note that the figure of 36,082 is the estimated number of people who will live in 14,910 new homes. It takes no account of changes to the population within the existing housing stock.

2.2.3 Scope of Infrastructure

The Council has identified the following types of essential community infrastructure that will be required to support an addition population of 38,082 in Barking and Dagenham by 2025:

• Education • Transport • Health • Public Realm • Open Space • Allotments • Play • Leisure (indoor, outdoor and play) • Children’s Centres • Libraries • Flood Defences • Local Labour • Emergency Services

Section 3: Community Infrastructure Appraisal

3.1 Education

3.1.1 Education - Current Provision Primary Schools

There are 48 schools in the borough which cater for primary school aged children (aged 4 – 11), including a new primary school which opened on Barking Riverside in September 2011.

There are 11 infant schools in the borough for children aged four to seven. All are linked to a junior school for children aged seven to 11. There are 20 primary schools for children aged four to 11. In addition there are six voluntary aided schools. A total of 18,643 children (reception to year 6) attended the borough’s primary schools in 2010/11 (PLASC data). This has increased significantly since the academic year of 2006/7 when the number of children attending the borough’s primary schools was 16,596 (ibid.)

Secondary Schools

There are nine secondary schools in the borough which cater for children aged 11 – 16. In total these schools catered for 10,920 in 2010/11(PLASC data) school children for Years 7 – 11 (not including 6th Form). This compares to 10,851 pupils in 2006/7 (ibid.)

SEN schools

There is currently one Special Educational Needs school in the borough which caters for Reception to Year 6, Years 7 – 11 and 6th Form.

3.1.2 Education – Existing and projected shortfall/surplus As part of the strategy for change under the former Building Schools for the Future programme and the Primary Capital Programme, the council analyses the ten year requirements (2007/8 to 2020/21) for pupil places in the primary reception to year six and in the secondary 11- 19 year olds.

The forecast takes into account the live birth rates, transfer and survival rates of pupils in schools and between schools, local house building including large scale borough wide regeneration, pressures on places in neighbouring boroughs and travel routes/cross boundary movement of 3 – 10 year old pupils and 11 – 19 year old pupils, local school achievements and expression of parental preferences for schools.

The forecast predicts that the overall local authority reception year population will rise by 1,628 pupils during the period 2007/8 – 2020/21. With regard to secondary school places the forecast predicts the year seven population to rise by 1364 pupils during the same period.

In order to meet demand, the LA has put in place the following number of additional reception classes:

2007/08 – 2 classes 2008/09 – 9 classes 2009/10 – 13 classes 2010/11 – 18 classes 2011/12 – 24 classes N.B. This includes both ‘blip’ classes and permanent expansions. With respect to secondary school places, the number of year seven pupils on roll in 2010/11 was 2,137 and the actual capacity was 2,350. The forecast shows that by 2012/13, the LA will be close to full capacity, and by 2013/14 demand will exceed capacity. Currently, therefore whilst the demand is not due to outstrip supply with respect to secondary school places until 2013/14 it has already done so in the primary school sector.

The Council has been planning on the basis of its forecasts of reception year children and year seven children. Not all the demand has been/will be satisfied through the building of new schools. The Council is also maximising the use of existing primary schools site in accommodating some of this growth. Nevertheless the Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document identified the following sites for the creation of new schools in the borough during the period 2010 – 2025.

Table 3: New primary schools identified in the Site Specific Allocations DPD

SSA SM1 Barking Riverside

SSA SC8A Barking 1 new three form primary Outline and reserved Riverside Stage 1 school. George Carey matters planning Neighbourhood Centre Church of England permission approved. Primary School (opened Land to be provided by September 2011). developer.

SSA SC8B Barking 1 new three form primary Outline planning Riverside Stage 2 District school permission approved. Centre Land to be provided by developer.

1 new eight form Outline planning secondary school permission approved. (September 2012) Land to be provided by developer.

SSA SC8C Barking 1 new three form primary Outline planning Riverside Stage 3 school permission approved. Neighbourhood Centre Land to be provided by developer.

SSA SC8D Barking 1 new three form primary Outline planning Riverside Stage 4 school (if necessary) permission approved. Neighbourhood Centre Land to be provided by developer.

SSA SM2 South 1 new three form primary Provision depends on Dagenham West and schools number of new homes Dagenham Leisure Park generated by the site.

SSA SM4 South 1 new three form primary Provision depends on Dagenham East school number of new homes generated by the site.

SSA SM5 Sanofi Aventis 2 1 new three form primary Provision depends on school number of new homes (if any) generated by the site. It is unlikely that any new homes will be built on this site

SSA SM6 University of 1 new three form primary Detailed planning East London school. This is due to permission approved. open September 2011 Land provided by and will form part of developer and S106 Manor Infant School at contribution towards Longbridge Road. construction costs of school

SSA SM8 Lymington Fields 1 new three form primary Detailed planning permission approved.

school Land to be provided by developer and S106 contribution towards construction costs of school.

SSA SC3 Cannington Road 1 new three form primary Detailed planning school. This opened in permission approved September 2010 and is Council owned land. linked to Roding Primary School.

SSA SC4 St George’s 1 new three form primary Included in the Council’s Centre school. This opened in Capital Programme. September 2010 and is Council owned land. linked to Valence Primary School.

In addition to the above, the Barking Town Centre Area Action Plan identifies a need for three new primary schools in the action plan area. These are:

Table 4: Primary Schools identified in the Barking Town Centre Area Action Plan

Gascoigne Estate 1 new three form primary New primary school to be school provided alongside redevelopment of Gascoigne Estate. Council owned land.

Westbury Centre. Conversion to primary Council owned land. This school opened in September 2010 and is linked to Ripple Primary School.

Barking Town Centre 1 new three form primary No specific site identified. school Land cost and build cost.

Of the above schools, the Cannington Road School has been built and serves as a second site to Roding Primary School. The Westbury Centre has also been operating as a primary school site since September 2010. Two new primary schools, including the George Carey Church of England Primary School at Barking Riverside and the University of East London Primary School (which forms part of Manor Infant Primary School), which are designed to take 90 reception year children opened in September 2011. Whilst the Council has identified the needs required to meet the forecast demand the Council currently seeks S106 contributions from all major developers which will give 19

rise to additional school places. In calculating S106 contributions the Council uses the pupil yield model identified below: Table 5: Pupil Yield on Flats

No. of Bedrooms 1 2 3 4 5 + Social Rented 0.038 0.842 1.868 2.771 2.771 Intermediate 0.049 0.248 0.894 1.4 1.4 Private 0.049 0.1 0.194 0.288 0.288

Sixth Form- Private 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 Sixth Form- Affordable 0 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.05

Table 6: Pupil Yield on Houses

No. of Bedrooms 1 2 3 4 5+ Social Rented 0.038 1.182 2.277 2.676 2.676 Intermediate 0.049 0.416 1.268 1.286 1.286 Private 0.049 0.429 0.523 0.616 0.616

Sixth Form- Private 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 Sixth Form- Affordable 0 0.01 0.28 0.5 0.5

To calculate the age breakdown of the pupils the Council applies the following assumption:

Pre-School Primary 4 – 10 Secondary Total number/16 * Total number/16 * Total number/16* 4 7 5

The Council then applies the following costings:

Section 106 Primary £17,575 Secondary £22,986 Sixth Form £22,986

These figures are based on average costs of the creation of school places, and include build cost.

3.1.3 Education – identifying demand arising from new housing New housing is one of the largest factors contributing to high demand for pupil places in Barking and Dagenham. There are a number of models used in calculating pupil yield from new developments. In addition to the LBBD model, these include:

• GLA child yield model (Mayor of London’s Play SPG, 2008) • 2002 London Household Model • LB of Wandsworth Model • LBBD New Housing Survey in Barking Town Centre 2011

For comparison purposes, information on the above models is set out below.

Hunt Dobson and Stringer, 2004/5 pupil yield model

Table 7: Pupil Yield on Flats (Hunt, Dobson and Stringer)

No. of Bedrooms 1 2 3 4 Social Rented 0 0.842 1.868 2.771 Intermediate 0 0.248 0.894 1.400 Private 0 0.100 0.194 0.288

Table 8: Pupil Yield on houses (Hunt, Dobson and Stringer)

No. of Bedrooms 1 2 3 4 Social Rented 0 1.182 2.277 2.676 Intermediate 0 0.416 1.268 1.286 Private 0 0.429 0.523 0.616

Table 9: GLA Child Yields Model for 1 to 6 bed properties (Mayor of London SPG, 2008)

Bedrooms 1 2 3 4 5 6 Age 0-4 0.20 0.64 0.62 0.41 0.57 0.75 Age 5-10 0.00 0.23 0.74 1.22 1.66 2.22 Age 11-15 0.00 0.08 0.47 1.29 1.76 2.35 Age 16-17 0.00 0.05 0.17 0.37 0.51 0.68 Total 0.20 1.00 2.00 3.30 4.50 6.00 Source: Providing for children and young people’s play and informal recreation SPD (Mayor of London, March 2008)

Table 10: Barking Town Centre New Housing Survey 2011

Tenure 1 2 34

Council or HA rented 0.25 1.5 24

Private Rented 0.47 1 22

Privately owned1 0 0.18 00

Shared Ownership 0.17 0.5 00

The above tables illustrate a wide variety in assumptions about the pupil yield of new houses and flats. For example the Barking Town Centre New Housing Survey 2011 which sampled only new properties which were predominantly flats in the Town Centre found that a 1 bedroom privately rented property would yield on average 0.47 children whereas the calculations undertaken to calculate S106 agreements across the borough assumes a yield of 0.049 from private flats. This represents a considerable difference when considering the impact of a 200 dwelling development coming forward in the town centre.

The Barking Town Centre New Housing Survey has a relatively small sample size, yet it is the only completed survey that relates specifically to new developments coming forward in the past five years. Its findings are therefore significant. Notwithstanding this, the vast majority of responses were received from one and two bedroom dwellings (54% from 1 bedroom dwellings and 49% from 2 bedroom dwellings) where as the recently adopted planning policy stipulates that 40% of new housing should be family housing at three bedrooms plus. Information on the average child yield from three and four bedroom dwellings which have recently been completed in the borough is not clear since the Barking Town Centre New Housing Survey only had a very limited number of returns on these. The table below summarises the results of the Barking Town Centre New Housing Survey, the GLA’s Child Yield Model and the Hunts Dobson and Stringer Model currently being used by the Council.

Table 11: Child Yield Figures used by LBBD

Social Housing ‐ Housing/Flats 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed Flat House Flat House Flat House Flat House B & D/ HDS 0.04 0.04 0.84 1.18 1.87 2.28 2.77 2.68 B & D ‐ Regeneration 2011 survey 0.25 0.25 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 GLA ‐ SPG 2008 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.30 3.30 Average 0.16 0.16 1.11 1.23 1.93 2.14 3.04 2.99

1 Survey sample too small for the figures against privately owned to be meaningful - 20 privately owned households returned 22

B & D 6th Form 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.28 0.05 0.50

Private Housing 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed Flat House Flat House Flat House Flat House B & D/ HDS 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.43 0.19 0.52 0.29 0.62 B & D ‐ Regeneration 2011 survey 0.47 0.47 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Average 0.26 0.26 0.55 0.71 1.10 1.26 1.14 1.31

B & D 6th Form 0.05 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.30 0.05

The above figures have been averaged out to produce the following child yield figures to be applied in the Council’s Infrastructure Plan. Table 12: Average Child Yields 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom

Average 0.16 1.17 2.04 3.02 yields (average of (average of (average of

affordable flats and flats and flats and houses) houses) houses)

Average 0.26 0.63 1.18 1.23 yields private (average of (average of (average of flats and flats and flats and houses) houses) houses)

Applying 30% 30% 20% 20% LDF policy

No of 4,473 4,473 2,982 2,982 14,910 homes

Apply 35% 1,566 x 0.16 1566 x 1.17 1044 x 2.04 1044 x 3.02 affordable 251 1,832 2,130 3,153

Apply 65 % 2,907 x 0.26 2,907 x 0.63 1938 x 1.18 1938 x 1.23 private 756 1,831 2,287 2,384

Child yield 1,007 3,663 4,417 5,537 14,624

To calculate the age breakdown of the pupils the Council applies the following assumption:

Pre-School Primary 4 – 10 Secondary

Total number/16 * Total number/16 * Total number/16* 4 7 5

3,656 6,398 4,570

The Council then applies the following costings: Section 106

Primary £17,575 Secondary £22,986 Sixth Form £22,986 Total

3.1.4 Education – Costs and Funding Sources.

In addition to the costs required to provide the school places demanded by the new population, the Council also needs to take into account land costs. The table at the beginning of this section sets out the sites identified for new schools up to the year 2025. Some of these sites are on Council land (e.g. Cannington Road, St George’s Centre and Gascoigne Estate), some are on land provided to the Council through existing S106 agreements (UEL site, Lymington Fields and Barking Riverside), others will only be required on sites if the need for them is triggered by level of housing development on site and in such a situation it is likely the land will be provided as part of this (South Dagenham East and South Dagenham West). It is likely however that there will be need to purchase land in Barking Town Centre in order to build a new primary school to meet forecast demand.

Table 13: Land Requirement for Schools

Gross Building Area sq Gross Site Area sq m m 3 FE Primary School non 3,034 sq m 24,880 - confined site (630 pupils) (0.3 hectares) 27,700

(2.49 – 2.77 hectares) 3 FE Primary School 3,034 5,650 sq metres- 6780 sq confined site (630 metres pupils). Pitches are (0.3 hectares) provided off site. (0.57 – 0.68 hectares)

Secondary School 15,200 110,200 – 125,150 sq Secondary School (on a (1.52 hectares) metres 24

Non-Confined Site) 10FE Plus 350 Sixth Formers - (11.02 – 12.5 hectares) 1,850 Pupils Secondary School (on a 15,200 13,250 – 16,100 sq metres Confined Site) 10FE (1.52 hectares) Plus 350 Sixth Formers - (1.325 – 1.61 hectares) 1,850 Pupils Source: LBBD 2011 education officers based on interpretation of BB98 and 99.

3.1.5 Education Funding Sources

The provision of additional primary school places and secondary school places including special education needs through new build projects, expansion of existing schools or increasing classroom capacity is partly funded through the Council’s Capital Programme. For instance in May 2011, Members agreed to the allocated grant of £14,236,941 being included in the capital programme for 2011-2012. It is proposed this will be spent on the expansion of existing primary schools and towards providing additional provision at two secondary schools sites in the borough. There are also additional sources of Government Funding through for example the School modernisation funding. This year the Council received £3.8m (2011/12) by Central Government for improving and modernising the Council’s school estate and the wider Children’s Services property portfolio as a whole. The Cabinet report however is clear that this falls well short of the £51m backlog across the whole of the Council’s school estate.

The revenue costs of existing primary and secondary school places are met through the Government’s Dedicated Schools Grant. Schools receive funding based primarily on pupil numbers and the increase in pupil numbers will generate sufficient funding to meet revenue costs.

As at April 2011, the Council receives New Homes Bonus monies per completed residential dwelling in the borough. The Council has decided to allocate all of its New Homes Bonus to spending on education. For 14,910 homes this is projected to provide £4.5 million a year equating over a 14 year period to £63,000,000

Table 14: LBBD School Provision: Total Cost and Funding Sources

Item Cost Existing Provision/Funding Primary £17,575 x 6,398 No existing surplus. Demand for £112,444,850.00 primary school places reached Secondary & £22,986 x 4,570 capacity in 2008/09 whereas Sixth Form £105,046,020 secondary school provision is due to reach capacity in 2012/13

£14,236,941.00 Council’s agreed allocation in May 2011 towards the provision of additional primary and 25

secondary school places.

New Homes Bonus is anticipated to provide £4.5 million a year and over a 14 year period £63,000,000

Existing shortfall = £217,490,870- 77,236,941 = £140,253,929 Total number of 6,398 equates to primary schools 214 additional required (2FE = 14 classes at 30 classes; 3FE = 21 pupils each or over classes; 4FE = 28) 10 additional 3FE primary schools Total number of 4,570 pupils would secondary require 152 schools required additional classes at 30 pupils each or an additional 3 10 FE secondary schools (where each one provides 1,850 places including 350 sixth formers) Land Cost £1,500,000 per Lymington Fields = 1 3FE primary Primary schools2 hectare for Barking school Town Centre, UEL = 1 3FE primary school Leftley and Barking Riverside = 3FE primary Faircross Estates. school £740,000 for South Shortfall = land for 4 additional 3 FE Dagenham, primary schools. Sites likely to be Barking Riverside Barking Town Centre (confined site), and Rest of South Dagenham East, South Borough (GVA Dagenham West or Sanofi Aventis. Economic Viability These are all anticipated to be on Assessment confined sites thus up to 0.68 Report 2011) hectares each. Outstanding land costs therefore equates to ((0.68 x 1) x £1,500,000) + ((0.68 x 3) x £740,000) = £2,529,600.00

Land Cost (Land costs as Barking Riverside = 1 8FE secondary Secondary above) school.

2 Some capacity will be found through expanding existing schools so this represents maximum land costs

N.B. for 2011/12, reception forecasts have been exceeded by 150 spaces (to date).

schools3 Shortfall = land for 2 additional 8FE secondary school. Assuming the secondary schools will be provided on confined sites land costs will equate to (1.61x2) x £1,500,000 = £4,830,000.00 Total Shortfall Existing shortfall =£140,253,929 + £2,529,600 + £4,830,000 = £147,613,529

Further Education and Adult Community Learning

3.1.6 Further Education and Adult Community Learning - Current Provision

Further Education In addition to the further education provided in sixth form colleges and academies, Barking & Dagenham College is the main provider.

Barking and Dagenham College has its main campus in Dagenham Road, Rush Green, on the eastern boundary of the Borough, although it also operates out of the Barking Learning Centre, Goresbrook Learning Village, the Broadway Theatre (performing arts), and the Motorsport & Automotive Engineering Technology centre at London Road.

It offers academic and vocational courses to young people and adults. Through their Employer Services division they also offer training programmes to businesses, and train over 400 apprentices a year across a wide range of industries.

The borough is also served by institutions in neighbouring local authorities – Havering College of Further and Higher Education has a number of students from Barking and Dagenham (for 2008/2009 enrolments this was approximately 890 learners). CEME, the Centre for Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence is located close to the borough in Rainham, and is a partnership between Ford, the LDA, Havering College of Further and Higher Education, Barking College, and the regeneration body London Riverside Ltd.

Adult Education

The Adult College in Fanshawe Crescent, Dagenham, provides a wide range of full time and part time, day and evening courses for adults at their main centre and venues throughout Barking and Dagenham – Barking Learning Centre, Marks Gate Community Centre, Sydney Russell Children’s Centre, Sue Bramley Centre, and Abbey Children’s Centre.

3 As above. 27

The College is committed to supporting every adult in Barking and Dagenham to further his or her learning. Their free Skills for Life programme and low cost courses will help people without qualifications to progress into Level 2 courses and gain a nationally recognised qualification. Their wide range of vocational programmes also offer nationally recognised qualifications that will build skills and improve job prospects.

3.1.7 Further Education and Adult Community Learning - Existing shortfall/surplus

There are no set standards for further education places based on population. However, figures from the former Learning and Skills Council4 show 536,880 learners in Further Education in London in the 2006/07 academic year (made up of 425,976 adults and 100,904 young people). Against a London population of 7,556,000 (at this time) this is one learner for every 14 people. Applying this standard to the 2009 Borough population of 175,603, there should be 12,543 students.

There were 3,124 16 to 19 year old Further Education (resident) learners in Barking and Dagenham in 2010/11 (Young People’s Learning Agency May 2011)5.

3.1.8 Further Education and Adult Community Learning - Projected shortfall/surplus Assuming that provision should reflect London averages, an additional 2,577 places are required to serve the 36,082 new residents.

3.1.9 Further Education and Adult Community Learning – Costs and Funding Sources

Barking College has access to public funds (including European Social Fund projects) through the Skills Funding Agency and the Young People’s Learning Agency enabling them to meet part of the cost of new provision. They will also work with other providers of services within the Borough by submitting bids for competitive tenders to maximise the potential of collaborative delivery and secure better value for money. Where residents do not qualify for specific public funds, they would seek part or full funding from CIL.

Cost information is not currently available.

4 The Further Education Sector in London, Learning and Skills Council, August 2007 5 http://readingroom.skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/ypla/sad/gl/ypla-sad-gl-301-jun2011-v1.pdf

3.2 Transport

3.2.1 Transport – Current Provision

Barking and Dagenham benefit from the following network of transport infrastructure:

• London Underground services on the District Line provide an east-west link with Central London and West London. It has stations at Barking, Upney, Becontree, Dagenham Heathway, and Dagenham East, and terminates at Upminster in the neighbouring borough of Havering. • The Hammersmith and City line terminates at Barking station and provides another east - west link across London, connecting the borough with the City, and Hammersmith to the west. • C2C service to Fenchurch Street with stations at Barking and Dagenham Dock. • National Express East Anglia service connecting Ipswich to Liverpool Street, with a station at Chadwell Heath. • London Overground services to Walthamstow and on to Gospel Oak • East London Transit (ELT), a bus based transit system linking Ilford to Barking Reach/Dagenham Dock via Barking Town Centre. • 27 bus routes in operation in Barking and Dagenham, providing links to a range of key destinations within the borough, as well as to the major centres of Rainham, Romford, Ilford and Stratford in neighbouring boroughs (where many services start and end). However, there are no direct bus services to Central London. • A major arterial road network mostly serving through traffic, including the A13, A1306, A12 and A406. • A Secondary road network including the A124, A118, A1153, A123, A1112 and A1083 • A network of cycleways and pedestrian footpaths, including 7km of ‘Greenways’.

3.2.2 Transport - Existing Shortfall/Surplus

The Borough is currently well served by radial east - west rail and road networks, providing good links to Central London by train, Underground services and by car. Bus services predominantly follow a similar pattern, providing good connectivity to a range of key local destinations. The borough also has a fairly extensive network of cycling and walking routes.

In contrast, however, north – south transport links in Barking and Dagenham are inadequate and connectivity between certain parts of the borough and key sub- regional hubs such as Stratford, particularly by public transport, is poor. The problem is exacerbated by the existence of manmade barriers such as railway lines and major trunk roads like the A12 and A13. In general, buses are more widely used than train/tube services for journeys within the borough, due principally to the lack of stations and north - south rail links. In addition, despite the borough’s proximity to the 29

River Thames, the current lack of riverboat services in the area means that opportunities to promote travel by river remain unfulfilled.

Within the borough, there are several key interchange points. These allow various types of interchange between transport modes – for example, bus/bus, bus/rail and bus/underground:

• Barking Town Centre is the borough’s principal transport interchange and has extremely good accessibility from all parts of the borough. The town centre generates many trips because of the facilities it has to offer, whilst the rail and Underground services increase the range of destinations that may be reached from here;

• Dagenham Heathway has similar bus and Underground links, but also benefits from bus services linking the north and south of the borough;

• Becontree Heath is an important bus interchange as it has links with most parts of the borough. However, the bus station has limited facilities and there is no convenient rail or Underground station nearby;

• Dagenham Dock is the newest transport interchange in Barking and Dagenham, enabling passengers to change quickly between rail and ELT however it is not served by local bus services and therefore public transport access north of the station is poor. The provision of new cycle parking facilities and lifts at the station has improved conditions for cyclists and pedestrians.

There are also important corridors • A13 • A12

An overview of transport network/service provision in Barking and Dagenham and the wider Thames Gateway area is provided in Figure 1 overleaf.

Figure 2 shows levels of public transport accessibility in Barking and Dagenham, derived from TfL’s PTAL tool. An ‘Accessibility Index’ is calculated which is then allocated to bands of PTALs, where band 1 represents a low level of accessibility and 6 a high level. A value of zero would indicate no access to the public transport network within the specified catchment area.

The pattern of accessibility across the borough is fairly complex, although ultimately shows that locations closer to the main town and district centres, and key interchange points, benefit from higher levels of public transport accessibility than those further out. The influence of geographical features such as Eastbrookend Country Park is clearly visible, and there are recognisable patterns reflecting the presence or absence of bus and rail corridors (e.g. Marks Gate).

Significantly, the pattern of accessibility shows that public transport access to the Key Regeneration Areas within London Riverside is very poor. London Riverside has 30

the potential for over 15,000 new homes (excluding Barking Town Centre), but it is clear that there needs to be significant public transport improvements to make this happen.

Figure 1: Borough transport networks and services

Figure 2: Public transport accessibility – Barking and Dagenham

3.2.3 Transport – Projected shortfall/surplus The Core Strategy (Policy CM4 - Strategic Transport Links) recognises that the development of the Key Regeneration areas - Barking Riverside, Dagenham Dock, South Dagenham and Barking Town Centre - depends on the provision of improved 33

public transport. Consequently there are conditions attached to the Outline Planning Permission for Barking Riverside which mean the phased development of the site is tied to the implementation of the Renwick Road Junction Improvements, East London Transit 1a and 1b and Docklands Light Railway extension from Galleons Reach to Dagenham Dock.

The Core Strategy sets out the need for new and improved transport infrastructure including the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) Extension to Dagenham Dock from East Beckton, the Thames Gateway Bridge, East London Transit, improvements to the C2C service, Barking to Royal Docks bus service and a transport interchange at Dagenham Dock. Other measures that would strengthen north-south transport links, such as improvements to the local bus network, are also supported.

3.2.4 Improving Connectivity and Tackling Congestion A principal aim is to improve public transport connectivity to and within Barking and Dagenham, with emphasis placed on securing improved cross-boundary and north- south links; and to tackle congestion to limit delays, particularly on the most severely congested areas of the road network.

Some of the key measures to be considered will include:

• Exploring the potential for new or improved north-south bus services between Marks Gate/Chadwell Heath and Barking Town Centre and Dagenham to enhance connectivity and to maximise the economic benefits of Crossrail. We will work closely with the LTGDC to secure additional east-west bus service improvements in the London Riverside area, via schemes such as the proposed Royal Docks Bus Corridor.

Barking Station is a National Interchange ‘B’ station, in the top 100 most used stations in the UK. Due to the significant growth planned in Barking Town Centre and Barking Riverside, as identified in our LDF, passenger numbers are expected to grow significantly over the next ten years.

The Better Rail Stations report published by the DfT identified Barking Station as a priority for funding, highlighting the need for improvements to its concourse and interchange arrangements. However, the coalition government has since axed the Better Rail Stations funding, meaning much needed improvements are likely to be delayed further.

To coordinate the necessary improvements, the Council is currently consulting on a Station Masterplan which we intend to adopt as part of our LDF. The Masterplan includes proposals to make the station fully accessible, including the provision of lifts to all platforms; improving pedestrian access into and out of the station by increasing the size of the entrances and increasing the number of ticket barriers; improved interchange with other modes of transport, especially bus services and taxis; and making significant improvements to the public realm outside the station. In advance of the Masterplan being adopted the Council has recently consulted on a £500,000 34

improvement scheme to the station forecourt which:

• Doubles the amount of public open space in front of the station; • Removes the bus lay-by and relocates the bus stops further down Station Parade • Reduces the taxi rank to two spaces outside the front of the station with the remainder relocated to Wakering Road; • De-clutters the forecourt area by removing unnecessary signage, lighting and bus shelters with replaces them with a high quality new pavement, new street furniture, lighting, and cycle parking.

The improvements will be funded from a number of sources, including the National Station Improvement Partnership, LIP funding and S106/CIL contributions.

• Lobbying for new public transport infrastructure and services. The Council supports the Mayor’s decision to safeguard the route of the DLR Dagenham Dock extension as part of the development proposals for Barking Riverside and will support the Mayor of London in lobbying for funding to secure this vital infrastructure link.

• Securing improvements to the local road network, particularly along key corridors and at junctions, in order to reduce traffic bottlenecks and delays. In particular, we will continue to lobby for improvements to the A13/Renwick Road junction as a means of reducing peak hour congestion in the area, whilst increasing overall connectivity to Barking Riverside.

Improving the A13/Renwick Road Junction and Renwick Road Bridge:

The current arrangements at the Renwick Road Junction and the condition of the Renwick Road Bridge are two major impediments to the regeneration of London Riverside. The Renwick Road Junction is the only at grade junction on the A13 between Limehouse and Benfleet, and is the source of frequent and sever delays in the morning AM peak. The Renwick Road Bridge is currently weight restricted due to concerns about its condition and therefore cannot be used by HGVs.

The provision of a grade separated junction and the strengthening of the Renwick Road Bridge are necessary to: • Improve the flow of traffic along the A13 and reduce vehicle delays and cost to the local economy. The A13 is one of the most heavily trafficked freight routes in London and this will increase over the coming years due, in part, to the anticipated 60% growth in container traffic at the London Gateway Port in Essex;

• Alleviate the poor air quality suffered along the A13 where NO2 and PM10 standards are routinely breached;

• Enable the full build out of the Barking Riverside development where currently 35

the S106 agreement limits how many new homes can be built until the Renwick Road Junction is improved;

• Improve access to the River Road Employment Area. Commercial traffic to the area must currently rely on River Road and consequently local businesses are complaining about the delays this is causing to their operations;

• Improve public transport connections between Thames View/Barking Riverside and Dagenham. With the continued doubts about the implementation of DLR, a grade separated junction would enable buses unimpeded access across the A13.

The Council will work in partnership with the GLA, the LTGDC and TfL through the East London Sub-Regional Transport Planning process and the transport modelling undertaken for the London Riverside Opportunity Area Planning Framework, to establish the business case and funding opportunities for these improvements.

3.2.5 Transport - Costs and Funding Sources

For the three years to 2013/14, TfL has provisionally indicated that Barking and Dagenham will receive in the region of £6.2 million to implement a range of integrated transport and maintenance schemes. In support of the funding from TfL, complementary sources of funding, such as developer funding, will be required.

Additional resources may also be available via TfL’s Major Schemes programme (for large schemes over £1 million in value).

The table below outlines proposed transport projects and costings:

(Source of costs: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/strategy/growthareas/thamesgatewaytransport.pdf )

Table 15: LBBD Transport Projects and Costs Area Facility/project Planning Cost Other Shortfall Consent Funding Sources Docklands Light Extension to £500m TfL £500m Railway railway (DLR)extension Renwick Road/A13 Junction £70m TfL £70m junction improvement to improvement improve links between the existing and proposed communities either 36

side of the A13 and allow the full build out of Barking Riverside. Barking Station (a) Forecourt N/A £900k £500k LIP Nil Interchange improvements £400k (BTCSSA 3) LTGDC S106 (b) Interchange £17,600, £900,000 £16,700,0 improvements – full 000.00 6 as part of 00.00 solution (BS1 the Barking Station forecourt Renovation) improveme nts Bridge Network Nil strengthening Rail? Marks Gate to Bus route £46m TfL £46m Dagenham Dock (based bus route on ELT costs pro-rata) Lodge Avenue £40 TfL DPFO Nil flyover funds replacement novated from Highways Agency East London Safeguarding for £43m TfL via the Nil Transit phases 1A and 1B CiF of ELT bus route Barking Riverside Ltd Merry Fiddlers Public realm and £1,010k £1,010k LIP Nil Junction safety Improvements improvements Barking to Royal Linking Barking to £521k £521k Docks bus corridor City Airport and (BTC 7) Custom House with interchange to Crossrail (replacing ELT 2). This will require a River Roding crossing. Dagenham Dock New transport Falls into n/a Transport interchange to cost of Interchange serve the DLR Sustainable provision Industries Park at Dagenham Dock and new and existing

6 Source: ODA Station Feasibility Study undertaken by Atkins 2009 37

communities at South Dagenham. Crossrail Line 1 Rail proposal which £14.5B Funded by Nil will run across GLA/TfL London, through (£7.1B), Barking and BRS Dagenham on the (£4.1B), existing Liverpool S106 Street Line (£300M) including Chadwell Mayor of Heath. London’s CIL (£300M) Traffic Abbey Road Home Funded by Nil Management/Abbe Zone (Lighted Lady Abbey y Road Home roundabout to St Retail Park Zone (BTC 8/BTC Paul’s Road) – S106 23) carriageway width restrictions, enhanced pedestrian crossings, 20mph speed limit. Traffic Management measures in Gascoigne Road and St Paul’s Road. Pedestrian Movement (BTC 10) and Cycling BTC 11

Barking Riverside Implementation of £1,000k Major £100k cycling/walking key section of NCN Schemes corridor Route 13 cycle link Funding connecting Barking £800k, LIP Riverside funding development and £100k Dagenham Dock Sustainable Industries Park. Cyclepath/Pedestri Bridge that will Refer n/a an crossings of the carry Barking to Barking River Roding Royal Docks bus. to Royal Docks bus corridor Fresh Wharf Estate TfL, LIP2 Nil to Cultural industries quarter link. Tesco site to S106 Nil Abbey Retail Park agreement link. as per BTC 38

AAP Extension of River Extending the cycle £250k Cycling £90k Roding cycle route which runs Greenway route. along the River funding Roding between London road and Cowbridge Lane northwards to Borough boundary with Newham. Total Shortfall £633,511, 000

3.3 Health

The Barking and Dagenham Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) 2009 and 2010/11 identifies the main health and well being needs of the community and provides an understanding of the need for Health and Social Care over the short term (three to five years) and the longer term (five to ten years).

It identifies that life expectancy is significantly below the national and London average for both men and women, with particular problems related to cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Linked to this is the fact that more people are estimated to smoke, and healthy eating is less common. The JSNA identifies that the most common cause of death overall in Barking and Dagenham is circulatory disease. Circulatory disease is also the main cause of early deaths and contributes to people from Barking and Dagenham on average, dying younger, than the national average. It identifies in decreasing order of frequency the main causes being heart disease (coronary heart disease and heart failure), cancer, chronic obstructive airways disease (COPD) and pneumonia. Lung cancer was the major cancer contributor in both men and women. Digestive diseases (including ulcers), accidents unrelated to road traffic, genitourinary and infectious diseases also make small but significant contributions.

3.3.1 General Health – Current Provision

The NHS Outer North East London Estates Strategy (2011), states that there are currently 101 GPs in the borough located within GP surgeries and the Borough’s 15 health centres.

Table 16: LBBD Health Centres Name Ward Barking Community Hospital Longbridge Broad Street Resource Centre River Chadwell Heath Health Centre Chadwell Heath Church Elm Lane Health Centre Village Five Elms Health Centre Heath 39

Julia Engwell Health Centre Mayesbrook Marks Gate Health Centre Chadwell Heath Orchards Health Centre Gascoigne Oxlow Lane Health Centre Heath Porters Avenue Health Centre Mayesbrook Thames View Health Centre Thames The Child and Family Health Centre Abbey Vicarage Field Health Centre Abbey Grays Court Village Upney Lane Walk-in Centre Longbridge

The NHS Outer North East London cluster, which includes Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge and Waltham Forest, is working towards developing a shift in care for less “acute” conditions into more local settings. Care in this way will be delivered within “polysystems” - a network of services based in local community hospitals, in health centres and in GP surgeries. Plans involve developing the capacity and skills in the community to treat more illnesses and conditions in local community facilities or in patients’ own homes.

Barking and Dagenham has established three local polysystems - (Barking, East Dagenham and Riverside) each serving a resident catchment population of 50 – 80,000 residents (The Riverside polysystem currently has a much lower population but this will increase substantially with the development of new homes on Barking Riverside). A proportion of the Barking and Dagenham population will use the King Georges Hospital and Queens systems in Redbridge and Havering.

The polysystem vision is based on providing a full range of high quality community based services from appropriate and accessible locations across the Borough. A federated model is proposed with a community hospital or polyclinic as the focal point for a full range of community, outpatient and diagnostic services. There will then be links to other community hospitals, health centres, community and primary care services (e.g. general practice, pharmacies, community nursing teams) and the patient’s home. The services proposed will differ in each polysystem but will include general practice, some diagnostics, a range of community based clinics and outpatients, and an urgent care service, together with a range of more specialist services for Borough-wide and cross borough populations (Commissioning Strategy Plan 2010 to 2015 (NHS B &D)).

The breakdown of GP distribution across the 3 polysystem areas in the borough is as follows:

Table 17: GP Distribution in LBBD Borough & 2011 2011 WTE GP:Patient 2011 GP Polysystem Population GPs Ratio Shortfall Barking and 178,013 103 1:1728 -4.1 Dagenham Barking 86,000 57.2 1:1630 -5.4

East 82,900 43.7 1:1629 -4.2 Dagenham Riverside 10,500 2.1 1:2374 0.7 Source GLA 2009 and NHS ONEL 2011

3.3.2 General Health - Existing shortfall/surplus The NHS Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) has established a benchmark of one GP for every 1,800 people. As of 2011, 178,013 people were registered with a total of 103 GPs, giving an average GP to patient ratio of 1:1,728. Based on the HUDU standard, this indicates an overall surplus of 4.1 GPs. However, when studying the 3 polysytems individually, Riverside has a shortage of 0.7 GPs. In addition, these figures do not take into account the age breakdown of the patient lists and other demographic variations. Barking and Dagenham has a high child population which can increase pressure on GP services.

3.3.3 General Health - Projected Shortfall/Surplus

As average GP patient list sizes are below the HUDU benchmark across the borough as a whole, there may be some spare capacity to absorb demand although the deficiency in the Riverside polysystem area must be addressed. Based on the standard of one GP per 1,800 people, an additional 36,082 people will create demand for a further 20 GPs. This may be reduced to 15.9 GPs if the existing surplus is taken into account.

The Barking and Dagenham JSNA 2009 identifies the main health and well being needs of the community and provides an understanding of the need for health and social care over the short and long term. It recognises that identifying the pre- requisite infrastructure to support growth is a key task of the Local Development Framework. The Transforming Community Services programme shifts the emphasis on providing more services in community based settings. Taking account of this and the emerging Health for North East London strategy, NHS Barking and Dagenham has identified a polyclinic hub for each of the polysystems of Barking, East Dagenham and Riverside. These are dealt with in the Site Specific Allocations DPD (Sept 2010). Policies SSA SM11 Hedgecock Centre and SSA SM12 Upney Lane Centre form part of the strategy for the improvements to health care on the Barking Hospital site. SSA SM5 identifies the Sanofi site as appropriate for a new polyclinic to serve East Dagenham. SSA SM1 Barking Riverside and the accompanying site specific allocations in this chapter SSA SC10 A-D cover the facilities necessary to meet the needs of the 10,800 new households planned on this strategic site. In particular SSA SC10B identifies provision for a new polyclinic within the Barking Riverside District Centre. In addition, NHS Barking and Dagenham has identified the need for improved local health care facilities to meet existing and new demand. New facilities to meet existing demand and locally occurring growth has been identified at the SSA SM10

Becontree Heath, SSA SC7 Westbury Arms, SSA SC8 Julia Engwell Clinic, and SSA SC9 Brockelbank Lodge sites whilst facilities specifically to meet growth from new development have been identified on the SSA SM2 South Dagenham West and SSA SM4 South Dagenham East sites. In addition, the later phases of Lymington Fields, where a revised planning application is due, may include provision for a local healthcare facility.

3.3.4 Intermediate Care – Current Provision

NHS Barking and Dagenham offers a range of specialist/intermediate care in the Borough including services for children’s health, learning disabilities and therapeutic care. These services are provided through a range of facilities across the borough.

3.3.5 Intermediate Care - Existing and projected shortfall/surplus

It has not been possible to ascertain existing or projected levels of shortfall or surplus in intermediate care, due to the varied types of care that this entails.

3.3.6 Hospitals – Current Provision Barking and Dagenham residents generally choose the use of one of two hospitals run by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust. They are:

• Queens Hospital, Romford (Havering) – 940 beds • King George’s Hospital, Little Heath (Redbridge) – 440 beds

3.3.7 Hospitals - Existing shortfall/surplus The NHS Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) has established a benchmark of 1 acute care bed for every 480 people and 1 other hospital bed requirement, including mental healthcare, for every 1,430 people. If the 1,380 existing beds were shared by the combined population of Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Redbridge (estimated 675,100 people in 2011 (2010 GLA Round demographic projections using SHLAA)), there would be an overall shortage of 498 beds. Because Barking and Dagenham accounts for 26.6% of the total population, its share of the deficit would be 132 beds.

3.3.8 Hospitals - Projected Shortfall/Surplus Based on the benchmark above, a new additional population of 36,082 people would require a further 75 acute care beds and 25 other hospital beds. Through more efficient care models, it is anticipated that more care that was traditionally provided in an acute setting can be provided in a community setting. There are many benefits from such an approach.

3.3.9 Health (all provision) – Costs and funding sources

Overall health costs have been calculated using the Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) model which predicts the likely health impacts of development based on local circumstances in Barking and Dagenham. The model forecasts additional health demand that is anticipated to result from new development and quantifies the impact in terms of physical space and subsequent cost (this does not include the cost to purchase land). This includes provision for acute health care, mental health, intermediate health care and local GP/primary health care.

The HUDU model for Barking and Dagenham7 has been run using the housing breakdown shown in the table below and using default assumptions. A policy assumption of a 65:35% split between market and affordable housing, and a 60:40% split between 1 and 2 bed properties( 30% 1 bed and 30% 2 bed) and family (20% 3 bed and 20% 4bed) housing.

Table 18: Assumed Housing Breakdown for new properties Market Housing Type Unit Size % of total Flats 1 bed 19 2 bed 10 3 bed 6 4+ bed 6 Housing 2 bed 10 3 bed 6 4+ bed 6 Total 65

Affordable Housing Type Unit Size % of total Flats 1 bed 11 2 bed 5 3 bed 4 4+ bed 4 Housing 2 bed 5 3 bed 4 4+ bed 4 Total 35

The HUDU model includes costs for Acute, Mental, Intermediate and Primary healthcare. Capital requirements for health from 2011/12 - 2024/25 are as follows:

Housing or Population (20011/12 Capital requirements Standard – 2024/25) from HUDU Model capital requirements 14,910 homes £22,144,757 £1,485 per unit

7 http://www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk/pages/hudu_model/hudu_model.html 43

(assumption of average 2.42 persons per household = 36,082 persons) £614 per person

Acute and mental health services are commissioned by PCTs and provided by separate NHS Trusts. Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) companies (i.e. Barking and Dagenham and Havering Community Ventures) deliver facilities across a portion of the Trust. These are joint ventures with the private sector, Community Health Partnerships and frequently, local authorities. The bulk of this financing comes from the private sector, which owns the premises and leases them back to the public sector. Where such schemes are used, most of the initial capital costs would not fall on the PCT, but instead would be included indirectly as part of future rental payments.

It is likely that, in 2013, the 4 PCTs in the Outer North East London area will be dissolved and will be managed by GP consortia instead, who will be responsible for 80% of the health services budget. The GP consortia which operate within Barking and Dagenham are Barking and Dagenham Quality Healthcare Clinical Commissioning, and United Medical Consortium, and at this time, they will take full control of PCTs budgets.

The NHS Capital budget will provide some funding, although this is often relatively small and is for addressing backlog maintenance and statutory compliance.

The HUDU model also calculates a revenue requirement of £93,994,561 over the same time period. PCT allocations are based on GP patient list sizes but this can often lead to temporary revenue funding gaps, as and when development occurs. While new housing developments have an immediate financial impact on health services, there is a time lag before the population increase is picked up in the PCT allocations so there can be a funding deficit in some years which has to be met from other sources.

Table 19: LBBD Health: Total Costs and Funding Sources:

Item Cost Existing Funding Per capita costs for Acute, £1,485 per unit None: Mental, Intermediate and £614 per person Shortfall = £22,144,757 Primary healthcare = £22,144,757 Revenue requirement for £93,994,561 PCT allocation based on population of 36,082 GP patient list size population 2011/12 – 2024/25 Total Shortfall £22,144,757

3.4 Public Realm

The Barking Code is a statement of the Council’s commitment to improving the quality of public spaces in the town centre and sets out a comprehensive collection of materials, products and detail finishing techniques which should be used in the undertaking and ongoing maintenance of all public realm improvements in the town centre. The Barking Code is also referred to for other key public realm improvement schemes outside of Barking Town Centre, such as the Heathway.

The table below sets out the public realm projects which are identified in the Local Development Framework or Local Implementation Plan as required during the period 2011/12 to 2024/25.

Table 20: Public Realm Projects and Cost Area Facility/project Planning Cost Other Shortfall Consent Funding Sources London Improvements to No £600k £600k Road/North market square Street/Market and the links Square through to London Road/North Street A406 Improvements £750k £750k roundabout following alterations to junction layout Barking Key aspect of £2,000k Major Nil Station Barking Station Schemes Parade/ Masterplan aimed Funding London Road at improving poor £2,000k bus corridor image of the enhancements station and transforming the (Also refer to experience of Transport those using the Section) area. Measures include improvements to Station Parade to create a high quality frontage/public realm opposite the station. Mayesbrook Park access £381k £381k LIP Nil Park Access improvement Improvements scheme to (Lodge support Avenue/ development of

Porters new sports centre Avenue) in park. Focus on improving park access arrangements and improving safety, journey times and the public realm along Lodge Avenue. Barking Town Large scale street £3,000k Major £800k Centre/East scene Schemes Street enhancement Funding project to improve £2,200k the image of the town centre ‘gateway’ area. A key measure includes the creation of two new public spaces – Leisure Square (located off Cambridge Road) and East Street Circus (adjacent to Linton Road). Green Lane Removal of street £1,500k Major Nil Shopping clutter, pavement Schemes Parade works, CCTV, Funding Enhancement shop front £1,300k, s improvements, Council tree planting and Capital review of Programme parking/loading £200k arrangements and facilities. Longbridge Proposed works £780k £600k LIP, £60k Road to these 2 £120k Council Shopping parades will Capital, Parade include new Improvements street furniture, (Robin Hood, improved car Five Elms) parking provision, tree planting and remedial works to pavements. Chadwell Improved £1,000k Major Nil Heath Station pedestrian Schemes Access crossing facilities Funding Improvements and footways, £700k, LIP

side road entry funding £300k treatments, cycle parking, CCTV cameras, new signage/informati on and improved street lighting. Becontree Gale £1,500k Major £250k Station Area Street/Woodwood Schemes Public Realm Road/Hedgeman Funding Improvements s Road area has £1,000k, LIP been identified as funding £250k, a location that would benefit from further public realm improvement works. Its proximity to Becontree Station means it has high pedestrian footfall. Dagenham LTGDC Nil Dock SiP obtained £10 public realm million funding improvements from CLG Creekmouth New lighting, Phases 1 – 3 £200k Industrial area paving, parking, funded and public realm landscaping, complete. No improvements gullies, signage. funding available for phase 4 – River Road South Abbey This is covered £200k £100k LBBD Nil/na Heritage at under open Capital Risk Works spaces section Programme bid, £30k S106, English Heritage Total £2,660,000 Shortfall

3.5 Open Space

3.5.1 Open Space - Current Provision

The definition of ‘parks and open space’ is derived from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This type of open space includes urban parks, country parks, formal gardens, natural and semi-natural urban green spaces, green corridors, 47

nature reserves, cemeteries and burial grounds, public squares, amenity green space and sites of importance for nature conservation (SINCs). It generally provides opportunities for informal recreation, visual amenity and/or nature conservation. For the purpose of the Infrastructure Plan, the term open space only looks at publicly accessible open space and excludes cemeteries and burial grounds which are dealt with under a separate section. The Site Specific Allocations DPD identifies a total of 33 publicly accessible open spaces in the borough. These cover a total area 486 hectares of land.

Table 21: Open Space in Barking and Dagenham

Name of public open space Designation

Dagenham Corridor covering: Country Park • Eastbrookend Country Park • Thames Chase Community Forest Barking Park Metropolitan Open Land and part of London’s strategic open space network (Strategic Park) Mayesbrook Park Metropolitan Open Land and part of London’s strategic open space network (Strategic Park) Parsloes Park Metropolitan Open Land and part of London’s strategic open space network (Strategic Park) Thames Chase Community Forest Part of London’s strategic open space network Beam Valley Country Park Extension District Park (Greenbelt)

Central Park District Park (Greenbelt, Strategic Park) Eastbrookend Country Park and District Park (Greenbelt) Chase Nature Reserve Abbey Green Local Park/Open Space Castle Green Park Local Park/Open Space Goresbrook Park Local Park/Open Space Greatfields Park Local Park/Open Space (Strategic Park) Local Park/Open Space (Greenbelt, Strategic Old Dagenham Park Park) Padnall Open Space Local Park/Open Space Pondfield Park Local Park/Open Space Ripple Nature Reserve (northern end Local Park/Open Space only) Scrattons Farm Eco Park Local Park/Open Space

St Chad’s Park Local Park/Open Space (Strategic Park)

The Leys Local Park/Open Space (Greenbelt) Valence Park and House Local Park/Open Space (Strategic Park) Barking (St Mary’s) Abbey Ruins** Small Open Space

Essex Road Gardens Small Open Space Heath Park Small Open Space King George’s Field Small Open Space Kingston Hill Recreation Ground Small Open Space Millennium Green (Dagenham Small Open Space Village) Newlands Park Small Open Space Quaker Burial Grounds Small Open Space St. Margaret’s Churchyard Small Open Space

St Peter and St Paul’s Churchyard Small Open Space

Tantony Green (Marks Gate Small Open Space Recreation Ground)

Town Quay Small Open Space Victoria Gardens Small Open Space Creekmouth Barrier Park Small Open Space

3.5.2 Open Space – Existing shortfall/surplus Quantitative standards As established in the Site Specific Allocations DPD, the Council’s objective is to maintain the current provision of open space. In this document it was calculated that with an estimated population of 173,320 at November 2008 (GLA, 2006) there was a provision of 2.80 hectares per 1000 population which should be maintained. The Council will seek to maintain this standard by:

• Protecting the public open spaces listed in this document. • The provision of new public open space primarily in connection with strategic and major developments and through the implementation of the East London Green Grid Network. • Funding the provision and funding the maintenance of existing open space through future planning obligations

Qualitative standards

When looking at the future need of open space in the borough it is important to assess qualitative provision as well as quantitative provision. A number of surveys have been undertaken in the past which illustrate that all of the borough’s parks and open spaces are in need of some kind of qualitative improvements. Such surveys include the following:

• Barking and Dagenham Parks Evaluation February 2002 - 25 of the boroughs parks were evaluated as part of background work for the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Park and Open Spaces Strategy. The results were reported in February 2002 in a document called the Barking and Dagenham Parks Evaluation

• 2007 Assessment of the Council’s Parks and Open Spaces. Evaluated in 2007 by the Parks and Open Spaces Maintenance Team

• Borough’s Parks and Open Spaces User Survey undertaken in 2006 by consultants on the behalf of Council

The borough has prioritised 8 Strategic Parks via the Strategic Parks Initiative and aims to bring these parks to Green Flag Standard as well as the gaining the Mayor’s Safer Parks award.

3.5.3 Open Space – Projected shortfall/surplus Public open space is anticipated to be created at the following sites during the period 2011/12 – 2024/25

• Barking Riverside – 80 hectares approx. A series of public parks will be provided throughout, and around, the site providing approximately an additional 80 hectares of publicly accessible space. These will each have a different character and will have different degrees of public access and recreational facilities. The parks include Diamond Park, Pylon Park, Ripple Valley, Riverview Terraces, Neighbourhood Greens, Community Gardens, Buzzard Square (District Centre), Jetty Square, Eye Square and Neighbourhood Squares

Public open space is due to be improved at the following sites during the period 2011 – 2025:

• Mayesbrook Park

Mayesbrook Park is London’s largest river restoration scheme and the UK’s first climate change park. It is a partnership project that provides access to nature for local communities, a river restoration to help provide a better understanding of and resilience to the impact of climate change, improved biodiversity and improved community facilities.

Phase 1 (habitat improvements featuring the Mayes Brook which will be re- routed to create wetland areas, planting of 50 semi-mature trees and over 5,000 transplants and whips, entrance and access improvements) started May 2011 and will be complete by December 2011.

The project is being taken forward in partnership with the Environment Agency, the Thames Rivers Restoration Trust, Natural England, London Wildlife Trust, the GLA, Design for London, Royal Sun Alliance and SITA and

is an important project that has been made possible by its prioritising within the All London Green Grid.

The project will not only see a naturalised river, new areas for wildlife, increased access to play, new boating opportunities and improved entrances, but also an AdiZone outdoor gym was installed last year and sports facilities are being delivered as part of the Olympics. A Community Ranger is in post (fixed term external funding) to ensure community involvement at the park, leading events, activities, educational visits and play over the next three years. London Wildlife Trust also conducts weekly volunteer events.

Phase 1 of this project is costing £1 million and funding for this is committed from TRRT, RSA Insurance, Natural England, SITA, GLA, Help a London Park and Environment Agency). Phases 2, and 3 (visitor centre, lake restoration and cycle links) are to be part funded by S106 contributions from the former UEL site development.

• Barking Park – restoration and improvement works, enabled by £3 million Council capital, a £3,500,000 Heritage Lottery Fund grant, and £335k S106 funding, will be completed in December 2011. Funding will be required for maintenance and to deal with risks and contingencies.

• Abbey Green – Improvements to Abbey Green (BTCSSA8) to transform it into a prestigious and vibrant town centre park. It is a key space in the Council’s objective of establishing strong links between the Town Centre and the historic river frontage. It is also a key project in the All London Green Grid which aims to connect places of importance via green spaces, and will link one of the Mayor’s ‘lost rivers’ (Roding) to one his 100 Public Squares (Barking Town Square). Works are estimated to cost £4 million. Of this £98,000 has been secured from Design for London, and £50,000 from Playbuilder. To date a new play ground has been provided on the Abbey Green and Design work undertaken for improvements to take place across the remainder of the site. Abbey Park is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and is currently on the Heritage At Risk Register due to the disrepair of the Abbey Ruins. £50,000 of existing S106 monies have therefore been committed for the undertaking of essential repairs. The Council will also seek contribution of up to £10,000 from English Heritage towards funding essential works at the Abbey Ruins. St Margaret’s Churchyard falls within the public open space of the Abbey Green and maintenance of this site is the Council’s responsibility. This site whilst not included in the Scheduled Ancient Monument designation is also in a state of disrepair and in need of essential works. Officers have submitted a capital bid for £100,000 to address all the repair works required on St Margaret’s churchyard and the Abbey Ruins themselves. In total there is an existing shortfall of monies to fund improvement works across Abbey Green of £3,692,000

• Parsloes Park – a £750,000 capital bid will be made to deal with the park boundary, expand parking provision and improve the footpath network. These proposals are supported by public complaints. 51

• Central Park - the Council’s plant nursery at Central Park has now reached the stage where it is considered to be unsustainable. In its place, it is proposed to make use of the nursery site as a development opportunity for a social enterprise to establish a community led organic food growing social enterprise under a 10-year leasing arrangement. This will support the achievement of a number of community priorities as well as the Mayor of London’s plan to create new community food growing spaces across the capital.

• Quaker Burial Ground – proposal to turn into a small local park.

• Ranger Services The Access to Nature funding has created a Community Ranger (Sc6) to develop community projects and help with the management of the Beam Parklands site. The funding for this post expires in 2013.

Applying a standard of 2.80 hectares of public open space per 1,000 people, the future population growth generated by new housing developments will generate a deficit of 101ha of publicly accessible open spaces. However as stated above, Barking Riverside will deliver 80 hectares of this. The shortfall is therefore 21 hectares. The Parks and Open spaces capital budget for 2011/12 is £5,922,210 (£2,505,046 LBBD, £3,034,935 external funding, £382,229 S106). The operational budget for 2011/12 is £2,169,480. This follows a zero based budget exercise by the in-house maintenance service, Environment and Enforcement.

3.5.4 Open Spaces – Costs and Funding Sources To maintain the existing level of open space of 2.8 hectares per 1000 population there is a need for the creation of an additional 21 hectares. This equates to 5.82 sq metres per additional resident. At a cost of £10 per square metre (Milton Keynes Council/English Partnerships/Sports England’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Planning Obligations for Leisure Recreation and Sport 2004), a contribution of £280 per person will be required.

Table 22: Open Spaces: Total Costs and Funding Sources Item Cost Existing Shortfall Additional New Open £58.20 x 36,082 = £2,100,000 Space due to 14,910 £2,100,000 homes Assumes provision of 80 hectares at Barking Riverside Operational Budget of Circa £2,169,480 per To be funded through Parks and Open Spaces annum LBBD Council Improvements at Parsloes £800,000 capital bid To be funded through Park Council’s Capital Bid Programme 52

Works and maintenance at £4 million £98,000 funded through Abbey Green Design for London £50,000 funded through existing S106 monies, £50,000 from Playbuilder, £100,000 subject to existing capital bid. £10,000 to be sought from English Heritage through joint management agreement to address Heritage at Risk at Abbey Ruins. Existing shortfall therefore £,3,692,000 Barking Park Funding required for ongoing maintenance in addition to Parks Operational Budget? Mayesbrook Park - £2,000,000 phase 2 £1,200,000 funded from Implementation of Phases Circa £500,000 phase 3 UEL S106 2 – 3 Existing shortfall = £1,300,000 Community Ranger Existing funding expires Existing shortfall = 2013 £32,000 per annum = £448,000 Total Shortfall £7,540,000.00

3.6 Allotments

3.6.1 Allotments - Current Provision The Site Specific Allocations DPD identifies 16 allotment sites in the Borough (including Groveway Allotments which are shortly to open) amounting to a total of 13.75 hectares. The list of protected allotments as identified on the adopted Proposals Map is as follows:

Table 23: List of protected allotments sites Allotment Site Ward Waiting List as at November 2008 Barking Park Longbridge Full Bushway Parsloes Full

Chitty’s Lane Valence Full Exeter Road Village Full Field Gardens (statutory) Chadwell Heath Full Frizlands Heath (boundary has been revised to take account of planning application for housing on part of the site) Gale Street Goresbrook Full Gale Street Organics Goresbrook Unknown Groveway Allotments Parsloes Opens Spring 2011 Hedgemans Road River Full Longbridge Road Becontree Full Manning Road River Full Marks Gate (statutory) Chadwell Heath Not open Reede Road Alibon Full Temple Avenue Whalebone Unknown Wood Lane Mayesbrook Full

There are allotments societies in Barking and Dagenham which manage the allotment sites on behalf of the council via a long term lease arrangement. These include: • The Barking and District Allotment Holders Society Ltd • East Barking Allotment and Horticultural Society • Exeter Road Allotment Association • Becontree Horticulture and Allotment Association • Chadwell Heath Allotment and Horticulture Association • Becontree Heath Allotment and Horticulture Association • Hedgemans Road Allotment Association; and • Gale Street Organics

3.6.2 Allotments - Existing shortfall/surplus Quantitative Standards Current provision equates to approximately 0.08 hectares per 1,000 population (based on GLA 2010 population projections for 2010 of 177,325). This figure is below the standard recommended by the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (NSALG). They recommend a national standard of 20 allotments per 1,000 households or 1 allotment per 200 people. This equates to 0.125ha per 1,000 2 population based on an average plot size of 250 m . The Council has however decided to maintain as a minimum the existing level of 0.08 hectares per 1,000 population as set out in the Council’s Site Specific Allocations DPD.

Demand for allotments can be variable over time, but in the last few years and in line with regional and national trends, demand has steadily increased. The majority of the

Borough’s allotments sites are full and most have a waiting list. In April 2010 there were 270 residents on the waiting list for an allotment. This trend where supply is outstripped by demand is also found on a regional level. The GLA report “London’s Disappearing Allotments”, published in 2006, evidences an increasing demand for allotment sites across London and calls for the trend in the loss of allotment sites to be reversed. This demand is expected to continue to increase due to continuing interest in healthy lifestyles and organic produce, increasing tendency for women and young families to take up a plot, the increasing population and an increase in residential densities where new homes are built with no or limited garden space.

There are two former allotment sites; one in Parsloes ward called Groveway allotments and another in Chadwell Heath called Hainault Road allotments. The former Hainault Road allotment site has a planning consent on it for use as a golf course. The Groveway allotment is being brought back into use in Spring 2011 giving an additional 0.6 hectares.

3.6.3 Allotments - Projected shortfall/surplus An additional population of 36,082 will require 2.89ha of new allotment sites (based on maintaining existing provision of 0.08 hectares per 1,000 population).

The list above includes an allotment site in Marks Gate (Thatches Grove) which has been vacant and remained unworked since before 2004. The Council’s Culture and Sports Division is seeking to bring good quality and accessible allotment plots back into use within the Marks Gate area and a land quality report is currently being carried out to assess whether the former site is still suitable to be used as an allotment. If suitable, it could provide 40 5-rod allotment plots.

The nearest allotment to this site is the Field Gardens site near to St Chads Park which is south of the A12 and which also has a long waiting list dating back to 2006. As stated in SSA SM14, it may be necessary to use the Mark’s Gate allotment site for the purpose of decanting residents from Padnall Court and Reynolds Court. If this is the case an allotment site will be reprovided within the Mark’s Gate area and in consultation with local allotment associations.

3.6.4 Allotments - Costs and Funding Sources To maintain the existing level of provision of 0.08 hectares per 1000 population we require a contribution of £18 per person. The cost per square metre is assumed to be £15 (mix of LBBD/DTI/Milton Keynes/EP/Sports England).

Table 24: Allotments: Costs and Funding Sources Item Cost Existing Funding? Creation of new allotments £18 x 36,082 = £649,476 Shortfall = £649,476 to reflect demand from There is no other funding new housing growth. currently secured. Total Shortfall £649,476

3.7 Leisure

Indoor Leisure

3.7.1 Indoor Leisure - Current Provision London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, until recently, operated four leisure facilities at Abbey Sports Centre, Dagenham Swimming Pool, Goresbrook Leisure Centre and Wood Lane Sports Centre, three of which have swimming pools. However, a new leisure facility, incorporating a ten lane 25metre pool, learner pool, sports hall, 100 station gym and two dance studios, opened on 31 May 2011 at Becontree Heath, replacing the Dagenham and Wood Lane centres. In 2012, the pool at Goresbrook Leisure Centre is also due to close but the sports hall, gym, café and ancillary areas will remain operational.

Table 25: LBBD Indoor Leisure Provision:

Centre Facilities Area of pool sq.m. Abbey Sports Centre Badminton courts, 250 gym, multipurpose sports hall, table tennis swimming Goresbrook Leisure Centre Badminton courts, 200 (pool due to gym, multipurpose close in April 2012) sports hall, table tennis swimming Becontree Leisure Centre Sports hall, 100 625 + 91 = 716 station gym and two dance studios. 2011 1166 2012 966 Source: Sport England’s Facilities Planning Model – LBBD Swimming Pool Assessment (2010)

In 2011, using the current population figure of 175,603, this equates to 6.66sq m water space per 1,000 population. In 2012, provision reduces to 5.5sq m per 1,000 population.

In addition, there are leisure facilities (without pools) at nine educational sites, and Romford YMCA, with varying degrees of community access: • Barking Abbey School Leisure Centre (Sports hall, fitness suite, fitness studio, indoor tennis) • Castle Green Leisure Centre (Sports hall, fitness suite, fitness studio) • Dagenham Park Leisure Centre (Sports hall, fitness suite, fitness studio)

• Robert Clack School Leisure Centre (sports hall, multi-activity hall, fitness suite, fitness studio) • Eastbrook School (Sports hall, dance studio) • Eastbury Comprehensive School (2 sports halls) • Sydney Russell Leisure Centre (Sports hall, fitness suite) • Warren Sports Centre (2 sports halls, fitness suite) • Barking and Dagenham College (Sports hall) • Romford YMCA (Sports hall, fitness suite, fitness studio)

There is no commercial sports hall provision in the Borough.

3.7.2 Indoor Leisure - Existing Shortfall/Surplus The Sports England Standard (weighted for LBBD population profile) for indoor leisure is: • 11.24sq m of water per 1000 people (1 lane = 25m x 2.12m = 53sq m) • 0.31 courts per 1000 people (typical centre contains 4 courts)

As set out above, the Borough only has 6.66sq m of swimming pool per 1,000 people which falls significantly below the Sports England standard. Provision should be a total of 1,974sq m (assuming a population of 175,603) for the current population so there is a shortfall of 808sq m. Beyond April 2012 when Goresbrook Leisure pool is due to close this shortfall increases to 1008 sq m.

Table 26: Sports Hall Provision in Barking and Dagenham Facility Dimensions Marked Courts Community Hours Available Abbey Sports Centre 4 100 Barking Abbey School 38 x 18 5 41 Leisure Centre Barking and Dagenham 27 x 17 4 15 College Becontree Leisure Centre 4 101 Castle Green Sports 4 34 Centre Dagenham Park 4 34 Community School Eastbrook School 5 36 Eastbury Comprehensive 30 x 16 4 36 School Eastbury Comprehensive 1 36 School Goresbrook Leisure 8 99.5 Centre Robert Clack School 33 x 17 4 46 Leisure Centre Sydney Russell Leisure 33 x 27 6 42.5 Centre Warren Sports Centre 4 44 57

Warren Sports Centre 1 44 YMCA Romford 4 94.5 Source: Sport England’s Facilities Planning Model - Sports Hall Provision in Barking and Dagenham – 2010 Profile Report (with update for Becontree Leisure Centre)

There are 62 courts publicly available but when this figure is weighted according to the number of hours they can be accessed by the public, this is reduced to approximately 54. A population of 175,603 would require 54 courts, based on the Sports England standard of 0.31 courts per 1,000 people. Therefore, current provision meets the demand of the existing population.

3.7.3 Indoor Leisure - Projected shortfall/surplus New development in the borough is likely to give a rise to 36,082 people, which based on the Sports England standards above, equates to the requirement of an additional 11.2 (36.082 x 0.31) courts and 405.56 (11.24 x 36.082) sq m of pool. In order to understand the land and build requirements of 11.2 courts and 406 sq m of water space there is a need to make some assumptions.

3.7.4 Land and build requirements for 11.2 leisure centre courts With respect to courts, a typical 4 court leisure centre (excluding pool) covers 3,784 sq m of land (Gardner & Theobald Social Infrastructure Facility Build Costs, SIF 2006). 11.2 courts requires 3 such leisure centres thus a total land requirement for 11,352 sq m (3 x 3,784sq m).

In terms of build requirement, a 4 court leisure centre has a typical gross building size of 1,515 sq m (Gardner & Theobald Social Infrastructure Facility Build Costs, SIF 2006). 11.2 courts would require 3 such leisure centres thus a total build requirement of 4,545 sq m (3 x 1,515sq m)

3.7.5 Land and build requirements for 406 sq m of pool. The additional requirement of 406 sq m of pool would require an additional 8 lanes (where 1 lane equals 25m x 2.12m or 53 sq m.) Information on the land and build requirements for 8 lanes is not available. However information on a 4 lane swimming pool is available. The Gardner and Theobald Analysis used in the development of the borough’s Social Infrastructure Framework (2006) states that a 4 lane swimming centre (including 25 m pool, a paddling pool and a teaching pool) requires a gross build size of 1,700 sq m and a land area of 3,404 sq m. As two such centres are needed the build requirement would be 3,400 and the land requirement 6,808 sq m.

3.7.6 Other facilities coming forward. A new community sports centre (8,922sq m gross, 7,499 sq m net) is being built at Mayesbrook Park for the Olympics, which will incorporate four handball court, two gyms (one for elite athletes) and two external multi-purpose courts (these are taking into consideration in the section below on outdoor leisure provision).

The existing S106 on the consented Barking Riverside scheme also includes commitment for the provision of a 6,300sq m land for Leisure Centre and Waterside Development which will include an 8 lane 25 metre x 2.12m (424sq m) swimming pool. This is to come forward as part of later stages of the Barking Riverside scheme (stage 4).

3.7.7 Indoor Leisure - Cost and Funding Sources Typical land costs for land in the borough is £1,500,000 per sq m in Barking Town Centre and Leftley/Faircross Estates, and £740,000 in the rest of the borough (GVA Economic Viability Assessment 2011). The total projected cost for the land requirement for leisure centres is therefore 11,352 x £150 equating to £1,702,800 or £47.19 per person (£1,702,800 /36,082). Build costs for leisure centres in the borough is £1,400 sq m of building (SIF 2006). The total projected cost for the build requirement is therefore £1,400 x 4,545 sq m equating to £6,363,000 or £176.3 per person (£6,363,000 /36,082). Land cost is assumed to be £150 per sq m (GVA 2011) thus equating to £1,021,200 (£150 x 6,808 sq m water space) or £28.30 per person (£1,021,200 / 36,082). Build costs for a 4 lane swimming pool is £2,000 per sq m (Gardner & Theobald Social Infrastructure Facility Build Costs, SIF 2006) or £3,400,000 and the cost for two would be £6,800,000. As stated above, the existing Barking Riverside Section 106 agreement provides for the provision of 6,300sq m land for Leisure Centre and Waterside Development which will include an 8 lane 25 metre x 2.12m (424sq m) swimming pool. This pool provision will require all the pool needs generated by 36,802 population but, on the basis that 6,300 sq m leaves only limited space once 8 lanes of swimming pool have been taken into consideration, will not contribute to the needs for leisure court facilities.

Table 27: LBBD Indoor Leisure: Total Costs and Funding Sources Item Cost Existing Shortfall? 2 additional 4 court leisure £1,702,800 1 leisure centre being centres including fitness provided at Mayesbrook suite and large community leaving shortfall of foyer. Land costs £851,400

2 additional 4 court leisure 6,363,000 1 leisure centre being centres including fitness provided at Mayesbrook suite and large community leaving shortfall of foyer. Build Costs £3,181,500 2 four lane swimming £4,357,120 No requirement in addition pools (25 m pool, paddling to 8 lane swimming facility pool and teaching pool). at Barking Riverside. Land costs Delivered through Barking Riverside 2 four lane swimming £6,800,000 No requirement in addition 59

pools (25 m pool, paddling to 8 lane swimming facility pool and teaching pool). at Barking Riverside. Build costs. Delivered through Barking Riverside Total Shortfall £4,032,900

Outdoor Leisure

3.7.8 Outdoor Leisure - Current Provision Current provision, as identified in the Borough’s Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy 2005, is outlined in the tables below:

Table 28: LBBD Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision Sub-area Football Football Mini- Full-sized Cricket Senior Junior Soccer synthetic Barking 13 5 1 0 0 Dagenham 33 7 3 1 2 Chadwell 23 1 1 1 1 Heath Total 69 13 5 2 3

Sub-area Rugby MUGAs Tennis Bowling Golf Courts Greens Facilities Barking 3 18 15 3 0 Dagenham 9 4 15 2 1 Chadwell 2 3 2 2 1 Heath Total 14 25 31 7 2

In addition to this, the new community sports centre at Mayesbrook Park will provide two external multi-purpose courts.

3.7.9 Outdoor Leisure - Existing shortfall/surplus

The Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (Policy BC5 Sports Standards) sets the following sports standards as set by the Barking and Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy (2005): • Playing pitches – 0.75ha per 1,000 people • Multi-use games area (MUGA) - 1 per 1,500 under 16s • Tennis courts - 1 per 2,500 10-45 yr olds • Bowling greens - 1 per 9,500 over 40s

The Barking and Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy (2005) identified the existing surpluses and deficits as at 2005. Its findings were: The key findings identified in the Playing Pitch Strategy (2005) are as follows:

• There is a large notional ‘surplus’ of senior football pitches but this is effectively eliminated by the deficit in junior pitches, with junior teams frequently playing on full-sized pitches. Despite the borough wide ‘surplus’, there is an assessed deficit of senior pitches in the Barking Sub-Area, which reflects the combination of relatively dense population and few facilities.

• There is a large deficit of junior pitches in the Borough at present, although as outlined above this shortfall is compensated for by junior teams playing on senior pitches in the Borough, and teams playing on junior pitches on sites immediately beyond the Borough boundaries.

• There is a substantial under-provision of mini-soccer pitches in the Borough as a whole and in all Sub-Areas at present. With the pressure on junior pitches, it is often not possible for mini-soccer teams to play on these larger facilities and several teams therefore have to play outside the Borough.

• There is a deficit of 3 cricket pitches in the Borough at peak periods on Saturday afternoons, evenly spread between the three sub-areas. Teams within the Borough are only able to meet their competitive needs by using pitches immediately beyond the Borough boundary (principally the Ford Sports and Social Club and Goodmayes Park).

• There is a notional ‘surplus’ of 9 rugby pitches in Barking and Dagenham at present.

• Demand for bowls in the Borough is below the national average, based upon the proportion of club members in relation to the population over 40. The seven clubs in Barking and Dagenham are currently able to fulfil their training and competitive needs by using the seven existing greens, which suggests that supply and demand are effectively balanced.

• Levels of provision of MUGA’s per capita in Multi-Use-Games Areas in Barking and Dagenham are 1 per 1,531 under 16s (the second highest for the sample of twelve local authorities examined). Whilst there are disparities in levels of provision between the three Sub-Areas, with a geographical concentration in the Barking Sub-Area, the levels of provision in the Dagenham and Chadwell Heath Sub-Areas are also well above the national average, which suggests that demand is fully met at present.

• Levels of provision of tennis courts in the Borough at one per 2,648 people aged 10 - 45, are just below the average of one per 2,300 for the sample of seven local authorities examined. However, there are significant disparities in levels of provision between the three Sub-Areas, with the Chadwell Heath Sub-Area poorly served with only one court per 12,625 people of tennis playing age.

Detailed information on surpluses and deficits is set out in the tables below.

Table 29: Supply and Demand for football pitches, cricket pitches, rugby pitches and bowling greens. Football Pitches Senior Junior Mini- Cricket Rugby Bowling football football soccer Green pitches pitches pitches (10 – (under 16) 10) Number of 69 13 5 3 14 7 pitches Peak pitch 29 29 18 6 5 7 demand Surplus/(Deficit) 20 (16) (13) (3) (9) 0

Barking ` Number of 13 5 1 0 3 3 pitches Peak pitch 15 10 5 1 3 3 demand Surplus/(deficit) (2) (5) (4) (1) (0) (0)

Dagenham Number of 33 7 3 2 9 2 pitches Peak pitch 24 16 11 3 2 3 demand Surplus/(deficit) 9 (9) (8) (1) (7) (1)

Chadwell Heath Number of 23 1 1 1 2 3 pitches Peak pitch 10 3 2 2 0 2 demand Surplus/(deficit) 13 (2) (1) (1) (2) (1)

Multi-Use Games Areas Comparison of numbers of MUGA’s per under 16’s

Table 30: Number of under 16 year olds per MUGA Barking 773

Dagenham 3,661 Chadwell Heath 3,965 LBBD Average 1,531

Tennis

Table 31: Number of 10 – 45 year olds per Tennis court Barking 1,970 Dagenham 2,073 Chadwell Heath 12,625 LBBD Average 2,684

There are also sports pavilions in several strategic parks which require funding in the short term to ensure that they can continue to operate.

3.7.10 Outdoor Leisure - Projected shortfall/surplus The information presented in Barking and Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy (2005) suggests that current provision overall broadly meets need. Further additions include the provision of two external multipurpose courts as part of the Mayesbrook Park Community Sports Centre.

Further provision is also committed in association with planning consent granted at Barking Riverside (UEL and Lymington fields also??). The S106 agreement specifies that prior to the occupation of the first 500 homes Barking Riverside Ltd will provide the following: - One mini soccer pitch of 0.35 hectares on the First Primary School Site - One MUGA of 0.12 hectares on the First Primary School Site - One all weather football pitch of 1 hectare. - Two Tennis courts of 0.06 hectares each

It specifies that prior to the occupation of 1500 homes Barking Riverside Ltd will provide: - One mini soccer pitch of 0.35 hectares on the Second Primary School Site - One MUGA of 0.12 hectares on the Second Primary School Site - Two junior football pitches of 0.82 hectares each - 2 tennis courts of 0.06 hectares at Diamond Park - 1 bowling green of 0.15 hectares at Diamond Park

It specifies that prior to the occupation of 4000 units it will provide: - 2 junior football pitches of 0.82 hectares on each on the Secondary School Site - 1 MUGA of 0.12 hectares on the Secondary School Site. - 1 Senior football pitch of 0.9 hectares on the Secondary School Site

- 1 cricket pitch of 1 hectare on the Secondary School Site - 1 Senior football pitch of 0.9 hectares - 2 MUGAs of 0.12 hectares - 2 mini soccer pitches of 0.35 hectares - 1 junior football pitch of 0.82 hectares - 2 tennis courts 0.06 hectares each

It specifies that prior to the occupation of 7,000 homes it will provide a further: - Three tennis courts of 0.06 hectares each - Two MUGAs of 0.12 hectares each

Therefore, to meet the need of a future population of 36,082, the following are needed: • 27.06 ha Playing Pitches • 5.6 Multi-Use Games Areas (8,422 under 15s) • 7.5 Tennis Courts (18,688 10 - 44 yr olds) • 1.5 Bowling Greens (14,265 over 40s)

Barking Riverside will provide the following • 9.30 hectares of Playing Pitches • 7 MUGAs • 6 Tennis Courts • 1 Bowling Green

This leaves a surplus requirement as follows: • 17.76 hectares of playing pitches • No additional requirement for Multi-Use Games Areas • 1.5 additional tennis courts • 0.5 of a bowling green.

3.7.11 Outdoor Leisure - Costs and Funding Sources

A cost of £30 per sq m is assumed for the provision of playing pitch provision (source: SIF 2006 – Mix of LB of Hillingdon and LBBD standards)8 The LDF standard would require 0.75 hectares per 1000 population which is the same as 7.5 sq m per person. However, as shown above due to provision already committed at Barking Riverside the additional need in the borough is 9.30 hectares which when divided by the additional population of 36,082 equates to 0.00025774 hectares needed per additional person or 2.58 sq m per person. The total cost of playing pitch provision is therefore £77.40 per person.

A cost of £20.24 per metre (NPFA Cost Guide Sports 2003) is assumed for tennis courts and the Lawn Tennis Association recommends a minimum court size of 593

8 See Sutton SPD - The cost per square metre for playing pitches is from the Sports England adopted policy for playing fields and includes earthworks, drainage, seeding, planting, car parking, and changing facilities/pavilion. £138.44. much higher than our cost

sq m9. The LDF standard would require the provision of an additional 7.5 tennis courts which would equate to £4447.5 sq metres or 0.123 sq m per person. However when taking into account the provision committed by Barking Riverside there is only a need for 1.5 additional tennis courts equating to 889.5 sq m. The additional cost of this is £18,003.48.

A cost of £70,000 is assumed to lay out a 1,600 sq m green to provide a bowling green. Once taking into consideration provision from Barking Riverside there is a need for 0.5 of a bowling green requiring an additional £35,000 or when dividing by the additional population of 36,082 and additional £0.97per person.

The current portfolio of sports pavilions operated by the Council requires £5 million investment to enable them to continue to be used.

Table 32: LBBD Outdoor Leisure Facilities. Costs and Funding Sources Item Cost Existing Shortfall Additional 17.76 hectares £77.40 x 36,082 = 2,792,747 of playing pitches 2,792,746.8 Land costs for playing It is assumed that there None. pitches: will be no land costs as pitches will be built on Council land and existing open spaces? Additional 1.5 tennis £18,003.48. £18,003 courts. Land costs for tennis No cost as assumption will None courts be provided on Council land? Additional bowling green £35,000 £35,000 Land costs for bowling No cost as assumption will None green be provided on Council land? Upgrading of Sports £5,000,000 £5,000,000 Pavilions in eight strategic parks Total Shortfall £7,845,750

9 Oldham uses figure of £98 per sq m. 65

3.8 Play

3.8.1 Play - Current Provision The Barking and Dagenham Play Strategy uses the definition for play offered by the Children’s Play Council (1998) and the Children’s Society in their Charter for Children’s Play as;

‘Play is an essential part of every child’s life and vital to their development…It is essential for physical, emotional and spiritual growth, for intellectual and educational development and for acquiring social and behavioural skills…it may or may not involve equipment or have an end product. Children play on their own and with others. Their play may be boisterous and energetic or quiet and contemplative, light hearted or very serious.’

The Supplementary Planning Guidance: Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation (GLA 2008) includes the following table identifying types of play facilities appropriate by age group:

3.8.2 Assessing Areas of Deficiency

Table 33: Play Space for Different Age Groups Children under 5 Children 5 - 11 Young People 12+ What counts as an Small age Equipped age- Adventure existing space for appropriate equipped appropriate play Playgrounds. play? play area. area. Sport or recreation Public open spaces Public open spaces space that is open with potential for with potential for access (e.g. ball informal play. informal play. court, basketball Kick about areas. court, MUGA. Adventure Skate park, bike park Playgrounds. or other wheeled Skate park, bike park facility or other wheeled Fitness trails or other facility. age-appropriate equipped areas. Maximum Actual 100m 400m 800m Walking Distance

For the purposes of this plan, and to ensure that there is no overlap in costing of facilities, we will include under 5s play and 5 – 11s play. Age 12+ play will largely be covered in the Outdoor Leisure chapter.

Table 34: Distribution of Outdoor Play and Sports Facilities in the Borough

Ward Facility Location Abbey 8 – 13 Victoria Park Abbey 8 – 13 play facility Abbey Green completed in 2011. Alibon 8 - 13 Pondfield Park Alibon Basketball Pondfield Park Chadwell Heath 7-11 Tantony Green Chadwell Heath Toddlers Tantony Green Chadwell Heath BMX Area Tantony Green Chadwell Heath Teen Shelter Tantony Green Chadwell Heath Basketball Tantony Green Chadwell Heath 8 - 13 Tantony Green Chadwell Heath Football Tantony Green Chadwell Heath 8 - 13 Padnall Green Chadwell Heath Toddlers & 7-11 St Chads Park Chadwell Heath Tennis St Chads Park Chadwell Heath 8 - 13 St Chads Park Chadwell Heath Basketball St Chads Park Chadwell Heath Football St Chads Park Eastbury 8 - 13 Essex Road Gardens Gascoigne Toddlers & 7-11 Greatfields Park Gascoigne Tennis Greatfields Park Gascoigne 8 - 13 Gascoigne Estate Goresbrook Toddlers & 7-11 Goresbrook Park Goresbrook Skate Goresbrook Park Goresbrook Basketball Goresbrook Park Goresbrook Football Goresbrook Park Heath Toddlers & 7-11 Central Park Heath Trimtrail Central Park Heath Tennis Central Park Heath 2 x 8 - 13 Central Park Heath Basketball Central Park Heath Football Central Park Heath 8 - 13 Heath Park Longbridge Skate Barking Park Longbridge Toddlers & 7-11 Barking Park Longbridge Football Barking Park Longbridge Tennis Barking Park Longbridge Basketball Barking Park

Longbridge 8 - 13 Barking Park Mayesbrook Toddlers & 7-11 Mayesbrook Park Mayesbrook Basketball Mayesbrook Park Mayesbrook Football Mayesbrook Park Mayesbrook 8 - 13 Mayesbrook Park Mayesbrook Teen Shelter Mayesbrook Park Mayesbrook Trimtrail Mayesbrook Park Mayesbrook Outdoor gym Mayesbrook Park Mayesbrook Toddlers & 7-11 Parsloes Park Mayesbrook Skate Parsloes Park Mayesbrook Trimtrail Parsloes Park Mayesbrook Tennis Parsloes Park Mayesbrook Basketball Parsloes Park Mayesbrook Football Parsloes Park River Toddlers King George P Field River Skate King George P Field River Teen Shelter King George P Field River Teens King George P Field River 5-a-side Pitch King George P Field River Toddlers & 7-11 Oval Road North Thames Toddlers & 7-11 Newlands Park Thames Skate Newlands Park Thames Basketball Newlands Park Thames Teen Shelter Newlands Park Thames Teens Newlands Park Thames 5-a-side Pitch Newlands Park Thames 8 – 13 Scrattons eco-park Thames 8 – 13 Castle Green Thames Skate/BMX Castle Green Thames 8 - 13 Curzon Garages Valence Toddlers & 7-11 Valence Park Valence Basketball Valence Park Valence Teen Shelter Valence Park Valence 8 - 13 Valence Park Valence Football Valence Park Village Tennis Old Dagenham Park Village Toddlers & 7-11 Old Dagenham Park Village Skate/BMX Old Dagenham Park Village Football Old Dagenham Park Village 8 - 13 Dagenham Washlands Village 2 x 8 - 13 Ibscott Close

3.8.3 Play - Existing shortfall/surplus

Quantitative Standard The National Playing Field Association (NPFA) Six Acre Standard is the most widely used standard for play provision. The NPFA standard sets quantitative guidelines for the provision of play facilities in new developments by population. It sets a minimum standard for outdoor playing space of 2.4ha (6 acres) for 1,000 people. This is sub- divided into: • 1.6ha (4 acres) per 1,000 population of outdoor sport; and • 0.8ha (2 acres) per 1,000 population for children’s play.

The table below shows criteria for Local Areas of Play (LAPs), Local Equipped Areas of Play (LEAPs) and Neighbourhood Equipped Areas of Play (NEAPs).

Table 35: Criteria for LAPs, LEAPs and NEAPs Type of Minimum Age range NPFA Cost Cost per Characteristics provision size of Standard per sq person play area per m sq m person LAP 100 Up to 6 1sq m £60 £60 Small, low-key games area LEAP 400 4 to 8 2sq m £80 £160 5 types of equipment, small games area NEAP 1,000 Older 5sq m £80 £400 8 types of equipment, children opportunities for ball games or wheeled activities (N.B. this doesn’t include fees and maintenance costs)

The standards focus on formal playground provision with fixed equipment and do not consider in detail other types of play provision and informal recreation spaces. If applied to the average child population (aged 0-16), the standard 8 sq m children’s play per person would equate to 40 sq m play space per child.

However, GLA (2008) Supplementary Planning Guidance: Providing for children and young people’s play and Informal recreation, suggests that existing national standards are too high for application in London and do not take into account the potential for other areas of open space to be used as play spaces. Consultation with London boroughs indicates that limited practical use is currently being made of existing standards because they do not accurately assess local needs or reflect local characteristics in terms of population profile and existing provision. The GLA set a more realistic figure benchmark standard of a minimum of 10 sq m of dedicated playspace per child is recommended as a basis for assessing existing provision.

In 2008, Barking and Dagenham was selected as one of Play England’s Playbuilder authorities, benefiting from £965k of funding to provide 20 new play areas for children aged 8 to 13. Play areas were provided in the following areas:

Year 1 (2008/09) – Castle Green, Essex Road Gardens, Heath Park, Tantony Green, Padnall Green, Scrattons Eco Park, Valance Park, Ibscott (2), Gascoigne, Victoria Gardens.

Year 2 (2009/10) – Curzon Garages, Abbey Green, Barking Park, Central Park (2), Pondfield Park, St Chad’s Park, Mayesbrook Park, Dagenham Washlands.

3.8.4 Play - Projected shortfall/surplus The recent Playbuilder projects have resulted in existing shortfalls in play for 8 to 13 year olds being met. These projects will not suffice in meeting future demand from new developments. The projected shortfall for play is therefore directly related to the new homes coming forward.

The projected population is 3,656 x under 5 year olds, 6,398 x 5 – 9 year olds and 4,570 10 – 14 year olds (see child yield calculator in Table 30 in the Education Section). For the purposes of this document older children’s play will be included in the Outdoor Leisure section. GLA (2008) Supplementary Planning Guidance providing for children and young people’s play and Informal recreation sets a standard of a minimum of 10sq m of dedicated play space per child. This has been split into 4sq m for under 5s play and 6m for 5 to 9s play. To meet the future needs, provision of 3,656 x 4m = 14,624sq m (under 5s) and 6,398 x 6m = 38,388 sq m play areas will be required.

The existing S106 agreement at Barking Riverside has the following commitments with respect to play provision:

Prior to the occupation of 500 homes, Barking Riverside Ltd will provide: • 1 play station to serve the neighbourhood • 1 activity park including a skate park and a BMX

Prior to the occupation of 1500 homes, Barking Riverside Ltd will provide • 1 play station to serve the neighbourhood

Prior to the occupation of 4000 homes, Barking Riverside Ltd will provide • 1 play port at Jetty Square • 1 activity park including a skate park at Eye Square

Prior to the occupation of 7000 homes, Barking Riverside Ltd will provide • 3 play stations

In total play space excluding outdoor leisure (tennis, cricket, MUGA, football, bowling, and mini soccer) and excluding informal recreation (the linear activity areas and country park) being provided as part of the Barking Riverside development will be 8,000 sq metres. This is broken down as follows:

Table 36: Play Space in Barking Riverside Zone Under 5s 0 – 11 12 + C1 250 sq m 750 sq m 1,000 sq m C2 250 sq m 1750 sq m C3 250 sq m 750 sq m C5 250 sq m 750 sq m C7 250 sq m 750 sq m C8 250 sq m 750 sq m Total 1,500 sq m 5,500 sq m

To take the provision of play coming forward through Barking Riverside the projected shortfalls of play are deducted as follows:

Under 5s: 14,624sq m required. Adjusted to 13,124 sq m to take Barking Riverside into account

5 – 9s: 38,388 sq m required. Adjusted to 32,888 sq m to take Barking Riverside into account.

3.8.5 Play - Costs and Funding Sources Costs per square metre have been taken from the 2003 National Playing Fields Association Cost Guide for Play, shown below:

Table 37: Play Costs and Funding Sources Item Cost Existing Shortfall Play provision for 5 – 13,124 x £80 = £1,049,920 £1,049,920.00 9yeard olds Play provision for under 5s 32,888 sq m x £60 = Play provision for under 5s £1,973,280.00 should ideally be provided on site as doorstep play on major schemes and therefore is to be provided through S106 agreements.

Total Shortfall £1,049,920.00

3.9 Children’s Centres

3.9.1 Children’s Centres – Current Provision There are currently 18 Children’s Centres across the Borough which offer services including:

• Full day care and early education

• Health services • Family support services • Information and support in finding jobs and training opportunities

Table 38: LBBD Children’s Centres Children’s Centre Address Abbey North Street, Barking, IG11 8JA Alibon 175 Sterry Road, Dagenham, RM10 8PT Becontree Stevens Road, Dagenham, RM8 2QR Castle Green Gale Street, Dagenham, RM9 4UN Eastbury Blake Avenue, Barking, IG11 9SQ Ford Road Ford Road, Dagenham, RM10 9JS Furze 1A Farrance Road, Chadwell Heath, RM6 6EB Gascoigne 124-128 St Anns, Barking, IG11 7AD John Perry Auriel Avenue, Dagenham, RM10 8BS Manor Sandringham Road, Barking, IG11 9AG Marsh Green New Road, Dagenham, RM10 9NJ Mayesbrook 50-52 Markyate Road, Dagenham, RM8 2LD Sue Bramley Bastable Avenue, Barking, IG11 0LG Sydney Russell Parsloes Avenue, Dagenham, RM9 5QS The Leys 215 Wellington Drive, Dagenham, RM10 9XW Valence Castle Point, 163 Bennetts Castle Lane, Dagenham, RM8 3YJ Wellgate 119 Rose Lane, Marks Gate, RM6 5NR William Bellamy Frizlands Lane, Dagenham, RM10 7HX

3.9.2 Children’s Centres – Existing shortfall/surplus

While the existing 18 children’s Centres broadly meet Borough need within the 17 wards, none of the centres are very accessible for residents of the Rush Green area. This deficiency is currently largely dealt with through outreach.

In addition, while some of the Children’s Centres are housed in new purpose built premises, some of the buildings are less than ideal, for example the Ford Road Centre.

3.9.3 Children’s Centres – Projected shortfall/surplus

New children’s centres are proposed at Barking Riverside, as the site is developed, to meet the needs of the new population. The Site Specific Allocations DPD identifies 3 potential sites within the Stage 2 District Centre (within the site of the secondary school) and within the stage 3 and 4 neighbourhood centres if required at that time.

3.9.4 Children’s Centres – Costs and Funding Sources

The last centre to be built was The Leys, in 2009, and this cost approximately £1.4 million. Therefore the cost of 3 new centres would be in the region of £4.2million. There is currently no identified funding available to build new Children’s Centres.

Funding is also required for maintenance of the Children’s Centres. A bid has been made to the Council’s capital programme of £300,000 every third year. This will just cover basic maintenance works on heating, windows, wiring etc. Over 14 years this would amount to approximately £1,400,000.

LBBD Children’s Centres – Costs and Funding Sources Table 39: Costs of new Children’s Centres Item Cost Existing Shortfall Barking Riverside Stage 2 £1.4million £1,400,000.00 District Centre Barking Riverside Stage 3 £1.4million £1,400,000.00 Neighbourhood Centre Barking Riverside Stage 4 £1.4million £1,400,000.00 Neighbourhood Centre Land Costs Nil Provided as part of Barking Riverside S106 Maintenance costs £1.4million ? A bid has been made to the Council’s Capital Programme of £300k every 3 years – not yet known if successful. £1,400,000.00 Total Shortfall £5,600,000.00

3.10 Cemeteries

3.10.1 Cemeteries - Current Provision

Table 40: Cemetery Provision in Barking and Dagenham Name Date Area Status Status Total Total Capacity Ha ‘95 ‘10 Burials Burials ‘95 ‘09 Rippleside 1886 12.7 Created Re- 606e na Re- graves opens opens only only only Eastbrookend 1914 4.5 Virgin Virgin 336e na na land land available available Chadwell 1934 8.0 Re- Closed 85e na closed Heath opens for burial only No reserve land available

25.2 1027 na na Source: An Audit of London Burial Provision, GLA 2010

All three cemeteries in the borough are owned by the LB Barking & Dagenham.

The borough’s oldest and largest cemetery, Rippleside, has a Muslim section: in 1995, 56 of its 96 places had been used and in 1995 it was estimated that there had been 11 interments in that section. In 1995, the site was reliant on space in ‘time‐expired graves’, which were still available in 2009 but not proving to be popular because of the expense. These were single grave spaces remaining in the site’s common graves, which had last been used over a century ago. The majority of the sites’ interments were re‐opens.

In 1995 the only cemetery with virgin burial space was the smallest, Eastbrookend. The cemetery has a well‐used Roman Catholic section. In 1995 the site had an estimated 8‐10 years remaining. In 2009, new land was still available, but the remaining space was limited.

Chadwell Heath Cemetery, had in 1995 85 re‐opens with a further unspecified number of re‐opens in the Roman Catholic section. There was at that time no virgin land available. There were in 1995 no plans to create new graves, as problems with spring water restricted the ability to dig. A recent extension to the site – amounting to some 3.2ha – also has substantial water table problems, and now as a consequence the whole site is closed to further burials despite the fact that there is space remaining. Overall, the difficulties relating to Chadwell Heath Cemetery mean that the borough has limited capacity for interment, and is as a consequence reliant on burial provision outside the borough boundary.

3.10.2 Cemeteries - Existing Shortfall/Surplus The ‘Audit of London Burial Provision’ (GLA 2010) gives Barking and Dagenham a burial ‘capacity status’ of 2 (critical). This means there is a reliance on created graves only (i.e. graves only available in parts of the cemetery not originally designed to accommodate interment; in space created through the addition of topsoil or constructed above‐ground burial vaults; in existing capacity above common graves; or in reclaimed graves) and/or space is limited and unlikely to meet demand as indicated in the estimated demand for virgin space 2010/1 – 2030/1. Space is likely to be exhausted within the next ten years.

3.10.3 Cemeteries - Projected Shortfall/Surplus

The table below shows projected total burials and required burial space for London Borough of Barking and Dagenham for the period 2010/11‐2030/31.

Table 41: Projected Total Burials and Required Burial Space for LBBD 2010/11 – 2020/31 Total Estimated Total Estimated New burial estimated cremations estimated reopens spaces deaths burials required 27,960 17,545 10,415 2,564 7,851 Source: An Audit of London Burial Provision, GLA 2010

3.10.4 Cemeteries – Costs and Funding Sources

There is currently no funding information available.

3.11 Libraries

3.11.1 Libraries– Current Provision

The Borough has 10 public libraries listed below:

Table 42: LBBD Libraries Library Address Floorspace (sq m) Barking Library 2 Town Square, Barking, IG11 7NB 1,210 Castle Green Castle Green, Gale Street, Dagenham, 300 Library RM9 4UN Wantz Library Rainham Road North, Dagenham, RM10 7DX Rush Green Dagenham Road, Rush Green, Romford, Library RM7 0TL Marks Gate Marks Gate Community Centre, Rose Library Lane, Marks Gate, Chadwell Heath, Romford, RM6 5NJ Markyate Library Markyate Road, Dagenham, RM8 2LD 200 Valence Library Becontree Avenue, Dagenham, RM8 3HS Dagenham 1 Church Elm Lane, Dagenham, RM10 1,117 Library 9QS Robert Jeyes High Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford, 460 Library RM6 6AS Thames View Sue Bramley Community Centre, Bastable Library Avenue, Barking, IG11 0LG

The former Rectory and Fanshawe libraries were relocated into the new Dagenham library which opened in October 2010 on the site of the former Church Elm PH. Dagenham library brings new benefits to the local community in that it is in a more accessible location than the Rectory and Fanshawe libraries, it has a wider range of stock and services than other local libraries, it is co-located with a one-stop shop, and it is open for longer hours.

The vision of the Libraries Strategy 2008, in terms of accessibility, is that 100% of the population will live within 1 mile of a public library and that libraries will be open at hours which are convenient for local people. Currently, 99.22% of the population live within a mile of a public library.

Customer feedback in the borough indicates that part-time library opening hours are a significant source of dissatisfaction, since it is difficult to remember on which days and times the library is open. There has historically been a diverse pattern of opening hours in the borough, which has led to customer confusion and reduced service usage. The service is currently consulting members on reviewing its opening hours across all libraries and looking to introducing standardised opening hours.

During the latter part of 2007/8, a pilot programme of extended opening hours was trialled in a number of the borough’s libraries. In line with the outcome of that pilot, investment in the service has enabled extended hours to be made permanent at the following sites: • Barking Learning Centre: opening 7 days per week including late evenings, totalling 74 hours per week • Marks Gate library: now opening across 5 days per week, totalling 38 hours per week • Thames View library: now opening across 5 days per week, totalling 38 hours per week • The new Dagenham library is also open 6 days per week, including 4 late evenings.

This means that each side of the borough has a library open long hours during the week.

In terms of the quality of library buildings, the Libraries Service will develop a programme including costs to refurbish and replace existing premises to meet modern library standards in both public and staff areas. The following works issues remain in relation to the remaining libraries at this time:

• Valence Library: This requires extensive internal works including new floor finishes and furnishings in both public and staff areas. The external fabric of the building is deteriorating and the site suffers regular vandalism. In addition, the security of the site needs to be substantially improved. Improvements to this site are particularly important to ensure that the investment in Valence House Museum is not diminished by a poor quality adjacent library service. Recently there has been some remedial work to the roof and basic internal decorations. The library is currently been rearranged to provide a focused area for the provision of library services for older people. It is estimated that approximately £100,000 will be necessary to make the library fit-for-purpose for a 21st Century library service. There is currently no funding available to achieve this.

• Markyate Library: The complex requires substantial works to re-model the entrance area into the community hall, library and GP surgeries. The external

security also needs to be improved. It is proposed to prepare a feasibility study to inform more detailed costings, in collaboration with the PCT.

• Robert Jeyes Library is a fairly well used library and currently the internal fabric of the building looks tired. Investment in the look and feel of the building is required to bring the library to standard of a 21st century library service. It is anticipated that a retail shop fitter could refit the library at a cost of £70,000.

• Marks Gate Library: the library is housed as part of the Marks Gate community complex alongside the community hall, and adult college. The library space is inadequate to provide an extensive range of library offer, there has been previous discussions about redevelopment of the site for an improved community centre and library. The previous lottery bid was unsuccessful and there is still a requirement to provide a redeveloped library service in that area. The community cannot easily access other provision and are isolated due to inadequacies in transport links.

This investment would bring libraries up to contemporary standards. It would then be necessary to invest in the service ongoing to ensure that furniture, fittings and décor are refreshed and updated after a maximum of every ten years, and to ensure that contemporary styles are still reflected (approximately £30,000 p.a.) Proposals to achieve this will be the subject of bids to the Council’s capital programme in due course.

3.11.2 Libraries – Existing shortfall/surplus The Libraries Strategy 2008 states that the borough has 14,633 population per library. This is a low population/library ratio compared to other London boroughs, for example Redbridge has 22,306/ library and Newham has 24,120/ library. It could therefore be argued that, at present, there is overprovision of libraries in the borough.

The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) recommend a Local Authority Benchmark of 30sq m of library space for every 1,000 residents. On this basis, a population of 175,600 should have 4,268sq m of available library space. This space standard is currently met within the borough.

Rush Green Library is currently housed in what were originally the ground floor rooms of two domestic dwellings, and is too small to provide an adequate library for the area. A replacement site needs to be identified to bring the service provision to an acceptable standard, including public toilet provision. Barking and Dagenham College has indicated that they wish to pursue plans for joint library provision on their redeveloped site. Such a joint development should enable efficiencies of scale and joint working, on a site within the Rush Green area. Barking and Dagenham College has not yet received funding to enable this to happen. No other suitable sites within the area have been identified.

It was previously proposed that Wantz library should close in association with the opening of new Dagenham library. There is considerable over-provision and 77

duplication in this area of the borough. However, while half of the Wantz library catchment area will be covered by the new Dagenham library (or Valence library), the other half is covered by Rush Green library. It is therefore proposed to reprovide Wantz library in the new, improved Rush Green library, when opened. The revenue costs of Wantz library will be used to mitigate the revenue costs of the new Rush Green library. This has not been taken forward as Barking and Dagenham College were not successful in their LSC capital funding bid.

3.11.3 Libraries – Projected shortfall/surplus There are plans to build 11,000 new homes in the Barking Riverside development, leading to an additional population of approximately 26,500 (at least 30% of provision will be for families). Provision for land for a library will be made as part of the section 106 agreement for community facilities for the site: this will be essential as existing provision will be insufficient to meet the needs of the new community. It is proposed that, to meet the needs of the incoming population, a library of approximately 800m2 would be required (equivalent to Robert Jeyes), to be open 56 hours per week.

The opportunity will be sought to achieve co-location with other community Facilities (within the proposed site of the Secondary School in the Stage 2 District Centre), if links to retail areas are sufficiently strong and the distance from Thames View is appropriate. It is anticipated that this would come on stream in 2015.

Furthermore, there are plans to create a ‘Green Village’ at South Dagenham, close to the wind turbines at Ford. There is the potential for over 4,000 new homes and it is estimated that the population here will increase by 9,500 people. There is also the potential for new community facilities, such as leisure and health centres, and schools. The potential to create a joint facility within any new leisure facility in the area will be explored, although the majority of the new homes will be within the 1 mile catchment areas of the new Dagenham and Castle Green libraries and therefore it is not proposed to develop separate proposals for a library in this area, given overprovision elsewhere in the borough.

3.11.4 Libraries - Costs and Funding Sources It has been proposed that funding for the shell of the new Barking Riverside library would come via the developer contributions for the scheme. However, this will not cover the core or fit-out of the building, for which capital costs are yet to be determined, nor the start-up stock. No provision for revenue costs has yet been made: it is anticipated that the revenue requirement would be in the region of £200,000 p.a.

There is also a funding gap in the meeting the costs of maintaining and upgrading the library service to ensure that buildings remain accessible and inviting to new communities coming into the borough. This is anticipated to cost approximately £800,000 across the library network.

Table 43: Libraries: Total Costs and Funding Sources

Item Cost Existing Shortfall Revenue Costs for £200,000 p.a. = £2,800,000 Barking Riverside Library £2,800,000 Maintaining and upgrading £800,000 £800,000 existing libraries Total Shortfall £3,600,000.00

3.12 Flood Defences and Mitigation Measures

3.12.1 Introduction As with most urban areas the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham is at risk of surface water flooding. In addition parts of the borough are at risk of tidal and fluvial flooding.

3.12.2 Tidal and Fluvial Flooding

The Borough has some land within flood zones 2 and 3. Flood zone 2 represents the 1 in 1000 year probability of tidal or fluvial flooding, and flood zone 3 represents the 1 in 100 year probability of tidal or fluvial flooding. The area of land within flood zones 2 and 3 is predominantly in the south of the Borough, where the risk is mainly tidal flooding from the River Thames. There is also fluvial flood risk from the River Beam, which runs along the eastern border of the Borough, and the River Roding to the west of the Borough.

In the Borough, there are nearly 10,500* properties at risk from fluvial and tidal flooding – accounting for 13.5 per cent of all properties in the Borough. Out of those at risk, 67 per cent are in areas with a low likelihood of flooding. This is largely due to the protection offered by the tidal defences downstream of the Thames Barrier, which includes the Barking Barrier on the River Roding.

* Figures are indicative only and are taken from the 2008 National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) – Environment Agency

The location of the floodplain and the likelihood of flooding are shown on the plan below.

Figure 3:

Fluvial (river) and tidal flood events Flooding has occurred in the Borough in 1707, 1928, 1953, 1974 and 2000. The flooding in 1707 was caused by a breach of defences of the Tidal Thames which caused extensive flooding in the south of the Borough extending into Dagenham town.

The event in 1953 had the same cause but on a much smaller scale. Flooding in 1928 occurred in small clusters in the southwest of Barking town. Fluvial flooding in 1974 and 2000 occurred from the River Rom, in Dagenham. Barking and Dagenham has not seen any tidal flood events since the 1950s.

Figure 4:

3.12.3 Potential Flood Defence and Mitigation Projects Tidal and Fluvial Flooding

Additional infrastructure is required during the period 2011/12 – 2024/25 to manage tidal and fluvial flooding in the borough. The following projects have been identified by the Council, the Environment Agency and other partners.

• 300m of Wantz Stream at Beam Washlands - commitment to delivery with funding • Mayesbrook Park River Restoration Scheme. This is London’s largest river restoration scheme and the UK’s first climate change park. The project is being taken forward in partnership with the Environment Agency, the Thames Rivers Restoration Trust, Natural England, London Wildlife Trust, the GLA, Design for London, Royal Sun Alliance and SITA. Phase 1 of the project (costing £1million) will be completed by the end of 2012. In 2011 the major earthworks will be done to restore the Mayes Brook and create a new one hectare floodplain. Major planting of trees and shrubs will also occur this year and wild-flower meadows will be sown. By 2012 the river and floodplain will be planted with wetland plants. The project will restore the brook, open it up and create a more natural channel. A new 1 ha floodplain will be excavated beside it to safely store the increased flood water expected in this catchment in future due to climate change. 81

• The Dagenham Washlands Enhancement Project. Located in the Lower Beam Valley the Dagenham Washlands is a 53 hectare flood storage area, in the borough. The project will develop this functional flood prevention area into an innovative multi-use space that provides significant community benefits and is helping regenerate a deprived area. Among many other benefits the scheme will deliver improved flood storage capacity. The Land Restoration Trust is taking this project forward on land owned by the Environment Agency and the Council. It has secured funding from a number of sources including £1.5 million from the ERDF to deliver the capital scheme, match funding from the Environment Agency, long term maintenance money from the HCAs allocation from the East London Green Grid and a Parklands endowment of £1.9 million to ensure management of the site for community benefit (source http://www.thelandtrust.org.uk/business/businesscasestudy.asp?id=6 as at 26 May 2011)

The following projects for the management of fluvial flood risk in the borough are at an earlier stage:

• Unspecified length of Mayes Brook, County Gardens TQ454833 - concept only (flood risk mgmt/biodiversity) • Unspecified length of Mayes Brook, Blake Avenue TQ458836 - concept only (flood risk mgmt/biodiversity) • 5km of Roding, Goresbrook & Ship & Shovel Sewer, Buzzards Mouth Creek TQ478830 - concept only (flood risk management-urban) • 700m of Gores Brook, Goresbrook Park TQ486 839 - early preparation stage (flood risk management, biodiversity, access and regeneration, urban regeneration) • Parsloes Park 600m of Gores Brook TQ48368502 - Deculverting and remeandering of water course in Parsloes Park by 2015 • 1000m of River Rom at Chase Nature Reserve, TQ5074 8665 - concept only. • Deculverting of approx. 1000m of watercourse north of and parallel to Thames Road, between Radford Way and Renwick Road BY 2015. Grid reference TQ46245 82854.

3.12.4 Surface Water Flooding In addition to fluvial and surface water flooding, all parts of the borough have some risk of surface water flooding and some areas are more susceptible to surface water accumulation.

The Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment undertaken for the borough in 2011 found that 12,750 properties (11,318 residential properties) are at risk of surface water flooding when taking into account surface water depth and the water flood hazard rating in the rainfall event with a 1 in 200 chance of occurring in any year scenario. The PFRA also finds that within Barking & Dagenham, the upper catchments of the Wantz Stream and Gores Brook are indicated as important surface water flow pathways, with numerous smaller areas of accumulation modelled, particularly in the Longbridge Road area.

The PFRA identifies the following areas as being more susceptible to surface water accumulation: a. South of the A13 within the low lying estuarial embayment, there is an extensive network of watercourse, both Ordinary and Main River, shown as important flow pathways. b. River Road and Chequers Lane. Some areas are at risk of particularly deeper surface water flooding (>1.5m) in the 1 in 200 chance rainfall event. This includes: c. Southern part of Mayesbrook Park and residential area to the south west d. Southern part of Parsloes Park and residential are to the south along the railway e. Southern part of Goresbrook Park around the Gores Brook f. Some areas near the Wantz Stream near Reede Road

3.12.5 Surface Water Flooding - future flood risk management Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, from the 1 April 2011, the Council is now a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). This means the Council now has a responsibility for leading the coordination of flood risk management with relevant bodies in its area. Specific duties under the Act include:

• maintain a local flood risk management strategy • prepare a preliminary flood risk assessment (PFRA) which must be submitted to the EA in June 2011 • prepare a flood risk map and a flood hazard map • prepare a flood risk management plan • investigate flooding events • maintain a register of structures and features that affect flood risk and designate those features which affect local flood risk • review and scrutinise the activities of risk management authorities in implementing their flood risk management functions.

From the 1 April 2012 the Council will have the duty to approve, adopt and maintain sustainable urban drainage systems for new developments

The Flood Risk Management Strategy The Barking and Dagenham Flood Risk Management Strategy will provide the overall management strategy with respect to management of flood risk from all sources in the borough. Some of the evidence has already been produced which will underpin the development of the strategy including the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment undertaken in 2010 which looks at risk of tidal and fluvial flooding, the Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan (Environment Agency 2007), and the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (a high level assessment looking at overall flood risk). Further evidence in the form of the Surface Water Management Plan is currently in progress.

3.12.6 Potential Flood Defence and Mitigation Surface Water Flooding Work undertaken on the Surface Water Management Plan indicates the following locations as priorities for improvement of surface water management:

• Critical Drainage Area Goodmayes. Most of this CDA lies within Redbridge Borough. Surface water flood risk is predominantly confined to the single flow path that flows from Marks Gate in the north to Goodmayes Park Recreation Ground in the south. Three flood risk zones are evident in this CDA of which only two (near Eastern Avenue (the A12), and the Goodmayes Park area) impinge on Barking and Dagenham. These are shown in Figure Group5 _010.1 and Figures Group _010.1. LFRZ a: Eastern Avenue (the A12) (Note most of this FRZ lies within Barking & Dagenham) The flow pathway runs southeast from the lake on the north side of the A12 across low spots in Havering Gardens, Tolworth Gardens, Portland Gardens and Chadville Gardens, where there are properties at risk. Modelling suggests that surface water ponding up to 0.25m deep could occur in these areas. LFRZ c: Goodmayes Park area The surface water flow path continues south through Goodmayes Park. This appears to be low lying modern infill development that is at risk from The Mayes Brook that follows this course through Goodmayes Park. Modelling suggests that surface water ponding up to 0.5m deep could occur upstream of Mayesbrook Road (e.g. in Holden Close)

• Critical Drainage Area Becontree West and Mayes Brook Surface water flood risk is caused by two main flow paths which originate from the north and east of this CDA. They converge close to Mayesbrook Park, near the confluence with the Mayes Brook, a main river, which flows through the southern area of the CDA. Three flood risk zones are evident in this CDA as shown in figures Figure Group5_ 011.1 and Figure Group 5 _ 011.2 as described below: LFRZ a: Longbridge Road (the A124) The surface water pathways flow from the north to the southeast of this CDA and crosses Longbridge Road. Modelling suggests that surface water ponding upstream and downstream of Longbridge Road could be up to 0.5m deep. Properties in Lindsey Road, Fuller Road and Campden Crescent to the north; and Marlborough Road to the south of here are at risk of flooding. LFRZ b: West of Parsloes Park Properties are at risk of flooding in the Waterbeach Road area. Modelling suggests that ponding surface water up to 0.5m deep could occur. LFRZ c: Lodge Avenue/ Westrow Drive area

Properties are at risk of flooding in the Neasham Road, Lodge Avenue, Westrow Drive and Clare Gardens areas. Modelling suggests that ponding surface water up to 1m deep could occur.

• Critical Drainage Area 012 Parsloes Park Surface water flood risk is predominantly confined to the single southerly flow path from Becontree Heath, crossing the railway south of Parsloes Park, following Gores Brook (ordinary watercourse) to the A1306 Ripple Road Three flood risk zones are evident in this CDA. These can be seen in Figure Group5_012.1 and Figure Group5_012.2 and described as follows: LFRZ a: Whalebone Lane South area Property is at risk on either side of the A1112 Whalebone Lane South where it crosses the mainline railway. Property is at risk in Wadeville Avenue, Saville Road and Selinas Lane. Modelling suggests that ponding surface water up to 1m deep could occur in this area. LFRZ b: Parsloes Park area Modelling suggests that ponding surface water could exceed 1.5m in this area. This ponding appears to have a direct relationship to the railway embankment. Modelling has assumed the railway embankment forms a barrier to surface water flow. LFRZ c: Gores Brook Park area There is a potential risk of flooding to property in Treswell Road on the southern fringe of the park. Modelling suggests that ponding surface water up to 0.5m deep could occur in this area.

• Critical Drainage Area 021 Dagenham There are two surface water flow paths in this CDA that flow southeast and converge in Beam Valley Country Park. The flow path from the north follows the course of the Wantz Stream (main river), to its confluence with the Beam River (main river). Two flood risk zones are evident in this CDA. These are shown in Figure Group5_021.1 and Figure Group5_021.2 and described below: LFRZ a: north of Ballards Road (B178) The surface pathways run from the north to south of this CDA and crosses Shafter Road, Dewey Road and then along the edge of Sandown Avenue. Modelling suggests that ponding surface water could exceed 1.5m depth. LFRZ b: south west of Beam Valley Country Park and Dagenham Old Park The surface water pathways run southeast, close to Dagenham Priory School and potentially affect properties in Oval Road North. Modelling suggests that ponding surface water could exceed 1.0m deep, although the modelling does not take into account the Environment Agency pumping station in this location which is associated with the ‘Washlands’ flood storage area on the Wantz Stream and the Beam River.

• Critical Drainage Area 022 Becontree Heath and Dagenham North Surface water flood risk is predominantly associated with a single flow path that eventually becomes the Wantz Stream. It flows from Becontree Heath in the north over a considerable distance, to the railway near Dagenham East station in the south. Two flood risk zones are evident in this CDA. These are shown in Figure Group5_022.1 and Figure Group5_022.2 and are described below: LFRZ a: Sterling Industrial Estate in Oxlow Lane The surface water flow pathway runs through this industrial estate and residential areas to the north. Modelling suggests that ponding surface water up to 1.5m deep could occur. Properties in Webbscroft Road and other streets to the north of here are also at risk of flooding. LFRZ b: Pondfield Park in Reed Road, adjacent the railway The surface water flow path runs through Pondfield Park and the open space upstream. Modelling suggests that ponding surface water could exceed 1.5m deep. The potential ponding appears to have a direct relationship to the railway embankment. Modelling has assumed the railway embankment forms a barrier to surface water flow.

• Critical Drainage Area 029 River Roding South This CDA runs south crossing the Redbridge/ Barking & Dagenham Borough boundary in the north and extending along Barking Creek to the River Thames in the south. Surface water flood risk is predominantly confined to a single flood risk zone adjacent to the River Roding and along its tributary the Loxford Water, which are both main rivers. This can be seen in Figure Group5_029.1. LFRZ a: adjacent the River Roding and along Loxford Water Potential flood risk areas are indicated beside the River Roding and its tributary the Loxford Water. Water that is unable to enter the rivers will back-up and cause localised flooding, which is chiefly restricted to open spaces.

• Critical Drainage Area 033 Thames This CDA covers the south of the borough lying from east to west, with the River Thames to the south. The area is largely defended from fluvial flooding by Thames Tidal Defences, which includes Barking Barrier on the River Roding. There is extensive commercial property mainly in the centre and south of the CDA, combined with residential property to the north. The main rivers of Mayes Brook and The Gores Brook also cross the area. These can be seen in Figure Group5_033.1 and Figure Group5_033.2. Modelling indicates many isolated areas where surface water could collect up to 1.5m deep. Surface water will affect roads, notably River Road, Thames Road, and areas around Bastable Avenue and King Edwards Road. There are also properties at risk from surface water in several areas as follows:

LFRZ a: Salisbury Avenue/ Greenslade Road, Barking LFRZ b: Whiting Avenue, Barking LFRZ c: a flow path crossing Ripple Road to the east of Lancaster Ave/Harrow Road LFRZ d: Greatfields Park north of the A13 to west of Movers Lane LFRZ e: Barking Industrial Park and Wayside Commercial Estate to the east of Mayes Brook; and north and south of the A13 just west of the A123 junction. LFRZ f: flow path from Castle Green across A13 and onto Renwick Road LFRZ g: several areas around the Ford Motor Works Water that is unable to eventually discharge to the main rivers in sufficient time will back-up and cause localised flooding. The Surface Water Management Plan proposes measures to manage the risks set out above. An example of what these costs would incur is shown below for the Critical Drainage Area of Becontree West and Mayesbrook. Table 44: Costs of Managing Risks of Critical Drainage Area of Becontree West and Mayesbrook

Generic Measures Source/Pathway/Receptor Indicative Cost

Soakaways, water Applied to the 1002 properties £10,972 butts & rainwater identified as at risk in LFRZ a & b harvesting

Road side gardens: LFRZ a Where space is available in £66,000 These will help Lindsey Road. alleviate water from the flow path route LFRZ b Where space is available in £66,000 and ponding areas Waterbeach Road area. LFRZ c Where space is available in £66,000 Neasham Road and Lodge Avenue area.

Improved resilience Applied to the 762 properties £16,764,000 and resistance identified as at risk in LFRZ a & b measures

Specific Measures Source/Pathway/Receptor Indicative Cost

Temporary Up to 240 properties shown to be at £6,000,000 demountable risk in LLFRZc would benefit from defences demountable barriers. This would need to be linked to generic measures such as flood warning

etc.

Total Costs CDA 011 £22,972,972

Table 45: Indicative Costs to Implement Preferred Options for the management of Surface Water Flooding in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Area Indicative Costs

Goodmayes £10,337,906

CDA 011 Becontree West and Mayes Brook £22,972,972

CDA 012 Parsloes Park £2,394,218

CDA 021 Dagenham £7,283,219

CDA 022 Becontree Heath and Dagenham North £4,079,004

CDA 029 River Roding South £2,068,000

CDA 033 Thames £7,175,504

Total £56,310,823

3.12.7 Flooding - Costs and Funding Sources The responsibility for the management of tidal and fluvial flooding lies with the Environment Agency and the responsibility for the management of local flooding (flooding from ordinary water courses) and surface water flooding is that of the Council. However, these flood risks are interrelated - both flood risks relate to the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. Table 46: Flooding – Costs and Funding Sources Item Cost Existing Shortfall Surface Water £56,310,823 Council funding = ? management measures costs Existing shortfall = £56,310,823 Fluvial and tidal flood Not available management projects

Total Shortfall £56,310,823

3.13 Employment/Local Labour

It is a key objective of the Council to promote sustainable economic regeneration and maximise opportunities for local employment. Skills shortages are an ongoing constraint on business growth in the Borough and so workforce training is very important in helping to improve the potential of Barking and Dagenham as an attractive area for businesses to locate, as well as helping workers into higher paid jobs.

The Council also recognises the importance of small firms to the local community in promoting local economic vitality and employment growth.

3.13.1 Training

Training brings benefit to the local economy in terms of sustainability by enabling businesses to have access to an appropriately skilled workforce. Where new employment is generated, the local authority may consider obligations in order to maximise training opportunities for local people in order to improve employment opportunities and remove barriers to employment. Contributions will relate to both enabling local people to access jobs and training during the construction period of the development and end-use phases of developments, and towards the costs of training local people where skills gaps exist between the new jobs being created and the qualifications of local residents. These will be secured via Section 106 Agreement or ‘in kind’ contributions and will not be included funded through the CIL.

3.13.2 Business Enterprise Centres

Barking Enterprise Centre is currently under construction at the junction of Cambridge and Linton Road near Barking Station. The four storey building is one of two centres being built in the borough as part of the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI) programme.

It will provide much needed space for small businesses with ‘easy-in, easy-out’ terms, and aims to bring home the message to local residents and visitors that Barking and Dagenham is a place where businesses can start up and flourish. The centre will provide businesses with a range of facilities, services and support needed to boost their growth.

The ground floor will offer a training room, two one to one counselling rooms, a double height lobby and reception, the Chamber of Commerce office and business start-up/business support service. The centre provides about 50 small office units along with a kitchen on each floor.

The centre will be a place where businesses interact and learn from each other, as well as from on-site business counsellors.

The centre will be completed in October 2011 and the Council is currently undertaking a procurement process to appoint an operator to run the centre.

Dagenham Business Centre is the second enterprise centre, being developed by GLE Property Developments Limited, who recently (August 2010) signed the Development Agreement enabling them to start on site. It will be located on Rainham Road North.

The Dagenham Business Centre is being part financed by the London Development Agency's European Regional Development Fund Programme 2007-13, securing £205,877 European Union funding for the environmental aspects of the scheme. It is being delivered in partnership by the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, GLE Property Developments Limited and European Regional Development Fund.

While the capital costs for both centres are in place, funding for running costs is required through CIL.

3.13.3 LBBD Employment/Local Labour Costs and Funding Sources

Table 47: Business Centre Costs and funding sources Item Cost Existing Shortfall Dagenham Business £205,877 EU funding None Centre secured Barking Business Centre Under construction. Due None for completion end 2011 Running costs for the Self financing None Dagenham Businesses Centre Running costs for the Barking will contain the £200,000 per annum Barking Business Centre borough's business start- £2,600,000 (2012/13 – up and business support 2024/25) service which requires a minimum of 200k pa Total Shortfall £2,600,000

3.14 Neighbourhood Planning The Localism Bill now makes it a requirement for charging authorities to pass a meaningful proportion of CIL funds to neighbourhoods where the development and growth has taken place. In LBBD, where no parish or community council exists, it is likely that the charging authority will retain the funds and should engage with their communities in determining how to spend them. Local authorities are currently being consulted by the Department for Communities and Local Government on what is considered to be a meaningful proportion of the funding (Community Infrastructure Levy: Detailed proposals and draft regulations for reform: Consultation Oct 2011). 90

3.15 Emergency and Essential Services

3.15.1 Emergency and Essential Services - Current Provision

Police The Metropolitan Police Authority currently operates three police stations: • Barking Police Station – 6 Ripple Road (open 24 hours) • Dagenham Police station – 561 Rainham Road South (open 24 hours) • Marks Gate Police Office – 78 Rose Lane (open 10.00 – 14.00hrs).

Fire Service The London Fire Brigade is run by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and operates within the framework of the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority. It plans and locates its fire services to ensure London-wide cover. Borough boundaries are not used for emergency response purposes and the areas covered by fire stations are not consistent with borough boundaries.

There are currently two fire stations in the borough at Barking and Dagenham, but the borough is also served by stations at Hainault and Romford.

Table 48: Fire Stations: Incidents and Appliances

Station Incidents Appliances Barking Fires - 651 1 Pump False Alarms - 460 1 Pump Ladder Special Services - 505 2 Prime Movers Total - 1,616 Dagenham Fires - 952 1 Pump False Alarms - 699 1 Pump Ladder Special Services - 481 2 Aerial Ladder Platform Total - 2,132 Source: How we are making your borough safer, LBBD 2009/2012, LFB.

Ambulance Service The London Ambulance Service is governed by a London-wide NHS Trust Board. Their main role is to respond to emergency 999 calls, providing medical care to patients across the capital, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

There is one ambulance station in the Borough at Goresbrook Road, Dagenham, and the nearest London Ambulance Services are at Aldborough Rd, Ilford and Oldchurch Road, Romford.

3.15.2 Emergency and Essential Services - Existing Shortfall/Surplus

There is police coverage in the East, West and Northern areas of the Borough, but a lack in the South. Safer Neighbourhood Teams have a wider coverage across the 91

North and Central, East and Barking areas although, once again, lack facilities within the Southern Riverside area.

The fire and ambulance stations are suitably located to ensure target response times to the majority of areas in the Borough, except for South Riverside and Eastern areas that currently contain obstacles that prevent emergency services from responding in the target time of 8 minutes (EDAW and Bevan Brittan, 2006).

The table 49 below outlines the Emergency Service Requirement Assumptions.

Table 49: Emergency Service Requirement Assumptions

Type Required Sources

Police Officers 1 officer per 326 www.mpa.gov.uk/issues/police/numbers persons – to maintain borough average

Police Service 20 sq m of gross Costing the infrastructure needs of the Floorspace floorspace per South East counties – Roger Tym and officer Partners

Fire Stations Three appliance Costs to Social Infrastructure works in station per 64,000 the Thames Gateway – Gardiner & people Theobold - 2003

Associated Fire Three appliance Service Floorspace station = 1,050sq m London Fire Brigade

Ambulance Approximately Demand 80,000 new people produce an increase London Ambulance Service of 10,000 emergency calls p.a.

Source: Social Infrastructure Needs Assessment – EDAW and Bevan Brittan 2006

3.15.3 Emergency and Essential Services - Projected Shortfall/Surplus

To ensure there is enough provision for the new population of 36,082 people, the Borough would need: • 111 new police officers • 2,220sq m police floorspace • Approximately 56% of a three appliance station • 588sq m fire service floorspace • Provision for 4,510 emergency ambulance calls

Provision has been made to provide 150sq m of space for a police facility on Barking Riverside, if the Metropolitan Police can demonstrate a need, which will help to improve coverage in the south of the borough.

In addition, the following box indicates the future aspirations for police services, as set out in the ‘Asset Management Plan Barking & Dagenham’ (2007).

Fresh Wharf, Barking joint Custody Centre and Patrol Base – will accommodate all custody cells, criminal justice, operational officers and related facilities in the borough

A new front counter in Barking - to replace the front counter facility in Barking police station

New Safer Neighbourhoods bases – will provide accommodation for each Safer Neighbourhoods team currently housed in temporary accommodation in permanent bases, easily accessible to their wards

New front counters - to be available in a wide mix of police accommodation in the borough and provide enhanced accessibility and a sense of reassurance for every member of the local community

With all these changes, we do envisage a review of the future of Barking police station with the re-provision of all the facilities currently housed there in more specialised and more appropriate facilities as we have set out in this document. This will include an accessible public counter facility in Barking Town Centre.

3.15.4 Emergency and Essential Services - Cost and Funding Sources

Police Services The figure of £239 per person is based on the following assumptions: 1 officer is required per 326 persons (to maintain borough average) and 20sq m gross floor space is required per officer/326 people. Therefore 0.06 sq m per person at a cost of £640 per sq m (land) and £1,300 per sq m (building) (figures taken from SIF) = £116 per person. N.B. This only includes space for police shops and space for safer neighbourhood teams, not Fresh Wharf Barking Joint Custody Centre and Patrol Base.

Fire Services One (3 appliance station) is required per 64,000 people or 0.0000156 stations per person. A station requires 1,050sq m of associated floor space or 0.016sq m per person, and 2,225sq m land or 0.035 per person. At a cost of £640 per sq m land and £1,600 per sq m building, total cost is £640 x 0.035 land + £1,600 x 0.016 building = £48 per person. N.B. this does not include fire appliances at approximately £150,000 each. 93

Ambulance Services Approximately 80,000 new people produce an increase of 10,000 emergency calls per annum, which equates to 8 new people produce 1 additional ambulance call per annum. An additional 36,082 persons will produce 4,510 additional calls per annum. An ambulance station can handle circa 5,326 calls per annum.

One station = 1000sq m (Theobald and Gardiner Analysis of Social Infrastructure Build Costs, SIF 2006) and 36,082 additional persons will demand 0.846 stations which translates to 846 sq m of space. This is 0.023 sq m of ambulance space per person. In terms of land, one station = 2,325 sq m. 36,082 additional persons will demand 0.846 stations, which translates to 1,967 sq m of land or 0.054 sq m land per person.

At a cost of £640 per sq m land and £1,750 per sq m building total cost would be £640 x 0.054 land + £1,750 x 0.023 building = £75 per person.

Total cost per person = £116 + £48 + £75 = £239 or Total cost = £8,623,598

The Metropolitan Police Authority sets and monitors the annual police budget. Approximately 78% is provided by central government, while the rest comes from council tax raised in London by the Mayor.

The Mayor and Assembly are responsible for setting the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority’s budget requirement.

The London Ambulance Service NHS Trust funds the ambulance service in the Borough.

It is assumed that the current funding providers will fund the shortfalls in services which arise as a result of the increased population.

Section 4: Delivery

4.1 Overall Community Infrastructure Requirements

Table 51 below summarises the overall requirement for new community infrastructure facilities to 2025, estimated costs and the responsible delivery agencies. Only those infrastructure items where there is an identified need have been included.

Table 51: Cost of Community Infrastructure to support growth in Barking and Dagenham to 2025.

Type of Facility Existing shortfall Council’s Responsibilities Education (incl. land for 4 additional primary schools £147,613,529 and 2 additional 8FE secondary schools all on confined sites. Also includes 6398 primary school places and 4,570 primary school places) Transport (incl. £500m for DLR Extension, £70m for £633,511,000 Renwick Road Junction Improvements) Public Realm (incl. London Road/North Street Market £2,660,000 Square, A406 roundabout, BTC East Street, Street Scene Enhancement, Becontree Station Improvements, Creekmouth Industrial Area) Open Space (incl. Abbey Green, Mayesbrook Park) £7,540,000 Allotments (maintenance and creation of allotment £649,476 space) Leisure (Indoor) (Build and land costs for 2 additional £4,032,900 4 court leisure centres. This assumes Barking Riverside will provide land and building for 8 lane swimming pool) Leisure (Outdoor) (additional 17.76 hectares of £6,814,140 playing pitches, 1.5 tennis courts, 1 bowling green and upgrading of sports pavilion in eight strategic parks) Play (play provision for 5-9 year olds. Under 5s to be £1,049,920 provided through S106 agreements (doorstep play)). Children’s Centres £5,600,000 Cemeteries No information Libraries (Revenue costs for Barking Riverside £3,600,000 Library, Ongoing maintenance costs of existing estate) Flood Defences (Measures to manage surface water £56,310,823 flooding in LBBD. Does not include fluvial or tidal flooding) Employment and Local Labour (Revenue £2,600,000 95

requirements for Barking Business Centre. Local Labour agreements to be provided through S106 agreements) Emergency Services None.

NHS Outer North East London’s responsibilities Health (capital requirements for 36,082 people) £22,144,757

Further Education Provider’s Responsibilities Further Education tbc Total £894,126,545

4.2 A Viable Level of CIL

The Government intends that the community Infrastructure Levy should be set high enough to ensure that (when combined with other sources of funding) sufficient money is available to pay for the community infrastructure needed to support growth. However it should not be set so high that the growth ambitions of the LDF become commercially unviable.

The levy must be charged in pounds per square metre on the net additional increase in floorspace of any given development.

Any new build is only liable for the levy if it has 100 square metres, or more, of gross internal floor space, or involves the creation of additional dwellings, even when that is below 100 square metres.

In undertaking the viability assessment it is important to consider where most of the development which will attract CIL will occur. The Council’s Core Strategy is clear that most new housing will be built in the key regeneration areas of Barking Town Centre, Barking Riverside and South Dagenham, Therefore the CIL will be set based on the economics of development in these areas. The testing will establish whether different rates should apply in Barking Town Centre to the other two regeneration areas. The testing will also establish whether the CIL level for Barking Riverside and South Dagenham is applicable to the rest of the borough. Local knowledge would suggest that this would involve establishing whether levels should be higher rather than lower in the rest of the borough due to the high development costs associated with the constrained brownfield sites in the key regeneration areas. Therefore the testing will establish if there should be one CIL level for the whole Borough, two levels, (Barking Town Centre and the rest of the borough) or three levels (Barking Town Centre, South Dagenham and Barking Riverside, rest of the Borough).

4.2.1 Viability testing for residential developments

The relationship between CIL and Affordable Housing

Barking and Dagenham’s Core Strategy does not include an affordable housing policy. The Inspector concluded that the Council’s proposed affordable housing policy was not sound due to its inadequate evidence base. The Inspector’s main concern was with the assumption of the Council’s Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessment (AHEVA) that when residual land value exceeds existing use value by 15% or more then landowners would have sufficient incentive to bring forward their sites for development.

The Inspector concluded that:

“I note that 15% may be the generally accepted benchmark in London. However in my view if the 15% figure is to be used as a key assumption in determining the overall affordable housing target in the LBBD it must be based on recent and convincing evidence. In particular it would need to be demonstrated that across a range of sites in the Borough a 15% increase in value would provide the necessary incentive to landowners. Consequently I believe further work is required to this end. In the absence of such information I do not consider the AHEVA to be soundly based.”

In the absence of a local policy the Council applies policy 3A.10 of the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004).

Policy 3A.10 Negotiating affordable housing in individual private residential and mixed-use schemes

Boroughs should seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes, having regard to their affordable housing targets adopted in line with Policy 3A.9, the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development and the individual circumstances of the site. Targets should be applied flexibly, taking account of individual site costs, the availability of public subsidy and other scheme requirements.

In order to calculate a viable levy level the Council needs to forecast what the cost will be to the developer of providing affordable housing. This cost will vary according to the overall amount of affordable housing that is provided and the different tenures this comprises. If the Council had an agreed affordable housing target and tenure split in the Core Strategy then the CIL viability testing would have used this figure as a constant. The lack of an agreed target means that the affordable housing must be treated as a variable.

The results of the Council’s AHEVA show that 25%, 35% and exceptionally 50% affordable housing are achievable with values that could be achieved up to 2025 (the time span of the Plan). However, under “normal” circumstances it concluded that 35% is more readily attainable and this needs to be reflected in the policy. The study considered that whilst the pursuit of mixed and balanced communities might point to increasing the level of intermediate affordable housing, the effect of variations in

tenure split in pure viability terms, for example from 70-30% to 60-40% , are relatively small when compared to other more significant financial variables.

The assessment tested two different levels of planning obligations; £2000 and £6000 per dwelling. The study concluded that while S106 contributions have an impact on scheme viability, the impact is more modest than that of affordable housing.

The assessment concluded that while the increase in S106 contributions from £2,000 to £6,000 has an impact on viability, this impact is relatively modest. It considered that variations in Existing Use Value, sales values, profit margin and to a slightly lesser extent, affordable housing targets, are far more significant than planning obligations. However it recognised that nevertheless, in specific cases, sensitivity analysis would be required to avoid impacting on affordable housing delivery, and that not every site would be able to deliver £6000 per unit. For this reason it is necessary in calculating an appropriate level of CIL to test 25% and 35% of affordable housing as CIL must not be set at the margins of viability.

A vital factor in determining the cost to the developer of providing affordable housing is whether housing grant is available. The HCA’s Affordable Housing Framework makes clear their expectation that s106 schemes can be delivered at nil grant input for both affordable home ownership and for Affordable Rent. Therefore grant will only be available for social rent. Therefore for intermediate housing the loss to the developer will be the difference between the market value of regular market housing and the market value of intermediate housing. This is relatively straightforward for affordable rented property as the difference is directly proportional to the rents that are set. For the purpose of the viability assessment affordable rent is taken as 80% of market rent and therefore the market value of intermediate housing is taken as 80% of regular market values for a given property.

Table 52: LBBD Local Housing Allowance Rates June 2011

Social housing rents are typically between 40%-50% of market housing rents. Therefore the market value of a social rented property has been taken to be 45% of general market values. However unlike for intermediate housing HCA grant may be available for social rented housing. Current discussions with the HCA suggest on average a grant of xx per unit may be available. If this is added to the market value the cost to the developer decreases to xx

However it cannot be assumed that grant will always be available for social rented housing. In these cases it is unlikely that a development will be able to provide 35% affordable housing with a 60/40 social rented/intermediate split. Therefore the Council would look to either alter the balance of tenures or seek an overall reduced amount of affordable housing. It is not possible to anticipate every eventuality through the viability testing so in these instances the Council will assume that all the affordable housing is 80% affordable rented.

To complicate matters CIL is not payable by affordable housing and only schemes of ten units or greater are liable to provide affordable housing. Therefore housing schemes of nine units of less should be able to provide more CIL than scheme of ten units or greater and for this reason the viability testing needs to test separately major and minor housing schemes. The viability testing also needs to take into account that on major schemes the affordable housing that is provided will not be liable to CIL.

Therefore the viability study will test the following affordable housing amounts:

• 35% comprising 60% social rent with grant and 40% intermediate (80% affordable rent) without grant 99

• 35% comprising 100% intermediate (80% affordable rent) without grant

• 25% comprising 60% social rent with grant and 40% intermediate (80% affordable rent) without grant • 25% comprising 100% intermediate (80% affordable rent) without grant • 10% comprising 60% social rent with grant and 40% intermediate (80% affordable rent) without grant • 10% comprising 100% intermediate (80% affordable rent) without grant

4.2.2 Viability testing for commercial development The viability study will test the viability or different types of commercial development including office, industrial, retail, hotel and leisure use. As set out above, this study will break the borough into three different areas for the purpose of viability testing, Barking Town Centre, South Dagenham and Barking Riverside and thirdly the rest of the borough. The outcome will inform what levels of CIL should be applied for different types of commercial development in these three parts of the borough.

4.3 How much development will be eligible for CIL? To work out how much development would be eligible for CIL, it is important to take into account existing consents (where development is anticipated to come forward during the period 2012 – 2025) which will not be subject to CIL charges. The CIL regulations make clear that CIL is payable on grant of planning permission. However for outline permission grant of permission is when all the reserved matters are approved. The only exception to this is when the outline permits the development in different phases. In these cases, CIL is payable on those phases where the reserved matters are not yet completely approved. This applies to Barking Riverside where on this basis the first stage is not liable to CIL and Lymington Fields where phases 1a and 1b (check) are not liable to CIL. Therefore whilst this document works on the basis of 14,910 net new homes being delivered during the period 2012 to 2025 and whilst the Council’s adopted Local Development Framework identifies sites available for the required residential and commercial development, not all of these developments will be eligible for CIL. The table below provides a list of schemes set out in the adopted LDF which we expect to be eligible for CIL. Table 53: Schemes (from adopted LDF) likely to be eligible for CIL

Existing No of Units No of Units Affordable Eligible for consents to be to be Housing CIL (therefore delivered delivered (therefore no CIL prior 2012/13 – no CIL receipt) 2012/2013 2025/26 receipt) Assumes 35%

SSA 1 Barking 7,500 7,500 None Riverside 7500 (2010-2025)

100

SSA 2 South 0 400 3600 Dagenham and SSA South Dagenham East 4000

BTC SSA1 London None 100 0 None Road/North Street 200 (136 net)

BTC SSA2 Yes 115 1035 Freshwharf Estate - 1150

BTC SSA3 Barking None 45 405 Station – 600

BTC SSA4 King 460 completions Na None William Street Quarter – 460

BTC SSA6 None tbc None due to Gascoigne Estate – no net 850 increase in floorspace

BTC SSA7 Abbey None 100 900 Retail Park – 1000

BTC SSA9 Cultural 32 288 Industries Quarter – 320

BTC SSA10 250 Na None Vicarage Fields – 250

BTC SSA11 None 25 225 Frontage around Gascoigne Road and King Edward Road - 250

SSA SM3 Barking 41 20 180 Rugby Club and Goresbrook Leisure Centre – 200

SSA SM5 Sanofi None None None Aventis 2 - 500

101

SSA SM6 University 1000 Some Na None of East London - completions 1000

SSA SM8 600 Na None Lymington Fields - 600

SSA SM10 None 16 148 Becontree Heath Wider Site - 164

SSA None 15 30 SM11Hedgecock Centre - 60

SSA SM13 Thames yes Some Na Na View - 500 completions

SSA SM14 Marks None 100% Gate - 157

Total with Total Total Social Total existing completed Housing: Eligible for consents prior to CIL 2012/13 = 9892 = 2868 =4085

Total eligible for CIL in rest of borough

= 3928

(rest of borough plus 2868)

= 6,796

6,796 new homes in the borough would equate to 509,700 sq m of net additional residential floor space in the borough. This is based on the average size being 75 sq m. This average has been assumed using internal space standards set out in adopted policies in both the London Plan and the Local Development Framework. More information on how this is worked out is in Appendix 2. 102

Commercial development will also be eligible for CIL. GLA data on which the Crossrail CIL (as proposed in the Mayor’s Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule) is based concludes based on past trends that that private residential development is likely to average approximately 55% of development to be charged under CIL. On this basis we could expect to non-residential development to equate to .45 x 509,700 generating an additional 229,365 sq m floorspace.

The Council is currently applying a standard tariff of £6,000 per sq metre which, based on an average house size of 75 sq m equates to £80 per sq metre. If there Council were to apply this on all the eligible net additional floorspace then CIL could potentially generate £80 x 739,065 sq m equating to £59,125,200.

4.4 Exemptions and zero rated development Almost all development is expected to contribute to CIL but there are exemptions and/or reliefs for: • small development (under 100 sq m, or one additional residential unit), • properties used by charities for charitable purposes. • affordable housing

Under regulation 13 a charging authority may set differential rates— (a) for different zones in which development would be situated; (b) by reference to different intended uses of development. (2) In setting differential rates, a charging authority may set supplementary charges, nil rates, increased rates or reductions.

4.5 Reliefs and exemptions

Under regulation 44, charging authorities may allow relief for development by charities where the whole or greater part of the development is held by the charity as an investment for charitable purposes. The Council does not propose to make this relief available. He considers that the better approach is to apply the CIL on the basis of uses rather than ownership, and to keep the overall figure set low. Allowing this relief would also make administration of the CIL across the borough as a whole unduly complex and burdensome.

Under regulations 57 and 58, the Council may allow relief for exceptional circumstances The Council does not intend to make this relief available. We consider that it would be better to address problems of viability caused by the combined demands of CIL and section 106 agreements (including the requirement to provide affordable housing) by ensuring the CIL is set at the correct level for different types of development taking into account the requirements of developments to meet LDF policy standards and delivering affordable housing. Section 106 agreements in turn should also take into account the requirement of developers to pay CIL. For the avoidance of doubt, development by charities of their own land for their charitable

103

purposes and social housing are both exempt from the CIL under the 2008 Act and the Regulations.

104

Section 5: Appendices

Appendix 1: Calculating the population gain from 14,910 new homes. The 2001 census found that on average 2.42 people lived in each Barking and Dagenham household. Of the white population the average was 2.32 per household and of the Asian population this average was as high as 3.20 per household. This is significant since the BME population is expected to grow to almost a third of the population in the next 20 years (LBBD Housing Survey 2007). It is also an important consideration that 22.6% of borough households contain older persons only (68.1% of these are in the private sector) (LBBD Housing Needs Survey 2005) which would not represent what the household occupancy rate is of new homes being built in the borough. For example the number of people living in the average household has been generally declining over a long period of time. In, England, the average household size is projected to fall from 2.32 in 2006 to 2.20 in 2016 and in London from 2.34 to 2.24 over the same period (This is taken from Redbridge CIL (Appendix A) Source: Revised projections of households for the English regions to 2026 CLG February 2008).

Existing household size in the borough is a slightly different question to looking at projected population projections of newly built homes in the borough. For example, in the years 2006/7 – 2009/10 the newly completed homes in the borough have comprised the following:

5 plus Total Year 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed Bed Housing 2006 213 284 18 38 2 555 2007 429 331 70 23 853 2008 210 165 43 6 424 2009 114 134 16 4 268

Totals 966 914 147 71 2 % 46 44 7 3 0.1

In 2010/11, the Council undertook a New Housing Survey of the newly completed housing developments the Barking Town Centre in the last five years. Survey forms were sent out to a total of 1023 properties and 128 responses were received. The overwhelming majority of properties comprised flatted developments. Whilst representing a small sample the results of the survey are useful in providing an indication of the population yield from new housing in the borough. Whilst the majority of responses were from 1 and 2 bedroom flatted developments (54% of the homes were 1 bedroom properties, 40% 2 bedroom properties, 5% 3 bedroom properties 3% 4 bedroom properties), the average person yield from these properties was as high as 2.33%.

105

In Barking and Dagenham we expect a significant proportion of new homes to be family sized (three bedrooms plus). Recently adopted planning policy stipulates that 40% of new housing should be three bedrooms plus. Whilst, completions in the last five years show an emphasis of one and two bedroom developments, the emphasis is expected to shift now towards larger family homes and this is the case in schemes currently coming forward at University of East London, Lymington Fields and Barking Riverside. Taken together with the evidence taken from the Barking Town Centre New Housing Survey, rising fertility rates (ONS General Fertility Rates for 2009 show that there were 3,624 live births in 2009 in Barking and Dagenham this is the second highest fertility rate in London ) and an increasingly more ethnically diverse population, it is therefore assumed that the average person yield from new housing development is close to that figure recorded for the borough at the 2001 Census which incorporated all the housing in the borough. This figure is 2.42%, higher than rates assumed elsewhere in London (Wandsworth New Housing Survey: 2.04 in 2004 and 1.91 in 2007; London Borough of Redbridge: 1.99 and contrary to suggestions elsewhere that average household sizes are reducing across the country. Assuming an average household occupancy for newly completed developments across the borough, 14,910 homes yields a total of 36,082 people.

106

Appendix 2: Calculating the average floorspace of new residential units coming forward.

Policy BP6 of the adopted Borough Wide Development Policies DPD sets out internal space standards for new development in the borough. Whilst the policy does not specify minimum Gross Internal Areas (GIA), the Cooking, Easting and Living (CEL) areas and the bedroom areas correspond to standards set out in the Mayor of London’s Housing Design Guide. The GIA standards in this document are set out in Table 3.3 of the London Plan and shown below.

Minimum dwelling by floor area Dwelling type (bedroom/persons) Essential GIA (sq m) Flats 1b2p 50 2b3p 61 2b4p 70 3b4p 74 3b5p 86 3b6p 100 4b5p 90 4b6p 99 2 storey houses 2b4p 83 3b4p 86 3b5p 96 4b5p 100 4b6p 107 3 storey houses 3b5p 102 4b5p 106 4b6p 113

Average GIA on residential developments across the borough.

1 Bedroom 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed 30% 30% 20% 20% Number of 4,473 4,473 2,982 2,982 Homes 2012 - 2025 Average 50 sq m 71sq m 90.6 sq m 102.5 floorspace (taken as an average (taken as an average (taken as an average of 61, 70 and 83 sq m) of 74, 86, 100, 86, 96 of 90, 99, 100, 107, and 100) 106 and 113) Total 223,650 317,583 270,169 305,655 Floorspace 107

Total 1,117,057 Floorspace Average 74.9 sq metres floorspace per unit

108