Agenda

For enquiries on this agenda, please contact: James Geach 020 8547 5062 email: [email protected]

Published on 3 September 2014

Infrastructure, Projects & Contracts Committee

Date: Thursday 11 September 2014

Time: 7:30 pm

Place: Guildhall, Kingston upon Thames

Members of the Committee

Councillor Richard Hudson (Chair) Councillor David Cunningham (Vice Chair)

Councillor Roy Arora Councillor Bill Brisbane Councillor Sheila Griffin Councillor Kevin Davis Councillor Stephen Brister Councillor Chris Hayes Councillor Hilary Gander Councillor Mike Head Councillor Lorraine Rolfe Councillor Priyen Patel

Everyone is welcome to attend the meeting

This agenda is available to view on: www.kingston.gov.uk You can also access this agenda through the Modern.gov app or by scanning the QR code with your smartphone.

2

AGENDA

Questions and public participation

• a 30 minute question and answer session at the start of the meeting –advance notice of questions is encouraged.

• contributions during the debate on items at the discretion of the Chair

1. Apologies and attendance of alternate members

2. Declarations of interest

Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests and any other non- pecuniary interests (personal interests) relevant to items on this agenda.

3. Minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2014.

4. 2013/14 Corporate Complaints Performance Information Appendix A

To provide the Committee with information about how the Council manages complaints and Freedom of Information (FOI) requests made by customers through its Corporate Complaints and Freedom of Information (FOI) Procedures, and complaints that are made to the Ombudsman.

Experimental Traffic Order and trial for thirty minutes free Appendix B 5. parking

To propose an experimental Traffic Management Order (TMO) at limited sites so as to conduct a one year trial of 30 minute free parking for the purpose of informing the wider implementation of that parking scheme.

6. Seasonal Park & Ride Service Appendix C

The contract to operate the route has expired after the 2013 service and a decision needs to be made on Kingston’s support for the scheme going forward.

7. Additional Planned Highway Maintenance 2014-15 Appendix D

To agree the programme of additional planned highway maintenance works for 2014-15.

3

8. Mini Holland Programme Business Case Appendix E

To agree (in principle) to the RBK mini-Holland programme (m-Hp). To authorise the Director of Place to submit the business case content to Transport for London for inclusion in their overall TfL Business Case for the Mayor of London’s (MoL) mini-Holland Programme.

9. Blagdon Road Multi Storey Car Park Appendix F

To select a preferred offer with regard to the restructuring of the Council’s property interests at the Blagdon Road Multi-Storey Car Park.

10. Lease for Woodbury Appendix G

To approve the grant of a lease of the above property to Balance Community Interest Company.

11. Veolia Depot, Chapel Mill Road, Kingston Appendix H

To consider the grant of a lease of the above property to Veolia.

Permitted Development Rights - the case for the withdrawal of Appendix I 12. PD rights from Office to Residential

To proceed with work to introduce an Article 4 Direction to withdraw the new permitted development rights for change of use from offices to residential.

Kingston Community Infrastructure Draft Charging Schedule Appendix J 13. and Draft Planning Obligations

To agree the Draft Charging Schedule submission and the draft Planning Obligations Strategy for public consultation and thereafter submit for consideration by the Secretary of State by either written representation or public enquiry.

14. Food Law Enforcement Service Plan 2014-15 Appendix K

To consider and approve the Food Law Enforcement Service Plan 2014/15 to ensure that the Council is compliant with the requirements of the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

15. Urgent items authorised by the Chair

To consider any items which, in the view of the Chair, should be dealt with as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances in accordance with S100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

16. Exclusion of Press and Public

The following resolution is included if any exempt matter is to be considered at the meeting for which the Committee wish to resolve to exclude the press and public: 4

To exclude the public from the meeting under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that it is likely that exempt information, as defined in paragraph *….of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, would be disclosed and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

(*relevant regulatory paragraph to be indicated) 5

Welcome to this meeting .

The following information explains the way some things are done at the meeting and some of the procedures.

Information about the Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee

The Committee is made up of your local elected Councillors. As one of five strategic committees of the Council it helps to set the overall direction of the Council.

Public participation during the meeting

Do you want to ask a question?

There is a Question Time of up to 30 minutes from 7.30pm – 8pm. Questions may be submitted in writing before the meeting or handed in at the start of the meeting on the green forms provided. (There are some green slips on the chairs and there are more copies.) Please fill in the relevant part and hand this in to the Committee Officer at the top table.

Where a full reply cannot be given at the meeting, a written reply will be sent to the questioner, members of the Committee and the local press. The Chair may disallow any question which, in his/her opinion, is scurrilous, capricious, irrelevant or otherwise objectionable.

Running order

Are you here for a particular item? Items may be taken in a different order depending on the interests of the members of the public present at the meeting. Please fill out a green form at the start of the meeting and hand this to the Committee Officer if you would like to request that a particular item is heard earlier in the meeting.

Taking part in the meeting

During the course of the meeting, the Chair, at his/her discretion, may allow contributions, on items listed on the agenda. To attract the Chair’s attention, please raise your hand.

Speaking at meetings

Speaking at a meeting can be a daunting prospect and every effort is made to make this as easy as possible. Speech friendly arrangements will take account of people who may have a speech impairment, e.g. they may have a stammer. If you have any individual requirements or feel that standing or addressing the meeting may present a difficulty, please let us know beforehand. Arrangements will be made to help you as far as reasonably possible.

6

More meeting information

Accessibility

• All meetings have access for people who may have mobility difficulties. If there are stairs, a lift or stairlift is available. Disabled parking spaces are available on site. • Toilet facilities will be easily accessible from the meeting room. • For people who are deaf or have hearing impairments, there is an induction loop (depending on the building, this may only be available in the first 2 or 3 rows). • A large print copy of the agenda can be requested in advance.

Emergency evacuation arrangements

If the fire alarm sounds, please leave the building by the nearest exit. If you require assistance, please remain seated and an Officer will assist you from the building.

Recording of the meeting

This meeting will be audio recorded and the recording will be available on the web site (www.kingston.gov.uk) with the agenda and minutes.

Filming

Residents and journalists/media wishing to film meetings are permitted to do so but are asked to give advance notice of this and respect any concerns expressed by people on being filmed.

Interests

Councillors must say if they have an interest in any of the items on the agenda. Interests may be personal or pecuniary. Depending on the interests declared, it might be necessary for the Councillor to leave the meeting. The detail on interests is in Part 5A of the Constitution - Members’ Code of Conduct.

Call In

Most of the decisions made at the Committee, except on decisions on planning applications/ planning enforcement/tree preservation orders and any licensing applications, can be called in for review by 100 people who live, work or study in the Borough. The call in period is 5 days after the minutes have been published (the deadline for the call in of any of these decisions will be set out in the Minutes). Decisions are not, therefore, acted upon until it is clear that they are not going to be called in.

The call in means the decision will be reviewed by a full meeting of the Council The Council at this meeting cannot change the original decision, it may decide that no further action is necessary, in which case the decision will be implemented or will refer the issue back to the Committee with its views and a request that the decision is reconsidered taking account of these views.

Minutes

The minutes briefly summarise the item and record the decision. They do not record who said what during the debate.

A1 Appendix A Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee 11 September 2014

2013-14 Corporate Complaints Performance Information Report by Head of Corporate Governance

Purpose To provide the Committee with information about how the Council manages complaints and Freedom of Information (FOI) requests made by customers through its Corporate Complaints and Freedom of Information (FOI) Procedures, and complaints that are made to the Ombudsman. The report covers the 2013/14 financial year.

Recommendations of the Lead Member for Capital, Projects and Contracts

The Committee is asked to:

1. Note the report and the performance on complaints and Freedom of Information Act requests during 2013/14

2. Note the improvements made to the management of complaints during 2013/14 and the beneficial impact now being seen in early 2014/15 performance.

Key Points

A. Following dissatisfaction with complaints performance in 2012/13, the Council redesigned the way in which complaints are managed during 2013/14. B. The introduction of the Customer Insight and Innovation Team based in the Contact Centre, and the upgrade of the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software used to record and track complaints and FOI requests, has acted as a catalyst for a step change in performance. C. The full benefit of these changes has only begun to be seen in full in the 2014/5 financial year, so although the focus of this report is on 2013/14, information on current performance is given for context. D. A separate report on information about complaints managed through the statutory procedures for Adults and Children’s Social Care is being presented to the Children, Youth and Leisure and Residents, Health and Care Services Committees.

Background

1. The Council operates a number of complaint procedures. There is the overall Corporate Complaints Procedure which applies in the majority of cases, as well as the Statutory Complaint Procedure and other procedures where complaints are an intrinsic element of operational services e.g. Environment Health and Trading Standards.

A2

2. Statutory complaints procedures cover the following areas: • Children’s Social Care • Adult Social Care • Education Appeals Processes (school admissions etc.) • Parking Ticket Appeals system • Environmental Health (noise nuisance or food hygiene etc.) • Trading Standards • Planning Application Appeals system • Planning Enforcement system

3. The formal Corporate Complaints Procedure has two stages. Stage 1 involves an investigation by the service area and provides a full response to the customer within 10 working days. If the complainant remains unsatisfied with the response received at Stage 1, they can request that their complaint is escalated to Stage 2 of the Council’s Complaints Procedure. Stage 2 involves an officer from outside the service area being complained about conducting an independent investigation which is overseen by a more Senior Officer; also from another service area. The target response time for a Stage 2 complaint is 30 working days. Stage 2 marks the final step in the Council’s Corporate Complaints Procedure and if the complainant remains unsatisfied they may take their complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) who will investigate any issues they consider involved maladministration.

4. The introduction of the CRM2004 software in 2010 provided a central place to record all complaint information and responses. The first year’s reporting based on the new system (2011/12) showed a material drop in the number of complaints responded to on time compared to the previous year. Using an integrated system as a “single version of the truth” runs the risk of exaggerating shortfalls, as failure to close down a complaint record on the CRM system will be interpreted as a failure to respond to the customer on time.

5. The annual complaints report on performance in 2012/13 demonstrated that despite the new system having had time to bed in, recorded performance had not improved. As a result a commitment was given at the Policy and Resources Committee in September 2013 to improve performance in this area. Twelve months on there is now clear evidence that the work undertaken has had a material impact on performance.

6. In addition, the Council has made a commitment to put things right for customers and to resolve as many complaints as possible at the first point of contact. Resolving complaints to the satisfaction of the customer outside the Stage 1 process ensures the customer receives a more timely response and thus a more efficient use of officer time. Where a customer indicates a preference for their complaint to be responded to via the formal process then this preference is always adhered to.

7. Complaints resolved at the point of contact by the Contact Centre are known as Quick Fixes and those resolved by service areas are known as Escalations.

8. This report does not discuss complaints resolved via Quick Fix or Escalation as these preventative measures were introduced in November 2013 and so full year reporting is A3 unavailable. Reporting on the use of Quick Fixes and Escalations will be introduced in the next years report.

9. Although not discussed in detail it should be noted that 30% of complaints were resolved by Quick Fix or Escalation in March 2014. Continued work by the Customer Insight and Innovation Team to increase resolution at the point of contact increased this figure to 66% in June 2014. Customers have been very positive about the introduction of Quick Fixes and Escalations; describing the interaction as ‘very good and quick’ whilst highlighting their satisfaction with the ‘ personalised telephone contact ’ and resolution they received ‘ within 24 hours’.

10. Recent improvements in the management of the complaints process have enabled a greater focus to be placed on learning from complaints; ensuring similar service failures are prevented in future. Examples of the outcomes and benefits generated from this approach can be found in paragraph 36 of this report.

Complaints Information

Stage 1 Complaint: Volumes

11. The Council received 348 Stage 1 complaints during 2013/14 (an increase of 12% over 2012/13) the majority of which (92%) were resolved at Stage 1. The number of complaints received from 2010/11 up until this financial year, with the exception of 2011/12, has increased year on year. It is likely that this increase can be attributed to an increase in data recording as a direct result of the introduction of the CRM2004 system in 2010 and the subsequent upgrade and roll out of the system corporately in 2013, which centralised the recording of complaints across the Council.

08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Stage One 197 274 214 139 305 348

12. The number of recorded complaints dipped in 2011/12, which coincided with the implementation of the original CRM2004 system. It is likely that this drop was a result of limited system awareness and usage by officers during implementation phases. The number of complaints received in 2013/14 has increased since 2012/13 as compliance with new processes has increased. This reflects significant work undertaken by the Customer Insight and Innovation Team to increase data recording and the use of CRM across the Council. As reported to the Policy and Resources Committee last year, the upgrade to the new CRM2011 system and the subsequent roll out to service areas from August 2013 has improved the level of complaint recording corporately. The average annual volume of complaints over the last six years is about 246 cases per year which is broadly in line with neighbouring local authorities. The table below compares Stage 1 complaints received for neighbouring authorities in 2012/13:

Borough Complaints Population* Per 1000 Head of Population

Kingston 305 160,060 1.9 Richmond 228 186,990 1.2 Sutton 206 190,146 1.1 Croydon 1189 363,378 3.3

A4

*As of the 2011 Census Table 2. Corporate Complaints per Population in 12/13

13. It is difficult to judge the optimal level of complaints received. One of the obvious factors influencing the level of complaints is customers’ experience of services, which would indicate that a higher level of complaints is a negative indicator. On the other hand, easier access to complaints, a better response and confidence in the fact that a complaint will result in some action, are all positive factors that are likely to drive up complaint numbers.

14. Over the year the Council received an average of 29 complaints a month, with the highest volume of complaints received in October 2013 (60) and the lowest in August 2013 (9).

15. Volumes of complaints differ from Directorate to Directorate reflecting the nature of the different services delivered. As would be expected, those areas delivering frontline services with more customer interaction are more likely to receive complaints. A significant proportion of Adult Social Care (ASC) and Learning and Children’s complaints fall within the remit of the Statutory Complaints Procedure (see the Annual Statutory Complaints Report to the Children, Youth and Leisure and Residents, Health and Care Services Committees); therefore relatively few ASC and Children’s Social Care complaints will follow the Corporate Complaints route.

16. The Place Directorate provides the most frontline services and, unsurprisingly, receives the majority of the Council’s complaints (76%). In the last year Place received an average of 22 complaints a month compared to an average of 2 complaints a month for Organisational Development and Strategic Business and 4 in Finance which have less direct customer interaction.

Graph 1. Stage One Complaints by month in 13/14

A5

Stage One: Types of Complaint

17. For purposes of recording and analysis, complaints are broken down into four main categories as follows:

1. Quality – complaints about the alleged failure to carry out a service to an appropriate standard. 2. Delivery – complaints about providers and/or arrangements made for a delivery of a service. 3. Decisions – complaints about how decisions on the provision of a service are made as well as those expressing disagreement with the outcome. 4. Standards – complaints about the alleged failure of staff to adhere to appropriate standards of behaviour and/or to follow relevant policies and procedures.

18. Over the course of 2013/14, the Council received 111 complaints about service delivery (32%), 79 complaints about a decision made (23%) 66 complaints about standards (19%) and 28 about quality (8%) and 64 covering other/ multiple issues.

Standard Decisio Other / s n Delivery Multiple Quality Adult Social Care 60% 20% 0% 20% 0% Strategic Business and Organisational Development 38% 15% 38% 8% 0% Finance 14% 38% 26% 21% 0% Learning and Children’s 0% 28% 28% 33% 11% Place 19% 20% 33% 17% 10% All Directorates 19% 23% 32% 18% 8%

Table 3. Types of Stage One complaints in 13/14

Stage One: Outcomes

19. Just over half of Stage 1 complaints were not upheld (51%). However, in instances where performance has been poor the Council have admitted fault (upheld complaints) in 18% of cases and admitted partial fault (partially upheld complaints) in 31% of cases. Annex 1 contains detailed information on the outcomes of complaints, broken down by Directorate and Service Area.

When an investigation finds that a complaint is either partially upheld or completely upheld the Council will offer the complainant a formal apology and will put measures in place to improve the service for future customers. In 2013/14 recommendations were made in 51% of cases where a complaint was found to be justified or partially justified. The types of recommendations vary but usually involve issuing a formal apology, reviewing or overturning a decision made or reviewing the way a service is delivered.

Stage 1: Response Times

20. The Council has a target to respond to all Stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Historically the Council has been unsuccessful in achieving this target and performance was below target throughout much of 2013/14.

A6 21. Improving customer experience through the complaints process was identified as a corporate priority by the Council’s Strategic Leadership Team in 2013/14. In response the Customer Insight and Innovation Team has been working closely with customers to better understand their experience of the complaints process and identify areas for improvement. As a result overall response times did improve in 2013/14 with 46% of responses being provided within the 10 working day target. The latest data shows that this improvement is being sustained and that 76% of complaints were closed within the 10 working day target in June 2014.

08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Average Response Time (Working Days) 11 10 14 14 33 22 Percentage within 10 Working Day Target 55% 69% 58% 37% 37% 46%

Table 4. Stage One response time performance

22. Throughout the year the Stage 1 average response time has generally remained above the 10 working day target; peaking to 36 days in September. The number of complaints received in September and October almost tripled compared to preceding months which is likely to explain the increase in response times. At the same time the Customer Insight and Innovation Team were investing increasing resources in performance management and a number of older complaints were closed which had a significant impact on average days for the period. The work of the Customer Insight and Innovation Team has continued in 2014/15 and as a result average Stage 1 response times have reduced from 22 working days (2013/14) to 9 working days (June 2014).

Graph 2. Stage One Complaints average response time by month in 13/14

23. In 2013/14 the average response time for Stage 1 was 22 working days with 46% of all complaints being responded to within the 10 working day target. This is a material improvement on performance in 2012/13, but still far short of where we would expect to be. The work of the Customer Insight and Innovation Team to improve performance started to take effect towards the end of 2013/14 as the average response time started to fall and the number of complaints responded to within timescales increased. This A7 trend gained pace in 2014/15 as the number of complaints dealt with within the 10 working day target increased to 76% whilst the average response time reduced to 9 working days (June 2014).

24. The sharp lengthening of response times in 2012/13 was noted last year as being likely due to the introduction of the CRM system for recording complaints information and the need to embed its proper use with service areas. Work has been undertaken throughout the year by the Customer Insight and Innovation Team to address this issue, including:

CRM training for over 200 service area staff;

Intensive one to one CRM training for service area staff as required;

Weekly and monthly performance reporting on complaints and CRM data quality to all Directorate Management Teams and;

Development of online training manuals and video guides

25. The median response time for 2013/14 shows an improved position of 11 working days with more than 52% of Stage 1 complaints having been dealt with within that time frame. This is perhaps a more useful indicator of performance as the median discounts those complaints with significantly long (and short) response times which skew the average.

26. Perception of the quality of the services we provide is affected if complainants have to wait an unreasonable amount of time for a response to their initial complaint and building on the improvements made to our response times continues to be a priority for the Council.

II. Stage Two Complaints

Generally, Stage 2 complaints occur because the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the Stage 1 investigation or the follow up action the Council had pledged to take.

Volumes 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Stage Two 14 14 12 13 14 28

27. The number of stage 2 complaints received in 2013/14 increased sharply, doubling from 14 in 2012/13 to 28 in 2013/14. Of the stage 2 complaints received in 2013/14, 21 were regarding the Place Directorate; the majority in Housing (8) and Planning (6). Several of the Housing related complaints were in relation to the Better Homes Project which, given the scale of the project, is perhaps unsurprising.

The chart below shows the number of Stage 2 complaints the four Directorates received, each month in 2013/14.

A8 Month Place Finance OD&SB LCS Apr-13 1 May-13 2 Jun-13 1 1 Jul-13 Aug-13 3 Sep-13 3 Oct-13 2 Nov-13 2 2 Dec-13 2 1 Jan-14 2 1 Feb-14 1 Mar-14 4 Total 21 1 2 4

Response times

28. Although the average response time to Stage 2 complaints fell again in 2013/14, the percentage responded to within the 30 working day target has remained at 43%. Stage 2 complaints are often complex and sometimes involve co-ordinating a response across multiple service areas, meaning that some investigations can take a considerable amount of time to complete and it is common for them take longer than 30 working days to finish.

29. The Council, until recently had a limited number of Stage 2 complaint investigators which caused delays in the assignment of these complaints. Additional Stage 2 Complaint Investigators have now been identified and the assignment and chasing function transferred to the Customer Insight and Innovation Team on a temporary basis. It is expected that this will have a positive impact on response times; facilitating a reduction throughout the current year.

08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Average Response Time (Working Days) 70 51 84 52 45 36 Percentage within 30 Working Day Target 23% 34% 16% 22% 43% 43%

Types of complaints

30. Issues relating to a decision made by the Council are the most common Stage 2 complaint. The types of decision vary amongst service areas but often relate to issues such as parking tickets, planning matters, benefits, or council owned properties.

A9

Graph 3. Type of Stage Two complaints for 13/14

Outcomes

31. As with Stage 1 complaints, the most frequent outcome at stage 2 is for the complaint not to be upheld. This was the case in 64% of complaints (18). 32% of stage 2 complaints were partially upheld (9) and only one was fully upheld.

Local Government Ombudsman (LGO)

32. The Council usually receives a detailed annual report from the LGO with a breakdown of enquiries and complaint outcomes, including how many investigations it undertook for each Local Authority. For 2013/14 the LGO has changed the way it presents complaint information and the figures are no longer comparable to previous years.

33. The LGO received 68 complaints and enquiries in 2013/14 about Kingston Council. The highest number of referrals came from Highways and Transport (18), followed by Housing (13) and Education and Children’s Services (11). The LGO decided to investigate 14 of these in detail. Of these 14, 8 were upheld and 6 were not upheld. This means that recommendations such as an apology and acknowledgement that service levels fell below what could reasonably be expected, or compensation should be paid, were made. The remainder of complaints made to the ombudsman were either closed after initial enquiries or referred back to RBK for a local resolution.

34. The latest detailed information released by the LGO shows that of the 131 cases that were investigated between April 2005 and March 2012 only one case of maladministration was found against the Council (in 2005), representing 0.76%. This resulted in a settlement between the complainant and the Council on the advice of the Ombudsman.

Learning from Complaints

35. The Council’s Corporate Complaints Procedure should not be seen as a mechanism for apportioning blame but as an important part of how the Council learns from its mistakes and develops better services. Complaints can be a valuable source of information about customer experience and how services can be improved. In line with the Customer First approach, Kingston has developed a culture of listening to our A10 residents; aiming to get things right first time and to put things right when they go wrong whilst learning from the experience of their customers.

36. In 2013/14 the Customer Insight and Innovation Team worked with Directorate Management Teams to ensure 100% of Stage 1 complaints were reviewed for learning opportunities. As a result, learning opportunities were identified in 54% of cases. A new learning from complaints process was agreed by the Strategic Leadership Team in May 2014 which will further strengthen this process using a Root Cause Analysis.

Some brief examples of how the Council has responded to recommendations in the past 12 months are provided below:

• A number of customers were unhappy that they could not order new containers for the flat recycling service using the Council’s website. Listening to the concerns of our customers the Customer Insight and Innovation Team worked with colleagues in ICT and the Communication Team to develop an additional option on the website for customers to request these containers online. Increasing online functionality ensures we are meeting the needs and expectations of our customers whilst meeting our corporate objective to increase opportunities for customers to self serve using digital channels.

• The Council received a complaint from a Council resident following an incident where he had been bitten by a neighbour’s dog. Using root cause analysis, the Customer Insight and Innovation Team worked with the Housing Manager to identify the true cause of the complaint: the complainant was not satisfied that the Council was taking sufficient and timely action to prosecute the owner of the dog. Addressing the root cause of the complaint, the Housing Manager introduced new procedures to ensure customer expectations were being adequately managed and that they were kept informed of the progress of their case on at least a fortnightly basis. In addition the Council worked with the complainant and local partners to secure a Court Order forbidding the perpetrator to leave his property with the dog without a muzzle and lead. These improvements will ensure the local community is safer, customer expectations are appropriately managed and that the likelihood of future incidents is reduced.

• A review of complaint trends in 2013/14 indicated a significant number of customers complaining about the failure of the Council to keep them informed and take action to address their concerns. Customer insight activity undertaken by the Customer Insight and Innovation Team in December 2013 supported these concerns as it was identified that the majority of customers received no human contact from the point they submitted their complaint to the point they received a response. In response the Customer Insight and Innovation Team worked with colleagues across the Council and Senior Leaders to redesign the complaints process around the needs and expectations of customers, focusing resources on achieving resolution at the first point of contact. Every customer is now contacted within 24 hours of their complaint to discuss their concerns and offer resolution. This approach has successfully prevented 66% of complaints from progressing to Stage 1 of the complaints process and saved a substantial amount of officer time. Customers are very positive about these changes: “... it was really good because within a day I A11 received a call and an email to say it was being looked into. Liked the idea to know someone was reading it. The problem was resolved the day after!”. Customer experience is now regularly reviewed using customer journey mapping techniques and surveys, the information from which is used to continually improve the service.

Freedom of information requests

37. The Council received 1293 FOI requests in 2013/14, an increase of 21% from the previous year. Place received the most requests (464) followed by Organisational Development and Strategic Business (243), then Finance (243), Learning and Children’s Services (216) and then Adult Social Care (102). The Council responded to 71% of requests within the 20 working day target. Annex 5 contains detailed information on FOI requests, broken down by Service Area.

38. In recent months, as complaints responses have reached acceptable levels, greater focus has been placed on resolving FOI requests. Performance in this area is also expected to improve in 2014/15.

39. University College London has undertaken research into the costs to Local Authorities of dealing with FOI requests. Their research indicates that on average, each FOI request takes 7 hours and 30 minutes to deal with, with an approximate cost per request of £293. Based on these calculations the approximate time spent by RBK staff dealing with FOI requests in 2013/14 is 9,700 hours with a cost equivalent to around £378k in officer time.

40. To help deal with the volume of FOI requests now being received the Council plans to publish common FOI responses online in line with the Governments Open Data Agenda. Published responses will be regularly updated and customers will be referred online where the relevant information is already published saving the organisation resources in preparing a duplicate response.

41. Recognising the potential risk associated with responding to FOI requests without providing the appropriate context the Customer Insight and Innovation Team apply a risk based assessment to all new FOI requests. This assessment categorises the potential risk to the Council of releasing such information with regard to the subject area and customer type. As a result, FOI responses categorised as high or medium risk are reviewed by the relevant Head of Service and those categorised as low risk by the relevant Service Manager before disclosure.

Improvements and review

42. It was agreed at the last Policy and Resources Committee that a programme of work would be initiated to improve the way the Council manages complaints. This programme of work would focus on data accuracy and performance, the prevention and resolution of complaints and improving customer experience. Led by the Customer Insight and Innovation Team this work has had a significant impact on reducing response times, improving the customer journey and improving the quality of data held in CRM. As a result of these improvements the Council was recognised externally as having the Best Complaint Management Team at the London and South East Contact Centre Awards 2014. A12

43. The improvements delivered as part of this work are summarised below:

• The CRM2004 system was upgraded to the CRM2011 system in August 2013. This system was already used across the Council and enabled service areas to view and update complaint records independently without Contact Centre intervention; increasing ownership corporately and enabling one central recording system.

• The Customer Insight and Innovation Team developed a suite of performance reports identifying breached complaint and FOI records as well as records with missing information. These reports are circulated weekly to Directorate Management Teams and have had a significant impact on performance as well as increasing transparency and accountability of service areas. Working with colleagues in ICT these reports have now been automated through CRM; scheduling them directly to Senior Managers on a weekly basis.

• Using Customer Insight techniques, such as customer journey mapping, the Customer Insight and Innovation Team gather intelligence about the experience of the customer through the complaints service. This information is used to identify issues and potential improvements. As a result of this work every customer now receives a personalised contact from a Complaint Officer within 24 hours of their complaint. This is an opportunity to offer resolution and to show the customer that the Council takes customer dissatisfaction very seriously. In June 2014 66% of complaints were resolved during this personalised contact; saving considerable officer resources across the Council.

• Complaint Officers make contact with the owners of complaints and FOI requests that are within 5 working days of breaching timescales to remind them of their responsibility to provide a timely response to the customer and to offer support. Owners of complaints and FOI requests that have breached these timescales are chased at least twice a week until closure.

• Complaints and FOI requests are reviewed on a monthly basis to identify trends in customer dissatisfaction or with requests for information. These trends are used to inform service planning and improvements. This information is reported to the Performance and Customer Experience Board on a 6 weekly basis, which is chaired by the Director of Finance, ensuring appropriate oversight of the delivery of agreed improvements.

• A new Learning from Complaints process was implemented in May 2014 to ensure 100% of complaints are reviewed for opportunities to learn and prevent future dissatisfaction. This process has been implemented corporately and uses root cause analysis to identify and then address the root cause of the complaint rather than the symptom. Complaints Officers meet with complaint owners on a one to one basis to ensure appropriate application of the assessment. A13

44. The Customer Insight and Innovation Team and the Risk and Assurance Team are jointly working on further work streams throughout the year to build on and embed the improvements already made. Key pieces of work include:

• Developing CRM manager dashboards enabling service areas to take responsibility for their own complaints performance. • Exploring the feasibility of incorporating complaint and FOI performance targets in all service plans and performance plus scorecards. • Publishing performance information internally and externally on a regular basis, to ensure customers have the opportunity to hold the Council to account • Increasing the quality of complaint and FOI responses through quality assurance exercises • Further understanding the customers experience of services by undertaking regular customer insight activities and using this information to improve

Accuracy and Completeness of Data

45. In October 2011 the Council moved away from manually recording complaints on paper forms and spreadsheets to capturing data using a CRM system. One of the key aims of this project was to create a consistent approach to recording complaints so data can be used to drive service improvements across the Council. The move to recording complaints information on the CRM system involved moving to an entirely new way of working for Complaints Officers and service areas and there were initially issues with the quality of the data recorded in CRM, as reported to the Policy and Resources Committee last year. The main problems were with officers not noting on the system the date a complaint was closed or if it was upheld and if recommendations were made. This led to a possible over reporting of late responses.

46. Following a programme of work delivered by the Customer Insight and Innovation Team, the number of complaints with this important information missing has dropped from around 85% last year to 2.3% (June 2014). Work to ensure that this improvement is sustained is in place. Video training guides for officers that use CRM have been released and the programme of formal desktop training will continue. As the quality of the data on CRM continues to show considerable improvement, the next steps will be to focus on quality assurance of responses that are sent to customers.

47. The Customer Insight and Innovation Team are working with Officers in ICT to improve the usability and reporting functionality of the CRM system which will have a positive impact on data quality and overall complaint management.

Financial implications

48. There are no financial implications arising from this report; however, as can be seen, there are clearly significant costs involved with dealing with complaints and, in particular, FOI requests.

A14 Environmental implications

49. Whilst there are no environmental implications arising from this report, inevitably a relatively significant volume of complaints are about environmental matters.

Background papers : held by Oliver Durrant – 02085475190 Author Report 1 Complaints Data A15

STAGE ONE OUTCOMES Annex 1

Outcome percentage only includes complaints with a recorded outcome Not Partially Total Complaints Upheld Upheld Upheld

TOTAL Stage One 348 51% 31% 18% TOTAL Stage Two 23 65% 31% 4%

Not Partially Stage One Total Complaints Upheld Upheld Upheld

Adult Social Care 5 80% 20% 0%

Strategic Business and Organisational Development 13 69% 15% 0% CCTV 1 100% 0% 0% Democratic Services 4 75% 25% 0% Legal Services 3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Organisational Development 1 100% 0% 0% Press Office 2 100% 0% 0% Strategic Business 2 50% 0% 50%

Finance 42 64% 14% 21% Council Tax 18 89% 6% 6% Customer Contact Centre 8 25% 25% 50% Finance 6 50% 0% 50% Housing Benefits 10 60% 30% 10%

Learning and Children's 18 83% 17% 0% Arts & Culture 1 0% 100% 0% Libraries 2 100% 0% 0% Schools 15 87% 13% 0%

Place 270 46% 36% 19% Bereavement Services 1 100% 0% 0% Building Control 3 0% 100% 0% Cemeteries 1 0% 0% 100% Corporate Landlord 4 50% 50% 0% Environmental Health 4 100% 0% 0% Highway Assets 7 43% 57% 0% Housing Advice & Options 4 75% 25% 0% Housing General 32 50% 28% 22% Housing Homelessness 5 60% 40% 0% Housing Rents 7 29% 43% 29% Housing Repairs 47 26% 41% 34% Parking Services 40 63% 25% 13% Parks and Open Spaces 19 53% 37% 11% Planning 23 65% 17% 17% Registrations (birth, death, marriage) 2 50% 50% 0% Street Scene (including NRSWA) 40 50% 43% 8% Traffic Management 6 33% 33% 33% Waste Management 25 16% 48% 36%

A16

STAGE TWO OUTCOMES Annex 2

Partially Total Complaints Not Upheld Upheld Upheld

TOTAL Stage One 348 51% 31% 18% TOTAL Stage Two 23 65% 31% 4%

Partially Stage Two Total Complaints Not Upheld Upheld Upheld

Strategic Business and Organisational Development 2 50% 50% 0% Democratic Services 1 100% 0% 0% Strategic Business 1 0% 100% 0%

Finance 1 0% 100% 0% Council Tax 1 0% 100% 0%

Learning and Children's 1 100% 0% 0% Schools 1 100% 0% 0%

Place 18 67% 28% 6% Highway Assets 1 0% 0% 100% Housing Advice & Options 3 33% 67% 0% Housing General 1 100% 0% 0% Housing Homelessness 1 0% 100% 0% Housing Repairs 2 100% 0% 0% Parking Services 2 50% 50% 0% Parks and Open Spaces 1 100% 0% 0% Planning 6 83% 17% 0% Street Scene (including NRSWA) 1 100% 0% 0%

A17

STAGE ONE TIMELINESS Annex 3

Percentage within target only includes complaints with a completion date Average % Total Stage Response % within outside One Time (Working 10 Day 10 Day Complaints Days) Target Target

TOTAL for the Council 348 22 46% 54%

Adult Social Care 5 7 80% 20%

Chief Executive and Strategic Business 13 9 77% 23% CCTV 1 23 0% 100% Democratic Services 4 8 75% 25% Legal Services 3 13 67% 33% Organisational Development 1 1 100% 0% Press Office 2 10 100% 0% Strategic Business 2 3 100% 0%

Finance 42 14 74% 26% Council Tax 18 10 83% 17% Customer Contact Centre 8 19 88% 13% Finance 6 30 17% 83% Housing Benefits 10 9 80% 20%

Learning and Children's 18 10 44% 56% Arts & Culture 1 13 0% 100% Libraries 2 1 100% 0% Schools 15 11 40% 60%

Place 270 25 39% 61% Bereavement Services 1 1 100% 0% Building Control 3 13 67% 33% Cemeteries 1 1 100% 0% Corporate Landlord 4 19 50% 50% Environmental Health 4 11 50% 50% Highway Assets 7 12 57% 43% Housing Advice & Options 4 14 0% 100% Housing General 32 25 34% 66% Housing Homelessness 5 29 20% 80% Housing Rents 7 19 29% 71% Housing Repairs 47 25 30% 70% Parking Services 40 28 45% 55% Parks and Open Spaces 19 15 68% 32% Planning 23 23 26% 74% Registrations (birth, death, marriage) 2 6 100% 0% Street Scene (including NRSWA) 40 40 30% 70% Traffic Management 6 8 67% 33% Waste Management 25 23 44% 56%

A18

STAGE TWO TIMELINESS Annex 4

Total Stage Average % within % outside Two Response Time 30 Day 30 Day Complaints (Working Days) Target Target

TOTAL for the Council 23 36 48% 52%

Strategic Business and Organisational Development 2 39 0% 100% Democratic Services 1 39 0% 0% Strategic Business 1 39 0% 0%

Finance 1 28 0% 0% Council Tax 1 28 0% 0%

Learning and Children's 2 61 50% 50% Schools 2 61 50% 50%

Place 18 34 50% 50% Highway Assets 1 70 0% 100% Housing Advice & Options 3 27 33% 67% Housing General 1 21 100% 0% Housing Homelessness 1 15 100% 0% Housing Repairs 2 31 50% 50% Parking Services 2 23 100% 0% Parks and Open Spaces 1 46 0% 100% Planning 6 39 33% 67% Street Scene (including NRSWA) 1 29 100% 0%

A19

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION TIMELINESS Annex 5 Data only includes FOI requests with a completion date Total FOI Average Requests with a Response % within % outside completion date (WD) target target TOTAL for the Council 1289 17 71% 29%

Adult Social Care 102 18 67% 33% Adult Social Care 96 17 68% 32% Public Health 6 27 50% 50%

Chief Executive and Strategic Business 227 15 79% 21% CCTV 2 17 50% 50% Democratic Services 24 11 92% 8% HR (Human Resources) 15 21 73% 27% Legal Services 14 30 57% 43% Neighbourhood Management 1 5 100% 0% Organisational Development 78 13 78% 22% Press Office 13 11 85% 15% Procurement 11 14 73% 27% Strategic Business 69 14 81% 19%

Finance 281 17 74% 26% Business rates 88 18 76% 24% Council Tax 40 17 63% 38% Customer Contact Centre 5 11 100% 0% Finance 32 15 81% 19% Fraud 1 20 100% 0% Housing Benefits 41 14 73% 27% Housing Rents 2 16 100% 0% ICT 53 17 77% 23% Insurance 17 18 59% 41% KIS (Kingston Interpreting Service) 2 17 100% 0%

Learning and Children's 216 17 75% 25% Arts & Culture 10 19 70% 30% Children's Prevention Services 11 21 55% 45% Children's Social Care 80 16 80% 20% Libraries 5 6 100% 0% Museums 2 17 50% 50% Schools 100 18 71% 29% Sports & Leisure Centres 8 13 88% 13%

Place 463 18 65% 35% Asset Management 10 26 50% 50% Bereavement Services 16 3 100% 0% Building Control 1 2 100% 0% Cemeteries 19 9 84% 16% Climate Change & Sustainable Transport 9 20 56% 44% Corporate Landlord 13 8 92% 8% Environmental Health 61 24 56% 44% Highway Assets 16 23 63% 38% Housing Advice & Options 8 23 63% A20

Housing General 66 18 58% 42% Housing Homelessness 10 21 40% 60% Housing Rents 2 19 50% 50% Housing Repairs 2 12 50% 50% Parking Services 116 17 66% 34% Parks and Open Spaces 11 8 91% 9% Planning 39 18 74% 26% Street Scene (including NRSWA) 33 16 67% 33% Traffic Management 15 24 67% 33% Waste Management 16 20 50% 50% CRM ACTION PLAN Annex 6

Action Outcome Mandatory CRM training for complaints investigators and • Improved knowledge of CRM across the Council those who log complaints on CRM • Increased performance against the targets (i.e. 100% of complaints and FOI requests recorded in CRM • More efficient use of CRM • Accurate complaints data used to drive performance

Monthly reports on CRM usage to DMTs highlighting accuracy • More accountability and complaints performance • Drive performance in directorates/service areas of weakness

Quarterly complaints performance reports including data on • Visibility of complaints performance • complaints volumes and accuracy of data Drive performance in directorates/service areas of weakness A21

Ongoing CRM workshops • Improved knowledge of CRM across the Council • Increased performance against the targets (i.e. 100% of complaints and FOI requests recorded in CRM • More efficient use of CRM • Accurate complaints data used to drive performance

B1 Appendix B Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee

11 September 2014

Experimental Traffic Order and Trial for Thirty Minute Free Parking

Report by Director of Place

Purpose

To propose an experimental Traffic Management Order (TMO) at limited sites so as to conduct a one year trial of 30 minute free parking for the purpose of informing the wider implementation of that parking scheme.

Recommendations of the Lead Member for Environment and Transport

To resolve that

1. an experimental TMO be published which will amend current Traffic Management Orders at the locations and in the manner listed in Annex 1 to this report.

2. the outcomes of the implementation of the experimental Traffic Management Order be reviewed after it has run for one year so as to inform a wider implementation of 30 minute free parking.

Key Points

A. To inform the wider implementation of the thirty minute free parking manifesto commitment, it is proposed to conduct a trial at various limited sites (listed in Annex 1). After one year of the trial, a review will be undertaken and a further report will come to this Committee with recommendations.

B. A Traffic Management Order (TMO) is required to make the proposed changes. As this is being conducted as a trial, the use of an experimental TMO to effect the required changes is proposed. The implementation of the fuller proposal after the trial is likely to be undertaken using amendments to existing individual TMOs.

C. An experimental traffic management order requires no public consultation prior to its coming into operation; may last for up to 18 months (but may be made ‘permanent’ within that time); and may come into operation 7 days after a public notice relating to a scheme is published.

Context

1. The 2014 Election Manifesto of the Kingston Conservatives, who form the Majority Group and therefore the Administration of the Council, includes a commitment to ‘allow 30 minutes free parking on our metered streets’ across the borough ‘to support local businesses and independent shops whilst also investing in local high streets.’

Trials of free parking

2. The pay and display sites for this trial have been selected to give a range of differing locations, adjacent businesses and current usages to inform how the proposals operate under differing conditions. They have also been selected to B2 incorporate parking places where failed meters are no longer in place and other controls have not been brought in.

3. There are two forms of trial being conducted to inform the future delivery of thirty minutes free parking and these are reflected within Annex 1. These have been titled Type A and Type B:

• Type A would retain the existing pay and display arrangements at a given location but provide those visits of thirty minutes to be without charge. All other stay lengths would remain at the current prevailing rate.

• Type B would see a given set of spaces in an area of existing pay and display converted to thirty minute free parking exclusively. Stays would be for up to thirty minutes only and no pay and display for longer stays would be possible. Other nearby pay and display bays would be unaffected and continue with their existing terms and charges. Former meter bays would be similarly altered to exclusively

4. At all trial locations the ‘no return’ period, where a vehicle that has already parked at a given location (whether after making a payment or not) would not be permitted to return, would be two hours. No other terms and conditions (such as the ability to load or unload, drop off or pick up passengers or parking for disabled badge holders) would be altered.

Timescales

5. If the proposal is approved then the experimental TMO will be published by the end of September with a date to come into for in October. Changes to signs, pay and display settings and other alterations will take place prior to implementation.

Resource Implications

6. The amount of paid parking income that will not be collected during the trial at the given locations is not expected to exceed £12k. The actual change in income will be a measured aspect of the trial.

7. The cost of additional enforcement is not expected to exceed £20k, although efforts will be made to undertake the trial to reduce costs and deploy resources in differing ways to inform the broader, on-going cost of enforcement of thirty minutes free parking.

8. Additional sundry costs, such as the cost of undertaking surveys of usage and review of the trial are expected to cost around £5k.

Legal Implications

9. Subject to the drafting of the Traffic Management Orders there should be no adverse legal implications

Equality Impact Assessment

10. The proposed experimental TMO is not intended to alter the availability or accessibility of parking for any group impacted by an EQIA as the level of provision will remain the same and charges are not being raised. Therefore an EQIA has not been undertaken.

11. As part of the trial, surveys will look at usage levels for disabled badge holders within the trial locations and compare with non-trial locations to inform any future B3 decision, although as no changes to terms or conditions for disabled badge holders arise from this proposal it is not anticipated any change in use will arise.

Consultations

12. As the experimental TMO is intended to inform a further, wider proposal it forms part of a longer consultation process. Therefore there has been no direct public consultation as a result of this proposed experimental TMO and there will be no opportunity for objections to the experimental TMO prior to implementation. A wider TMO in the future to implement the results of the trial will require a consultation/objection phase.

Network Implications

13. It is possible that the proposals may mainly attract passing trade from existing car journeys, but there is a small risk that it could encourage some additional short journeys to be made by car or existing cycling/ walking trips to be replaced by car, which is in contradiction of wider sustainable transport objectives, however, this is likely to be a small number of trips proportionally. It is also possible that the proposals will attract more local journeys, thus reducing the number of longer journeys that drivers may have previously made to alternative district/shopping centres

Environmental Implications

14. The proposals relate to existing parking bays, so no existing road space will be converted to new parking bays. However, there is a risk that the proposal could cause some additional network congestion, particularly in width restricted areas and on bus routes (e.g. New Malden High Street), due to cars having more incentive to wait in the road if they see that a parking space is about to become available, although in practice it is likely that this practice already happens given the prime location of the parking bays. As highlighted above, it is likely that the proposals may result in the redistribution of some local journeys, but again given the number of journeys this may relate to, it is unlikely to have an impact on the overall flow of traffic and congestion on the network.

Background papers – held by author of the report , Philip Hoare, Team Leader, Parking Operations email: [email protected] tel 020 8547 5969

B4

ANNEX 1

Locations of sites for trial of 30 minute free parking experimental Traffic Management Orders

Current Proposed Location Restriction Type Duration No Return

Brighton Road (North Side, Eastbound from Jct with Cottage Pay and Display Type B 30 minutes only 2 hours Grove to Pedestrian Crossing)

Burlington Road (All current pay and display spaces) Pay and Display Type A 30 minutes free 2 hours

Burlington Road (All current 1 meter spaces) Meter Parking Type B hour 2 hours only Cambridge Road, New Malden (All current meter spaces) Meter Parking Type B 30 minutes only 2 hours

George Road, New Malden (All current pay and display spaces) Pay and Display Type A 30 minutes free 2 hours

High Street, New Malden (All current meter spaces) Pay and Display Type B 30 minutes only 2 hours

Kings Road, New Malden (All current meter spaces) Meter Parking Type B 30 minutes only 2 hours

Queens Road, New Malden (All current pay and display spaces) Pay and Display Type A 30 minutes free 2 hours

It should be noted that an experimental traffic management order:

• requires no public consultation prior to its coming into operation;

• may last for up to 18 months (but may be made ‘permanent’ within that time);

• may come into operation 7 days after a public notice relating to a scheme is published.

C1 Appendix C Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee 11 September 2014 Seasonal Park and Ride Service

Report by Director of Place

Purpose

The contract to operate the route has expired after the 2013 service and a decision needs to be made on Kingston’s support for the scheme going forward.

Recommendations of the Lead Member for Environment and Transport

To RESOLVE that

1. the usage figures and costs data provided in Annex 2 be noted;

2. having regard to the falling numbers and the information contained in the report , the service be discontinued; and

3. the Policy and Finance Committee on 25 September 2014 be informed of the decision of this Committee, and should the service be discontinued, then the £87k budget allocation for 2014/15 be returned to the Bus Lane Enforcement Surplus Account.

Key Points

A. A Park and Ride service has operated in the Borough over the Christmas period for the last 20 years, providing a non-stop service between Chessington World of Adventures (CWoA) and Kingston town centre. The scheme is jointly funded by RBK and TfL, with a 50:50 split on all net operating costs. Since the late 1990’s, Kingston Town Centre Businesses (through Kingston First following its establishment) have also made contributions to the operation of the service – although the amount was much reduced for the 2013/14 season - and the car park at CWoA is provided free of charge. B. As with all bus routes in London, the contract is awarded and administered by TfL. Prior to awarding the contract for future service provision, TfL are looking for a commitment from the Council to cover the next contract period following a retendering exercise undertaken by them in the spring 2014. C. TfL now require an indication from the Council of their willingness to support the revised contract for at least 2 years with an option to extend for a third year at the increased annual operating costs received.

Context 1. The Council in partnership with London Buses has provided a Christmas Park and Ride (P & R) service for over 20 years. The K50 P & R service is operated by London Buses and tenders are invited from bus operators every 5 years. The last contract was awarded to London United in 2009 and this expired after Christmas 2013. In October 2013 Transport for London (TfL) London Buses contacted the C2 Council to agree the tender arrangements for the provision of the service for Christmas 2014 onwards. This report is to enable the Council’s position on P & R to be confirmed.

2. P & R started in RBK with experimental schemes run in 1990 and 1991 from outer town centre car parks for short periods at Christmas. In 1992, Chessington World of Adventures (CWOA) joined the partnership and offered the use of their north car park over the Christmas period when they were closed. A seasonal K50 P & R service has been run every year since from CWOA, for various durations in the Christmas and New Year shopping period. The route of the service is shown in Annex 1.

3. In 1992 and 1993 the P & R service operated only on Saturdays, but since 1994 the service has run throughout the week, Mondays- Saturdays. In 2000, a Sunday service was also introduced, and the service was extended into the New Year (2001) for the first time. In the late 1990’s some Kingston Town traders made donations as contributions to offset the Council’s costs in supporting the service with London Buses. In 2001 Kingston Town Centre Management also became a full partner and contributed £25,000 towards the Council’s financial support of the scheme. In 1997 an additional P & R service on Saturdays only was run from the Hawker Centre for 5 Saturdays before Christmas and one after, but was not particularly successful. The Council did not consider it financially viable to run this again in 1998.

4. From 1992 until 2008 the fare was £1.50 per adult passenger for the return journey. Under 16’s travel free if accompanied by an adult. The fare was increased in 2009 to £2.00, and every subsequent year, in line with the single non Oyster bus fare. There has never been a charge to park at CWoA.

5. From 1992 to 2010 the service operated for 10 weeks. This was reduced to 9 weeks in 2011, to 8 weeks in 2012 and 7 weeks in 2013. From 1992 to 2010 the service operated from the CWoA north (Lodge) car park.

6. In recent years CWoA (Zoo & Sealife only) opened in November and December between 10am & 3pm. This had reduced the availability of spaces in the north car park and this may have had some minor impact on the attraction of the P & R service, particularly on Saturdays when both CWoA and P & R were busy. Following the 2010 service, CWoA made the decision to ask RBK to move the service to the south (Explorer) car park. This followed lengthy discussions, as RBK were very concerned about the negative impact this could be expected to have on usage. In 2011, 2012 and 2013 the service was operated from the south (Explorer) car park.

7. The south (Explorer) car park at CWoA does not have a ‘made’ surface and in the area where P & R customers would park, the surface is loose stones. In planning the 2011 service, detailed consideration was given by RBK to what changes in operation, marketing and management were required to minimise the potential loss of customers due to the move to the south car park. The issues included No mains powered street lighting (improved for 2013 service) No formal pedestrian footways Reduced attractiveness of service to the residents of Chessington. No car park bay markings Need for infrastructure for the bus stop set down and pick up points C3 No nearby bus driver facilities Need for new and additional signage Additional journey distance/time to Kingston town centre For these reasons there were increased costs to set up for the 2011 and following services

8. Whilst preparing for the 2011 service TfL London Buses and the operator London United, decided that we could not brand the buses in the distinctive, ‘wrap around’ way that had been the case before. Only small P & R panels were permitted on the offside and rear of each bus. TfL stated that the cost of removing the wrapped material and repairing paint work was prohibitive. This continued to be the case in 2012 and 2013.

9. In preparing for the 2012 service, discussions took place with Kingston First regarding the future of Park & Ride for Kingston, with businesses looking for re- assurance as to whether the service represents value for money. It was agreed that market research should be carried out to look at the service and provide a discussion point for changes and improvements to the service. In 2012 the town centre businesses through Kingston First maintained their level of financial support.

10. Within the overall budget provision there was an allocation of £13k for marketing and promotion of the service for that year. This includes the cost of branding the buses, design and printing of leaflets/posters and advertising. It was decided to spend £8k of the budget on a market research exercise at Christmas 2012. This was undertaken by a specialist company. The sample size was 500 users of P & R and 500 people in the town centre who did not use P & R but who live in the P & R customer catchment area.

11. The market research report confirms that the customers mainly come from the north Surrey area as the scheme intends and they use it as it is convenient and avoids the drive into Kingston. Only a small percentage of users (9%) are RBK residents The report highlighted that awareness of the service amongst non-users who live in the south of the borough/North Surrey area is relatively high (c. 50%), suggesting that the service is well known, but that there are a number of issues with the service as it stands: Location – car park is out of the way Hassle of carrying heavy shopping bags around all day Poor quality of experience at the car park – poor surface and lighting

12. A number of potential measures were identified that could address these issues: Location of the car park – relocate the service to the main north car park Facilities – better lighting, better buses Lockers or storage facilities in the town centre so Park & Ride (and other public transport users) can leave their shopping bags rather than carry them round all day Increasing the marketing budget back to the levels it was in 2006/7 when passenger numbers were at their peak CWoA were approached regarding the car park. Their promotion of their own Christmas offer has meant greater use of the main car park by their customers. The funding constraints mean that the improvements cannot be achieved at this time.

C4 13. TfL London Buses generally invite tenders and award contracts for a 5 year period with the potential to extend to 7 years based on performance. In the case of the K50, this is generally tendered for a 5 year period. The last contract expired with the 2013 Christmas service. TfL contacted the Council in October 2013 to seek agreement on the arrangements for the next contract so that the tender process could be planned.

14. TfL said that due to the ongoing funding constraints, they would be prepared to tender the K50 service for a minimum of 3 years but this would be dependent on RBK having secured the funding for a minimum of 3 years. Alternatively, TfL could tender on the basis of 5 years with a break clause at 3 years. TfL would not be prepared to tender the route on an annual basis. In terms of timescales, TfL require a minimum of 6 months lead time to complete the tender and contract process. Ultimately, TfL in fact tendered the service in Spring 2014 for a three year period, with the opportunity to cancel after 2 years with the understanding that RBK commit to providing their contribution to the funding over the same period. TfL have not yet committed to run the service so it is possible to withdraw without penalty.

15. The results of this re-tendering have shown an increase in the annual operating cost to - £234k - an increase of 11% - which will be shared equally between TfL and RBK once fare income is deducted

The full P & R service statistics for recent years are shown in ANNEX 2. The service has experienced a steady decline in usage over the last few years:

16. To keep costs under control, the service has been reduced from 10 weeks (in 2009) down to 7 weeks (in 2013), so that it now covers two weeks in November, all of December and the first week of January only. This, coupled with continued rises in fares in line with TfL’s cash single bus fare, has seen daily incomes from the service remain at the same level, around £1k per day. It should be noted that TfL have now stopped cash payment on buses. However, TfL have agreed that this service may continue as the only cash service in London.

C5 17. Kingston First decided to reduce their contribution to £5K in 2012 (matching the reduced RBK publicity budget for the scheme). Despite requests to increase these contributions to previous levels, Kingston First are not willing to provide more funding. They state reduced usage and an absence of action by the Council to promote additional usage as the reason, feeling that a larger contribution cannot be justified as providing value for money.

18. A further concern highlighted for the operation of the service in 2014 is the potential impact of the major re-construction works planned by TfL for the Malden Rushett junction of A243/Rushett Lane/Fairoak Lane. Whilst it is noted that the entrance to the explorer car park is over 400 metres north of the junction, it is likely that there will be an increase in congestion associated with the delivery of the road works which could impact on the timetabling and journey times for the service.

19. TfL have also advised that the methodology for carrying out the road works will involve full closures of the side road junctions of both Rushett Lane and Fairoak Lane, with the A243, each phase lasting for approximately 6 weeks. The current phasing is for the Rushett Lane works to be carried out between November and mid December. This will have a secondary impact as a large proportion of service users normally approach the CWoA car park along Rushett Lane, with approximately 31% of users coming from Epsom-Ewell area.

Options 20. Two options are available to the Committee – provide additional financial support for the scheme, or discontinue the service. Resource Implications 21. RBK’s contribution to the scheme has previously been funded from the Bus Lane Enforcement Account (BLEA) Surplus, with an annual allocation of £87k over the last several years. P & R has been a standing item for funding through the bus lane enforcement account and has been in the base budget revenue spend from this account for a number of years. In February 2013’s report to Executive setting out the Medium term financial plan, an allocation of £87k is included for P & R through to the end of 2015/16 (i.e. for the next 2 years). As highlighted above the overall costs of the service have increased, resulting in a budget pressure of at least £23,000, based on predicted usage levels (full details are provided in ANNEX 2). This could be higher if user numbers and ticket sales again drop. If the service were to continue then the expectetation is that the additional cost would require funding from the Bus Lane Enforcement Account surplus.

22. Kingston First were asked what level of funding they could commit to the service in future if the service continues. They confirmed that match funding of £5,000 would be provided for marketing and publicity, but as stated above they were not prepared to increase their level of financial support . Chessington World of Adventures have confirmed their willingness to continue to host the P & R service free of charge. Legal Implications 23. There are no legal implications associated with this report.

Risk Assessment

C6 24. If the service is discontinued, there may be a reputational risk for RBK being seen as not fully supporting the sustainable transport agenda. However trying to accurately evaluate the true environmental benefits would be very difficult. The economic reality is that the service is highly subsidised and usage is in decline.

25. There is also a risk associated with the operation of the service whilst the major road works are being carried out at the Malden Rushett, as detailed above. There are two issues, one relating to the general congestion and the impact on the journey times; and the other on the reduced accessibility to the site due to road closures.

26. If the service is discontinued, the 415 (average, see ANNEX 2 ) people per day currently using the service to visit Kingston might decide to go elsewhere, or might choose to travel to Kingston by car instead. It is difficult to predict where they might go to shop, but in traffic capacity terms, if they chose to drive to Kingston instead, it is anticipated that the extra traffic in Kingston town centre would hardly be noticed. There are permanent traffic counters in place that will allow Officer’s to monitor this. When the scheme was at its peak there were constant queues at Kingston town centre car parks leading up to Christmas making P & R a very attractive option. The decline in P & R usage seems to have coincided with much less queuing at car parks.

27. Whilst discussions, described above, have been held with stakeholders (London Buses, Kingston First, Chessington World of Adventures etc.) on the provision, viability and value for money of the service, the possibility of discontinuing the service altogether has not been widely publicised to service users or Neighbourhoods. There is therefore a risk that discontinuing the service might provoke some local opposition. However due to the recent decline in service usage any opposition would be less than it would have been when the service was at its peak.

28. In discussions with some town centre stakeholders, it became apparent that some businesses would support a permanent P & R scheme to pick up their customer catchment along the M3 corridor. If a permanent P & R scheme was to be pursued in future (e.g. as part of Kingston Futures), keeping the seasonal scheme going might keep P & R on the agenda until a thorough study of a permanent scheme is concluded. As part of the redevelopment proposals in Kingston town centre, a movement study has been commissioned. The outcome of the study would inform any further consideration of P & R. Equalities Impact Assessment

1. The P & R service is operated by TfL London Buses in line with the requirements for all of their bus services across London including accessible buses. The scheme provides specific parking spaces close to the bus stops at CWoA for customers with Blue Badges. The bus stop in Kingston town centre meets accessibility standards.

2. Customers are charged to use the bus service but not to park at CWoA. TfL has provided the following statement on the fare policy.

“The seasonal P & Ride service between CWoA and Kingston town centre does not form part of the main London bus network and is jointly supported by TfL and RBK as part of the Borough's strategy to reduce car traffic in the town centre during the busy Christmas shopping period. Given the special nature of this jointly funded service, a different fares policy applies and only cash fares are accepted. TfL C7 provides a high frequency direct bus service 71 between CWoA and Kingston town centre on which all usual tickets including Freedom Passes, Oysters and Travelcards are valid.”

Environmental Implications

29. The P & R service enables people to complete their journey to Kingston town centre by bus from the car park at CWoA. The extent of the reduced car mileage will be different for each vehicle depending on the origin of their journey and their destination following use of the service. The Council endeavours each year to avoid any planned works on the highway network during the Christmas period and in particular on the P & R route throughout the duration of the service to minimise bus journey times.

Background papers – held by Liam Judge – 020 8547 5901 , e-mail: [email protected]

Author of report – Viv Evans, Head of Planning and Transport

List of reports/documents

Executive 13 May 2003 Appendix E Policy and Resources Committee 14 February 2013 Appendix D Council 26 February 2013 Appendix A Park & Ride service usage statistics Market Research report Policy & Resources Committee, February 2014 Appendix A Budget Council, February 2014 Appendix A

C8 ANNEX 2

PARK AND RIDE - USAGE FIGURES AND COSTS 2006/07 - 2013/14

2014/15 ANNUAL USAGE, TICKET SALES AND INCOME 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 (Est) No of Days Service Ran 68 68 68 69 58 61 54 47 47 Total Tickets Sold 53665 52674 47115 38305 33369 28275 24037 19488 16,656 %age decrease in tickets sales year on year -2% -11% -19% -13% -15% -15% -19% 15% Ticket Sale Income £80,498 £79,011 £70,673 £76,610 £66,738 £62,205 £55,285 £46,771 41,641 %age decrease in tickets sale income year on year -2% -11% 8% -13% -7% -11% -15% 11% Average Daily Use 789 775 693 555 575 464 445 415 354 %age decrease in daily use year on year -2% -11% -20% 4% -19% -4% -7% -15% Days with over 1,000 tickets sold 18 17 11 7 4 2 0 0 0 Net Cost to Council £70,251 £68,884 £72,074 £85,711 £75,084 £93,973 £82,501 £92,462 £110,430 C9 D1 Appendix D Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee 11 September 2014 Additional Planned Highway Maintenance 2014-15 Report by Director of Place

Purpose

To agree the programme of additional planned highway maintenance works for 2014-15.

Recommendations of the Lead Member for Environment and Transport

To RESOLVE that

1. the list of schemes (Annex 1) to be undertaken as part of the additional programme of planned highway maintenance works 2014-15 be approved; and

2. the current status of schemes from the 2014-15 planned highway maintenance programme (Annex 2) be noted.

Key Points

A. The Policy and Finance Committee resolved on 3 June 2014 to use £1m from the On Street Parking Account to fund additional planned highways maintenance work. B. The additional programme of planned highway maintenance works will facilitate improvements to a further 23 carriageways and 12 footways borough-wide during 2014/15. C. If the proposed list of carriageways and footways is agreed by Committee in September, works will take place from October 2014 and will be complete by March 2015.

Context 1. The ongoing 2014-15 planned highway maintenance programme of works is scheduled to be completed in November 2014. 2. The proposed £1m additional programme of planned highway maintenance works (ANNEX 1) will facilitate improvements to a further 23 carriageways and 12 footways borough-wide. 3. This will increase the expected life of the carriageways and footways, improve the overall condition of the highway network, reduce the number of defects forming and the associated risk of public liability claims. 4. The proposed programme of carriageway and footway schemes is based on nationally accepted technical assessment processes to ensure that the Council achieves a best value investment in Kingston’s highway assets. 5. The carriageways and footways to be included in the proposed additional programme of works have been determined using information from: • 2014 condition data collated by an independent Highway Asset Survey company. The condition data was collected using a standard visual condition survey which allows relative priority assessment comparisons to be made for carriageways and footways. D2

• In addition, initial on-site inspections and assessments by Officers took place to determine appropriate surface treatments, estimated costs, extent of works and relative priority for each carriageway and footway within each category.

6. Using this approach, carriageways and footways have been assigned into categories of condition with associated estimated costs to remedy the issues observed at each location. This has facilitated the lists included in Annex 1. 7. It is recommended that all of the “worst condition” carriageways (i.e. Categories 1, 2 and 3) are completed immediately at a cost of £550,000, and that the selected “worst first” list of footways are completed at a cost of £450,000. 8. The only amendment to the use of the “worst first” approach is in regard to footways, where repairs to Mayfair Avenue in Maldens & Coombe have been deferred until 2015/16 as a result of the significant estimated cost of this work (£170K). This facilitates a more balanced share of funding between carriageways and footways, and between Neighbourhoods. 9. In the interim the condition of Mayfair Avenue will be closely monitored and any defects that reach the Council’s intervention levels will be repaired.

10. The proposed split of costs between carriageways, footways and by Neighbourhood is shown below in table 1.

Proposed spend on Proposed spend on Proposed spend Neighbourhood ROADS FOOTPATHS TOTAL Kingston Town £220K £15K £235K Maldens & Coombe £160K £235K £395K South of the Borough £55K £160K £215K Surbiton £115K £40K £155K TOTAL £550K £450K £1,000K Table 1. Proposed approach to use of additional £1m funding for highways maintenance.

11. The Committee is also requested to note the progress with the 2014/15 programme of planned highway maintenance works in ANNEX 2.

Options

12. The proposed approach to the use of the additional £1m is outlined above. . Consultations

13. As per normal practice, residents will be informed if it is estimated that any significant disruption will be caused by the works proposed.

Timescale

14. Works will be scheduled to commence as soon as practicable. 3 months notification is required on all planned carriageway and footway schemes to ensure Section 58 protection that prevents the street from being dug up within a short while of being resurfaced or reconstructed. It is therefore envisaged that the works will be undertaken during the period October 2014 to March 2015. 15. The actual timing of the works will be determined and co-ordinated with other activities such as statutory undertakers planned works, school holidays and other relevant events as part of the Council’s network management duties. Prolonged D3 periods of very wet or cold weather may significantly impact the programme. This may result in some schemes needing to be delayed to next financial year. 16. The Council’s partnering contractor, EM, has given assurances that the necessary internal and supply chain resources are available to complete this programme of works in addition to the current approved highway maintenance and Local Implementation Plan schemes. 17. The programme of schemes will be regularly updated on the Council’s website.

Resource Implications

18. The Policy & Finance Committee resolved on 3 rd June 2014 to use £1m from the On Street Parking Account to fund additional planned highways maintenance work.

Legal Implications

19. The Highway Authority has a duty, under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, to maintain the highways for which they are responsible.

20. If a person believes he/she has suffered damage as a result of a failure to maintain the highway, the Highways Authority has a defence if it proves that it “had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the part of the highway to which the action relates was not dangerous for traffic”.

Risk Assessment

21. Third Party claims against the Council as highway authority can be for either personal injury accidents or damage to personal property such as cars, clothing or premises, or a nuisance caused or permitted by the Council. 22. The proposed highway improvement schemes will reduce the risk of third party public liability insurance claims against the Council caused by alleged defects in the publicly maintainable highway.

Equalities Impact Assessment

23. There are no direct or significant impacts. The proposed programme of carriageway and footway improvements will benefit all users of the highway.

Environment Implications

24. Road works often produces waste material. Every effort is being made by the Council’s partnering contractor, EM, to find effective ways of recycling this waste into acceptable materials that can be reused to exceed the LoHAC target of 95% of construction and demolition waste reused or recycled.

Network Implications

25. If the highway network is allowed to deteriorate there will be considerable congestion caused by increased amounts of emergency responsive maintenance. Attention is given to the planning and coordination of all highways works to minimise disruption and congestion.

Background papers – held by author of the report, Dalton Cenac, Service Manager (Street Services), email: [email protected] tel 020 8547 5895 D4 ANNEX 1 Carriageways and Footways proposed for inclusion in Additional programme

Additional Programme of Priority Carriageways (Cat 1&2) Additional Programme of Priority Carriageways (Cat 3) 2014/15 - Boroughwide 2014/15 - Boroughwide

Road Name Priority Neighbourhood Cost £K Road Name Priority Neighbourhood Cost £K Gosbury Hill 1 SotB 10 Beconsfield Road 1 Surb 45 Rickards Close 2 Surb 10 Cricketers Close 2 SotB 10 York Road 3 KT 40 Grasmere Ave 3 M&C 25 Lowther Road 4 KT 30 Ely Close 4 M&C 10 Dagmar Road 5 KT 10 Drake Road 5 SotB 15 Dennan Road 6 Surb 25 McDonough Close 6 SotB 10 Gloucester Road 7 M&C 10 Garth Road 7 KT 15 Iris Close 8 Surb 15 Alderbrook Drive 8 KT 15 Wood Street 9 KT 100 Heathcoat Close 9 KT 10 Kirrane Close (Part) 10 M&C 20 The Byeways 10 Surb 20 Orchard Avenue 11 M&C 80 The Green 11 M&C 15 Cat 1&2 Total 350 Green Lane 12 SotB 10 Category 3 Total 200

Additional Programme of Priority Carriageways (Cat 1&2) Additional Programme of Priority Carriageways (Cat 3) 2014/15 - Neighbourhood 2014/15 - Neighbourhood

Road Name Priority Neighbourhood Cost £K Road Name Priority Neighbourhood Cost £K York Road 3 KT 40 Heathcoat Close 9 KT 10 Lowther Road 4 KT 30 Alderbrook Drive 8 KT 15 Dagmar Road 5 KT 10 Garth Road 7 KT 15 Wood Street 9 KT 100 KT Total 40 KT Total 180 Ely Close 4 M&C 10 Gloucester Road 7 M&C 10 The Green 11 M&C 15 Kirrane Close (Part) 10 M&C 20 Grasmere Ave 3 M&C 25 Orchard Avenue 11 M&C 80 M&C Total 50 M&C Total 110 McDonough Close 6 SotB 10 Gosbury Hill 1 SotB 10 Green Lane 12 SotB 10 SotB Total 10 Drake Road 5 SotB 15 Cricketers Close 2 SotB 10 Rickards Close 2 Surb 10 SotB Total 45 Dennan Road 6 Surb 25 Iris Close 8 Surb 15 The Byeways 10 Surb 20 Surb Total 50 Beaconsfield Road 1 Surb 45 Surb Total 65 Cat 1&2 Total 350 Category 3 Total 200 D5 ANNEX 1 Carriageways and Footways proposed for inclusion in Additional programme

Additional Priority Footway Schemes (Cat 1) 2014/15 - Boroughwide

Road Name Priority Neighbourhood Cost £K Cromford Way 1 M&C 90 Muybridge Road 3 M&C 80 Leyfield (various sections) 4 M&C 60 Moorfield Road 5 SotB 40 Sussex Place (part) 6 M&C 5 Sussex Gardens 7 SotB 40 North Road (various sections) 8 Surb 20 Oakhill Grove (various sections) 9 Surb 5 Union Street (East side only) 10 KT 15 Southcote Avenue 11 Surb 15 Oakcroft Villas (odd number side) 12 SotB 30 Herne Road (odd side) 13 SotB 50 Total 450

Additional Priority Footway Schemes (Cat 1) 2014/15 - Neighbourhood

Road Name Priority Neighbourhood Cost £K Union Street (East side only) 10 KT 15 KT Total 15

Cromford Way 1 M&C 90 Muybridge Road 3 M&C 80 Leyfield (various sections) 4 M&C 60 Sussex Place (part) 6 M&C 5 M&C Total 235

Moorfield Road 5 SotB 40 Sussex Gardens 7 SotB 40 Oakcroft Villas (odd number side) 12 SotB 30 Herne Road (odd side) 13 SotB 50 SotB Total 160

North Road (various sections) 8 Surb 20 Oakhill Grove (various scetions) 9 Surb 5 Southcote Avenue 11 Surb 15 Surb Total 40

Total 450

D6 ANNEX 2

Progress of the 2014/15 programme of planned highway maintenance works.

KINGSTON TOWN NEIGHBOURHOOD

Location C’way F’way Programmed Status of Works Works Start Date Works Anglesea Road – whole road ü Completed Cardinal Avenue - patching ü Completed Dukes Avenue – Richmond Road ü Completed to number 28 Elm Road – Central Lane ü Completed (running lane) Elton Road – Park Road to Clifton ü Completed Road Gloucester Road – Cambridge ü 20/09/2014 Road to Porchester Road Hawks Road – junction with ü Completed Villiers Road Herbert Road – whole road ü Completed Kings Road – Park Road to ü Completed number 191 Richmond Park Road – full length ü Completed (centre lane only) Richmond Road – Sopwith Way ü Completed to St Albans Road Villiers Road – from Hawks Road ü Completed to Villiers Avenue Vincent Road – whole road ü 19/09/2014 Cambridge Rd – London Rd to ü Oct/Nov j/w Hawks Rd Warren Rd – from Coombe Lane ü Completed West to past junction of Edgecoombe Close East Road – odd side only ü 08/09/2014 Fife Road – Dolphin Street to ü 01/03/2015 Wood Street Kings Road – Richmond Road to ü 14/07/2014 In progress Park Road (various sections) Lower Ham Road – Bank Lane to ü 24/07/2014 In progress Half Mile Tree

D7

MALDENS & COOMBE NEIGHBOURHOOD

Location C’way F’way Programmed Status of Works Works Start Date Works Ashcombe Square – number 92 ü 17/09/2014 to j/w Mount Pleasant Road Crescent Road – from Kingston ü 18/10/2014 Hill to second road hump Kingsnympton Park – Crescent ü 18/10/2014 Road to ‘T’ junction Manor Drive North – ü Completed Sheephouse Way to Church Lane Mount Pleasant Road – section ü Completed from number 53 to Elm Road South Park Grove – Franks ü 18/09/2014 Avenue to junction of Green Lane The Manor Drive – Church Lane ü Completed to Paddock Close (including roundabout) Cambridge Avenue – whole ü 08/09/2014 road Chestnut Grove ü Completed Darley Drive – opposite School ü 11/08/2014 In progress and outside School Derwent Avenue – whole road ü 08/09/2014 Lawn Close (Part) ü Completed Malden Hill Gardens – whole ü 02/06/2014 Completed road South Lane ü Completed

D8

SOUTH of the BOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD

Location C’way F’way Programmed Status of Works Works Start Date Works Fairoak Lane – Leatherhead ü 01/03/2015 Road to Woodview Hook Road Service Road ü Sept/Oct Moor Lane – Church Road ü Completed roundabout Mount Road – Cox Lane to ü Oct/Nov number 169 Rushett Lane – boundary to ü 01/03/2015 Leatherhead Road Hawkhurst Gardens (Whole) ü 11/08/2014 In Progress Hereford Way – one side only ü Completed (Ripon Gdns to Hartfield Rd) – various sections Herne Road – odd side only ü 15/09/2014 Sanger Avenue – second ü 14/07/2014 In Progress section (from 33-35 to 97 St Georges Gardens ü Completed Tolworth Road – junction with ü Completed Kent Way to Hook Road

D9

SURBITON NEIGHBOURHOOD

Location C’way F’way Programmed Status of Works Works Start Date Works Avenue South – whole road ü 16/09/2014 Elgar Avenue – Highfield Road ü Completed to Raeburn Avenue Elmbridge Avenue – from ü Completed junction Surbiton Hill Park to Tolworth Rise North Glenbuck Road – South Bank to ü Completed junction Oakhill Grove King Charles Road – Alexandra ü 15/09/2014 Drive to zebra crossing (between speed tables) to Derby Road South Bank – junction of Ewell ü Completed Rd to junction Glenbuck Rd Villiers Avenue – from junction ü Completed Cheyne Hill to Burney Avenue Ewell Rd – Tolworth Broadway ü Oct/Nov to Lamberts Rd (3 sections) Hook Rd – A3 to Upper Brighton ü Oct/Nov Rd (various sections) Corkran Road – Odd side only ü 14/07/2014 Completed Ditton Road – junction with ü Completed Upper Brighton Road Herne Road – even side only ü TBC St Andrews Square – around ü Completed Park area The Ridings – Even side only ü Completed

E1 Appendix E

Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee 11 September 2014

RBK mini-Holland Programme Business Case Report by Director of Place

Purpose To agree (in principle) to the RBK mini-Holland programme (m-Hp). To authorise the Director of Place to submit the business case content to Transport for London for inclusion in their overall TfL Business Case for the Mayor of London’s (MoL) mini-Holland Programme.

Recommendations of the Lead Member for Environment and Transport

To RESOLVE that

1. The RBK mini-Holland programme business case (Annex 1) be approved.

2. The submission of the Case with or without amendments to Transport for London (TfL) be approved.

3. That the Committee notes that the m-Hp Business Case has been sent to TfL in August, so as to meet TfL’s overall business case drafting timetable, subject to final approval of this Committee, as was agreed by the m-HP Member Officer Board on the 31 st July 2014.

4. That the commencement of design and approvals work on the Early Start schemes in preparation for implementation commencing April 2015 is approved.

Key Points

A The business case establishes the economic justification for allocating Transport for London (TfL) funding to deliver a range of schemes together known as RBK mini- Holland programme. These include both ‘landmark’ (off-highway schemes such as the station plaza, tracks and greenways) and ‘network’ (on-highway routes principally for transport), together with complementary measures (training, information and bike related business). Subsequent to the preparation of the business case, consultation with TfL has indicated that no additional funding is available for risk and inflation. See paragraphs 10 and 11 below. Additionally, early feedback on the business case been requested from TfL. These matters are being assembled into an Addendum to the Business Case and this will be issued to the Committee, to follow the agenda and reports.

E2

Context 1. In March 2014 the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames was chosen to receive funding through the Mayor of London’s mini-Hollands programme to encourage and stimulate more cycling. The Borough wants to ensure that the programme investment also provides benefits to all residents and businesses in the borough. Programme Objectives and Alignment to RBK Strategy 2. The Borough’s vision for cycling is a vision for everyone, benefiting all road users, not just cyclists. Its aim is to reduce congestion by encouraging more people to cycle, freeing up road space for those making journeys for which the car or bus is the only sensible option. It is to improve relations between cyclists, drivers and pedestrians through innovative design that caters for the needs of all road users. In contributing to the delivery of this vision, the mini-Holland programme has six key objectives:

Transform the environment for cycling in the borough. Reduce congestion and smooth the flow of traffic. Improve the level of satisfaction with cycling infrastructure. Improve the safety of all road users. Through cycling related investment, improve the quality of the public realm. Support the vitality and viability of our town, district and local centres.

3. The Kingston mini-Holland programme is strongly linked with plans for the Kingston Town Centre (in particular Kingston Futures and the Kingston Town Centre Movement Study), helping to achieve and facilitate the aspirations for this area that will benefit all town centre users. RBK m-H Programme will also play a key role in delivering existing wider local and regional objectives including key objectives of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, the Mayor’s Cycling Vision and The Kingston Plan; to support economic vitality, development and population growth; protect and improve the quality of the local environment; improve safety and security for all; and improve the access, connections and resilience of the transport network. Need for Investment 4. Kingston has the third highest mode share of cycling in outer London (ref ‘travel in London TfL data’ published August 2014 which updates the previous position in which Kingston had the second-highest level of cycling in Outer London). The borough is relatively flat and already has some good cycle facilities and infrastructure. However, this mode-share is constrained by factors including in particular the quality and consistency of most cycle provision across the borough.

5. There are also other challenges that include: transport congestion, both on roads and public transport; and looking forward, there are expected to be over 5000 new dwellings built in the borough over the next decade or so, attracting in the region of 12,500 additional residents, served by a rapidly expanding town centre offer and more generally commensurate additional employment and education facilities, all of which will generate more demand for travel.

E3

6. This significant level of growth will increase demand for travel on the borough’s transport networks. In the context of rapidly rising demand and the need for travel demand management responses that minimise any reduction in journey time reliability for all modes, it is vital that the person carrying capacity of the road network is maximised by making more efficient use of the finite amount of highway space that is available. The mini-Holland programme clearly aligns with this. The mini-Holland funding will therefore unlock evident but untapped cycling potential through implementation of consistent, high quality cycle infrastructure improvements borough wide.

7. The estimated modal split change (the increase in the number of cycle journeys) resulting from m-H programme delivery is a matter that is being discussed with TfL for inclusion in modelling of impacts. This estimated modal split change discussions with TfL will be reported to Members as the Borough Wide Movement study and individual m-H schemes are brought to Committee. Scheme Selection 8. The current list of schemes that form the mini-Holland programme has been refined over time to form a coherent package, including gaining a better understanding of the costs and delivery challenges for each scheme. The key factors that were considered are:

Deliverability – if the scheme could be delivered within the available funding timescales. Whether the scheme would be supported.

Diversity – a mixture of landmark, network and complementary measures to combine to make a coherent programme of investment, giving support to all users.

Supporting strategic objectives – contribution of the scheme towards the programme objectives.

Connectivity – improvements to the cycling journey and provision of a comprehensive network, with routes prioritised based on the availability of parallel Quietway routes and the strategic importance of links.

9. The table below lists the schemes included in the programme.

Length (for linear Cost Scheme name Scheme type schemes) (£’000) Landmark schemes [LM]

Early start schemes Kingston Enterprise Hub / Kingston LM.1a Off-road N/A £1,574 station access (interim scheme) Other schemes Kingston station cycle hub + Kingston LM.1 Off-road scheme £6,293 station plaza (full scheme) LM.2 Wheatfield Way Greenway Segregated facility 0.8km £2,490 LM.3 Riverside Boardway Off-road 0.8km £5,728 Core section: 1.1km LM.4 New Malden to Raynes Park link Off-road Additional section: £1,933 0.8km Network schemes [NW]

E4

Early start schemes On-road, semi- NW.1 Kingston Hill / Kingston Vale (A308) 3.6km £3,085 segregated Interim local connectivity to Kingston NW.1a On-road, quietway 0.9km £488 town centre NW.2 Local connectivity: to Kingston Bridge On-road, quietway 0.3km £163 Segregated / semi- NW.3 Portsmouth Road north + south (A307) 1.6km £1,373 segregated facility NW.3a Local connectivity to Portsmouth Road On-road, quietway 0.3km £163 Other schemes On road, semi- NW.4 Kingston to Surbiton segregated facility / 1.7km £1,533 quietway Cambridge Road / Kingston Road On road, semi- NW.5 2.8km £3,205 (A2043) segregated Local connectivity: Kingston Hill / On-road, semi- NW.5a 0.9km £812 London Road segregated / quietway On-road, semi- NW.6 Ewell Road (A240) 2.5km £2,255 segregated Local connectivity: St Mark's Hill NW.6a On-road, quietway 0.4km £217 (B3370) Supporting measures [SM] Early start and ongoing schemes SM.1 Complementary measures Supporting measures N/A £1,135 Mini-Holland Programme Programme preparation costs to date £300 TOTAL COST £32,747

Cost 10. The base cost estimate in the business case for the programme is £39.89 million (in 2013 prices), which includes a 22% allowance for risk, as a full quantified risk assessment has not been undertaken at this point. Taking inflation into account, the outturn scheme cost for the mini-Holland programme is currently estimated at £44.21 million. This exceeds the currently allocated funding (from TfL) of £34.7M. This matter has been raised with TfL. It is proposed by TfL that the risk allocation of 22% in the base cost estimate should be reduced to 15% reducing the base cost before inflation to £37.6M. Hence the current revised out-turn cost has been reduced to £41.7M including inflation, and a funding gap of £7M remains. Such a funding gap at this initiation stage can be managed within the programme delivery stage. The programme is now commencing the task “Risk Management Planning (full quantified risk assessment) and Value Engineering”. This is anticipated to take 4 months approximately during which time the costs and timescales will be critically reviewed and developed.

11. This review may require that in some areas the scope of projects will be revised. As part of this review the objective will be to ensure that the connectivity of the routes and nodes, from trip origins to destinations will be maintained. In this way the benefits of the m-H programme overall will remain approximately proportionate to the costs and the stated business case (BCR) will be maintained. The Member Officer Board has suggested that if de-scoping is necessary for any reason, the connectivity to the town centre is to be secured. This will be emphasised in the scoping review.

E5

Benefits 12. The investment will contribute to increasing the overall capacity of the transport network in a cost effective manner to facilitate and enable the network to future economic and population growth in the borough. This means that the mini-Holland investment will enable Kingston to accommodate growth in a way that puts less pressure on the existing public transport and road networks by recognising the important role that cycling can and should play in the transport mix. It will therefore help to unlock the borough’s development potential.

13. The investment aims to result in more residents and visitors travelling by bicycle. The targets are to increase the level of cycling in the borough by 80% in the first three years of the programme and by 400% within 10 years of the programme delivery commencing. The mini-Holland programme will focus on delivering improvements that enable all people to start cycling. The schemes will support new cyclists who are representative of the people who live, work and study in Kingston.

14. More people cycling to town centres rather than driving will reduce town centre congestion, release car parking spaces, and reduce pressure on public transport. Adding cycle parking in town centres will encourage more people to shop locally rather than going further afield, helping local businesses and increasing the variety of shops and services.

15. The mini-Holland programme will transform the quality of roads and public spaces. Pavements adjacent to the new cycle lanes and tracks will be improved while those lanes and tracks will separate bikes, pedestrians and motor vehicles, making travel more comfortable. Pavements will be levelled to make access by wheelchairs and those with sensory impairments easier. In places, zebra crossings will be required to address the loss of informal refuges and this will give pedestrians greater safety and priority when crossing the road. Assessment 16. The business case analysis has assessed two cycling mode share scenarios against a future baseline (without the m-H programme) with a cycling mode share of 7.0% by 2026:

Low impact scenario – cycling mode share in the core catchment area will reach 10% by 2026.

High impact scenario – cycling mode share in the core catchment area will reach 15% by 2026.

17. The benefits assessed include user benefits – benefits perceived by existing cyclists and those who change mode from car to non-car modes of transport; externality benefits – benefits that affect other road users who remain on the road as a result of reduced car use (these include decongestion, collision savings, local air quality etc.); and health and absenteeism benefits.

18. The assessment shows that the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is between 2.5:1 and 5.2:1. This means that for every £1 invested there is more than £2.50 returned in benefits. In accordance to the Department for Transport’s value for money

E6

assessment criteria, the programme is considered between high and very high value for money, and significantly in excess of TfL’s threshold of 1.5:1.

19. On this basis, it would be fair to say that investment in cycling as proposed would represent an investment to produce significant financial savings to the public purse that amount to more than double the proposed expenditure. Delivery programme 20. A detailed programme is provided in the business case at Appendix B. The delivery programme covers the period from June 2014 to June 2018, which is a period of 49 months.

21. Grant funding will be provided by Transport for London. Other sources of funding contributing to the delivery of the investment includes LIP funding (for delivery of routes that complement the main mini-Holland programme); extracting value from routine maintenance programmes; and possible opportunities for Section 106 funding.

Consultations 22. Stakeholder engagement activities were undertaken as part of the expression of interest and successful bidding process. The range of schemes comprising the mini-Holland programme includes suggestions from stakeholder groups. Timescale 23. Transport for London requested advance submission of the business case, subject to approval. This was agreed by the m-Hp Member Officer Board. The Director of Place will amend the plan if and as required for final approved submission. The TfL composite business case for the three London boroughs with approved funding will be submitted to the October Surface Board of TfL. Resource Implications 24. Funding for the preparation of the business plan has been derived from a grant of £700,000 received from Transport for London in April 2014. Officer time and consultant resources have been directly funded from this grant to allow the preparation of the early start (April 2015) schemes. 25. In the event of an unforeseen projected overspend on any of the schemes, RBK will not be liable to close the funding gap; instead individual projects may be stepped down or additional funding secured from Transport for London. Legal Implications

26. The legal implications will be assessed in the development of each of the schemes that have been appraised in this programme business case. At that stage all internal stakeholders will be consulted, including the Head of Legal Services, and their advice incorporated into the committee approval report. Risk Assessment 27. Failure to agree and submit the mini-Holland business case would most likely result in the programme not being funded. Equalities Impact Assessment

E7

28. A strategic equalities impact assessment was undertaken as part of the successful bidding process and a commitment has been made to further work. More detailed assessments will be undertaken as required.

Network Implications

29. The network implications will be assessed in the development of each of the schemes that have been appraised in this programme business case. At that stage all internal stakeholders will be consulted, including the Traffic Manager, and their advice incorporated into the committee approval report.

30. Author of report – Director Place

31. Background papers – held by author/other - Peter Treadgold m-H Programme Manager [email protected]

E8

Kingston mini-Holland Royal Borough of Kingston upon

Programme Outline Thames

Business Case

Report v7.0 Our ref: 22717901

July 2014

E9 E10

Kingston mini-Holland Royal Borough of Kingston upon

Programme Outline Thames Business Case

Report v7.0 Our ref: 22717901

July 2014

Prepared by: Prepared for:

Steer Davies Gleave Royal Borough of Kingston upon 28-32 Upper Ground Thames London SE1 9PD Guildhall 2 High Street Kingston upon Thames KT1 1EU

+44 (0)20 7910 5000 www.steerdaviesgleave.com

Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this work for Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. This work may only be used within the context and scope of work for which Steer Davies Gleave was commissioned and may not be relied upon in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any part of this work without the express and written permission of Steer Davies Gleave shall be deemed to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer Davies Gleave for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this work using professional practices and procedures using information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the results and conclusions made. E11

Contents

Executive Summary ...... i Programme Objectives and Strategic Fit ...... i Need for Investment ...... i Scheme Description ...... ii Costs ...... iii Benefits ...... iii Assessment ...... iv Delivery programme ...... iv

1 Introduction ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Assumptions and Limitations...... 2

2 Scheme Objectives and Fit with Strategy ...... 3 Scheme Objectives ...... 3 Assessment against Strategy ...... 4 Need for Improvement ...... 15 Constraints and Dependencies ...... 24

3 Scheme Development and Description ...... 27 Scheme Development ...... 27 Scheme Description ...... 36 Scheme Illustrations ...... 42 Needs and Issues Addressed ...... 46

4 Scheme Costs ...... 47 Introduction ...... 47 Approach to Costing ...... 47 Updated Scheme Costs ...... 49 Operating, Maintenance and Renewal Costs ...... 52

5 Strategic Benefits ...... 54 Key Strategic Benefits ...... 54 Summary of Strategic Benefits against Objectives ...... 57

July 2014 E12

Summary of Strategic Benefits by User Group ...... 58

6 Economic Case...... 60 Overview and Assessment Methodology ...... 60 Cycling Demand and Characteristics ...... 60 Scenarios Assessed ...... 62 Target Demand Impacts ...... 63 Conventional Benefits ...... 64 Value for Money Assessment ...... 70 Sensitivity Testing ...... 72

7 Wider Benefits ...... 73 Wider Economic Benefits ...... 73 Urban Realm ...... 74

8 Delivery ...... 75 Funding ...... 75 Programme ...... 75 Risk Management ...... 76 Project Governance ...... 77 Benefits Realisation ...... 79 Monitoring Programme ...... 80

Figures Figure 2.1: Cycling Potential in London ...... 4 Figure 2.2: LTDS Average daily journey stages made within 3km of Kingston town centre by mode and journey time band (2010 to 2012 average) ...... 15 Figure 2.3: Current traffic congestion across the borough (7am-10am) ...... 17 Figure 2.4: PTALs across the borough...... 17 Figure 2.5: Core Strategy – delivery of housing ...... 20 Figure 2.6: Major developments in Kingston...... 21 Figure 2.7: Cycle flows and casualties in Kingston, 2001–2013 ...... 23 Figure 2.8: Proposed Crossrail 2 Route...... 26 Figure 3.1: Scheme map ...... 41

July 2014 E13

Figure 3.2: LM.1 Kingston Enterprise Hub and Kinston station plaza ...... 42 Figure 3.3: LM.3 Riverside Boardway ...... 42 Figure 3.4: LM.4 New Malden to Raynes Park link ...... 43 Figure 3.5: NW.3 Portsmouth Road ...... 43 Figure 3.6: NW.4 Kingston to Surbiton - Claremont Road ...... 44 Figure 3.7: NW.5 Cambridge Road / Kingston Road – Kingston Road ...... 44 Figure 3.8: NW.5 Cambridge Road / Kingston Road - Fountain Roundabout ...... 45 Figure 4.1: Process for estimating components of development & delivery costs in the Stage II bid ...... 48 Figure 6.1: Current, future baseline and with programme cycling demand (cycle trips per day) and mode share within 3km of Kingston town centre ...... 63 Figure 6.2: Average benefit per cycle trip assumed in the business case ...... 66 Figure 6.3: Breakdown of benefits over the 30-year appraisal period ...... 71 Figure 8.1: Kingston mini-Holland programme governance...... 78 Appendix Figure C.1: Mini-Holland programme scheme costs ...... 9

Tables Table 2.1: Assessment parameters ...... 6 Table 2.2: Assessment against the Mayor’s Transport Strategy goals and key objectives ...... 7 Table 2.3: Assessment against the Mayor’s Cycling Vision outcomes ...... 9 Table 2.4: Assessment against the Kingston Plan key objectives ...... 11 Table 2.5: Policy fit against the Local Implementation Plan ...... 13 Table 3.1: Evolution of schemes ...... 29 Table 3.2: Summary of Stage II bid scheme prioritisation ...... 33 Table 3.3: List of schemes ...... 37 Table 3.4: Programme Schemes and relationship with Needs and Issues ...... 46 Table 4.1: Percentages applied to estimate cost components ...... 48 Table 4.2: Scheme cost by scheme (£’000 in 2013 prices) ...... 50 Table 4.3: Scheme cost breakdown by category including risk (£m in 2013 prices) ...... 51 Table 4.4: Scheme cost spend profile (£m in Outturn prices) ...... 52 Table 5.1: Programme schemes and their contribution to strategic benefits ...... 57 Table 5.2: Summary of strategic benefits by user group ...... 58

July 2014 E14

Table 6.1: LTDS cycling statistics for journey stages in the mini-Holland core catchment area (Average of 2010 to and 2012) ...... 61 Table 6.2: LTDS cycling journey purpose splits for journey stages in the mini-Holland core catchment area (Average of 2010 to 2012) ...... 61 Table 6.3: Population and employment growth in Royal Borough of Kingston (GLA Economics, 2013) ...... 61 Table 6.4: Future baseline trip statistics within 3km of Kingston town centre ...... 62 Table 6.5: Target demand impacts within 3km of Kingston town centre in 2026 ...... 63 Table 6.6: User benefit assumptions by attribute ...... 65 Table 6.7: Summery of demand and user benefits ...... 67 Table 6.8: Externality benefit unit rates (Pence per vehicle km removed in real 2010 market prices) ...... 68 Table 6.9: Externality benefits from mode shift (£ per annum in real 2010 Prices) ...... 68 Table 6.10: HEAT model inputs...... 69 Table 6.11: Health and absenteeism benefits (£ per annum in real 2010 Prices) ...... 69 Table 6.12: Economic appraisal results (£m in 2010 discounted present values over 30 years) 72 Table 6.13: Sensitivity test assuming a 20-year appraisal period ...... 72 Table 7.1: Potential wider economic benefits from additional visitors ...... 74 Table 8.1: Programme summary ...... 76 Table 8.2: Programme monitoring proposals ...... 81 Appendix Table A.1: Document Map ...... 5

Appendices

A Borough Input to TfL’s Mini-Hollands Programme Level Business Case: Document Map

B Programme

C Scheme cost components

July 2014 E15

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Executive Summary In March 2014 the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames was successfully selected to receive funding through Transport for London’s mini-Hollands programme to deliver transformative change which encourages and stimulates more cycling. The Borough wants to ensure that the programme investment also provides benefits to all residents and businesses in the borough regardless of whether or not they cycle. The aim is to deliver, through historic and unprecedented levels of investment in infrastructure and associated complementary measures, a borough that is conducive to cycling as a natural choice for short urban journeys – encouraging more people to cycle more often regardless of their age or ability. This document sets out the Outline Business Case for the Kingston mini-Holland programme investment. Programme Objectives and Strategic Fit The Borough’s vision for cycling is a vision for everyone, benefiting all road users, not just cyclists. It is to reduce congestion by encouraging more people to cycle, freeing up road space for those making journeys for which the car or bus is the only sensible option. And it is to improve relations between cyclists, drivers and pedestrians through innovative design that caters for the needs of all road users. In contributing to the delivery of this vision, the mini-Holland programme has six key objectives: 1. Transform the environment for cycling in the borough. 2. Reduce congestion and smooth the flow of traffic. 3. Improve the level of satisfaction with cycling infrastructure. 4. Improve the safety of all road users. 5. Through cycling related investment, improve the quality of the public realm. 6. Support the vitality and viability of our town, district and local centres. The Kingston mini-Holland programme is strongly interrelated with plans for the Kingston Town Centre (in particular Kingston Futures and the Kingston Town Centre Movement Strategy), helping to achieve and facilitate the aspirations for this area that will benefit all town centre users. It will also play a key role in delivering existing wider local and regional objectives including key objectives of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, the Mayor’s Cycling Vision and The Kingston Plan; to support economic vitality, development and population growth; protect and improve the quality of the local environment; improve safety and security for all; and improve the access, connections and resilience of the transport network. Need for Investment Kingston has the second highest mode share of cycling in outer London, reflecting the success of implementing a range of measures that have together made the borough attractive for cycling. The borough is relatively flat and already has some good cycle routes and infrastructure. However, this mode-share is compromised by the quality and consistency of cycle infrastructure and facilities across the borough. There are also other challenges include transport congestion, both on roads and public transport. Looking forward, there are expected

July 2014 | i E16

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0 to be over 5000 new dwellings built in the borough over the next decade or so, placing additional pressure on the borough’s transport network. This significant level of growth will naturally increase demand for travel on the borough’s transport networks. It is vital that the person carrying capacity of the road network is maximised by making more efficient use of the finite amount of road space that is available, and the mini-Holland programme clearly aligns with this. The mini-Holland funding will therefore unlock the untapped cycling potential through implementation of consistent, high quality cycle infrastructure improvements borough wide. Scheme Description The current list of schemes that form part of the mini-Holland programme has been refined and optimised over time as we have thought through and investigated how they fit together a coherent package, as well as gaining a better understanding of the costs and challenges involved in each scheme. The key factors that were considered are:  Deliverability – if the scheme could be delivered within the available funding timescales. Whether the scheme would be supported.  Diversity – a mixture of landmark, network and supporting measures to combine to make a coherent programme of investment, giving support to all users.  Supporting strategic objectives – contribution of the scheme towards the programme objectives .  Connectivity – improvement to the cycling journey and provision of a comprehensive network. The schemes included in the Stage II bid were then prioritised, to fit within the funding envelope advised by TfL. The table below lists the schemes included in the programme.

Length (for linear Cost Scheme name Scheme type schemes) (£’000) Landmark schemes [LM] Early start schemes Kingston Enterprise Hub / Kingston LM.1a Off-road N/A £1,574 station access (interim scheme) Other schemes Kingston station cycle hub + Kingston LM.1 Off-road scheme N/A £6,293 station plaza (full scheme) LM.2 Wheatfield Way Greenway Segregated facility 0.8km £2,490

LM.3 Riverside Boardway Off-road 0.8km £5,728 Core section: 1.1km LM.4 New Malden to Raynes Park link Off-road £1,933 Additional section: 0.8km Network schemes [NW] Early start schemes NW.1 Kingston Hill / Kingston Vale (A308) On-road, semi-segregated 3.6km £3,085 Interim local connectivity to Kingston NW.1a On-road, quietway 0.9km £488 town centre NW.2 Local connectivity: to Kingston Bridge On-road, quietway 0.3km £163 Segregated / semi- NW.3 Portsmouth Road north + south (A307) 1.6km £1,373 segregated facility NW.3a Local connectivity to Portsmouth Road On-road, quietway 0.3km £163

July 2014 | ii E17

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Other schemes On road, semi-segregated NW.4 Kingston to Surbiton 1.7km £1,533 facility / quietway Cambridge Road / Kingston Road NW.5 On road, semi-segregated 2.8km £3,205 (A2043) Local connectivity: Kingston Hill / On-road, semi-segregated NW.5a 0.9km £812 London Road / quietway NW.6 Ewell Road (A240) On-road, semi-segregated 2.5km £2,255 Local connectivity: St Mark's Hill NW.6a On-road, quietway 0.4km £217 (B3370) Supporting measures [SM] Early start and ongoing schemes SM.1 Complementary measures Supporting measures N/A £1,135 Mini-Holland Programme Programme preparation costs to date £300 TOTAL COST £32,747

Costs The base cost estimate for the programme is £39.89 million (in 2013 prices), which includes a 22% allowance for risk as a full quantified risk assessment has not been undertaken at this point. Taking inflation into account, the outturn scheme cost for the mini-Holland programme is currently estimated at £44.21 million. Benefits The investment will contribute to increasing the overall capacity of the transport network in a cost effective manner to facilitate and cater for future economic and population growth in the borough in a sustainable manner. The cost of providing cycling facilities is relatively low (compared to expanding the road network), but helps to achieve more efficient use of available road space. This means that the mini-Holland investment will enable Kingston to accommodate growth sustainably and in a way that puts less pressure on the existing public transport and road networks. It will therefore help to unlock the borough’s development potential and accommodate newly generated trips sustainably. The investment aims to result in more residents and visitors to the borough travelling by bicycle. The targets are to increase the level of cycling in the borough by 80% in the first three years of the programme and by 400% within 10 years of the programme delivery commencing. This will include more cycling among members of traditionally ‘hard to reach’ groups. The mini-Holland programme will focus on delivering improvements that are inclusive and enable all people to start cycling. The schemes will help to create new cyclists who are representative of the people who live, work and study in Kingston. More people cycling to town centres rather than driving will reduce town centre congestion, release car parking spaces for those who need them and reduce pressure on public transport leading into our town centres. Adding cycle parking in to town centres will encourage more people to shop locally rather than going further afield, helping local businesses to survive and expand, sustaining and increasing the variety of shops and services that people want to use. The mini-Holland programme will transform the quality of roads and public spaces. Pavements adjacent to the new cycle lanes and tracks will be improved while the lanes and tracks will put

July 2014 | iii E18

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0 a distance between pedestrians and motor vehicles, making walking more comfortable. Pavements will be levelled to make access by wheelchairs and those with sensory impairments easier. In places, zebra crossings will be required to address the loss of informal refuges and this will give pedestrians greater safety and priority when crossing the road.

Assessment The business case analysis has assessed two cycling mode share scenarios against a future baseline with a cycling mode share of 7.0% by 2026:  Low impact scenario – cycling mode share in the core catchment area will reach 10% by 2026.  High impact scenario – cycling mode share in the core catchment area will reach 15% by 2026. The benefits assessed include user benefits – benefits perceived by existing cyclists and those who change mode from car to non-car modes of transport; externality benefits – benefits that affect other road users who remain on the road as a result of reduced car use (these include decongestion, collision savings, local air quality etc.); and health and absenteeism benefits. The assessment shows that the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is between 2.5:1 and 5.2:1. This means that for every £1 invested there is more than £2.5 returned in benefits. In accordance to the Department for Transport’s value for money assessment criteria, the programme is considered between high and very high value for money, and well in excess of TfL’s threshold of 1.5:1. Delivery programme A detailed programme is provided in Appendix B. The delivery programme covers the period from June 2014 to June 2018, which is a period of 49 months. Grant funding will be provided by Transport for London. Other sources of funding contributing to the delivery of the investment includes LIP funding (for delivery of routes that complement the main mini-Holland programme); extracting value from routine maintenance programmes; and possible opportunities for Section 106 funding.

July 2014 | iv E19

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

1 Introduction Background 1.1 The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames’ vision for cycling is a vision for everyone, benefiting all road users, not just cyclists. It is to reduce congestion by encouraging more people to cycle, freeing up road space for those making journeys for which the car or bus is the only sensible option. And it is to improve relations between cyclists, drivers and pedestrians through innovative design that caters for the needs of all road users. 1.2 In March 2014 the Borough was successfully selected to receive funding through the mini- Holland programme to deliver transformative change which encourages and stimulates more cycling. The Borough will ensure that the programme investment also provides benefits to all residents and businesses in the borough regardless of whether or not they cycle. 1.3 The Council’s aim is to deliver, through historic and unprecedented levels of investment in infrastructure and associated complementary measures, a borough that is conducive to cycling as a natural choice for short urban journeys, encouraging more people to cycle more often regardless of their age or ability. 1.4 This document sets out the Outline Business Case for the Kingston mini-Holland programme. 1.5 The funding for the mini-Holland programme is being made available by Transport for London (TfL). In order to obtain the mini-Holland funding the project will need to meet the requirements set out by TfL and promote the programme in accordance with TfL guidance and advice. The following documents have been used to guide the production of this business case:  Guidance for Major Scheme Submission of LIP Schemes.  TfL’s Business Case Development Manual (BCDM).  Department for Transport’s Transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG). 1.6 This business case has been prepared for the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames for the purposes of ensuring the scheme will deliver value for money. It sets out the economic and other benefits of the scheme which underpin the cost-benefit appraisal. It also provides input

July 2014 | 1 E20

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

to TfL’s business case for the wider mini-Holland programme investment. A document map which identifies the information for TfL is provided at Appendix A. Assumptions and Limitations 1.7 This is a preliminary business case for the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames mini- Holland programme. The project is in its early stages with detailed modelling and design work yet to be completed. The assessment undertaken largely draws on the information set out in the Stage 2 bid submission sent to TfL in January 2014 amended for known changes in the programme since bid stage. This programme of schemes is set out in Chapter 3. The assessment provides an early indication of the value for money of the mini-Holland investment and must be considered in the context of the stage of development work undertaken thus far.

July 2014 | 2 E21

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

2 Scheme Objectives and Fit with Strategy Scheme Objectives 2.1 TfL’s Analysis of Cycling Potential report shows Kingston town centre and adjoining neighbourhoods to be a notable hotspot of cycling potential in southwest London (Figure 2.1). However, realising this potential is constrained by the quality and consistency of cycle infrastructure and facilities across the borough. The mini-Holland programme will greatly accelerate the unlocking of this cycling potential. By transforming conditions for cycling it will enable many more of our residents and visitors to cycle. 2.2 The Borough’s vision for cycling is a vision for everyone, benefiting all road users, not just cyclists. It is to reduce congestion by encouraging more people to cycle, freeing up road space for those making journeys for which the car or bus is the only sensible option. And it is to improve relations between cyclists, drivers and pedestrians through innovative design that caters for the needs of all road users. 2.3 In contributing to the delivery of this vision, the mini-Holland programme has six key objectives: 1. Transform the environment for cycling in the borough. 2. Reduce congestion and smooth the flow of traffic. 3. Improve the level of satisfaction with cycling infrastructure. 4. Improve the safety of all road users. 5. Through cycling related investment, improve the quality of the public realm. 6. Support the vitality and viability of our town, district and local centres.

2.4 These objectives have been used in developing the schemes and reviewing and prioritising schemes throughout the bid development process.

July 2014 | 3 E22

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Figure 2.1: Cycling Potential in London

Source: Analysis of Cycling Potential, Policy Analysis Research Report, Transport for London, December 2010

Assessment against Strategy 2.5 The mini-Holland programme will play a key role in delivering existing wider local and regional objectives. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2.6 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) sets out six goals to achieve an overarching vision of making London the world’s number one location as a place to visit, do business and invest: London’s transport system should excel among those of world cities, providing access to opportunities for all its people and enterprises, achieving the highest environmental standards and leading the world in its approach to tackling urban transport challenges of the 21st Century. Goal 1: Support the economic development and population growth 2.7 Kingston town centre is defined in the London Plan as a Metropolitan centre and, as a retail centre, ranks second in London and 17th in the whole UK (only Oxford Street ranks higher in London). The mini-Holland programme will improve pedestrian and cycle access to this strategic location. Cycling in particular will increase overall effective capacity of the town centre and the number of people able to access the centre, because cyclists are able to use routes to bypass congested streets. 2.8 It will significantly enhance the public realm that will encourage more people to spend more time in the borough, linking people with local shops and services, reducing their need to travel further afield for these opportunities. This is good for local business and helps people to save on travel costs.

July 2014 | 4 E23

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

2.9 The mini-Holland programme is intended to transfer journeys to bicycle that might otherwise have been made by the private car or public transport. This shift has the potential to reduce congestion on the highway network, improve journey time reliability, increasing the transport system capacity to enabling more sustainable delivery of new development. Goal 2: Enhance the quality of life for all Londoners 2.10 Cycling and walking are ‘active’ modes of transport and more people cycling and walking more often will mean that more people are benefitting from physical activity. 2.11 The schemes will also significantly enhance to the public realm of the borough, particularly the landmark schemes such as Kingston station plaza and the Riverside Boardway. These will enhance links to surrounding business, retail and leisure destinations, which will benefit all users. 2.12 More local cycling journeys will help to relieve pressure on bus and rail capacity. Goal 3: Improve the safety and security of all Londoners 2.13 The mini-Holland programme will improve conditions for vulnerable road users by reducing road danger. For example, many of the schemes will provide increased separation between cyclists and other vehicles, which will provide safer routes for cyclists. Goal 4: Improve transport opportunities for all Londoners 2.14 The mini-Holland programme will create new high quality links within the borough and with neighbouring boroughs. It will greatly improve connectivity between Kingston town centre and the railway station. 2.15 The improved infrastructure will provide increased transport choice for residents and visitors with the complementary measures scheme increasing the awareness of these choices for people. This can have a number of positive impacts, such as improving access to job opportunities, providing affordable transport for those on low incomes and those starting new enterprises on limited budgets. 2.16 Growth in cycling levels also has the potential to increase stopping trade for independent retailers, particularly those located in smaller shopping parades. Experience elsewhere (such as in Hackney) shows that increased walking and cycling can lead to the revival of ailing parades and the creation of new retail businesses. Goal 5: Reduce transport’s contribution to climate change and improve its resilience 2.17 The programme is intended to transfer journeys to the bicycle that might otherwise have been made by the private car or public transport. This shift has the potential to reduce congestion on the highway network and reduce reliance on greenhouse-gas emitting forms of transport. 2.18 The extent to which mini-Holland programme addresses the key objectives from the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) is quantified in Table 2.2 according to the scale detailed in Table 2.1. Goal 6: Support delivery of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and its legacy 2.19 In 2012, the Olympic road cycling events came to the borough, generating excitement in the local community and putting Kingston firmly on the cycling map. Since then, Kingston has been a key part of the route for the annual Prudential RideLondon event.

July 2014 | 5 E24

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

2.20 The programme of schemes that we have put forward will build upon this and deliver a long- term legacy of behaviour change, by encouraging more people to cycle more often, thereby facilitating increased levels of physical activity in the borough.

Table 2.1: Assessment parameters

Score Descriptor  the proposal makes an extremely positive contribution  the proposal makes a very positive contribution  the proposal makes a positive contribution - the proposal is neutral  the proposal makes a negative contribution  the proposal makes a very negative contribution  the proposal makes an extremely negative contribution

July 2014 | 6 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Table 2.2: Assessment against the Mayor’s Transport Strategy goals and key objectives

MTS Goal: MTS Key Objectives Assessment Evidence Balancing capacity and demand for travel through The programme is designed to deliver a doubling of cycling trips. The complementary increasing public transport capacity and/or reducing  measures scheme will support the infrastructure investment to encourage people to the need to travel use alternatives to car driving and public transport. The Kingston station plaza is a direct investment in a key arrival and departure hub in Improving people's access to jobs  the borough. Improving access to commercial markets for freight The Kingston station plaza is a direct investment in a key arrival and departure hub in movement & business travel, supporting the need for  the borough. Investment in cycling routes creates additional transport system capacity. business to grow Mode shift to cycling trips and investment in cycling routes creates additional transport Smoothing traffic flow  Goal 1: Support the system capacity and contributes to reducing journey time delay. economic development Mode shift to cycling trips and investment in cycling routes creates additional transport and population growth Improving public transport reliability  system capacity, which contributes to public transport reliability. Mode shift to cycling trips and investment in cycling routes creates additional transport Reducing operating costs  system capacity, which contributes to improved resilience of the existing highway network, reducing operating costs and journey time delay. The investment in cycling routes will directly improve the state of the on-highway Bringing and maintaining all assets to a state of good

 assets. A number of schemes, such as the Kingston station plaza, are direct investments E25 repair in the quality and build-life of the urban realm. The Thames Boardway is a direct investment in enhancing the use of the river by more Enhancing the use of the Thames for people and goods  people. Mode shift to cycling trips and investment in cycling routes reduces crowding on rail Improving public transport customer satisfaction  and buses, and bus journey time reliability. Mode shift to cycling trips and investment in cycling routes creates additional transport Improving road user satisfaction (driver, pedestrians,  system capacity and contributes to reducing journey time delay. Provision of safer cyclists etc.) cycling routes, pedestrian crossings should improve experience for all road users. Mode shift to cycling trips and investment in cycling routes reduces crowding on rail Goal 2: Enhance the Reducing public transport crowding  and buses. quality of life for all Most of the schemes, such as the Kingston station plaza, are direct investments in Londoners Enhancing streetscapes, improving perception of the  urban realm and better streets. Key corridor investment directly contributes to the urban realm and developing the better streets initiative better streets initiative. Mode shift to cycling trips and investment in cycling routes reduces travel by Protecting and enhancing the natural environment  greenhouse-gas emitting forms of transport. Reducing air pollutant emissions from ground-based Mode shift to cycling trips and investment in cycling routes reduces travel by forms of  transport, contributing to EU air quality targets transport that emit air pollutants.

July 2014 | 7 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

MTS Goal: MTS Key Objectives Assessment Evidence Improving perceptions and reducing the impact of - Investment unlikely to have a perceptible effect on perceptions and noise impacts. noise Mode shift to cycling trips and provision of high quality cycling and walking Facilitating an increase in walking and cycling  infrastructure. A number of schemes (in particular the Kingston station plaza and New Malden to Raynes Park link) will directly benefit pedestrians. A cycle hub at Kingston station will increase the security of cycle parking and should Reducing crime rates  Goal 3: Improve the reduce theft. safety and security of all Investment in cycling routes reduces opportunities for collisions between cyclists and Reducing the number of road traffic casualties  Londoners other road vehicles. Reducing casualties on public transport networks - Investment unlikely to have a perceptible on public transport casualties. The connectivity schemes are a direct investment in improved physical accessibility of Improving the physical accessibility of public transport  the cycling network. Investment in Kingston station plaza projects will be high quality networks environments accessible for all. Kingston station plaza, Kingston town centre connectivity improvements, projects are Goal 4: Improve Improving access to services  direct investments in key arrival and departure hubs in the borough. Investment in transport opportunities cycling routes improves access through journeys to services. for all Londoners The various schemes in the Kingston town centre will help to support regeneration in this areas. In particular, the Kingston station plaza scheme is a direct investment at a

Supporting the wider regeneration  E26 key arrival and departure hub in the borough. In addition, the network schemes will support regeneration in other parts of the borough. Mode shift to cycling trips and investment in cycling routes reduces travel by CO Reducing CO emissions from ground-based transport  2 Goal 5: Reduce 2 emitting ground-based transport. transport’s contribution Investment unlikely to have a perceptible effect on the reliability of transport networks to climate change and Maintaining the reliability of transport networks - in relation to climate change. The Thames Boardway scheme will need to be developed improve its resilience and delivered in full agreement with the Environment Agency. Supporting the regeneration & convergence of social & Goal 6: Support delivery economic outcomes between the 5 Olympic boroughs - n/a of the London 2012 and the rest of London Olympic and Paralympic Physical transport legacy - n/a Games and its legacy The mode shift to cycling trips and complementary measures scheme will continue to Behavioural transport legacy  encourage people to use alternatives to car driving.

July 2014 | 8 E27

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

The Mayor’s Cycling Vision in London 2.21 The Mayor’s Cycling Vision in London has four key outcomes:  A tube network for the bike – a network of direct, high-capacity, joined-up cycle routes.  Safer streets – streets and places where cyclists feel they belong and are safe.  More people travelling by bike – cycling across London to double by 2023.  Better places for everyone – creation of green corridors, with more tree-planting, more space for pedestrians and less traffic. 2.22 The measures within the Tube Network for the Bike outcome will deliver large-scale, high profile network-wide infrastructure projects to enable more people to cycle, more safely, more often. The Vision sets out specific investments to meet this including ‘Mini-Holland’ in the suburbs. The Vision aims for the mini-Holland areas to, “over time, become every bit as cycle-friendly as their Dutch equivalents; places that suburbs and towns all over Britain will want to copy”. 2.23 The mini-Holland programme includes measures to provide safer passage for cyclists off the dual carriageway traffic, making cyclists more visible and reducing conflict at junctions. 2.24 It is intended to transfer journeys to the bicycle that might otherwise have been made by the private car or public transport. This shift has the potential to reduce congestion on the highway network, improve journey time reliability, increasing the transport system capacity to enabling more sustainable delivery of new development. 2.25 The mini-Holland programme will significantly enhance the public realm that will encourage more people to spend more time in the borough, linking people with local shops and services, reducing their need to travel further afield for these opportunities. This is good for local business and helps people to save on travel costs.

Table 2.3: Assessment against the Mayor’s Cycling Vision outcomes

Outcome Assessment Evidence A tube network for the bike  Direct investment in v. Mini-Holland in the suburbs A cycle hubs at Kingston station will increase the security of cycle parking and should reduce theft. Investment in cycling Safer streets  routes and junctions reduces opportunities for collisions between cyclists and other road vehicles. The programme is designed to deliver a doubling of cycling More people travelling by trips. The complementary measures scheme will support the  bike infrastructure investment to encourage people to use alternatives to car driving and public transport. Many of the schemes, particularly the landmark schemes such as the Kingston station plaza, are direct investments in urban Better places for everyone  realm and better streets. Key corridor investment directly contributes to the better streets initiative.

July 2014 | 9 E28

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

The Kingston Plan 2.26 The Kingston Plan sets out the Borough’s vision for 2020. The vision is: “that the Royal Borough will continue to be one of the very best places in which to live and work”. 2.27 Central to its vision is the promotion of sustainable communities and transport under the core governance principle of agile, collaborative community leadership. Kingston Plan objectives 2.28 The mini-Holland programme will directly help in the fulfilment of eight of the ten Kingston Plan development objectives:  Objective 1: Tackle climate change, reduce our ecological footprint and ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ – the mini-Holland programme will help to achieve this objective by reducing reliance on greenhouse-gas emitting forms of transport.  Objective 2: Ensure the sustainable development of our borough and promotion of sustainable transport – the mini-Holland programme will provide a high quality sustainable transport network and the programme of complementary measures will promote this to residents and visitors.  Objective 3: Protect and improve the quality of our local environment – the mini-Holland programme, particularly Kingston station plaza, will greatly enhance the public realm.  Objective 4: Sustain and share economic prosperity – as well as bringing enhancements to public realm that will encourage more people to spend more time in the borough, the mini- Holland programme will help to link people with local shops and services, reducing their need to travel further afield for these opportunities. This is good for local business and helps people to save on travel costs.  Objective 6: Increase supply of housing and its affordability – the mini-Holland programme is intended to transfer journeys to the bicycle that might otherwise have been made by the private car or public transport. This shift has the potential to enable more sustainable delivery of new development.  Objective 7: Make communities safer – the mini-Holland programme will improve conditions for vulnerable road users, reducing road danger and improve the security of cycle parking at the key hubs.  Objective 8: Improve overall health and reduce health inequalities – cycling is an ‘active’ mode of transport and more people cycling, more often, will mean that more people are benefitting from physical activity.  Objective 10: Encourage people to take an active part in the social and cultural life of the community – the mini-Holland project will work with a diverse range of groups in the community to promote cycling and increase participation in cycling. 2.29 Table 2.4 sets out the assessment of the performance of the mini-Holland programme against the Kingston Plan objectives using the same parameters in Table 2.1.

July 2014 | 10 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Table 2.4: Assessment against the Kingston Plan key objectives

The Kingston Plan Key Objectives Assessment Evidence Mode shift to cycling trips and investment in cycling routes reduces travel by greenhouse- Objective 1: Tackle climate change, reduce our ecological footprint gas emitting forms of transport. The Thames Boardway scheme will need to be developed  and ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ and delivered in full agreement with the Environment Agency. Complementary measures programme will provide information to enable informed choices on travel options. The programme directly promotes sustainable travel options and contributes to more Objective 2: Ensure the sustainable development of our borough and people walking and cycling. The investment in transport system capacity supports more  the promotion of sustainable transport sustainable development. Mode shift to cycling trips contributes to reduced pollution from road. Investment in urban realm improvements will contribute to increased resident Objective 3: Protect and improve the quality of our local environment  satisfaction with local streets and areas and improved public spaces particularly through the Kingston station plaza, Kingston town centre connectivity improvements projects. The programme directly invests in Kingston town centre, and provides links to secondary town centres and other parts of the borough. Direct investment in key arrival and Objective 4: Sustain and share economic prosperity  departure hubs in the borough and investment in cycling routes to improve access to

services and employment, linking people with local shops and services, reducing their E29 need to travel further afield for these opportunities. Objective 5: Raise educational standards and close gaps in attainment  Children who cycle are more likely to do better at school. The programme is in accordance with the principles of the Local Development Framework Objective 6: Increase supply of housing and its affordability  and investment in cycling routes creates additional transport system capacity to support more sustainable development. Cycle hubs at Kingston and Surbiton stations will increase the security of cycle parking Objective 7: Make communities safer  and should reduce theft. Investment in cycling routes reduces opportunities for collisions between cyclists and other road vehicles. Objective 8: Improve overall health and reduce health inequalities  The programme directly targets increased participation on physical activity. Investment unlikely to have a perceptible effect albeit that it does provide improved Objective 9: Support people to be independent - choice in transport options. Objective 10: Encourage people to take an active part in the social and The complementary measures programme will identify a diverse range of groups in the  cultural life of the community community and aims to increase their participation in cycling.

July 2014 | 11 E30

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

The Local Implementation Plan 2.30 The Local Implementation Plan (LIP) is a statutory document setting out how the Mayor’s Transport Strategy is delivered within the borough and governs expenditure of the transport budget. LIP2 came into effect in July 2011 and targets improvement to the borough for the period up until 2031. 2.31 The overarching objective for LIP2 is to have: “a safe, efficient, integrated, inclusive, responsive, and sustainable transport network that supports the economic vitality of the borough, minimises its impact on (and where possible enhances) the natural and physical environment, minimises carbon emissions, and supports travel choices that meet the needs of residents, workers, and visitors to the borough”. 2.32 The LIP reflects local priorities and objectives. The mini-Holland programme is fully consistent with the five LIP themes which are:  Theme 1: Reduce transport’s contribution to climate change, and improve its resilience to the effects of climate change.  Theme 2: Reduce congestion and traffic levels in the borough.  Theme 3: Create safer communities and a safer transport network.  Theme 4: Improve transport opportunities and enhance the quality of life for all Kingston Council residents.  Theme 5: Sustain and share economic growth and prosperity. 2.33 The mini-Holland programme is complementary to many of the LIP2 policies including.  Policy C1 ‘to provide a comprehensive cycle network that enables safe and convenient cycle trips throughout the Borough’  Policy C2 ‘to enable the secure and convenient storage of bicycles’  Policy C4 ‘to increase cycling uptake and ensure road safety’. 2.34 Table 2.5 sets out the assessment of the performance of the mini-Holland programme against the LIP2 objectives.

July 2014 | 12 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Table 2.5: Policy fit against the Local Implementation Plan

The Local Implementation Plan Themes Objective Policy Fit The programme is intended to transfer journeys to the bicycle that Theme 1: Reduce transport’s Reduce CO2 emissions from road based transport might otherwise have been made by the private car or public contribution to climate change, and transport. This shift has the potential to reduce congestion on the improve its resilience to the effects of Maintain and enhance the resilience of the Kingston transport highway network and reduce travel by greenhouse-gas emitting forms climate change system to the effects of climate change of transport. The programme will provide a high quality sustainable transport Promote and enhance public transport, walking, and cycling network and the programme of complementary measures will promote this to residents and visitors. Theme 2: Reduce congestion and traffic levels in the borough Reduce congestion and smooth traffic flow in congestion The programme is intended to transfer journeys to the bicycle that hotspots might otherwise have been made by the private car or public transport. This shift has the potential to reduce congestion on the Reduce the need to travel during peak congestion times highway network. The programme will improve conditions for vulnerable road users, Reduce serious injuries and deaths on the borough's transport reducing road danger. Investment in cycling routes reduces network opportunities for collisions between cyclists and other road vehicles.

Theme 3: Create safer communities and The programme is intended to promote positive perceptions and E31 a safer transport network behaviours in public spaces. Reduce crime and fear of crime while in the public realm and on public transport A cycle hub at Kingston station will increase the security of cycle parking and should reduce theft. High quality urban design will promote positive perceptions of public spaces. The connectivity schemes are a direct investment in improved physical Improve sustainable transport links to/from/within socially accessibility of the cycling network. The schemes invest in better links deprived areas and areas with poor access to public transport between Kingston town centre and Surbiton, Tolworth, New Malden and other parts of the borough. Theme 4: Improve transport Improve the physical accessibility of the borough’s transport Better connections between bus and rail and walking links to the rail opportunities and enhance the quality of network, especially for disabled people station are improved and at-grade. life for all Kingston Council residents Improve pedestrian and cycling permeability and connectivity Contributes to an improved walk and cycle network across the region. throughout the borough A major contribution to the improvement of the public realm, Protect and enhance the built and natural environment particularly the Kingston station plaza.

July 2014 | 13 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

The Local Implementation Plan Themes Objective Policy Fit The programme is intended to transfer journeys to the bicycle that Improve air quality and reduce impacts of noise and vibration might otherwise have been made by the private car or public from transport transport. Cycling and walking are ‘active’ modes of transport and more people Improve transport’s contribution to health and wellbeing cycling and walking more often will mean that more people are benefitting from physical activity. Provides better connections to Kingston town centre and will Improve economic viability of the borough by improving the encourage growth in employment, retail, entertainment in the district accessibility of key employment, retail, entertainment, centre. education, and growth areas The programme, particularly the Kingston station plaza, will greatly enhance the public realm in these areas. Improved connections to riverside, rail stations, Kingston town centre Improve public transport links to key attractions outside of the Theme 5: Sustain and share economic and other local centres. The programme, particularly the Kingston to borough e.g. Waterloo, London’s airports growth and prosperity Surbiton link and the Kingston station plaza, will deliver this. Better manage and improve freight access, particularly to key Freight and service access maintained. industrial and commercial areas

Quality finish will be maintained to a high standard. Lighting and other E32 Bring and maintain all transport infrastructure assets to a state public realm improvements will contribute to the overall state of the of good repair assets.

July 2014 | 14 E33

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Need for Improvement 2.35 The Borough already has a relatively high mode share for cycling among the outer London boroughs and analysis shows that there are many more potentially cyclable trips in the borough that could be converted to cycling. The Borough’s investment in cycling in recent years has been strongly linked with substantial growth in cycling. The terrain in Kingston is relatively flat and it is a comparatively small borough with many residents living within a few miles of Kingston town centre. 2.36 The most recent London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS) showed that 3.9% of all trips in the borough are made by bike. Like London as a whole, the level of cycling in Kingston has been growing in recent years. Annual cordon counts show a 17 per cent rise in cycling between 2010 and 2013, exceeding the targets set in our Local Implementation Plan (LIP) by 100 per cent. 2.37 Analysis of LTDS shows that almost one in five passenger journeys undertaken within a 3 km radius of Kingston town centre was made by car. Figure 2.2 illustrates that these journeys typically take less than 20 minutes and there is a significant cycling potential for such trips. Figure 2.2: LTDS Average daily journey stages made within 3km of Kingston town centre by mode and journey time band (2010 to 2012 average)

2.38 The cycling mode share is currently limited by the quality and consistency of cycle infrastructure and facilities across the borough. A number of cycling needs and issues were identified and the mini-Holland programme is designed to address those issues and remove perceived barriers to more cycling. 2.39 The Borough has an improving trend in relation to cycling casualties. At the end of 2008 a 38% decrease in the number of cyclists killed and seriously injured was recorded, compared with the average for 1994-98. Kingston is already well ahead of the London average. Traffic congestion 2.40 The Borough experiences relatively high levels of traffic congestion, despite overall traffic volumes decreasing in the borough since 1999. The private car accounts for almost half of all

July 2014 | 15 E34

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

trips in the borough. Congestion was residents’ main concern in the RBK 2009 Residents Survey. 2.41 Traffic congestion is particularly acute on the relief road around Kingston town centre, and on Richmond Road, Kingston Hill, Coombe Road and Cambridge Road/ Kingston Road on the approaches to the relief road. There are also delays on Ewell Road through Surbiton and on the Malden Road through New Malden town centre. Current levels of traffic congestion are shown in Figure 2.3. 2.42 High levels of car dependence are attributed to the borough’s poor orbital rail links, high travel costs to central London, low frequency rail services from some stations and areas such as Coombe, Berrylands and Hogsmill where the level of public transport accessibility is low. Public transport overcrowding 2.43 The borough relies heavily on the bus network to provide acceptable levels of public transport accessibility for journeys not served by the rail network. With forecast population growth, the demand placed on buses in the borough will continue to rise, which may exacerbate overcrowding issues on some parts of the network. 2.44 The London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy (2011) reports that the South West mainline is running at up to 110 percent of capacity during peak times and is identified as a ‘severely stressed’ rail corridor in the sub-regional transport strategy which identifies the reduction of public transport overcrowding as a key challenge. Whilst increased cycling is not likely to decrease demand for longer distance rail journeys, there is the potential for some shorter rail journeys to be cycled instead. 2.45 Kingston, particularly southern parts of the borough, is expected to accommodate a relatively high proportion of the forecast population growth, which will place additional pressure on public transport capacity. 2.46 Figure 2.4 illustrates the Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL) across the borough.

July 2014 | 16 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Figure 2.3: Current traffic congestion across the borough (7am-10am) Figure 2.4: PTALs across the borough E35

Source: Traffic Master GPS journey time data supplied by TfL

July 2014 | 17 E36

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Orbital routes 2.47 The sub-regional transport strategy highlights improved connections between Kingston town centre and Wandsworth, Merton and Sutton as priority links. On the Kingston to Wandsworth corridor there are limited cycling facilities to assist connections to Cycle Superhighway 8, while on the Kingston to Merton corridor, cycling trips towards Cycle Superhighway 7 are hampered by poor connections across the A3 at New Malden. 2.48 There are poor orbital rail links in the borough and, although the bus network is comprehensive, traffic congestion causes delays to services that make orbital trips by public transport unappealing. Severance 2.49 There are some significant instances of severance across the borough that reduce cycle and pedestrian permeability and accessibility. Kingston benefits in some places from quiet, low- traffic streets with filtered permeability between them. However the borough is most directly connected by its main roads, which in most instances provide the only means of crossing major linear barriers. These main roads are often unsuitable for cyclists who may not be confident riding amongst heavy motor-traffic – especially where crossing major barriers involves negotiating complex, fast junctions. Key areas of severance include:  The A3 cuts through the borough from Kingston Vale, along the eastern edge of the borough through New Malden, then southwest through Tolworth and Long Ditton. The road contributes to locally poor air quality, congestion on feeder roads and noise pollution, and is a substantial barrier to walking and cycling trips that cross its route.  The south west mainline and the Kingston loop line run broadly east-west through the borough; movements across the line are restricted to main roads and a small number of footbridges or tunnels.  The River Thames constrains access to the borough and to Kingston town centre from Richmond in the west. All vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian traffic currently arriving from Richmond west must use Kingston road bridge.  The cycling permeability of Kingston town centre is limited by the extensively pedestrianised core and encircling relief road which make cycling trips in, around and across the core challenging and can bring cyclists into conflict with pedestrians. K+20, the Area Action Plan for Kingston town centre (adopted 2008), sets out the ambition for new and improved cycle routes in the town centre, including the proposal for a cyclist and pedestrian Boardway on the banks of the Thames.  The Fountain Roundabout on the Kingston Road and Malden Road is regularly identified as a cause of severance. Population growth 2.50 The borough is expected to accommodate significant population growth over the coming years. The London Plan proposed early alterations suggest that there will be 6,434 additional dwellings in the borough between 2015 and 2025, whilst Kingston’s Core Strategy plans for 5,625 new dwellings between now and 2025. It is planned that these new dwellings will be located close to or within major nodes, with that largest concentrations in Kingston and Tolworth. Such an increase would, in broad terms, be expected to generate in the order of an additional 10,000 to 15,000 trips per day.

July 2014 | 18 E37

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

2.51 This growth will place additional burden on the existing transport network. It is a key priority for the Borough that development happens sustainably. There is the potential for the Borough’s streets and bus services to become more congested and overcrowded, affecting journey time reliability. 2.52 Figure 2.5 illustrates the location of planned housing in the Core Strategy and Figure 2.6 shows the planned future growth in Kingston town centre.

July 2014 | 19 E38

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Figure 2.5: Core Strategy – delivery of housing

July 2014 | 20 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Figure 2.6: Major developments in Kingston

E39

July 2014 | 21 E40

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Air quality and CO2 emissions 2.53 The entire borough has been designated an Air Quality Management Area. Levels of Nitrogen Dioxide and Small Particulate exceed national standards along many sections of the borough’s main roads. Air quality in Kingston town centre is notably poor in comparison to other parts of

the borough. Per capita CO2 emissions from ground-based transport in Kingston are among the highest in London, though levels are falling. However, given the high proportion of through-

traffic in the borough transport CO2 levels cannot be entirely attributed to journeys originating or ending within the borough. Crime 2.54 The latest crime figures show that Kingston is the safest borough in London. However, cycle theft remains relatively high, particularly in town centres and at train stations. There are approximately 600 on-street secure cycle parking spaces in Kingston town centre and on busy weekend summer afternoons these can be full to capacity. There is limited space on the highway to accommodate substantially more parked cycles. The Secure Cycle Parking Strategy calls for town centre and station cycle parking that is supervised and secure; off-street; contains showers and changing facilities; provides lockers for clothing and accessories; offers bicycle hire and services of a retail shop and repair facility. There are also large numbers of high density flats and apartments in the borough without adequate cycle storage and this can create a barrier to cycling. Cycle safety 2.55 While cycle flows in Kingston grew by 63% between 2001 and 2013 (based on an average of ten sites across the borough), the number of cyclist casualties also increased by 32% (from 57 to 75). This is illustrated in Figure 2.7. Although this represents a fall in the casualty rate, more effort is needed to reduce the number of collisions and to ensure growth in cycling is de- coupled from a growth in collisions.

July 2014 | 22 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Figure 2.7: Cycle flows and casualties in Kingston, 2001–2013

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40 Index Index value (value =in 100 2001) E41 20

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year

Cycle flow index Cycle casualties index

Cycle flows based on annual counts at ten locations across the borough; cycle casualties based on recorded collision data

July 2014 | 23 E42

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Cycling infrastructure 2.56 The borough has good cycling infrastructure on its quieter roads and at crossing points on the relief road. However, whilst there has been some investment in the provision of cycling infrastructure on main roads, this has been hampered by the limited amount of funding that has been available at any given point in time. The result has often been the provision of facilities that do not fully address the reality or perception of road danger on the borough’s streets. As this existing main road infrastructure is largely inconsistent with London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) advice, there is the scope to gradually improve this situation by taking the opportunity to review existing layouts as and when maintenance projects take place. 2.57 People’s perception of danger is a key reason why they choose not to cycle. Enabling people to consider cycling as a natural choice will require an increase the amount of full and partial segregation and, more generally, achieve a consistently high quality of infrastructure design – which does not introduce new dangers and conflicts or leave cyclists stranded at scheme, neighbourhood or borough boundaries. 2.58 This is consistent with the findings of research undertaken in 2012 by Steer Davies Gleave on behalf of TfL1, which investigated the decisions that cyclists in London make when deciding which route to take and the relative importance of different route features. Across all cyclists, the key considerations around route choice centred on choosing the safest routes, and avoiding traffic (either by cycling in a cycle lane separate to the traffic, or on roads where traffic volume is lower). In particular the highest score across all groups was for the statement “I would prefer cycling in a cycle lane even if it meant a longer journey”. It is certainly not the case that cyclists will always choose the most direct route when making a journey – even among the most frequent cyclists. Those with a lower amount of cycling experience in London (i.e. less than 2 years) are also more safety conscious when cycling, preferring to travel on routes with less traffic and a cycle lane, whilst avoiding the more difficult junctions. Constraints and Dependencies Enhancing public realm and town centre vitality Study 2.59 In 2013 the Council commissioned a borough-wide retail and town centre study to make recommendations on how retail viability and vitality can be improved. The study made various recommendations, a number of which the mini-Holland investment will help to achieve:  Investment in the borough’s public realm is needed to provide an attractive and welcoming place to spend time, encouraging people to visit town centres rather than shopping online or out of town.  Improve pedestrian accessibility and connectivity within Kingston town centre, which currently has weak connections among its character and functional areas including the railway station.  Open up key routes through Kingston town centre to encourage movement through the centre, increasing footfall to support retail units. Quietways 2.60 The Quietways programme will deliver a pan-London network of high-quality, well-signed cycle routes on low-traffic back streets and off-street sections designed to overcome the most

1 Steer Davies Gleave on behalf of TfL, Cycle route choice: Final survey and model report, June 2012

July 2014 | 24 E43

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

important barriers to cycling and targeted at less confident cyclists and those who prefer a more relaxed journey. The measures can potentially shift many trips currently made by motorised modes (especially short car trips in outer London). 2.61 The Quietways network will complement the routes being delivered as part of the Central London Grid, the Cycle Superhighways and mini-Holland programme. 2.62 The planning of Quietways investment will be co-ordinated with mini-Holland in order to maximise the effect of cycling-related investment by linking up opportunities for cycling journeys. Crossrail 2 2.63 Currently, rail services to Kingston station are relatively infrequent by London standards due to the fact that it is on a branch line and rail capacity is constrained on the main rail line between Wimbledon and Waterloo. 2.64 A Crossrail 2 route is currently being planned by TfL. Figure 2.8 illustrates the potential routes currently under consideration. As shown, potential stations include Kingston, Surbiton, New Malden and others within the borough, so residents in the borough will be able to use a high frequency rail service to access central London directly. 2.65 If Crossrail 2 serves these locations, it will act as a catalyst for development, putting additional burden on the existing local roads and public transport system. There will be a significant increase in trips to and from stations, particularly at Kingston where it is hoped that the level of service and regional connectivity will be significantly improved relative to current service levels. 2.66 There is therefore a need to develop a culture for sustainable travel to prepare the borough for the potential impacts of Crossrail 2, enhancing the desirability of living, working and visiting the borough. The borough can therefore maximise the economic potential that Crossrail 2 can deliver.

July 2014 | 25 E44

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Figure 2.8: Proposed Crossrail 2 Route

July 2014 | 26 E45

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

3 Scheme Development and Description Scheme Development 3.1 This chapter outlines the 16 schemes that form part of our mini-Holland programme. These schemes are generally based on the schemes included in the Stage II bid, which in turn came from the schemes in our EOI. Broadly speaking, we have gone through two processes to arrive at the present list of schemes:  Scheme evolution – the list of schemes has evolved over time as we have thought through and investigated how they fit together a coherent package, as well as gaining a better understanding of the costs and challenges involved in each scheme  Scheme prioritisation – once the likely level of funding from TfL became known, there was a need to prioritise the schemes from the Stage II bid to fit within this evelope 3.2 The section below discuss these two processes, in order to provide an understanding of how we have arrived at the current set of 16 schemes. Scheme Evolution 3.3 Significant work was undertaken to identify and develop schemes included in the EOI and Stage II bid. Key factors that led to the inclusion of those schemes include:  Deliverability – if the scheme could be delivered within the available funding timescales. Whether the scheme would be supported.  Diversity – a mixture of landmark, network and supporting measures to combine to make a coherent programme of investment.  Supporting strategic objectives – contribution of the scheme towards the scheme objectives (Chapter 2).  Connectivity – improvement to the cycling journey and provision of a comprehensive network. 3.4 Subsequent to the Stage II bid, the set of schemes that are included in the programme have further evolved to meet the potential funding available. The aim of the scheme refinement

July 2014 | 27 E46

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

was to reduce the scheme costs while retaining the majority of the scheme benefits to reach a mini-Holland programme that delivers good value for money. 3.5 As such, the schemes that now form part of our programme have evolved since we first began considering them when the mini-Holland programmes was announced in early 2013. A summary of how the schemes have evolved since then up to this point is provided in Table 3.1.

July 2014 | 28 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Table 3.1: Evolution of schemes

Purpose EOI Stage II bid Current programme LANDMARK AND KINGSTON TOWN CENTRE SCHEMES Cycle hubs SC.15 Surbiton Station cycle superhub CH.1 Kingston Station cycle hub LM.1a Kingston Enterprise Hub / Kingston SC.16 Kingston Station cycle hub ST.1 Surbiton station plaza station access (interim scheme) SC.17 Kingston town centre cycle hub CH.2 Surbiton station cycle hub LM.1 Kingston station cycle hub + Kingston station plaza (full scheme) The Kingston town centre cycle hub was not taken forward due to the difficulty of identifying The Kingston hub has been combined with the a suitable and available site, and because a Kingston station plaza and split into interim and nearby hub will be provided at Kingston station full schemes The Surbiton schemes have been deprioritised (see next section) East-west connectivity LP.A Railway Superskyway MT.2 Kingston station plaza LM.1a Kingston Enterprise Hub / Kingston through the Kingston LP.C Kingston Station Plaza Scope of plaza reduced from EOI to improve station access (interim scheme) town centre value for money (by removing expensive tunnel) LM.1 Kingston station cycle hub + Kingston

Scope of superskyway reduced, with existing station plaza (full scheme) E47 routes to provide connectivity Combined with the Kingston Station cycle hub and split into interim and full schemes North-south connectivity LP.B Thames Boardway SV.3 Thames Boardway LM.3 Riverside Boardway along the western edge Generally unchanged from EOI (apart from some Generally unchanged from Stage II bid of Kingston town centre further design work) North-south connectivity SC.1 Wheatfield Way Greenway CR.1 Wheatfield Way Greenway LM.2 Wheatfield Way Greenway along the eastern edge of Generally unchanged from EOI (apart from some Generally unchanged from Stage II bid Kingston town centre further design work) Connectivity with SC.14 Kingston town centre connectivity MT.1 Kingston town centre connectivity NW.1a Interim local connectivity to Kingston Kingston town centre improvements improvements town centre Generally unchanged from EOI NW.2 Local connectivity: to Kingston Bridge NW.3a: Local connectivity: to Portsmouth Road NW.5a: Local connectivity: Kingston Hill / London Road Split across a number of more specific schemes

July 2014 | 29 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Purpose EOI Stage II bid Current programme Link across the River LP.A Railway Superskyway SV.2 Railside bridge Deprioritised route for potential future Thames A new bridge at Raven’s Ait was also examined, Some further design work completed on the implementation (see next section) but was not included in the final EOI due to very bridge and its approaches high construction costs RADIAL ROUTE AND NETWORK SCHEMES Direct link from Kingston SC.10 Richmond Road (A307) CR.8 Richmond Road (A307) Deprioritised route for potential future town centre towards Generally unchanged from EOI (apart from some implementation (see next section) Richmond (A307) further design work) Direct link from Kingston SC.7 Kingston Hill / Kingston Vale (A308) CM.2 Kingston Hill / Kingston Vale (A308) NW.1 Kingston Hill / Kingston Vale (A308) town centre towards Generally unchanged from EOI (apart from some NW.1a Interim local connectivity to Kingston Wandsworth (A308) further design work) town centre Scheme NW.1 Generally unchanged from CM.2 in the Stage II bid Scheme NW.1a provides an interim link between NW.1 and Kingston town centre Direct link from Kingston SC.6 Coombe Road / Coombe Lane West (A238) CM.1 Coombe Road / Coombe Lane West (A238) Deprioritised route for potential future E48 town centre towards Generally unchanged from EOI (apart from some implementation (see next section) Merton (A238) further design work) Direct link from Kingston SC.5 Cambridge Road / Kingston Road (A2043) CR.5 Cambridge Road / Kingston Road (A2043) NW.5 Cambridge Road / Kingston Road (A2043) to New Malden (A2043) SC.13 Dutch style roundabout SV.1 Dutch style roundabout at Fountain NW.5a Local connectivity: Kingston Hill / London Roundabout Road Generally unchanged from EOI (apart from some Scheme NW.5 combines schemes CR.5 and SV.1 further design work) from the Stage II bid Scheme NW.5a provides a link between NW.5 and Kingston town centre Direct link from New - SV.4 New Malden to Raynes Park link LM.4 New Malden to Raynes Park link Malden to Raynes Park New scheme identified that takes advantage of Generally unchanged from Stage II bid, except the existing Thames Water pipe trackway to that it now encompasses an upgrade to the provide a new off-road link existing path between Kingston Road (A2043) and Coombe Road (B283)

July 2014 | 30 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Purpose EOI Stage II bid Current programme Direct link from New SC.12 Malden Road (A2043) / High Street (B283) CR.10 Malden Road (A2043) / High Street (B283) Deprioritised route for potential future Malden to Worcester Generally unchanged from EOI (apart from some implementation (see next section) Park (A2043) further design work) Direct link from Kingston SC.3 Kingston to Surbiton CR.3 Kingston to Surbiton NW.4 Kingston to Surbiton town centre to Surbiton Generally unchanged from EOI (apart from some Generally unchanged from Stage II bid further design work) Direct link from Surbiton SC.8 Avenue Elmers CR.6 Avenue Elmers NW.6 Ewell Road (A240) to Tolworth SC.9 Ewell Road (A240) CR.7 Ewell Road (A240) NW.6a Local connectivity: St Mark’s Hill (B3370) Generally unchanged from EOI (apart from some Scheme NW.6 combines schemes CR.6 and CR.7 further design work) from the Stage II bid Scheme NW.6a is a new addition, to provide a more direct link to the centre of Surbiton Direct link from Kingston SC.2 Portsmouth Road (A307) north CR.2 Portsmouth Road (A307) north NW.3 Portsmouth Road north + south (A307) town centre towards SC.4 Portsmouth Road (A307) south CR.4 Portsmouth Road (A307) south NW.3a Local connectivity: to Portsmouth Road Thames Ditton Generally unchanged from EOI (apart from some Scheme NW.3 combines schemes CR.2 and CR.4 further design work) from the Stage II bid E49 Scheme NW.3a provides a link between NW.3 and Kingston town centre Direct link towards Hook SC.11 Hook Road / Upper Brighton Road (A243) CR.9 Hook Road / Upper Brighton Road (A243) Deprioritised route for potential future (A243) Generally unchanged from EOI (apart from some implementation (see next section) further design work) Supporting measures SC.18 Complementary measures SM.1 Complementary measures SM.1 Complementary measures Generally unchanged from EOI Generally unchanged from Stage II bid

July 2014 | 31 E50

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Scheme prioritisation 3.6 In addition to this process of evolution, we have prioritised the schemes included in our Stage II bid to fit within the likely level of funding that will be available. 3.7 The Stage II bid schemes were reviewed through the following process:  Focus on routes joining main town centres and CS routes  Deletion of high cost schemes where an adequate parallel route exists or could be built instead  Deletion of routes where a good, direct parallel Quietway exists 3.8 The process of going through this review is summarised in Table 3.2. 3.9 This initial review was then followed by:  Deletion of routes where space and physical conditions limited the scope of interventions.  Addition of short mini-Holland connections to ensure that following reductions a complete network is maintained.  Inclusion of separately-funded sections of priority Quietway to provide the complete mini- Holland network, for example South Lane which is parallel with Malden Road. 3.10 Finally, the schemes ultimately in our programmed have been prioritised for implementation, with this feeding into the delivery programme as described in Chapter 8. The factors taken into account include:  Community priorities  The need to prioritise the network elements  Timescale for, and complexity of, delivery (early wins versus longer term projects)

July 2014 | 32 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Table 3.2: Summary of Stage II bid scheme prioritisation

Stage II cost Deliverability Alternatives for deprioritised Stage II bid scheme Connectivity Overall comments Result estimate challenges schemes (£k) MT.1 Kingston town 5 589 Medium  - Key function in providing connectivity to and between Included as NW.1a, centre connectivity various network schemes NW.2, NW.3a, improvements NW.5a MT.2 Kingston station 1 656 High  - Whilst challenging to deliver, this scheme is at a key point Included as LM.1 / plaza of the cycle network and will also significantly enhance a LM.1a key gateway to Kingston ST.1 Surbiton station 2 898 Medium  - Network Rail and South West Trains have already invested Deprioritised plaza in cycle parking expansion at Surbiton SV.1 Dutch style 679 Medium  - Significantly enhances safety at a key junction for cyclists Combined with roundabout at CR.5 and included Fountain Roundabout as NW.5 / NW.5a E51 SV.2 Railside bridge 5 244 Medium  Kingston Bridge The existing cycle route across Kingston Bridge means that Deprioritised a new crossing of the River Thames is a low priority Improved link to Kingston Bridge included as NW.2 SV.3 Thames 5 727 Medium  - Significantly enhances direct north-south connectivity Included as LM.3 Boardway SV.4 New Malden to 1 932 Low  - Significantly enhanced connectivity to Raynes Park Included as LM.4 Raynes Park link CR.1 Wheatfield Way 2 490 High  Route through town centre Significantly enhances north-south connectivity and joins Included as LM.2 Greenway along Eden Street up many other schemes CR.2 Portsmouth 541 Low  - This route enables connectivity to be enhanced with Combined with Road (A307) north relatively few deliverability challenges CR.4 and included as NW.3 CR.3 Kingston to 1 533 Medium  - Important link between two key town centres and Included as NW.4 Surbiton transport hubs

July 2014 | 33 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Stage II cost Deliverability Alternatives for deprioritised Stage II bid scheme Connectivity Overall comments Result estimate challenges schemes (£k) CR.4 Portsmouth 767 Low  - This route enables connectivity to be enhanced with Combined with Road (A307) south relatively few deliverability challenges CR.2 and included as NW.3 CR.5 Cambridge 2 526 Medium  - This route improves connectivity to New Malden, which is Combined with Road/Kingston Road a key secondary town centre SV.1 and included (A2043) as NW.5 / NW.5a CR.6 Avenue Elmers 451 Low  - This route improves connectivity to Tolworth, which is a Combined with key secondary town centre CR.7 and included as NW.6 / NW.6a CR.7 Ewell Road 1 805 Medium  - This route improves connectivity to Tolworth, which is a Combined with (A2040) secondary key town centre CR.6 and included as NW.6 / NW.6a CR.8 Richmond Road 1 622 High  Parallel quietway route Whilst this route is important for connectivity, the Deprioritised (A307) available availability of alternatives means that it is a lower priority; there will be light improvements to the existing cycle lane E52 along Richmond Road through scheduled maintenance CR.9 Hook 1 805 Medium  CR.7 serves a nearby part of This link serves a similar part of the borough to CR.7, Deprioritised Road/Upper Brighton the borough which is a higher priority as it serves Tolworth Road (A243) CR.10 Malden Road 2 795 Medium  Parallel quietway route As an alternative quietway route in available, this scheme Deprioritised (A2043)/High Street available has been deprioritised (B283) CM.1 Coombe 2 069 Medium  New Malden to Raynes Park As an alternative link to Merton will be available, this Deprioritised Road/Coombe Lane link scheme has been deprioritised West (A238) CM.2 Kingston 3 144 Low  - Scheme is relatively straightforward to implement and Included as NW.1 / Hill/Kingston Vale provides connectivity towards central London NW.1a (A308)

July 2014 | 34 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Stage II cost Deliverability Alternatives for deprioritised Stage II bid scheme Connectivity Overall comments Result estimate challenges schemes (£k) CH.1 Kingston station 2 277 Medium  - A cycle hub at this location would lie where several Included as LM.1 / cycle hub schemes converge, serving both the station and town LM.1a centre CH.2 Surbiton station 1 380 Medium  - Whilst a cycle hub at this location would be desirable, it is Deprioritised cycle hub a lower priority than one at Kingston SM.1 Complementary 1 135 Low N/A - Key part of programme to ensure that benefits from Included as SM.1 measures infrastructure improvements are realised

E53

July 2014 | 35 E54

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Scheme Description 3.11 These mini-Holland schemes are listed in Table 3.3, and shown in Figure 3.1. The schemes have been categorised into three main groups:  Landmark schemes: Major schemes that will significantly improve connectivity by tackling existing severance issues.  Network schemes: A network of high-quality cycle routes providing links between key parts of the borough.  Supporting measures: A comprehensive range of complementary measures to support the infrastructure schemes. 3.12 In addition, a number of schemes within each group have been identified as early start schemes, as the aim is to begin implementation of these within the 2014/15 financial year. Where appropriate, changes to the Stage II bid have been identified.

July 2014 | 36 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Table 3.3: List of schemes

Scheme Length (for Changes from Scheme name Bid ref Scheme purpose Scheme description Scheme key impacts / issues type linear schemes) Stage II bid Landmark schemes [LM] Early start schemes LM.1a Kingston MT.1 - Provide an enhanced east-west - Cycle link west to the river, with a new cycle track - Negotiations with South West Off-road N/A Interim stage of Enterprise Hub (part) link between the river and Kingston along the railway line (3-4m wide) and widening the Trains to secure the retail unit. schemes included / Kingston CH.1 station existing footbridge. in bid. station access (interim) - Provide an interim cycle hub at this - Relocate existing taxi rank. Assumed to (interim key gateway. - Interim cycle hub using a currently vacant retail require 20% of scheme) unit in the station building. total cost. Other schemes LM.1 Kingston MT.1 - Enhance the arrival experience to - Reallocate road space on Wood Street and - Impact on traffic capacity. Off-road N/A Generally as per station cycle CH.1 the town centre from Kingston Clarence Street in front of Kingston station to create - Negotiations with South West scheme bid (subject to hub + Kingston station, which is currently poor and more space for cycle links and pedestrian circulation Trains and Network Rail. design station plaza vehicle-dominated. (remove one of the traffic lanes). - May be affected by town refinement) (full scheme) - Provide secure cycle parking at a - Provision of 4m wide two-way cycle tracks to centre proposals currently under Assumed to key gateway to the town centre. provide both north-south and east-west links. development. require remaining - New cycle hub immediately west of the station 80% of total cost.

building (in the area currently occupied by the taxi E55 rank), which will include secure cycle parking, cycling information and advice, a cycle shop and repairs, and lockers - this will incorporate the interim cycle hub LM.2 Wheatfield CR.1 - Addresses need for strategic - Scheme consists of a segregated, off-road cycle - Impact on motorised traffic Segregated 0.8km Generally as per Way Greenway north-south connections, route along the Wheatfield Way corridor between due to removal of the third facility bid (subject to complementing the proposed College Roundabout and Kingston station. traffic lane at some locations. design Riverside Broadway. - The existing design generally provides a two-way - May be affected by town refinement). - Connects with many of the other fully segregated cycle track at least 3.0m wide, centre proposals currently under schemes. except for a short 150m section where it will run on development. - Enables cyclists to avoid travelling a shared-use footway; the track is proposed to run through pedestrianised section of both along the eastern side of the road and in the town centre, enabling faster central median. journeys and reducing conflicts with - The existing design is subject to further pedestrians. refinement. LM.3 Riverside SV.3 - Existing quality of riverside walk is - New fixed boardway between Thames Side (north - River users: the scheme has Off-road 0.8km Generally as per Boardway variable, and cycling is restricted of John Lewis) to Queens Promenade. been modified to ensure that bid (subject to upstream of Kingston Bridge. - Boardway is cyclist only, except for pedestrian sufficient width remains design

July 2014 | 37 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Scheme Length (for Changes from Scheme name Bid ref Scheme purpose Scheme description Scheme key impacts / issues type linear schemes) Stage II bid - Provide a direct and legible north- access only to moorings. available for the regatta; and refinement). south cycle link in the Kingston town - Boardway will be 4m wide and set slightly away will also maintain access to centre. from the riverbank, with a number of access points. moorings. - Scheme also includes connections to cycle routes - Addressing any concerns raised at either end, plus the cycle route at Kingston by the Environment Agency. Bridge. LM.4 New Malden to SV.4 - Relatively few transport links Core section (Coombe Road east to Merton): - Negotiations with Thames Off-road Core section: Core section Raynes Park between RB Kingston and LB - Use existing Thames Water pipe trackway north of Water. 1.1km generally as per link Merton. the railway line, east from New Malden. - Liaison with LB Merton, to Additional bid (subject to - Coombe Lane (A238) and - 3m wide two-way cycle path, adjacent to 2m wide ensure scheme links to path in section: design Burlington Road (B282) provide footway Merton. 0.8km refinement) direct links, but are heavily - Lighting and seating. - Potential impacts on fauna. Upgrade to the trafficked and A3 interchanges can Additional section (Kingston Road to Coombe Road): existing section of be intimidating to cyclists. - Potential upgrade of existing path running along path is additional - Purpose of this new route is to the northern side of the railway line. to what was in the overcome severance, providing a bid. direct and high quality link towards Raynes Park, Wimbledon and CS7 in

Colliers Wood. E56 Network schemes [NW] Early start schemes NW.1 Kingston Hill / CM.2 - Provide a link to the neighbouring - Semi-segregated cycle lanes, between Gordon - Robin Hood junction On-road, 3.6km long Generally as per Kingston Vale boroughs of Wandsworth and Road and the A3. (signalised) between the A3 and semi- bid, except slightly (A308) Merton - Include a connection to the existing cycling Kingston Value (A308). segregated shorter in length - Provide a link towards inner and facilities along the A3. - Galsworthy Road / Kingston (subject to design central London, including CS7 and - Interim connection to Kingston town centre (see Hill (A308) signalised junction. refinement). CS8. next scheme). - Queens Road (B351) / Kingston Hospital / Kingston Hill (A308) signalised junction. - Clifton Road / Park Road / Manorgate Road / Kingston Hill (A308) roundabout. NW.1a Interim local N/A - Provide an interim connection to - Light touch improvements to create a quietway - Interface with town centre On-road, 0.9km long New scheme connectivity to the Kingston town centre to the link along Gordon Road, Queen Elizabeth Road and proposals currently being quietway Kingston town Kingston Hill / Kingston Vale (A308) Canbury Park Road, between London Road and developed. centre scheme. Richmond Road

July 2014 | 38 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Scheme Length (for Changes from Scheme name Bid ref Scheme purpose Scheme description Scheme key impacts / issues type linear schemes) Stage II bid NW.2 Local N/A - Provide link between existing cycle - Most likely route is along Clarence Street and - Interface with town centre On-road, 0.3km long New scheme connectivity: to track on Kingston Bridge and route Wood Street proposals currently being quietway Kingston Bridge along the railway line. - Focus will be on moderating vehicle speeds and developed. creating a 'shared space' type street environment - Managing potential conflicts where cyclists and motor vehicle can co-exist with buses. without the need for segregation NW.3 Portsmouth CR.2 - Provide a key link between - Segregated two-way cycle track on the western - Maintaining access to bus Segregated 1.6km Generally as per Road north + CR.4 Kingston, Surbiton and Thames side of Portsmouth Road between the proposed stops. / semi- bid (subject to south (A307) Ditton, along a route that is already Riverside Boardway and Palace Road. - Impacts on junction capacity segregated design popular with cyclists. - Semi-segregated cycle lanes south of Palace Road expected to be minimal. facility refinement) to the borough boundary. - May be minor reductions in pavement widths. NW.3a Local N/A - Provide link between Portsmouth - Scheme includes High Street and Eden Street, - Interface with town centre On-road, 0.3km long New scheme connectivity: to Road and the Kingston town centre. between Kingston Hall Road and St James's Road. proposals currently being quietway Portsmouth - Focus will be on moderating vehicle speeds and developed. Road creating a 'shared space' type street environment where cyclists and motor vehicle can co-exist without the need for segregation. Other schemes E57 NW.4 Kingston to CR.3 - Provide a link between Kingston - Semi-segregated cycle lanes along Penrhyn Road - Existing parking and loading On road, 1.7km Generally as per Surbiton (which is the borough's primary and Surbiton Road (A240) between College along some sections of the route semi- bid (subject to town centre), and Surbiton (which is Roundabout and Surbiton Crescent. - Managing potential conflicts segregated design also an important town centre and - Quietway along Surbiton Crescent between with buses facility / refinement) has fast train services). Surbiton Road (A240) and Claremont Road. quietway - Also serves key destinations en- - Quietway link along Palace Road between route, including Kingston University, Portsmouth Road (A307) and Surbiton Crescent. Kingston College, Surrey County Hall - Semi-segregated cycle lanes along Claremont Road and Surbiton High School. between Surbiton Crescent and St Mark's Hill (B3370). NW.5 Cambridge CR.5 - Direct, high quality link between - Generally semi-segregated cycle lanes, mostly with - Existing parking and loading On road, 2.8km Generally as per Road / Kingston SV.1 Kingston and New Malden, which a width of 1.6m or 2.0m. along some sections of the semi- bid (subject to Road (A2043) are two key town centres in the - Corridor runs along Cambridge Road / Kingston route. segregated design borough. Road (A2043), between London Road (A308) and - Managing potential conflicts refinement) - Significantly enhanced conditions Fountain Roundabout. with buses. for cyclists at Fountain Roundabout. - Dutch-style treatment of Fountain Roundabout at - Impacts on junction operation. the eastern end of the corridor. - Fountain Roundabout is a key

July 2014 | 39 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Scheme Length (for Changes from Scheme name Bid ref Scheme purpose Scheme description Scheme key impacts / issues type linear schemes) Stage II bid point of severance, however standard Dutch roundabout would .significantly affect capacity. NW.5a Local N/A - Provide link between new routes - Scheme includes a link along London Road (A308), - Impacts on traffic along On-road, 0.9km New scheme connectivity: on Cambridge Road (A2043) and between Queen Elizabeth Road and Gordon Road - London Road (A308), including semi- Kingston Hill / Kingston Hill (A308), and the the exact form of this link is to be confirmed. buses. segregated London Road Kingston town centre. - This will link to the existing quietway route along - Interface with town centre / quietway Old London Road, which may be improved. proposals currently being developed. NW.6 Ewell Road CR.6 - Provide link between Surbiton and - Quietway along Avenue Elmers. - Existing parking and loading On-road, 2.5km Generally as per (A240) CR.7 Tolworth. - Generally semi-segregated cycle lanes for corridor along some sections of the semi- bid (subject to along Ewell Road (A240), between St Mark's Hill route. segregated design (B3370) and Tolworth Broadway. - Managing potential conflicts refinement) with buses. - Impacts on junction operation. NW.6a Local N/A - Provide link between the Kingston - Route runs along St Mark's Hill (B3370), between - Operation of junctions at On-road, 0.4km New scheme connectivity: St to Surbiton and Ewell Road (A240) Claremont Road and Ewell Road (A240). either end of route. quietway Mark's Hill schemes. - Focus will be on moderating vehicle speeds and E58 (B3370) creating a 'shared space' type street environment where cyclists and motor vehicle can co-exist without the need for segregation, together with junction treatments at either end. Supporting measures [SM] Early start and ongoing schemes SM.1 Complementary SM.1 - Overcome cultural barriers to - Develop and deliver a comprehensive range of - Ensuring that 'hard to reach' Supporting N/A As per bid measures making cycling an everyday complementary measures. groups are engaged with. measures occurrence - These measures (especially behaviour change) will - Change perceptions and be vital in ensuring that the benefits from the behaviours through targeted infrastructure schemes are fully realised. engagement with businesses, schools and community groups.

July 2014 | 40 Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Figure 3.1: Scheme map E59

July 2014 | 41 E60

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Scheme Illustrations 3.13 A selection of scheme illustrations are provided in Figures 3.2 to 3.8. These have been extracted from the Stage II bid document. As such, they are illustrative only and the final form of each scheme may evolve as further design and development work is undertaken in due course.

Figure 3.2: LM.1 Kingston Enterprise Hub and Kinston station plaza

Figure 3.3: LM.3 Riverside Boardway

July 2014 | 42 E61

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Figure 3.4: LM.4 New Malden to Raynes Park link

Figure 3.5: NW.3 Portsmouth Road

July 2014 | 43 E62

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Figure 3.6: NW.4 Kingston to Surbiton - Claremont Road

Figure 3.7: NW.5 Cambridge Road / Kingston Road – Kingston Road

July 2014 | 44 E63

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Figure 3.8: NW.5 Cambridge Road / Kingston Road - Fountain Roundabout

July 2014 | 45 E64

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Needs and Issues Addressed 3.14 Table 3.4 sets out the programme schemes against planned contribution to the needs and issues set out in Chapter 2.

Table 3.4: Programme Schemes and relationship with Needs and Issues

2

Scheme name

Safety

Traffic Congestion Traffic Overcrowding PT Routes Orbital of Proportion High trips bycar cyclable Severance Growth Population CO and Quality Air Crime Cycle Infrastructure Cycling Landmark schemes [LM] Early start schemes LM.1a Kingston Enterprise Hub / Kingston     -      station access (interim scheme) Other schemes LM.1 Kingston station cycle hub + Kingston -        -  station plaza (full scheme) LM.2 Wheatfield Way Greenway -          LM.3 Riverside Boardway   -        LM.4 New Malden to Raynes Park link        -   Network schemes [NW] Early start schemes NW.1 Kingston Hill / Kingston Vale (A308) -  -     -   NW.1a Interim local connectivity to Kingston   -     -   town centre NW.2 Local connectivity: to Kingston Bridge -  -     -   NW.3 Portsmouth Road north + south (A307)   -     -   NW.3a Local connectivity: to Portsmouth Road -  -     -   Other schemes NW.4 Kingston to Surbiton   -     -   NW.5 Cambridge Road / Kingston Road (A2043) -       -   NW.5a Local connectivity: Kingston Hill / London -       -   Road NW.6 Ewell Road (A240) -       -   NW.6a Local connectivity: St Mark's Hill (B3370) -       -   Supporting measures [SM] Early start and ongoing schemes SM.1 Complementary measures     -    - -

July 2014 | 46 E65

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

4 Scheme Costs Introduction 4.1 The scheme costs discussed in this chapter should be seen as an update (rather than a refinement) of the costs outlined in the Stage II bid. The bid costs have been updated to take into account the changed scope of some schemes (such as the shortening and lengthening of some schemes) but they have not been refined given that no significant further design work or investigations have yet been undertaken at this point. 4.2 The approach used to estimate scheme costs is described below. The key point to note is that they are high level estimates only, at the ±30% level. Therefore, as each scheme is taken forward, a key task will be to refine its cost estimate as it is defined and developed further. Approach to Costing 4.3 The overall process used to estimate the components of the development and delivery cost for each scheme in the Stage II bid is summarised in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1. The exception being supporting measures, where a different methodology was employed. All of the cost estimates in the Stage II bid were done at the ±30% level.

July 2014 | 47 E66

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Figure 4.1: Process for estimating components of development & delivery costs in the Stage II bid

Scheme implementation cost Ancillary costs (percentage of (including contingency) scheme implementation cost including contingency)

•Estimate scheme •Data collection implementation cost •Feasibility & initial design •Add contingency •Detailed design & (percentage of scheme consultation implementation cost) •Fees

Table 4.1: Percentages applied to estimate cost components

Landmark schemes (except Network schemes (plus Wheatfield Item Wheatfield Way Greenway) Way Greenway) Components calculated as percentage of scheme implementation cost Scheme implementation contingency 15.0% 16.0% Components calculated as percentage of scheme implantation cost (including contingency) Data collection 2.0% 0.4% Feasibility & initial design 5.0% 3.0% Detailed design & consultation 5.0% 7.4% Fees 8.0% 10.0%

4.4 These individual cost components were then combined into two main cost components for each scheme:  Design & development:  Data collection  Feasibility & initial design  Detailed design & consultation  Build cost:  Scheme implementation cost (including contingency)  Fees 4.5 The overall development & delivery cost for each scheme was then calculated as the sum of these two main components. 4.6 The process used to estimate the scheme implementation cost for each type is outlined in the sections below. Landmark schemes (except Wheatfield Way Greenway) 4.7 Implementation costs were estimated for each of these schemes based on initial concepts only. These estimates were largely based on costs for comparable past projects with input from a quantity surveyor for some of the more substantial schemes.

July 2014 | 48 E67

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Network schemes (plus Wheatfield Way Greenway) 4.8 These schemes are linear in nature, and as such their scheme implementation costs were estimated based on a linear rate. This linear rate was developed by working out a scheme implementation cost for the Cambridge Road / Kingston Road (A2043) scheme, as more design work had been completed for this scheme (relative to the other network schemes) at the bid stage. This cost was then divided by the length of the scheme, in order to obtain a linear unit rate. 4.9 This linear rate has then been applied to the other network schemes, in proportion to their length. In addition, the costs for certain schemes have been adjusted upwards on downwards, based on engineering judgement regarding their complexity relative to the Cambridge Road / Kingston Road (A2043) scheme. Supporting measures 4.10 The following cost components were estimated based on previous experience:  Research, development and monitoring  Delivery:  Events and materials  Staff fees  Cyclist training Updated Scheme Costs Assumptions 4.11 The updated scheme costs presented in this section follow the same methodology outlined above, but have been updated based on the following assumptions:  Landmark schemes: The costs for these are mostly unchanged. The exception is for the Kingston station cycle hub and the Kingston station plaza, which have been combined into an integrated scheme, with this combined scheme then split into an interim scheme and a full scheme. It has been assumed that 20% of the total cost will be incurred for the interim scheme, and the remaining 80% for the full scheme.  Network schemes: These costs have been updated by applying the same linear unit rate used for the Stage II bid, but updating the cost of each scheme taking into account its length and anticipated complexity.  Supporting measures: Unchanged from the Stage II bid. Scheme cost estimate by scheme 4.12 The estimated scheme cost by scheme in 2013 prices is set out in Table 4.2. The scheme costs listed here are based on the total development and delivery cost for each scheme, and as such include both design & development, and build costs. Including planning and bid preparation costs spent to date, the total cost of the programme is £34.7m in 2013 prices. 4.13 As a contingency has been applied to each scheme implementation cost, this contingency is also implicitly included in the other cost components (as these are calculated as a percentage of the scheme implementation cost including contingency).

July 2014 | 49 E68

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Table 4.2: Scheme cost by scheme (£’000 in 2013 prices)

Length (for linear Cost Scheme name Scheme type schemes) (£’000) Landmark schemes [LM] Early start schemes Kingston Enterprise Hub / Kingston LM.1a Off-road N/A £1,574 station access (interim scheme) Other schemes Kingston station cycle hub + Kingston LM.1 Off-road scheme N/A £6,293 station plaza (full scheme) LM.2 Wheatfield Way Greenway Segregated facility 0.8km £2,490

LM.3 Riverside Boardway Off-road 0.8km £5,728 Core section: 1.1km LM.4 New Malden to Raynes Park link Off-road £1,933 Additional section: 0.8km Network schemes [NW] Early start schemes NW.1 Kingston Hill / Kingston Vale (A308) On-road, semi-segregated 3.6km £3,085 Interim local connectivity to Kingston NW.1a On-road, quietway 0.9km £488 town centre NW.2 Local connectivity: to Kingston Bridge On-road, quietway 0.3km £163 Segregated / semi- NW.3 Portsmouth Road north + south (A307) 1.6km £1,373 segregated facility NW.3a Local connectivity: to Portsmouth Road On-road, quietway 0.3km £163

Other schemes On road, semi-segregated NW.4 Kingston to Surbiton 1.7km £1,533 facility / quietway Cambridge Road / Kingston Road NW.5 On road, semi-segregated 2.8km £3,205 (A2043) Local connectivity: Kingston Hill / On-road, semi-segregated NW.5a 0.9km £812 London Road / quietway NW.6 Ewell Road (A240) On-road, semi-segregated 2.5km £2,255 Local connectivity: St Mark's Hill NW.6a On-road, quietway 0.4km £217 (B3370) Supporting measures [SM] Early start and ongoing schemes SM.1 Complementary measures Supporting measures N/A £1,135 Mini-Holland Programme Programme preparation costs to date £300 TOTAL COST £32,747

July 2014 | 50 E69

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Revenue and capital costs 4.14 The vast majority of the scheme costs that will be incurred as part of the programme will be capital costs, given that they involve the implementation of infrastructure. The main exception to this is for the complementary measures scheme (SM.1). Whilst the specific items that expenditure will be incurred on are yet to be confirmed, it is anticipated that the bulk of the complementary measures scheme cost will comprise revenue costs. 4.15 In addition, out of TfL’s initial allocation of £700k, it is estimated that approximately £300k will be spent on start-up revenue costs for the programme as a whole, which are not directly attributable to particular schemes. The remaining £400k will be capital spend toward the programme. Risk and optimism bias 4.16 At this stage of the project, the schemes have not been fully defined and a quantified risk assessment (QRA) has not been completed. The QRA would normally capture the cost impacts of identified risks that are generally external to the project. The base costs include a contingency allowance of 15–16% on build costs, but this is not expected to cover unexpected additional expenditures. 4.17 For appraisal purposes, TfL’s guidance requires that an optimism bias of 44% should be applied to cycling schemes that have yet to undergo a QRA. Once a QRA is undertaken, the optimism bias value can then be reduced, and it will be applicable to the scheme cost plus QRA. Optimism bias is not conventionally used for setting out funding requirements. 4.18 In order to avoid cost escalation subsequent to a QRA being undertaken, a risk allowance equivalent to half the value of the optimism bias, i.e. 22%, has been included for budgetary purposes. As scheme definitions are developed further, scheme costs will be refined. Cost savings 4.19 The mini-Holland programme is expected to deliver cycling investment over and above what the Borough would otherwise spend in the baseline. The increase in cycling trips may result in bus capacity enhancements to no longer be required. However this business case prudently assumes that there would not be any material direct cost savings due to the mini-Holland programme. Total base cost 4.20 Table 4.3 sets out how the total programme scheme cost is broken down by cost category, including risk. These costs are in 2013 prices.

Table 4.3: Scheme cost breakdown by category including risk (£m in 2013 prices)

Spend in 2013 prices 2013 Prices Data collection 0.34 Feasibility & initial design 1.42 Detailed design & consultation 1.74 Scheme implementation 23.23 Contingency 3.60

July 2014 | 51 E70

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Spend in 2013 prices 2013 Prices Fees 2.42 Sub-Total 32.75 Risk (22%) 7.14 Total 39.89

Scheme cost inflation 4.21 The base scheme cost for the mini-Holland schemes is assumed to increase at 3.5% per annum in nominal terms, or 1.0% per annum in real terms assuming a background inflation of 2.5% per annum. Scheme cost spend profile 4.22 An indicative scheme cost spend profile has been developed based on the implementation readiness of schemes. Table 4.4 sets out the capital spend profile. Including inflation and risk, the outturn scheme cost for funding the mini-Holland programme is £44.2m. (In line with TfL appraisal guidance, a different total is used for appraisal purposes; Appendix C summarises why this is the case.)

Table 4.4: Scheme cost spend profile (£m in Outturn prices)

Spend Financial Year 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total to Date Data collection 0.00 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.36 Feasibility & initial design 0.30 0.44 0.46 0.30 0.00 0.00 1.50 Detailed design & consultation 0.00 0.76 0.72 0.37 0.00 0.00 1.85 Scheme implementation 0.00 0.07 7.32 6.97 11.47 0.06 25.88 Contingency 0.00 0.01 1.15 1.10 1.74 0.01 4.01 Fees 0.00 0.01 0.80 0.76 1.11 0.01 2.69 Sub-Total 0.30 1.41 10.59 9.61 14.32 0.07 36.29 Risk 0.00 0.31 2.33 2.11 3.15 0.02 7.92 Total 0.30 1.71 12.92 11.72 17.47 0.09 44.21

Note: This profile is based on the implementation programme in Appendix B, the achievement of which is subject to a number of risks as outlined in paragraph 8.7.

Operating, Maintenance and Renewal Costs 4.23 This business case considers not just the initial scheme costs but the overall costs over the project appraisal period. Once the mini-Holland programme has been implemented, there will be some day-to-day operating and maintenance costs required for some schemes such as the cycle hub. Other schemes will require renewal costs – for example refreshing the road markings. 4.24 The business case assumes an annual allowance of £440,000 per annum in 2013 prices, based on the following assumptions:  The Landmark schemes have a design life of 30 years and requires a maintenance and renewal expenditure worth of 2% of the scheme cost per annum. This means that over the

July 2014 | 52 E71

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

30 year design life, the maintenance and renewal costs would be worth 60% of the initial capital outlay.  Renewal costs of other schemes are assumed to be incorporated in the baseline/business as usual works undertaken by the Borough.  Maintenance and renewal costs are assumed to increase by 1.0% per annum in real terms. 4.25 As the schemes are progressed through further design and development, we will engage with relevant officers in order to refine these initial assumptions that we have made at this point.

July 2014 | 53 E72

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

5 Strategic Benefits Key Strategic Benefits 5.1 This chapter sets out the main benefits of the mini-Holland programme. More people cycling 5.2 The main outcome to be delivered by the investment is that more of residents and visitors to the borough choose to travel by bicycle. This will include more cycling among members of traditionally ‘hard to reach’ groups. The mini-Holland programme will focus on delivering improvements that are inclusive and enable all people to start cycling. The schemes will help to create new cyclists who are representative of the people who live, work and study in Kingston. 5.3 More children and young people cycling to and from school, college and university will help to relieve congestion at ‘school run’ times. Given that one in five cars on the road during peak travel times are taking children to and from school, the benefit could be significant. To reduce car based school journeys, parents need confidence to allow their children to cycle safely to school. The mini-Holland programme, combined with other projects including Quietways and Cycle to School Partnerships, will seek to address the school journey by making cycling actually and perceptually safer. 5.4 The aspirational targets of the programme are to increase the level of cycling across the borough as a whole by 80% in the first three years of the programme and by 400% within 10 years of the programme delivery commencing2.

2 This business case acknowledges that these targets are aspirational and has taken a more conservative view on how the mini- Holland programme can change cycling behaviour. This is set out further in section Error! Reference source not found..

July 2014 | 54 E73

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Impact of cycling schemes - case studies London 5.5 Over the past decade, cycling in London has experienced a significant boost. Considerable efforts by the Mayor, TfL and local authorities have delivered a wide range of cycling enhancements such as the Cycle Superhighways, the Barclays Bike hire scheme, cycle priority schemes and significant improvements to road design. 5.6 These enhancements have led to a shift in culture and attitude towards cycling. Based on TfL’s 60 automatic cycle counters across the TfL Road Network (TLRN) over the 10-year period from 2003/04 to 2013/14, the number of cyclists has increased by 150%3. This demonstrates that with the appropriate investment and political support, a step change in cycling trips can be achieved. 5.7 Not all the circumstances in other parts of London are directly relevant to Kingston – for example, in central London the Congestion Charge was implemented, and significant public transport improvements (such as the London Overground) have occurred in other boroughs. Nevertheless, as a whole the mini-Holland schemes will work together as a package in order to influence a material change in cycling culture. Darlington 5.8 Darlington invested in a range of cycling schemes including (workplace, school, personal) travel planning, as well as cycling and walking promotion schemes. Over a three year period, the number of cyclists passing through automatic cycle counts increased by 57%4. 5.9 This observed increase equates to an annual compound growth rate of approximately 16%, which would equate to a 440% increase in cycling if sustained over ten years. This is higher than the aspirational target of 400% for the Kingston mini-Holland programme, and demonstrates that the potential for additional cyclists is significant when encouraged through appropriate means. The publicity attracted as a direct result of the mini-Holland programme and through its complementary measures will help deliver a real shift towards cycling. Less congestion on the transport network 5.10 New cycle journeys will be drawn from our pool of potentially cyclable trips – these are journeys that are currently made by car and public transport that could instead be made by bicycle. Giving cyclists a segregated route will help to smooth the flow of traffic by removing the need for drivers overtake cyclists in the main carriageway except when cyclists need to enter the carriageway to avoid obstructions, overtake other cyclists and turn right. This will make the road network more efficient and driving easier. 5.11 In the context of new development and the borough’s growing population, we expect that cycling will contribute to increasing the overall capacity of our transport network. This will enable Kingston to accommodate growth sustainably and in a way that puts less pressure on

3 http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/cycle-flows-tfl-road-network

4 Cycling in the city regions Annex 1: Modelling the Impact of Step Changes in the Delivery of Measures to Support Cycling in PTE Areas: Technical Report

July 2014 | 55 E74

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

the existing public transport and road networks. For instance, in the next decade, major development is due to take place to the north of Kingston town centre. The mini-Holland programme will help to unlock this development potential and accommodate newly generated trips sustainably. Road danger reduction 5.12 The mini-Holland programme will result in more people cycling more often in the borough. It is crucial that new and existing cyclists are also able to make journeys more safely. The high quality, high capacity cycle infrastructure will provide protection for vulnerable road users, delivering real and perceived improvements to safety. The Borough already has an outstanding reputation for cyclist training. The in-house cycle training team provides Bikeability Level 1 and 2 training to approximately 1,500 children each year and, with Biking Borough funding, we also provide free Bikeability Level 3 training to 200 secondary school children and adults. Work will continue to increase awareness of vulnerable road users among drivers and encourage all road users to share the space. The mini-Holland infrastructure schemes combined with an extensive programme of travel information, training, marketing and promotion will continue the collision rate reduction achieved in recent years. Better inter-borough connectivity 5.13 Infrastructure improvements will be delivered across the borough and, importantly, on the boundaries with neighbouring areas. People do not just travel within the confines of their home borough and the programme will facilitate cycling into Kingston from neighbouring boroughs as well as enable our residents to have better access to the services and opportunities on offer in the wider area. High quality links towards the Cycle Superhighways will facilitate cycle journeys into central and inner London. Improved town centre vitality and viability 5.14 More people cycling to town centres rather than driving will reduce town centre congestion, release car parking spaces for those who need them and reduce pressure on public transport leading into our town centres. Providing sufficient and convenient cycle parking in our town centres will encourage more people to shop locally rather than going further afield, helping local businesses to survive and expand, sustaining and increasing the variety of shops and services that people want to use. Safe and attractive cycle routes will be provided into the main town centres which will facilitate cycle trips by those living, studying and working there. Better public realm 5.15 The mini-Holland programme will transform the quality of roads and public spaces. Pavements adjacent to the new cycle lanes and tracks will be improved while the lanes and tracks will put a distance between pedestrians and motor vehicles, making walking more comfortable. Pavements will be levelled to make access by wheelchairs and those with sensory impairments easier. In places, zebra crossings will be required to address the loss of informal refuges and this will give pedestrians greater safety and priority when crossing the road. 5.16 The programme enhances the public space outside Kingston railway station, better incorporating the station within the town centre. New public realm will be created through the construction of the Riverside Boardway, which will not only provide improved connectivity but also open up the river bank, bringing more people to the waterfront.

July 2014 | 56 E75

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Summary of Strategic Benefits against Objectives 5.17 Table 5.1 summarises qualitatively how each of the schemes in the mini-Holland programme are expected to contribute towards the overall programme objectives. The assessment scale used is as previously set out in Table 2.1.

Table 5.1: Programme schemes and their contribution to strategic benefits

-

Scheme name

congestion congestion

More people Morepeople cycling Less transport the on network danger Road reduction Betterinter borough connectivity town Improved and centrevitality viability Betterpublic realm

Landmark schemes [LM] Early start schemes LM.1a Kingston Enterprise Hub / Kingston    -  - station access (interim scheme) Other schemes LM.1 Kingston station cycle hub + Kingston  - - -   station plaza (full scheme) LM.2 Wheatfield Way Greenway  -    - LM.3 Riverside Boardway       LM.4 New Malden to Raynes Park link       Network schemes [NW]

Early start schemes NW.1 Kingston Hill / Kingston Vale (A308)  -    - NW.1a Interim local connectivity to Kingston      - town centre NW.2 Local connectivity: to Kingston Bridge  -    - NW.3 Portsmouth Road north + south      - (A307) NW.3a Local connectivity: to Portsmouth  -    - Road Other schemes NW.4 Kingston to Surbiton      - NW.5 Cambridge Road / Kingston Road  -    - (A2043) NW.5a Local connectivity: Kingston Hill /  -    - London Road NW.6 Ewell Road (A240)  -    - NW.6a Local connectivity: St Mark's Hill  -    - (B3370) Supporting measures [SM] Early start and ongoing schemes SM.1 Complementary measures   - -  -

July 2014 | 57 E76

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Summary of Strategic Benefits by User Group 5.18 Table 5.2 summarises how the mini-Holland programme will impact the various user groups. The assessment scale used is as previously set out in Table 2.1.

Table 5.2: Summary of strategic benefits by user group

User Group Strategic Benefit Assessment  Cyclists will greatly benefit from a range of infrastructure improvements including segregated tracks, semi-segregated routes, junctions and cycle parking. In some cases new routes will be provided and journey times will be reduced for some journeys. Cyclists   The segregation and junction improvements other schemes will reduce potential conflicts between cyclists and other road users such as cars and pedestrians, thereby improving their safety.  As people cycle more, they will benefit from improved health and wellbeing.  LM1, LM3 and LM4 create new walking routes and pedestrian spaces that significantly improve the urban realm. The walking experience will be considerably enhanced in those areas. Pedestrians   Schemes such as LM2 reduces the conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.  Traffic calming in the town centre will reduce severance, improve safety, air quality and noise for pedestrians.  Some schemes will reduce conflict between buses and cyclists. This means that there will be fewer delays when buses pull in and out of bus stops as cyclists negotiate their way around buses. Buses are also less likely to be Public delayed by following cyclists in the bus lane. transport  If more short journeys are made by bicycle, there will be additional capacity  passengers on local bus routes, particularly at busy sections close to Kingston town centre.  On some on-road schemes such as NW4 and NW5, conflicts between cyclists and buses will need to be managed.  As the borough grows, traffic congestion is likely to worsen. The mini-Holland programme is expected to reduce the number of journeys made by car, thereby reducing congestion and time spent looking for vacant parking spaces for remaining car users on the road. Car drivers  Schemes such as LM2, NW5a, NW6 and NW6a will require reallocation of road and space away from cars. There is a potential for reduced traffic speeds and - passengers increased congestion, but these impacts will be mitigated in the detailed design phase.  By reducing conflicts between cyclists and general traffic, there will be a traffic calming effect. In addition to smoother traffic speeds, this can reduce the level of stress and anxiety experienced by drivers.

July 2014 | 58 E77

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

User Group Strategic Benefit Assessment  The Landmark schemes, particularly LM2 and LM3, will “put Kingston on the map” and make Kingston town centre a much more attractive destination for people who don’t normally shop in Kingston.  If short-distance trips are made by bicycle, the road and parking capacity will be freed up for other visitors travelling a longer distance by car with the intent Local of spending more money.  businesses  Improved inter-borough connectivity offered by the strategic cycle routes will also support growth with other local businesses.  The removal of on-street parking with NW4, NW5 and NW6 has the potential to affect local businesses. However, alternative parking arrangements can be considered. More cyclists will go past these businesses and they are more likely to stop and visit compared to car drivers.  LM1, LM3 and LM4 create new space for local residents to socialise, enhancing the community feel. LM4 also creates a new leisure trail for their enjoyment. Local  Improved cycling connections mean that residents will have more choice in  residents which mode they wish to travel and where they travel to.  Local residents will benefit from improved air quality and amenity through reduced traffic and congestion.

July 2014 | 59 E78

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

6 Economic Case Overview and Assessment Methodology Overview 6.1 This section sets out the estimated transport benefits that make up the conventional economic case for transport projects. The approach follows the principles of DfT’s Transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG) and TfL Business Case Development Manual (BCDM) guidance. 6.2 The programme contains 16 different schemes and supporting complementary measures, that function as a network of cycle routes working together to deliver a step-change in the quality of provision and user perception of cycling. As such, it is appropriate to consider the benefits of the programme as a package of schemes. This is also a more pragmatic approach at this stage given that a number of schemes have not yet been fully developed and further technical work will be required to assess specific impacts. 6.3 The overall assessment process is as follows:  Identify current cycling trip volume and characteristics using London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS) data;  Identifying future baseline demand levels using Greater London Authority (GLA) Economics growth projections;  Assume two future mode share scenarios reflecting the potential of the mini-Holland programme; and  Estimate the key benefits of the mini-Holland programme following the principles of TAG and TfL guidance. Cycling Demand and Characteristics Current demand and characteristics 6.4 The Borough has the second highest cycling mode share of all outer London boroughs. Analysis has been undertaken of data from LTDS, a continuous household survey of the London area

July 2014 | 60 E79

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

within the M25 undertaken by TfL. Table 6.1 sets out the trip characteristics for the Kingston mini-Holland core catchment area, broadly defined as trips within a 3km radius of the town centre. Table 6.1: LTDS cycling statistics for journey stages in the mini-Holland core catchment area (Average of 2010 to and 2012)

Measure Value Total trips – all modes (per day) 325,500 Number of cycle trips (per day) 23,200 Cycling mode share 4.7% Average cycle trip length (km) 1.36 Average cycle trip duration (mins) 11.9 Average cycle speed (km/hr) 6.8

Table 6.2: LTDS cycling journey purpose splits for journey stages in the mini-Holland core catchment area (Average of 2010 to 2012)

Measure Value Workplace (commuting) 17.4% Work related (business) 1.1% Education 7.7% Shopping and personal 33.2% Leisure 26.8% Other 13.8% Total 100%

6.5 It should be noted that LTDS does not include trips between the Borough and neighbouring Surrey. This would represent an upside to the business case. Future baseline Planning assumptions 6.6 Significant development is anticipated to take place in the Borough. Table 6.3 sets out the GLA Economics 2013 trend-based population and employment projections for the Borough between 2011 and 2026, the future horizon year adopted in this Business Case. This will lead to an increase in trip volumes around 15% over that period.

Table 6.3: Population and employment growth in Royal Borough of Kingston (GLA Economics, 2013)

2011 2026 % Growth Population 160,000 186,000 15.6% Employment 78,000 86,000 9.9%

Exogenous demand growth 6.7 In the absence of the mini-Holland programme, the growth in trips will likely occur across all main modes of transport – car, bus, rail, walk and cycle. Given the current congestion conditions and the expectation that there will be limited increases in parking supply in the

July 2014 | 61 E80

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

town centre, the ability for the town centre economic activity to grow will be significantly constrained. This will mean that the trend-based growth projections may not fully materialise. There is some potential for public transport, walking and cycling to absorb additional share of trips, but based on committed investment, this will be limited. 6.8 The 2026 Baseline (do-minimum) in this Business Case conservatively assumes that the growth in trips can largely be accommodated by the existing highway and public transport provision, and that the cycle mode share will peak at 7.0% (based on LIP growth targets). This is set out in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4: Future baseline trip statistics within 3km of Kingston town centre

2011 2011 2026 2026 Change in Growth in Measure Trips 2011 to Trips 2011 to Daily Trips Mode Share Daily Trips Mode Share 2026 2026 Cycling 23,200 4.7% 39,700 7.0% 16,500 71% Walk 325,500 66.0% 374,300 66.0% 48,800 15% Bus 42,800 8.7% 45,300 8.0% 2,500 6% Rail 1,200 0.2% 1,300 0.2% 200 15% Car driver 75,200 15.2% 79,700 14.0% 4,500 6% Car passenger 25,600 5.2% 27,100 4.8% 1,500 6% Total 493,400 100.0% 567,400 100.0% 74,000 15% Scenarios Assessed 6.9 In the mini-Holland proposal in December 2013, key cycling mode share targets were developed. At present, limited technical work has been undertaken to assess the demand impacts of the programme. For consistency, the target mode share scenarios will be used to underpin the Business Case of the Kingston mini-Holland package of schemes. 6.10 Two cycling mode share scenarios will be considered against a future baseline with a cycling mode share of 7.0% by 2026:  Low impact scenario – cycling mode share in the core catchment area will reach 10% by 2026.  High impact scenario – cycling mode share in the core catchment area will reach 15% by 2026. 6.11 These mode shares suggest that the number of cycle trips are expected to double over the next decade. As discussed in paragraph 5.5, this is comparable with the growth in cycling observed in London as a whole and therefore considered a realistic basis for appraisal purposes. 6.12 It will be important undertake further work on these mode share targets early in the programme, in order to confirm their validity. Baseline information will be obtained through surveys undertaking as part of the monitoring programme, whilst the potential for future increases could be assessed against a more detailed analysis of available data sources, such as on potential cycle trips and propensity to cycle.

July 2014 | 62 E81

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Target Demand Impacts 6.13 Based on the growth and scenario assumption discussed earlier, Table 6.5 sets out the key daily cycling demand related targets that underpinned the mini-Holland programme. In estimating these demand impacts, the average car occupancy has been assumed to be 1.34 (based on LTDS data) and the average number of daily trips per cyclist is 2.2. These impacts represent key inputs to the economic case. Figure 6.1 illustrates how the cycle demand is expected to increase in the future and how the mini-Holland programme contributes towards the increase.

Table 6.5: Target demand impacts within 3km of Kingston town centre in 2026

Low Impact High Impact Metric Future Baseline Scenario Scenario Cycling mode share 7.0% 10% 15% Number of cycle trips per day 39,700 56,700 85,100 Number of additional cycle trips per day 17,000 45,400 Increase in cycle time travelled per day (mins) 202,500 540,100 Increase in cycle distance travelled per day (km) 23,100 61,700 Reduction in car journeys per day 7,700 20,600 Reduction in car distance travelled per day(km) 12,700 33,900

Figure 6.1: Current, future baseline and with programme cycling demand (cycle trips per day) and mode share within 3km of Kingston town centre

15%

10%

7.0%

4.7%

July 2014 | 63 E82

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Conventional Benefits 6.14 The mini-Holland programme will deliver a range of benefits to users. This section sets out the assumptions underpinning the project benefits. The approach undertaken is in line with DfT’s Transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG). In summary, these include the following:  User benefits – benefits perceived by existing cyclists and those who change mode from car to non-car modes of transport. These include:  Journey time benefits  Cycle infrastructure benefits  Urban realm benefits  Externality benefits – benefits that affect other road users who remain on the road as a result of reduced car use. These include:  Decongestion  Infrastructure savings  Collision savings  Local air quality  Noise  Greenhouse gas  Indirect taxation  Health and absenteeism benefits – benefits as a result of improved physical fitness from increased cycling.  Cycling Safety benefits – benefits as a result of safer cycle routes. User benefits Journey time benefits 6.15 A number of the mini-Holland Programme schemes provide a new links that deliver substantial journey time savings by bicycle. For example:  LM3 Riverside Boardway reduces the north-south journey times by approximately 1.5 minutes  LM4 New Malden to Raynes Park link reduces the Kingston-Raynes Park journey times by 3.5 minutes 6.16 In addition, cycling will allow many cyclists to choose more direct routes because they are more confident in using them following the cycle infrastructure improvements. 6.17 We have assumed that 25% of all cyclists will experience a notable journey time benefit worth 25 pence per trip as a result of the new routes. This is approximately equivalent to a 2 minute journey time saving per cyclist. Cycle infrastructure benefits 6.18 The mini-Holland schemes will deliver a step change in cycling infrastructure and the perceived convenience of cycling to both existing and new users. When passengers change mode and start cycling, they often do so because they are more informed of the benefits of the journey. For example, the journey may become quicker, more enjoyable or cheaper. This is what is described as user benefits.

July 2014 | 64 E83

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

6.19 Some of these benefits are actual journey time savings – for example they do not get held up in traffic – and others are more about the inherent attributes of the journey, such as enjoyment. 6.20 TfL’s Business Case Development Manual sets out monetary values for a range of cycling attributes in 2010 prices. Not all cyclists will benefit from every single cycling measure introduced; a proportion of cyclists have therefore been assumed to benefit from each attribute – typically a quarter. The user benefits are estimated based on the following assumptions set out in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6: User benefit assumptions by attribute

Proportion of Cyclists Value per trip (pence or Cycling Theme BCDM Attribute Benefiting pence per minute*) Parking Cycle parking provision 10% 19.55 Cycle racks 10% 3.88 Cycle parking security 10% 5.83 Cycle parking lighting 10% 8.82 Cycle parking conditions 10% 6.16 Route Narrow cycle lane 25% 0.46* Wide cycle lane 25% 0.77* Segregation Shared with bus in bus lane 25% 5.79 Fully segregated 25% 5.92 Advanced stop box 25% 3.72 Surface quality Smooth surface (cf bumpy surface) 25% 1.16 Signage 25% 1.03 Information 25% 4.76 Provision Roundabout priority 10% 10.04 Total 14.68

6.21 Figure 6.2 sets out the average benefit per cycle trip. Where benefits are based on cycling time, the average trip time of 11.9 minutes (from existing LTDS data for cycling trips within 3km of Kingston) was assumed.

July 2014 | 65 E84

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Figure 6.2: Average benefit per cycle trip assumed in the business case

Total 21 pence per cycle trip

Urban realm benefits 6.22 Kingston rail station caters for approximately 6 million passengers every year. These passengers will benefit from urban realm enhancements from the Kingston station plaza scheme. Reduced severance will mean that pedestrians can access the town centre more easily. TfL’s BCDM does not explicitly provide a benefit value for such improvements, and as such the benefit to each rail user is assumed to be 10 pence5. Summary of user benefits 6.23 The average benefit per cycling trip is then applied to existing cycle users. In line with standard transport appraisal guidance, new users are assumed to benefit by half the amount of existing users (known as “rule of a half”). 6.24 Table 6.7 sets out the annual demand and benefits for existing and new cyclists in 2026.

5 This is comparable to BCDM’s benefit value for having a clean ticket hall or train, or having maps and information boards to provide direction and information about public transport and attractions.

July 2014 | 66 E85

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Table 6.7: Summery of demand and user benefits

Low Impact Scenario High Impact Scenario Demand (Annual Trips in 2026) Existing users 39,700 39,700 New users 17,000 45,400 Total 56,700 85,100 User benefits (Annual £ in 2026) Existing users 1,545,000 1,545,000 New users 257,000 685,000 Total 1,802,000 2,230,000

Externality benefits 6.25 Externality benefits arise due to reduced traffic on the roads. Decongestion is the single largest component of externality benefits, but other benefits include reduction in vehicular collisions and improvements to the environment. 6.26 The mini-Holland programme could result in externality benefits in the following ways:  Improved cycling infrastructure can encourage mode shift from car to cycling. Fewer cars on the road results in lower levels of congestion, collisions and environmental benefits such as emissions and noise. These externality benefits are estimated using DfT’s TAG unit rates per vehicle kilometre removed from the highway.  Some schemes may result in a reduction in highway capacity for general traffic, leading to slightly slower journey times6. However, semi- or fully-segregated cycling infrastructure will reduce the potential conflict between cyclists and other modes. This is can smooth traffic flow and reduce the risk of collisions. These externality benefits are expected to be overall neutral in the business case. 6.27 The externality benefit unit rate linked to reduced traffic varies according to the type of roads. The range of recommended values are set out in DfT’s TAG. For the purpose of this appraisal, we have assumed the traffic conditions in Kingston are best represented by the “Inner and Outer Conurbations” A Roads category with regard to selecting appropriate externality benefit unit rates from TAG. 6.28 As people are encouraged to shift mode from car to bicycle, there would normally be decongestion benefits. However, some schemes in the mini-Holland programme are expected to reduce road capacity for general traffic at certain points on the road network, offsetting the decongestion benefits from mode shift. The exact traffic impacts will depend on further detailed traffic modelling and design work, so this business has prudently assumed that there will be no net impact on congestion.

6 As the schemes are developed in more detail, traffic modelling work will be undertaken to assess the impacts on other traffic. Where possible these impacts will be minimised through appropriate mitigation measures.

July 2014 | 67 E86

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

6.29 Table 6.8 sets out the externality unit rates employed in the economic appraisal. The unit rates increase in real terms reflecting changes in traffic and vehicular characteristics in the future.

Table 6.8: Externality benefit unit rates (Pence per vehicle km removed in real 2010 market prices)

Externality Benefit 2015 2025 2035 Infrastructure 0.1 0.1 0.2 Vehicular collision 3.2 3.8 4.6 Local Air Quality 0.1 0.0 0.0 Noise 0.2 0.3 0.3 Greenhouse Gases 0.8 0.7 1.0 Total 4.40 4.90 6.10

Summary of externality benefits 6.30 The externality benefits are then calculated by multiplying these unit rates by the change in car kilometres removed from the road network (set out in Table 6.5). The estimated externality benefits are set out in Table 6.9.

Table 6.9: Externality benefits from mode shift (£ per annum in real 2010 Prices)

Externality Benefit Low Scenario 2026 High Scenario 2026 Infrastructure 5,000 12,000 Vehicular collision 167,000 446,000 Local Air Quality 0 0 Noise 13,000 35,000 Greenhouse Gases 31,000 83,000 Total 216,000 576,000

Health and absenteeism Health benefits 6.31 The appraisal of health benefits arising from taking up cycling on a regular basis was developed by The Copenhagen Centre for Prospective Population Studies, who found that individuals who cycle for three hours per week reduce their relative risk of all-cause mortality to 72% compared to those who do not commute by cycle7. 6.32 Based on TfL’s Improving the Health of Londoners - Transport Action Plan (2014), for those new cyclists who would meet the minimum standard of 150 minutes of physical activity per week due to cycling uptake, they can expect the following health benefits:  12% reduction in people diagnosed with coronary heart disease;  23% reduction in people diagnosed with breast cancer; and  22% reduction in people diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

7 Andersen et al, 2000

July 2014 | 68 E87

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

6.33 The World Health Organisation has developed the Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT)8 that can be used to monetise health benefits for walking and cycling due to decreased mortality. The HEAT model inputs used in the economic appraisal is set out in Table 6.10.

Table 6.10: HEAT model inputs

HEAT Inputs Parameter Duration of cycle journey 11.9 minutes Number of new cyclists Low scenario 7,700; High scenario 20,600 Annualisation factor 250 days per year Time needed to reach update 10 years Mortality rate 4.31/100,000 Value of life 1,800,000 (Source: BCDM) Appraisal period 30 years

6.34 The value £1.8m assumed value of life represents the casualty related costs, which includes lost output, human costs and medical and ambulance costs. Absenteeism Benefits 6.35 Improved health will also result in reduced absenteeism that benefits UK businesses. WHO has previously analysed the linkage between physical activity and short-term sick leave. In line with BCDM guidance, for each employee who takes up physical exercise for 30 minutes a day for 5 days a week as a result of a cycling intervention, the annual benefit to employers on average 0.4 days gross salary costs. 6.36 Based on the LTDS data, commuting accounts for 17.4% of trips. The mini-Holland programme is likely to result in between 1,300 and 3,600 new workers whom are expected to deliver absenteeism benefits. Assuming an annual gross salary of £25,000, the reduction in 0.4 sick days per year for these workers results in between £54,000 and £144,000 per annum in absenteeism benefits. Summary of health and absenteeism benefits 6.37 Table 6.11 summarises the annual health and absenteeism benefits. The health benefits due to increased cycling will significantly reduce human mortality, reduce health costs to the National Health Service and taxpayer, and improve business productivity due to reduced absenteeism.

Table 6.11: Health and absenteeism benefits (£ per annum in real 2010 Prices)

Benefit Low Scenario 2026 High Scenario 2026 Health 3,700,000 9,900,000 Absenteeism 54,000 144,000

8 http://www.heatwalkingcycling.org/

July 2014 | 69 E88

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Cycling safety 6.38 The mini-Holland programme is expected to deliver significant safety benefits to existing cyclists through segregated cycle ways, semi-segregated cycle routes and junction improvements designed to reduce conflicts between cyclists, other road users and pedestrians. 6.39 The programme will encourage existing through traffic to find alternative routes and this can have the effect of reducing collisions between cyclists and heavy goods vehicles in particular, which are known to be a major contributor towards cycling fatalities. 6.40 These safety improvements to existing cyclists will reduce the risk of cycle collisions. This will be offset by an increase in cycle collisions as more people start cycling. In absence of robust information regarding the reduction in collisions achievable through the mini-Holland programme, the business case has assumed that the overall number of cycling related collisions will remain unchanged. 6.41 Furthermore, as stated in TfL’s Improving the Health of Londoners - Transport Action Plan (2014), “The health benefits of active travel far outweigh the risks from hazards such as poor air quality and road traffic collisions. For example the increase in walking and cycling suggested above would deliver an estimated 60,000 years of health benefits from physical activity, 2,000 years of health benefit from reduced exposure to poor air quality and less than 1,000 years of health harms from road traffic collisions. The benefits outweigh the harms by 62:1.” Value for Money Assessment Economic appraisal assumptions 6.42 In order to undertake an economic appraisal over the lifecycle of the mini-Holland programme, the following economic appraisal assumptions have been made:  The appraisal period is assumed to be 30 years. There is no definitive guidance on this, however, it represents a reasonable timeframe over which the programme can influence the majority of people and the design life of the majority of the infrastructure.  The opening year is assumed to be 2016;  Cycling demand is conservatively assumed to remain constant beyond 2026;  The price base and discount year is 2010, in line with Treasury and DfT appraisal guidance;  Since the costs and user benefits are in resource prices (as per TfL guidance) and the externality benefits are in market prices (as per DfT guidance), the externality benefits have been factored by the market price adjustment factor9 so that both costs and benefits are in a common unit of account (resource prices), as per to TfL practice;  The discount rate applied is 3.5% per annum, in line with Treasury and DfT and TfL appraisal guidance;  The optimism bias is assumed to be 44%. This uplift, which is applied to the pre-risk adjusted scheme costs, is a common industry practice guided by the BCDM for projects at the pre-QRA stage and reflects the relative certainty in the outturn scheme costs.

9 This is an appraisal adjustment to take into account the fact that the benefits are in market prices (in simple terms, include perceived taxation) and the scheme costs are in resource prices (i.e. no VAT).

July 2014 | 70 E89

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

6.43 Given the above assumptions, the total scheme costs used for appraisal purposes differs from those outlined in Chapter 4. Appendix C summarises why this is the case. Indicative economic appraisal results 6.44 Based on the cost and benefit assumptions set out in the previous sections, the indicative economic appraisal for the mini-Holland programme over a 30-year appraisal period is set out in Table 6.12. Figure 6.3 sets out the breakdown of benefits which shows that health benefits and user benefits are the greatest contributors to benefits. Value for money assessment 6.45 The results show that over the appraisal period the mini-Holland programme can expect to generate total benefits between £108m and £222m in 2010 discounted present values. Compared to the costs of £42.8m in 2010 discounted present values, the Benefit:Cost Ratio (BCR) is between 2.5:1 and 5.2:1. 6.46 This means that for every £1 invested there is more than £2.50 returned in benefits. In accordance to DfT’s value for money assessment criteria, the programme is considered between high and very high value for money. 6.47 It should be noted that there are wider benefits not currently captured in the economic appraisal. These are discussed in the next chapter.

Figure 6.3: Breakdown of benefits over the 30-year appraisal period

July 2014 | 71 E90

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Table 6.12: Economic appraisal results (£m in 2010 discounted present values over 30 years)

Impact Low impact scenario High impact scenario Costs Scheme costs 36.6 36.6 On-going costs 6.2 6.2 Total Costs 42.8 42.8 Benefits User Benefits – existing users 39.7 39.7 User Benefits – new users 5.2 13.7 Decongestion 0.0 0.0 Infrastructure savings 0.1 0.2 Vehicular collision savings 2.0 5.0 Local air quality 0.0 0.0 Noise 0.1 0.3 Greenhouse gases 0.4 1.0 Health 60.1 160.2 Absenteeism 0.6 1.6 Total Benefits 108.2 221.7 Net Present Value (NPV) 65.4 178.9 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.5 :1 5.2 :1

Sensitivity Testing 6.48 The economic appraisal results set out above assumes a 30-year appraisal period on the basis that some schemes (Landmark schemes in particular) will have a longer design life. A sensitivity test has been undertaken to assess the programme assuming a 20-year appraisal period. Table 6.13 shows that the BCR remains robust between 1.9:1 and 3.8:1.

Table 6.13: Sensitivity test assuming a 20-year appraisal period

Low impact scenario High impact scenario 30- year appraisal period BCR 2.5:1 5.2:1 20- year appraisal period BCR 1.9:1 3.8:1

July 2014 | 72 E91

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

7 Wider Benefits

7.1 The previous sections described the conventional economic case for the mini-Holland programme. There are wider benefits that are not currently captured in the economic case and should be considered alongside it as additional benefits. The two main groups of wider benefits are:  Wider economic benefits – supporting the economic growth, regeneration and job creation in Kingston town centre; and  Urban realm benefits – improving the liveability and quality of life for those who live in or visit Kingston. Wider Economic Benefits 7.2 As described in section 6.6, employment in the Borough is expected to grow by approximately 8,000 between 2011 and 2026. Against the backdrop competition from other emerging retail hubs such as the Westfield & Hammerson’s development in Croydon, the economic prosperity of Kingston town centre will be dependent on improving the attractiveness of Kingston and enable this growth to materialise. Improving the accessibility of Kingston through transport investment including cycling will increase footfall and contribute towards the town centre’s expansion and continued success. 7.3 The mini-Holland programme can help deliver an increase in footfall and hence economic activity in the following ways:  Through the landmark schemes in particular, the programme can put Kingston on the map and increase the attractiveness and competitiveness of Kingston as a retail and leisure destination;  Through enhancing urban realm and increasing the permeability of the different areas of the town centre, the programme can improve visitors’ experiences and encourage visitors to spend more time exploring the town centre;  Through improved cycling facilities, more visitors are able to access Kingston town centre, including during busiest times despite the road capacity and parking constraints;

July 2014 | 73 E92

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

 Through smoother flow traffic for cars and buses, the programme can improve the perceived accessibility of Kingston town centre as a destination of choice and visit more often. 7.4 The previous section (in Table 6.5) described how the mini-Holland programme can increase the number of cycle trips – some of which would have taken place by car. However, in reality, because of congestion in the future baseline scenario, some of those trips may would otherwise be different (e.g. choosing an alternative destination away from Kingston town centre for retail and leisure trips) or not have taken place at all. 7.5 In order to illustrate the potential range of economic benefits associated with additional visitors, the value to the local economy has been estimated at a high level. If between 5% and 10% of the new cycling trips to and from Kingston town centre would not have otherwise taken place and that the average expenditure was between £20 and £40 per visit, the economic value for the additional trips would be between £4m and £45m per year to local businesses. 7.6 At the national average GDP per capita of £25,000 per annum, the additional spend would be equivalent to 80 to 800 full time jobs a year.

Table 7.1: Potential wider economic benefits from additional visitors

Low Scenario - 2026 High Scenario - 2026 Additional cyclists due to mini-Holland (per day) 7,700 20,600 Proportion of new visitors due to cycling 5% 10% Additional visitors per year (millions) 0.10 0.52 Average spend per cyclist (£ per trip) £20 £40 Increase in local economy (£m per annum) £2 £21 Potential increase in employment 80 800 Urban Realm 7.7 The mini-Holland programme is expected to deliver urban realm improvements, particularly through the landmark schemes such as Kingston station plaza, Riverside Boardway and the New Malden to Raynes Park link. 7.8 The streetscape will be significantly enhanced, attracting more pedestrians and cyclists to the area and creating a social and leisure destination for local residents and visitors. This will also underpin local economic vibrancy. 7.9 Such urban realm benefits are currently not included in the economic appraisal. Techniques such as the Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) developed by TRL and TfL can be used to audit the urban realm and value such benefits. As the individual schemes are developed in further detail, PERS could be used to estimate the economic value of these improvements.

July 2014 | 74 E93

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

8 Delivery Funding 8.1 Transport for London confirmed an unspecified amount of funding (likely to be in the region of £30m) in March 2014. For the financial year 2014-2015, TfL has awarded the borough a total of £700,000 to establish the early stages of the programme. 8.2 Aside from this funding from TfL, we have also identified other sources of funding that could potentially be drawn upon:  LIP funding will be used to deliver the linking quietways and deprioritised links via minor projects to enable a complete mini-Holland network to be established  The council has established a mechanism to extract value from routine maintenance programmes to contribute to the delivery of full or interim mini-Holland schemes on affected principal roads  Opportunities for Section 106 funding will be identified and sought where possible Programme 8.3 A detailed programme is provided in Appendix B. The programme covers the period from June 2014 to June 2018, which is a period of 49 months. 8.4 The key milestones and durations for the schemes are set out in Table 8.1.

July 2014 | 75 E94

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Table 8.1: Programme summary

Approximate timings Scheme Start Finish Duration LM.1a Kingston Enterprise Hub / Kingston station August 2014 August 2015 1 year 1 month access (interim scheme) LM.1 Kingston station cycle hub + Kingston station July 2015 September 2017 2 years 3 months plaza (full scheme) LM.2 Wheatfield Way Greenway July 2015 September 2017 2 years 3 months LM.3 Riverside Boardway # August 2014 January 2018 3 years 6 months LM.4 New Malden to Raynes Park link # August 2014 August 2016 2 years 1 month NW.1 Kingston Hill / Kingston Vale (A308) August 2014 August 2015 1 year 1 month NW.1a Interim local connectivity to Kingston town August 2014 August 2015 1 year 1 month centre NW.2 Local connectivity: to Kingston Bridge August 2014 August 2015 1 year 1 month NW.3 Portsmouth Road north + south (A307) August 2014 December 2015 1 year 5 months NW.3a Local connectivity: to Portsmouth Road August 2014 August 2015 1 year 1 month NW.4 Kingston to Surbiton August 2014 May 2016 1 year 10 months NW.5 Cambridge Road / Kingston Road (A2043) September 2014 August 2016 2 years NW.5a Local connectivity: Kingston Hill / London Road September 2014 August 2016 2 years NW.6 Ewell Road (A240) December 2014 November 2016 2 years NW.6a Local connectivity: St Mark's Hill (B3370) December 2014 November 2016 2 years SM.1 Complementary measures August 2014 June 2018 3 years 11 months

# Schemes that may be subject to planning applications and/or environmental impact assessment

Risk Management 8.5 The project team is developing a risk management strategy which sets out the processes for identifying and managing project risks. The strategy includes risk workshops to develop and review the risk register for management and to take through to a Quantified Risk Assessment. 8.6 Regular updating and reporting of the risk register will be undertaken through the process of reporting to the Project Board. This continual review is important to ensure that the most appropriate risk managers are allocated to specific risks, that new risks are identified and that existing risks are monitored or actioned as appropriate. 8.7 The key risks identified at this stage are:  Erosion of political support. Need to secure comprehensive and renewed political support for the programme in order to maintain the funding that has been achieved.  Lack of support for the Riverside Boardway – loss of river space, ecology, hydrology.  Potential opposition to key facets of schemes, relating particularly to:  Capacity for motor traffic, parking.  Loss of privacy – third party impacts.

July 2014 | 76 E95

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

 Failure of cycling enterprise—this relates to the need for an income stream to cover the revenue cost of the cycling hub at Kingston Station.  Loss of support from key stakeholders, particularly South West Trains (low probability), Environment Agency (moderate probability), Thames Water (moderate probability, for technical reasons only).  It is anticipated that the delivery of on-carriageway schemes will be principally delivered by the LOHAC contract (EM). The volume of schemes and timescales included in the programme could be challenging to achieve under the current contract.  Potential slippage due to the tight programme:  Delays to scheme development and design, for example due to resource constraints.  Difficulties in implementing schemes due to congestion impacts during construction. 8.8 At this stage the above risks have been judged to be avoidable or manageable. Risk has been include in the assessment process as set out in paragraphs 4.16 to 4.17. Project Governance 8.9 A provisional project governance structure has been established and agreed by the One Kingston Place Programme Board. This is shown in Figure 8.1

July 2014 | 77 E96

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Figure 8.1: Kingston mini-Holland programme governance

July 2014 | 78 E97

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Benefits Realisation 8.10 The Borough is committed to harnessing the benefits that can be derived from improved cycling provision. For every pound that is invested in cycling, more than £2.50 is generated in net benefits through journey time savings, improved health and local economic vitality. 8.11 However, realisation of these benefits will not fully accrue simply by building the infrastructure schemes. The complementary measures (SM.1), particularly those related to behaviour change, also form a core part of the programme, and are vital in ensuring that the full benefits of investment in new infrastructure are realised. 8.12 The purpose of the Benefit Strategy will be to provide a framework for assessing the performance of the mini-Holland programme in achieving its objectives. Aims of the benefit strategy 8.13 The Benefit Strategy presents the key stages and timescales covering a range of evaluation processes. The strategy seeks to ensure that:  Scheme objectives can be expressed as outputs and outcomes;  Performance indicators reflect the programme objectives and wider objectives;  Baseline outcome and output data are available or a timescale for their collection is identified;  Ongoing data collection and analysis is undertaken efficiently, in a timely way and in sufficient detail to inform the implementation programme;  Analysis includes consideration of how and why activities were carried out or if they could be done differently;  Evaluation includes assessment of policy effectiveness and considers the likely conditions had the scheme not been implemented; and  Stakeholder and public opinion is understood, in terms of the process and the programme itself, and informs ongoing implementation. Core evaluation objectives 8.14 The core evaluation objectives will be to measure:  the change in the proportion of people cycling across the borough;  the change in congestion on roads radiating from Kingston town centre;  the number of people cycling to/from stations in the borough;  change in the level of cycling by key demographic groups that cycle less than average;  improvements in cycle safety; and  negative impacts. Management and reporting 8.15 The management and reporting for the Benefit Strategy will be co-ordinated by Kingston mini- Holland project team. The timescales for this will be set out upon progression to the next stage of scheme development.

July 2014 | 79 E98

Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case | Report v7.0

Monitoring Programme Programme monitoring 8.16 The main monitoring of the Kingston mini-Holland schemes will focus on the achievement of the specific objectives identified for the programme. This will involve identification of indicators to measure performance of the programme in terms of achieving these objectives. 8.17 The six objectives identified by Kingston for the overall mini-Holland programme are as follows: 1. To transform the environment for cycling in the borough 2. To improve the level of satisfaction with cycling infrastructure 3. To improve the quality of public realm through cycling-related investment 4. To improve the safety of all road users 5. To support the vitality and viability of our town, district and local centres 6. To reduce congestion and improve the flow of traffic. 8.18 Monitoring of the overall programme will be carried out using a combination of volumetric, intercept and attitudinal surveys, with responsibility shared between Kingston and TfL. 8.19 Much of the attitudinal data collected for the programme will be done through mini-Holland specific modules of existing TfL data collection programmes, including the Attitudes to Cycling and Town Centre surveys. This would be supplemented by other TfL data sources already used by the borough as part of the LIP monitoring process, as well as additional research carried out by Kingston of local businesses and trip attractors. 8.20 The intercept and volumetric surveys for the programme would be carried out directly by Kingston. These would include traffic/cordon counts, as well cycle parking utilisation surveys, and monitoring of borough-wide travel plans. 8.21 Table 8.2 provides a breakdown of the monitoring metrics (and responsibilities) for each of the six programme objectives. Scheme specific monitoring 8.22 In addition to the six overall objectives, there will be a number of objectives related to each of the specific schemes. 8.23 The vast majority of the scheme-specific monitoring proposals will consist of the following metrics:  Two-way cycle flows at certain points along each route  The number of recorded KSI incidents on each route  The cycling mode share across each route (intercept surveys) 8.24 For proposals relating to cycle hubs, the monitoring proposals will consist of both the number of cycle parking spaces available, and the utilisation of those parking spaces.

July 2014 | 80

Table 8.2: Programme monitoring proposals

Scheme Objective

Monitoring Monitoring Metric collection Data type Baseline Expected benefit benefit Actual Monitoring Responsibility

1,2 and 1. To transform the Question: “How close are you to Attitudinal x% y% (+%) TfL (Attitudes to Cycling) environment for cycling in the deciding to cycle?” 3 borough Satisfaction levels for infrastructure and Attitudinal x out of 5 Y out of 5 TfL (Attitudes to Cycling) 2. To improve the level of public realm quality satisfaction with cycling Liveability Attitudinal TfL (Attitudes to Cycling) infrastructure 3. To improve the quality of Willingness to walk/cycle for exercise Attitudinal x% y% (+%) TfL (Attitudes to Cycling) public realm through cycling- Walking mode share Intercept/ x% y% (+%) TfL (Town centre surveys / related investment attitudinal LTDS)

Cycling mode share Intercept/ x% y% (+%) TfL (Town centre surveys / E99 attitudinal LTDS)

Number of town centre cycle trips Volumetric X Y Kingston (cordon counts) 4 To improve the safety of all Number of KSI incidents recorded Volumetric X Y TfL (Borough wide KSIs) road users Question: “How safe do you think it is Attitudinal x% y% (+%) TfL (Attitudes to Cycling) for you/your children to cycle? Uptake in cycle training Volumetric X per year Y per year Kingston (Borough records) Child obesity rates (% of school-age Volumetric x% y% (-%) Kingston (Borough records) children classed as overweight/obese) 5 To support the vitality and Business/trader perceptions of Attitudinal Kingston (Borough wide viability of our town, district trade/prosperity business engagement) and local centres Business/Trip attractor walk/cycle mode Attitudinal Kingston (business shares engagement and travel plan monitoring) Number of cycle parking spaces Volumetric Kingston (Borough records)

July 2014 | 81

Scheme Objective

Monitoring Monitoring Metric collection Data type Baseline Expected benefit benefit Actual Monitoring Responsibility

Utilisation of cycle parking spaces Volumetric Kingston (Borough records) Number of cycling-based businesses in Volumetric Kingston (Borough records) the borough Average spend per town centre visit Attitudinal TfL (Town centre surveys) Mode share of town centre shopping Attitudinal TfL (Town centre surveys) visitors 6 To reduce congestion and Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate Volumetric TfL (Air quality statistics) improve the flow of traffic. matter (PM) levels

All vehicle cordon counts Volumetric Kingston (cordon surveys) E100 Traffic speeds Volumetric Kingston (traffic speed surveys)

July 2014 | 82 E101

July 2014 | 1 E102 E103

Appendices

July 2014 | 3 E104

A Borough Input to TfL’s Mini-Hollands Programme Level Business Case: Document Map

July 2014 | 4 E105

Borough Input to TfL’s Mini-Hollands Programme Level Business Case: Document Map A.1 The following table sets out the content reference between TfL’s programme level business case and this business case report.

Appendix Table A.1: Document Map

TfL Requirement Location How many potentially cyclable (but not cycled) trips are estimated Chapter 2 in the Borough? 1 Current State (Do- Key problems specific to the Borough that are preventing an Nothing) increase in cycling mode share i.e. problems/issues that have Chapter 2 directly influenced the development of the interventions. Impacts of the current state on cyclists- quantify where possible Chapter 2

2.1 Identification of How were the schemes identified? Chapter 3 interventions What was the long list of schemes? Chapter 3 Describe process of prioritisation/shortlisting Chapter 3 Describe selection criteria and methodology. Include why criteria Chapter 3 were chosen and link to the problems identified in “Do-Nothing” Results of scoring/process Chapter 3 2.2 Prioritisation of interventions Briefly explain key elements in schemes that have influenced their Chapter 3 score relative to other schemes Explain why these schemes are the best value interventions for the borough given the needs/problems affecting lack of cycle trips in Chapter 3 the borough What was the short list of schemes? Provide a high level scope Chapter 3 What is the problem to be addressed/opportunity to be realised Chapter 2 3 Programme by each scheme? Scope/Schemes What is the benefit/disbenefit of each scheme? Package together schemes if more practical. Where practical, adopt the approach Chapters 4, set out in the TfL Business Case Development Manual e.g. in terms 6 and 7 of impacts on safety, journey times etc 4 What does the Describe the changed environment at the end of your Mini- completed programme Chapter 3 Holland programme. Include Map look like? 5 Monitoring of Explain how scheme impact will be measured. Chapter 8 Benefits 6 Phasing of delivery Delivery tranches proposed Chapter 3 7 Milestones Chapter 8 8.1 Mini-Holland Costs Costs of Feasibility, Preliminary/Detailed Design fees, Advanced 8.2 Scheme costs Works/Utilities, Main Works, Consultants. Total base cost per Chapter 5 financial year, plus risk, total. Figures should show how outturn 8.3 Operating/ costs relate to the discounted present value costs Maintenance Costs 8.4 Funding Funding split between TfL and Borough and any sources of third Chapter 8 arrangements party funding Technical risks, procedural barriers, dependence on other projects, Chapter 8 resources etc. 9 Risk Extent of risk quantification of programme; brief overview of risk provision including main or notable risks. How the risk estimate Chapter 8 links to financial provision.

July 2014 | 5 E106

B Programme

July 2014 | 6 E107

Programme See attached file.

July 2014 | 7 mH_programme 20140613 v2.xlsx [Programme] E108

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Mini-Hollands Programme

Programme

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Qtr 2, 2014 Qtr 3, 2014 Qtr 4, 2014 Qtr 1, 2015 Qtr 2, 2015 Qtr 3, 2015 Qtr 4, 2015 Qtr 1, 2016 Qtr 2, 2016 Qtr 3, 2016 Qtr 4, 2016 Qtr 1, 2017 Qtr 2, 2017 Qtr 3, 2017 Qtr 4, 2017 Qtr 1, 2018 Qtr 2, 2018

External

Jul Jul Jul Jul

Jan Jan Jan Jan

Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun

Oct Oct Oct Oct

Apr Sep Feb Apr Sep Feb Apr Sep Feb Apr Sep Feb Apr

Dec Dec Dec Dec

Aug Aug Aug Aug

Nov Nov Nov Nov

Mar Mar Mar Mar

May May May May Scheme / task Start Finish Duration parties May Local Council Election May-18 May-18 X

Programme and business planning Member review Jun-14 Jul-14 2 months X X Business case preparation Jun-14 Aug-14 3 months X X X Quarterly reporting to TfL Throughout TfL

Kingston Hill, Kingston Vale (including interim connectivity to Kingston town centre) Aug-14 Aug-15 1 year 1 month X X X X X X X X X X X X X Key stakeholder consultation Aug-14 Aug-15 Throughout X X X X X X X X X X X X X Scope modelling requirements (including TfL discussions) Aug-14 Aug-14 1 month TfL X Data collection (for modelling and monitoring purposes) Sep-14 Sep-14 1 week X Baseline modelling Sep-14 Oct-14 1 month X X TfL MAP Stage 2/3 audits and approval Oct-14 Nov-14 2 months TfL X X Options testing modelling Dec-14 Dec-14 1 month X Gateway 2: Scheme definition, scheme objectives, concept sketches, design principles, utility searches Aug-14 Sep-14 1.5 months X X Gateway 3: Data and preliminary design--desktop study, gap analysis, data collection (including land ownership) Sep-14 Sep-14 1 month X Gateway 3: Preliminary design, C3 utility searches, trial holes, TfL design review, update on cost estimates Sep-14 Dec-14 4 months X X X X Final option modelling Jan-15 Jan-15 1 month X TfL MAP Stage 5 approval Feb-15 Feb-15 1 month TfL X Business case refinement Jan-15 Feb-15 2 months X X Public consultation Jan-15 Jan-15 1 month X Step 2 submission Feb-15 Feb-15 1 day X Detailed design Feb-15 Apr-15 3 months X X X Works TMAN / TfL approvals Feb-15 Apr-15 3 months X X X Implementation (including enabling works) Apr-15 Aug-15 5 months X X X X X

Kingston Enterprise Hub / Kingston Station access Aug-14 Aug-15 1 year 1 month X X X X X X X X X X X X X Engagement with South West Trains Aug-14 Dec-14 6 months SWT X X X X X Consult taxi drivers, users and TfL TPH Aug-14 Dec-14 6 months X X X X X Engagement with Network Rail Aug-14 Dec-14 6 months X X X X X Scheme definition, scheme objectives, site inspection with SWT Sep-14 Oct-14 2 months X X Detailed design: station access route Oct-14 Mar-15 6 months X X X X X X Negotiate and confirm lease Oct-14 Dec-14 3 months X X X Detailed design: shop fit-out and cycle park Jan-15 Mar-15 3 months X X X Implementation stages including planning applications, procurement Apr-15 Aug-15 5 months X X X X X Launch Aug-15 Aug-15 1 day X

Local connectivity: to Kingston Bridge Aug-14 Aug-15 1 year 1 month X X X X X X X X X X X X X Liaise with LB Richmond Aug-14 Oct-14 3 months LB Richmond X X X Scope modelling requirements (including TfL discussions) Aug-14 Aug-14 1 month TfL X Data collection (for modelling and monitoring purposes) Sep-14 Sep-14 1 week X Baseline modelling Sep-14 Oct-14 1 month X X TfL MAP Stage 2/3 audits and approval Oct-14 Nov-14 2 months TfL X X Options testing modelling Dec-14 Dec-14 1 month X Gateway 2: Scheme definition, scheme objectives, concept sketches, design principles, utility searches Aug-14 Sep-14 1.5 months X X Gateway 3: Data and preliminary design--desktop study, gap analysis, data collection (including land ownership) Sep-14 Sep-14 1 month X Gateway 3: Preliminary design, C3 utility searches, trial holes, TfL design review, update on cost estimates Sep-14 Dec-14 4 months X X X X Final option modelling Jan-15 Jan-15 1 month X TfL MAP Stage 5 approval Feb-15 Feb-15 1 month TfL X Business case refinement Jan-15 Feb-15 2 months X X Public consultation Jan-15 Jan-15 1 month X Step 2 submission Feb-15 Feb-15 1 day X Detailed design Feb-15 Apr-15 3 months X X X Works TMAN / TfL approvals Feb-15 Apr-15 3 months X X X Implementation (including enabling works) Apr-15 Aug-15 4 months X X X X X

Local connectivity: to Portsmouth Road Aug-14 Aug-15 1 year 1 month X X X X X X X X X X X X X Data collection (for monitoring purposes) Sep-14 Sep-14 1 week X Gateway 2: Scheme definition, scheme objectives, concept sketches, design principles, utility searches Aug-14 Sep-14 1.5 months X X Gateway 3: Data and preliminary design--desktop study, gap analysis, data collection (including land ownership) Sep-14 Sep-14 1 month X Gateway 3: Preliminary design, C3 utility searches, trial holes, TfL design review, update on cost estimates Sep-14 Dec-14 4 months X X X X Business case refinement Dec-14 Jan-15 2 months X X Public consultation Jan-15 Jan-15 1 month X Step 2 submission Feb-15 Feb-15 1 day X Detailed design Feb-15 Apr-15 3 months X X X Works TMAN / TfL approvals Feb-15 Apr-15 3 months X X X Implementation (including enabling works) Apr-15 Aug-15 5 months X X X X X

Complementary measures Aug-14 Jun-18 Throughout X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Developing complementary measures strategy Aug-14 Nov-14 4 months X X X X Ramp-up period Dec-14 Mar-15 4 months X X X X Delivering complementary measures strategy Apr-15 Jun-18 Throughout X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Portsmouth Road (north and south) Aug-14 Dec-15 1 year 5 months X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Key stakeholder consultation Aug-14 Dec-15 Throughout X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Scope modelling requirements (including TfL discussions) Aug-14 Aug-14 1 month TfL X Data collection (for modelling and monitoring purposes) Sep-14 Sep-14 1 week X Baseline modelling Sep-14 Oct-14 1 month X X TfL MAP Stage 2/3 audits and approval Oct-14 Nov-14 2 months TfL X X Options testing modelling Nov-14 Dec-14 1 month X X Gateway 2: Scheme definition, scheme objectives, concept sketches, design principles, utility searches Aug-14 Sep-14 1.5 months X X Gateway 3: Data and preliminary design--desktop study, gap analysis, data collection (including land ownership) Sep-14 Sep-14 1 month X Gateway 3: Preliminary design, C3 utility searches, trial holes, TfL design review, update on cost estimates Sep-14 Feb-15 6 months X X X X X X Final option modelling Mar-15 Mar-15 1 month X TfL MAP Stage 5 approval Apr-15 Apr-15 1 month TfL X Business case refinement Mar-15 Apr-15 2 months X X Public consultation Mar-15 Mar-15 1 month X Step 2 submission Apr-15 Apr-15 1 day X Detailed design May-15 Jul-15 3 months X X X Works TMAN / TfL approvals May-15 Jul-15 3 months X X X Implementation (including enabling works) Aug-15 Dec-15 5 months X X X X X

Kingston to Surbiton Aug-14 May-16 1 year 10 months X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Consultations Aug-14 Jul-15 1 year X X X X X X X X X X X X Scope modelling requirements (including TfL discussions) Sep-14 Sep-14 1 month TfL X Data collection (for modelling and monitoring purposes) Oct-14 Oct-14 1 week X Baseline modelling Nov-14 Dec-14 2 months X X TfL MAP Stage 2/3 audits and approval Jan-15 Feb-15 1 month TfL X X Design development, business case, modelling, etc. [full detail not shown] Mar-15 Nov-15 9 months X X X X X X X X X Implementation (including enabling works) Dec-15 May-16 6 months X X X X X X

Kingston Road / Cambridge Road + local connectivity: Kingston Hill Sep-14 Aug-16 2 years X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Consultations Sep-14 Aug-15 1 year X X X X X X X X X X X X Scope modelling requirements (including TfL discussions) Dec-14 Dec-14 1 month TfL X Data collection (for modelling and monitoring purposes) Jan-15 Jan-15 1 week X Baseline modelling Feb-15 Mar-15 2 months X X TfL MAP Stage 2/3 audits and approval Apr-15 May-15 1 month TfL X X Design development, business case, modelling, etc. [full detail not shown] Jun-15 Feb-16 9 months X X X X X X X X X Implementation (including enabling works) Mar-16 Aug-16 6 months X X X X X X

Ewell Road + local connectivity: St Mark's Hill Dec-14 Nov-16 2 years 3 months X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Consultations Dec-14 Nov-15 1 year X X X X X X X X X X X X Scope modelling requirements (including TfL discussions) Mar-15 Mar-15 1 month TfL X Data collection (for modelling and monitoring purposes) Apr-15 Apr-15 1 week X Baseline modelling May-15 Jun-15 2 months X X TfL MAP Stage 2/3 audits and approval Jul-15 Aug-15 1 month TfL X X Design development, business case, modelling, etc. [full detail not shown] Sep-15 May-16 9 months X X X X X X X X X Implementation (including enabling works) Jun-16 Nov-16 6 months X X X X X X

Kingston town centre baseline modelling Aug-14 Jun-15 11 months X X X X X X X X X X X Scope modelling requirements (incl TfL discussions) Aug-14 Sep-14 2 months TfL X X Scope, commission and undertake data collection Oct-14 Nov-14 2 months X X Baseline modelling Dec-14 May-15 6 months X X X X X X TfL MAP Stage 2 and 3 audits Jan-15 May-15 Ongoing TfL X X X TfL MAP Stage 3 approval Jun-15 Jun-15 1 month TfL X

Kingston Station Hub (full scheme) / Kingston Station Plaza + Wheatfield Way Jul-15 Sep-17 2 years 3 months X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Consultation, design development, business case, modelling, etc. [full detail not shown] Jul-15 Mar-17 1 year 9 months X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Implementation (including enabling works) Apr-17 Sep-17 6 months X X X X X X

Riverside Boardway Aug-14 Jan-18 3 years 6 months X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Key stakeholder consultation Aug-14 Jan-18 Throughout EA, etc X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Gateway 2: Scheme definition, scheme objectives, concept sketches, design principles, utility searches Aug-14 Sep-14 2 months X X Gateway 3: Data and design-desktop study, gap analysis, data collection (including land ownership) Oct-14 Oct-14 1 month X Environmental baseline surveys Multiple x x x x x x x x Feasibility design Nov-14 Apr-15 6 months X X X X X X Consultation Sep-15 Oct-15 2 months X X Gateway 3: Preliminary design, C3 utility searches, trial holes, TfL design review, update on cost estimates Aug-15 Nov-15 4 months X X X X Planning application Nov-15 Apr-16 6 months X X X X X X Application determination May-16 Jul-16 3 months X X X Detailed design and approvals, land negotiations Aug-16 Jan-17 6 months X X X X X X Implementation (including enabling works) Feb-17 Jan-18 1 year X X X X X X X X X X X X

New Malden to Raynes Park Aug-14 Aug-16 2 years 1 month X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Key stakeholder consultation Aug-14 Aug-16 Throughout X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Gateway 2: Scheme definition, scheme objectives, concept sketches, design principles, utility searches Aug-14 Sep-14 6 weeks X X Gateway 3: Data and design-desktop study, gap analysis, data collection (including land ownership) Oct-14 Oct-14 20 days X Environmental baseline surveys Multiple x x x x x Feasibility design Oct-14 Dec-14 3 months X X X Consultation Jan-15 Feb-15 2 months X X Gateway 3: Preliminary design, C3 utility searches, trial holes, TfL design review, update on cost estimates Jan-15 Apr-15 120 days X X X X Planning application May-15 Sep-15 5 months X X X X X Application determination Oct-15 Dec-15 3 months X X X Detailed design and approvals, land negotiations Oct-15 Mar-16 6 months X X X X X X Implementation (including enabling works) Jan-16 Aug-16 8 months X X X X X X X X

Contingency period 6 months

END

Printed on 13/06/2014 at 16:10 Page 1 of 1 E109 E110

C Scheme cost components

July 2014 | 8 E111

Cost components C.1 Throughout this report, there are a number of different figures quoted for the total scheme cost for the programme. This appendix aims to provide clarity as to the components that the different figures include and exclude. The relevant cost components are:  Base costs – These have been estimated in 2013 prices, and the estimation process is described in Chapter 4. For appraisal purposes, these have been deflated to 2010 prices.  Risk – At this stage of the project, the schemes have not been fully defined and a quantified risk assessment (QRA) has not been completed. The QRA would normally capture the cost impacts of identified risks that are generally external to the project. In order to avoid cost escalation subsequent to a QRA being undertaken, a risk allowance of 22%, has been included for budgetary purposes, which is equivalent to half the value of the optimism bias.  Inflation – The base scheme cost for the mini-Holland schemes is assumed to increase at 3.5% per annum in nominal terms, or 1.0% per annum in real terms assuming a background inflation of 2.5% per annum. Inflation is overlaid on the base cost plus risk.  Optimism bias - For appraisal purposes, TfL’s guidance requires that an optimism bias of 44% should be applied to cycling schemes that have yet to undergo a QRA. Optimism bias is not conventionally used for setting out funding requirements. Optimism bias is overlaid on the base cost and inflation. C.2 How these components fit together is shown in Appendix Figure C.1.

Appendix Figure C.1: Mini-Holland programme scheme costs

Mini-Hollands Programme Costs 50

45

40

35

30

25

Capital Capital Cost £m 20

15

10

5

0 Discounted 2013 real 2010 real 2013 prices Out-turn cost present value 2013 prices prices with prices with plus 22% risk for FUNDING 2010 prices for optimism bias optimism bias APPRAISAL Total 32.7 39.9 44.2 48.4 45.0 36.6 Optimism bias 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 13.7 11.1 Inflation 0.0 0.0 4.3 1.0 0.9 0.7 Risk 0.0 7.1 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Base cost 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 30.4 24.8

July 2014 | 9 E112

Control Sheet Document Title Kingston mini-Holland Programme Outline Business Case

Document Type Report v7.0

Client Contract/Project No. SDG Project/Proposal No. 22717901

Issue history

Issue No. Date Details 5 25/07/2014 Final draft

6 28/07/2014 Final

7 30/07/2014 Final

Review

Originator Sharon Daly

Other Contributors David Sutanto, Jonathan Tong

Reviewed by Tom Higbee Distribution Client Steer Davies Gleave Peter Treadgold, Richard Lewis Project File

P:\Projects\227\1\79\01\Outputs\Reports\Final issued 20140730\Business Case document v7.0.docx

Control Sheet E113

Our offices

Bogotá, Colombia London, England San Juan, Puerto Rico +57 1 322 1470 +44 20 7910 5000 +1 (787) 721 2002 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Bologna, Italy Madrid, Spain Santiago, Chile +39 051 656 9381 +34 91 541 8696 +56 2 2757 2600 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Boston, USA Mexico City, Mexico São Paulo, Brazil +1 (617) 391 2300 +52 (55) 5615 0041 +55 (11) 3151 3630 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Denver, USA New York, USA Toronto, Canada +1 (303) 416 7226 +1 (617) 391 2300 +1 (647) 260 4860 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Leeds, England Rome, Italy Vancouver, Canada +44 113 389 6400 +39 06 4201 6169 +1 (604) 629 2610 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

steerdaviesgleave.com F1 Appendix F Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee 11 September 2014

Blagdon Road Multi-storey Car Park, New Malden, KT3 4AH Report by Director of Place

Purpose

To select a preferred offer with regard to the restructuring of the Council’s property interests at the Blagdon Road Multi-Storey Car Park.

Recommendations of the Lead Member for Capital Projects and Contracts

To resolve that

1. EITHER officers progress negotiations with Grainrent Ltd/Evolve Estates Ltd with a view to restructuring the leases in the car park. This would entail the Council surrendering its current under lease of the car park and simultaneously extending Grainrent’s current head lease which has approximately 119 years unexpired by a further 131 years to 250 years.

OR officers continue negotiations with, Matterhorn Capital/S2 Estates, the owners of New Malden House, with a view to agreeing suitable terms for the proposed assignment of the Council’s under lease of the car park.

2. Once negotiations are concluded with the preferred party, the detailed agreement will be the subject of a further report back to the Committee for approval OR instruct officers to terminate negotiations with both developers.

Key Points

A. The Council has received two separate commercial offers to restructure its property interests in the Blagdon Road Multi Story Car Park. These are:

• Grainrent/Evolve: This proposal would entail a lease re-structure with the Council surrendering its current under lease of the car park and at the same time agree as freeholder to extend their current head lease by a further 131 years to 250 years.

• Matterhorn Capital/S2: This proposal requires the Council to assign (sell) its current lease of the car park to Matterhorn Capital/S2. B. There are compelling reasons for the Council to seriously consider these offers as both provide an opportunity for the Council to divest itself of significant financial and health and safety liabilities, as well as to derive additional financial value from a hitherto underperforming asset. C. The Committee is asked to note that both offers are made with a view to the respective developers submitting subsequent, related planning applications for either the redevelopment of the Blagdon Road Multi Storey Car Park site, or the adjoining New Malden House site. F2 D. The Committee is also asked to note that neither of the proposed property transactions will be completed unless the relevant party is able to secure a satisfactory planning consent. E. If Members instruct officers to terminate negotiations with both developers, it should be noted that the Council will retain significant financial risks and may lose the opportunity to derive added value from an under performing asset. Background

1. The Council owns the freehold of the Blagdon Road multi-storey car park (MSCP) site subject to a head lease to Kleinwort Benson. Kleinwort Benson’s interest has in turn been assigned to Grainrent/Evolve Ltd. The Council receives no income from this arrangement. The remaining term on the head lessee’s lease is approximately 119 years. The head lease is further subject to under leases to Lidl and a privately operated Gym Operator as well as an under lease of the car park to the Council for a term ten days short of the expiry of Grainrent’s head lease. The property also has two floors of offices which are currently empty.

2. Matterhorn Capital are the current owners of New Malden House, a 9 storey adjoining property with retail to the ground floor and seven floor of empty offices above. Under planning agreements dating back to the 1960s, the Council is obliged to provide Matterhorn Capital with 106 car parking spaces within the Blagdon Road Car Park at no cost. It is understood that, in the event of a change of use from offices, the Council will no longer be under any obligation to provide these car parking spaces. A location plan, showing both properties, is attached for indicative purposes only.

Current position

3. Both parties are considered to be “Special Purchasers”. A Special Purchaser is considered to be one to whom a particular asset has special value because of advantages arising from its interest that would not be available to general purchasers in the market.

4. Both Grainrent/Evolve and Matterhorn Capital/S2 Estates are prepared to offer the Council a financial compensation, details of which are contained in a separate report included on the Exemp t part of this agenda.

Current liability risks

5. The Council’s lease requires it to keep the demise in good and substantial repair and condition. The Council has already established that potentially significant costs are likely to be required in order to ensure the continued functioning of the car park without significant deterioration in the near future. The full cost, to the Council, of putting the demise into full repair and therefore complying with its repairing obligation has also been established and these costs are detailed in a separate report included on the Exempt part of this agenda.

6. The existing head lease allows the landlord (Grainrent/Evolve) to serve a repairs notice on the tenant (Council) at any point during the term, requiring the tenant to undertake the repairs listed in the notice within 3 months of service. If the Council does not commence works within this time frame, Grainrent/Evolve may enter the premises to undertake the works unilaterally and subsequently claim the costs from RBK as a debt.

F3 Potential financial/revenue benefits

7. The car park is not well used and it is running at a loss. The details of the income and expenditure in respect of the car park are detailed in a separate report contained on the exempt part of this agenda.

8. The proposal from both interested parties would therefore result in revenue savings for the Council as a function of winding down the loss making parking service. In addition, this proposal would mean that the Council’s exposure to a significant financial liability associated with structural dilapidations would also, potentially, be mitigated.

9. It is proposed that any re-structure or assignment of the lease should include overage provisions to ensure the Council’s position is protected in regard to any future proposals by either party. The overage provision would ensure that in the event of a proposal to change the use of the car park a share of any additional income flows back to the Council.

Proposed transaction

Grainrent/Evolve

10. The proposal from Grainrent/Evolve can be considered within the ambit of our existing landlord and tenant relationship. In that regard, Grainrent/Evolve Ltd would need to apply to the Council as freeholder for permission under their existing lease to undertake any works and, in its role as under lessee, to surrender the current under lease of the car park. Under any proposed arrangement, it is anticipated that the Grainrent/Evolve would request a longer term in respect of their current head lease to extend the term for a further 131 years to 250 years in total. In such a scenario, it will be necessary for the Council to consider any detailed proposal and request a package of mitigation works, as appropriate. It is anticipated that Grainrent/Evolve would undertake to be responsible for the Council’s reasonable professional fees in considering such proposals and this would be fully reflected in any draft form of agreement. Matterhorn Capital/ S2 Estates 11. In regard to the offer from Matterhorn Capital/S2 Estates, this will be an assignment of the Council’s under lease of the car park. As a condition of the proposed assignment, the Council would be required to formally apply to Grainrent, as head lessee, for consent to assign its lease, which cannot be unreasonably with held. One of the circumstances where this can be with held is where there are substantial breaches of the lease, for example disrepair. As a consequence, Matterhorn Capital/S2 Estates would be required to demonstrate how they intend to bring the property back into repair as well as evidence that the necessary funding is available to do so. As a consequence of this arrangement, it will be necessary to include a requirement for the proposed assignee to underwrite the Council’s professional fees as is the normal practice when considering a request to assign a lease. 12. The key features of both offers are summarised below:

F4 Grainrent/ Evolve Offer Matterhorn Capital/S2 Estates Offer

Lease re-structures – the Council surrenders it’s Take assignment of the Council’s under under lease to enable development to proceed. lease. Simultaneously grant Grainrent/Evolve an extension of their current lease to extend it from 119 years to 250 years.

Option of one-off Capital Payment or ongoing One-off Capital Payment annual rental payments (detailed separately in the Exempt report)

Council retains freehold interest Council retains freehold interest

Re-structure of the leases to be agreed between Assignment is subject to the agreement of the Council and Grainrent/Evolve as head Grainrent/Evolve which cannot be lessee. unreasonably withheld. In this instance, disrepair could represent ground for withholding consent.

Repairing liability falls away completely as a Repairing liability partially falls away but the result of the lease re-structure given that as a Council, as the original tenant, will retain consequence, the Council’s under lease and contingent liability for breaches of the lease, Grainrent’s head lease would merge. such as disrepair, regardless of the fact that the lease has been assigned (sold).

Wider Planning Considerations

21. A new planning brief is being developed for Cocks Crescent based on discussions with Members and the content of the brief has been shared with both developers.

Consultations

23 . Individual briefings have also been held with Administration and Opposition Group Members as well as with appropriate officers in the planning team.

Resource Implications

24. The financial implications of this proposal are contained in a report on the Exempt part of this agenda.

Legal Implications

25. All disposals have to comply with the relevant provisions of Contract Standing Order 18.

26. The Council has power to lease and sell land which is surplus to requirements in any way it so chooses provided that section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 is taken into consideration. Section 123 places a statutory duty on local authorities to achieve best value in the context of land disposals and states that the disposal must not be for a consideration “less than the best that can reasonably be obtained”. It should be noted that the Council’s obligation to comply with its fiduciary duty to obtain best value does not necessarily selecting the highest offer in pure cash terms. Consideration should also be given to ongoing liabilities, and social and economic advantages when considering ‘best consideration’.

27. The leases in this transaction are pre – 1996 leases which means that any assignor remains liable for all future breaches of the lease due to privity of contract. In the event of Members choosing to instruct officers to progress discussions with F5 Grainrent, this risk is removed as the proposal would mean the Council’s lease would be surrendered and thus merge with Grainrent’s head lease, the only party able to pursue the Council for any breaches. Should Members preference be that discussions are progressed with Matterhorn Capital/ S2 Estates, then indemnities should be sought, although it should be noted that a risk remains if a breach occurs and the indemnities are not honoured for whatever reason. The financial risks of rectifying such a beach in these circumstances should also be considered.

28. There is a risk in the Council continuing to hold negotiations with both parties as the unsuccessful party could be sufficiently aggrieved to challenge the Council as to why they were not informed of alternative proposals, thus denying them the opportunity to modify their proposals. It is important that the Council acts with openness, objectively and accountability with all parties and is seen to be acting this way. Continuing discussions with both parties in isolation creates a risk of both parties legitimately holding an expectation that their proposal will be adopted and formalised.

Risk Assessment

29. The proposal to re-structure or assign the lease of the car park would free the Council from any outstanding repairs liabilities, and future repairs obligations, currently in the under lease. In the event that Members decide not to pursue either of the options proposed, the Council may lose an opportunity to derive added value and risk being required to comply with its repairing obligations. It would result in the retention of an under performing and loss making asset.

Equalities Impact Assessment

30. It is considered that there are no perceived Equality Impact Assessment implications arising from this proposal, other than to ensure any refurbishments are fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act.

Background papers – Held by Toks Osibogun, Service Manager, Asset Strategy & Estates (author of the report) - Extension 5147 ([email protected]). mailto: None other than those referred to in this report F6 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3, 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted 14

Health 1 Centre 7

1 N 1 2 14.7m D ROA 1 2 ON 1 6 AGD

4 BL 3

1 1 1 1 1

1 6

8

2

5 3

t

o

2 1 9

1 9m 15.5 AD BM N RO El GDO BLA Sub Sta 15.0m PC New PC

1 Malden 1 2

2 0

2 House

3

2 1

1

2

4 Multistorey

9

5

2

o

t 2

1 Car Park 1

1

H 2

6

I

t New Malden House G

o

H 1 F9

3

0

S

T

R

1

7

4 o

E

t

3

1 1

E

T 1

3

2

1 SCENT 3 COCKS CRE 4

1 1

3 4

8

0

9

7

5

5

1 1

© Crown copyright and database rights 201 41 , Ordnance Survey: 100019285 1

4 4

6 8 Adult Training Centre for BLAGDON ROAD/HIGH STREET, NEW MALDEN Asset Management Service 1 5 Estates & Valuation Team 0 Multi-storey car park & New Malden House

t o Guildhall

1 5 Kingston upon Thames 4 Surrey KT1 1EU Plan No: EM6209 Scale : 1/750 Drawn: VR Date: 28.8.14 File Ref: G1 Appendix G Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee 11 September 2014

Woodbury, 8 Kingsdowne Road, Surbiton, KT6 6JZ

Report by Director of Place

Purpose

To approve the grant of a lease of the above property to Balance Community Interest Company.

Recommendations of the Lead Member for Capital Projects and Contracts

To resolve that a lease of the above property, shown verged in heavy black outline on the enclosed plan (Annex 1), to Balance Community Interest Company be approved on the basis of the terms and conditions detailed in the body of this report.

Key Points

A. To approve the grant of a lease of Woodbury as shown verged in heavy black outline on the attached plan be granted to Balance (CIC) who have been appointed to deliver the Council’s Learning and Disability Service provider services. B. Informal negotiations have been engaged in between the Council and Balance with terms having been agreed, subject to contract and this Committee’s approval, following which the lease will be completed. C. In the interim period, Balance is in occupation of the property on the basis of a tenancy at will agreement, pending the formal grant of a lease. D. Approval by this Committee will enable the lease to be formally completed.

Context

1. Woodbury comprises a large detached property in a predominantly residential area and provides a service for adults with learning disability.

2. The property has 15 resident bedrooms, one with its own access to a shared bathroom and one with a shower in the room. It provides residential care for up to 14 permanent residents and one respite room which is used for people with physical disabilities.

3. On 19 March 2013, the then People’s Services Committee approved proposals to adopt a new strategy for the provision of services to adults with learning disabilities.

4. The new approach related to a vision for transforming the service through improving outcomes, back office integration and user involvement. At that meeting, the Committee approved proposals for a Social Enterprise model as the preferred option for the adult learning disability provider services.

G2 5. Following a successful commissioning exercise, Balance (CIC) was appointed as the preferred service provider for the Adult Learning and Disability provider services.

6. The service provision went live on the 1 st of July 2014. The perceived benefits of this model of service delivery is anticipated to be:

6.1 An improved quality of the services provided to people with learning disability.

6.2 Improved cost effectiveness and future sustainability of the services.

6.3 Ensuring that the services are able to meet the expected demographic pressures anticipated for learning disability services in coming years.

7. The contract which commenced on 1 July 2014 is for a five year term.

8. In order to effectively deliver the service Balance is required to have control of the premises, necessitating the need for a lease so as to regularise their occupation as well as setting out roles and responsibilities in respect of the property.

9. The principal terms for the proposed lease to Balance are as set out below:

9.1 The lease is to be for a period of 5 years from 1 July 2014 and will be co- terminus with the service contract.

9.2 Responsibility for keeping the property clean and tidy will rest with Balance with the Council retaining overall responsibility for keeping the property structurally sound and in good repair as well as ensuring that all statutory compliance issues are addressed.

9.3 This enables Balance to focus on the service provision aspect. In the event of the Council wishing for Balance to be responsible for the repair of the building, the costs would still need to be met by the Council indirectly, with the costs effectively passing through the contract. The Council would, ultimately, retain responsibility for Health and Safety matters.

9.4 The detail of the rent payable by Balance in respect of its use and occupation of the asset is detailed in a separate report contained on the Exempt part of this agenda.

9.5 The property is to be handed back to the Council in a clean and tidy state consistent with Balance having complied with its obligations under the lease.

Options

10. The option considered available to Members is to agree the recommendation in order to regularise Balance’s occupation of the subject premises. Failure to regularise Balance’s occupation presents a degree of ambiguity in respect of roles and responsibilities for the property and a ‘do nothing’ option is not considered advisable.

G3 Resource Implications

11. The detailed financial implications are included in the report contained on the Exempt part of the agenda.

Legal Implications 12. All disposals have to comply with Contract Standing Order 18, although Paragraph 8 of Annex 1 will not apply in this case as the disposal would be at market value.

Risk Assessment

13. It is considered that a failure to formally document Balance’s use and occupation creates a degree of ambiguity in respect of roles and responsibilities for the property and in respect of any potential Health and Safety issues.

Equalities Impact Assessment

14. None specific arising as a result of this proposal.

Environmental Implications

15. None specific arising as a result of this proposal .

Background papers – None other than those detailed in the report.

Author of report – Toks Osibogun 020 8547 5147 [email protected]

G4 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3, 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

G6

1

t

o

8 FB

9

t

o

1 N 6

D A O El Sub Sta R Y E L G N A

L

2 5

TCB

1

1b Playing Field

K ING SD OW NE RO AD

29.6m 4

11

1

9

13 8

1

9

a

2 1

1

9

b 4

1 26.1m

a

4 1

6

1

a

4

1

a 6

2 1

1

8

1

4

1

b 8

1

9 C Kingston and Esher 1

H

6 1 1 4 Health Authority A V M ica (District Nurses Base) ra B ge 29.8m E R

L

A

I U N

P

W P

2 E A 3

R Y

B

R

I G

H 0

2 T 1 O 2

N

R

O

2 3

A 5 1

D

Gaymead a

0

2 1

2 1 5 8

a b

Ardbeg 0

2 26

1 1 Ardbeg

6

2 2

7

2 4

28 7 C

H

A a

M

2 2

B E 0 R 3

L

A

I © Crown copyright and database rights 201 4, Ordnance Survey: 100019285 N

W

A

Y

WOODBURY, 8 KINGSDOWNE ROAD, SURBITON KT6 6JZ

Asset Management Service Estates & Valuation Team Plan No: Scale: Drawn: Date: File Ref: Guildhall, Kingston upon Thames EM6168 1/1250 VR 23.6.14 3/V/1 Surrey, KT1 1EU H1 Appendix H Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee 11 September 2014

Veolia Depot, Chapel Mill Road, Kingston

Report by Director of Place

Purpose

To consider the grant of a lease of the above property to Veolia.

Recommendations of the Lead Member for Capital Projects and Contracts

To resolve that 1. The proposal to grant a lease of the Villiers Road Depot, shown verged in heavy black outline on the enclosed plan (Appendix 1), to Veolia is agreed on the basis of the terms and condition detailed in the body of this report and; 2. In the event of the current service contract being extended beyond the current contract expiry date of 31 August 2015, the lease is further extended so as to be co- terminus with the service contract.

Key Points

A. To agree the grant of a lease of the Waste Depot situated on Chapel Mill Road to the Council’s Recycling and Refuse Collection service provider, Veolia.

B. The formal grant of a lease of the depot would ensure that Veolia’s use and occupation is formalised and as a consequence remove any ambiguity as to where the responsibility for Health and Safety rests as well as serving to clarify the roles and responsibilities in respect of the maintenance of the property.

C. To agree that, in the event of Veolia’s current contract being extended for a further period, the lease be extended to be co-terminus with the service contract.

Context

1. It is considered important to regularise the occupation of the property occupied by Veolia for a number of reasons. These are as follows:

• Transparency in respect of the cost of occupying the property. • Clarity in respect of the roles and responsibilities for maintenance of the property as well as for Health and Safety matters.

2. The principal terms for the proposed lease to Veolia are as set out below:

2.1 The lease is to be co-terminus with their Service Contract.

H2 2.2 The rent commencement date will be the date of the completion of the lease.

2.3 Veolia is to be responsible for keeping the property in good repair.

2.4 The use of the property is to be solely in connection with, and for the purpose of, fulfilling their contractual obligations.

2.5 The detail of the rent payable by Veolia in respect of its use and occupation of the asset is detailed in a separate report contained on the Exempt part of this agenda.

2.6 The property is to be handed back to the Council in a state and condition consistent with Veolia having complied with its obligations under the lease to keep the property in good repair.

2.7 The lease is contracted out of the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

3. It is to be noted that the current buildings, whilst they are to be considered a landlord’s fixture, were constructed and paid for by Veolia, in line with requirements of their service contract.

4. Further details of the rent to be paid in respect of the premises are contained in a separate report on the Exempt part of this agenda.

Options 5. The option considered available to Members is to agree the recommendation in order to regularise Veolia’s occupation of the subject premises. Failure to regularise Veolia’s occupation presents a degree of ambiguity in respect of roles and responsibilities for the property and a do nothing option is not considered advisable.

Resource Implications 6. The detailed financial implications are included in the report contained on the exempt part of the agenda.

Legal Implications 7. All disposals have to comply with Contract Standing Order 18, although Paragraph 8 of Annex 1 will not apply in this case as the disposal would be at market value.

Risk Assessment

8. It is considered that a failure to formally document Veolia’s use and occupation creates a degree of ambiguity in respect of roles and responsibilities for the property and in respect of any potential Health and Safety issues.

Equalities Impact Assessment

9. None specific arising as a result of this proposal.

Environmental Implications

10. None specific arising as a result of this proposal .

H3

Background papers – held by Toks Osibogun 020 8547 5147 [email protected]

Author of report – Toks Osibogun 020 8547 5147 [email protected]

H4 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3, 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted H ogsm 0 ill 4 River Fair field Indus trial E state N CR C 2 HA 4 P EL M ILL R Hogs OAD mill R PCs iver Shelter D A O R

1

S

2 0 R E I

L 8

2

1

4 L 2

I

9 1 9

V Play Area

k r 10.4m a Athelstan Recreation Ground P

Play Area s s

e

n 1 i

4 s WB

0 u

B

l l

i 0

m 5

s

1 g 5 7 n i WB K

Waste Disposal Centre

1 4 Waste Disposal Centre

TCB

1 8 3 H5

4

5

Athelstan Recreation Ground BM 11.37m Waste Disposal Centre El Sub Sta ATH

8 EL A 8 STAN THEL

3 R ST Waste Disposal Centre 1 OA AN R 6 D OAD 5 10.6m Ambulance Station 1

3 Posts 2

Saxon 1 H

1 ouse

4 6

0

1

1

8 6

2 1

1 1 to 2

0 4

0 3 1 A 8 thelst 6 an House 7

9

1

1

2

1

0

8

1 1

2 2

1 3

0

8

7 © Crown copyright and database rights 2012, Ordnanc9 e Survey: 100019285 3

3

4

3

0 8

1

LAND USED BY VEOLIA AT CHAPEL MILL ROAD, Asset Management Service off VILLIERS ROAD, Estates & Valuation Team KINGSTON UPON THAMES Guildhall Kingston upon Thames Surrey KT1 1EU Plan No: EM5762 Scale : 1/1500 Drawn: VR Date: 23.3.12 File Ref: 4/D/35/E I1 Appendix I Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee 11 September 2014

Permitted Development rights – The case for the withdrawal of Permitted Development rights for change of use - Office to Residential

Report by Director of Place

Purpose This Report seeks authorisation to proceed with work to introduce an Article 4 Direction to withdraw the new permitted development rights for change of use from offices to residential. Recommendations of the Lead Member for Environment and Transport To RESOLVE

1. that work be commenced to introduce an Article 4 Direction to withdraw permitted development rights for change of use from Use Class B1(a) (offices) to Use Class C3 (residential). The work will include serving a Notice providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the proposal, and the responses will be reported back to the next available Committee to inform the Council’s final decision. 2. which areas within the Borough the Article 4 Direction will apply (a Direction must be targeted, and cannot be applied Borough-wide). 3. that the risk of compensation claims from developers/property owners be noted, should the Article 4 Direction be introduced with immediate effect, and that this risk can be avoided by a 12 month delay in introduction.

Key Points

A. The Government has recently introduced a number of changes to the Permitted Development regime in an attempt to address the need to boost housing delivery. The key change has been the removal of the need for planning permission for change of use from offices (Use Class B1(a)) to residential (Use Class C3). This change has had a significant negative impact on this Borough. B. The loss of office uses resulting from the new Permitted Development Rights has significant implications for the health of the Borough’s economic drivers – the Town, District and Local centres, plus the designated Employment Areas and some other locations providing employment opportunities. Whilst there is a need for more residential accommodation in the Borough the report concludes that this should not be at the expense of the provision of employment opportunities. C. Authorisation is sought to commence work to introduce an Article 4 Direction to withdraw the new permitted development rights for change of use from offices to residential. The Article 4 Direction will need to be targeted to areas of concern, and cannot be introduced Borough-wide. Due to the risk of the Council incurring significant claims for compensation it will be necessary to allow a 12 month period between the decision to introduce the Direction and its implementation. D. The other Government changes, introduced more recently, including permitted development change of use from shops (Use Class A1 & A2) to residential, are not expected to have a significant impact on this Borough as, unlike the office to I2 residential, they are regulated by much more stringent tests that applicants need to satisfy. E. Whilst there is no justifiable case to pursue an Article 4 Direction to remove permitted development rights in the case of any of the other changes such as retail to residential, the position will be kept under review.

Context

1. On 31 May 2013, the Government introduced new Permitted Development Rights to allow change from Use Class B1(a) (offices) to Use Class C3 (residential) in line with Government policy to make it easier to convert redundant, empty and under- used office space into needed new homes, and the aim of promoting brownfield regeneration, increasing footfall in town centres and boosting housing supply. Then in April 2014 the Government introduced further Permitted Development Rights to allow change of use from Use Class A1 (shops) and A2 (financial and professional services) to Use Class C3 (residential), again with the aim of boosting housing supply.

2. This report firstly explains the detail of the changes, and how the new permitted Development Rights operate. Then it considers the impact to date of the changes – from office and from retail to residential. The report finally reviews the options available and risks to the Council in its approach to recovering planning control in respect of change of use – office to residential.

The Permitted Development rights process

3. The change of use of buildings within either A1/A2 or B1 use classes no longer requires planning permission, unless the buildings are listed, located in a conservation area, or were not recently in A1/A2 or B1 use.

4. There are some further restrictions within the respective A1/A2 and B1 classes:

Permitted Development Rights for A1/A2 to C3: • only apply to buildings in A1 and/or A2 use on 20 March 2013; • only apply to commercial units with floorspace changing use up to 150m²; • do not restrict the number of dwellings created; • enable the external modifications sufficient to allow for the conversion to residential use, but do not allow any extensions; and • do not apply in Conservation Areas or to listed buildings.

The Permitted Development Rights for B1(a) to C3: • only apply to buildings in B1(a) use on or before the 30th May 2013; • do not restrict the number of dwellings created; • do not enable the external modifications or extensions; and • do not apply to listed buildings.

5. The permitted development right process requires developers to notify the Council that they propose such a change through seeking Prior Approval, whereby the developer submits a Prior Notification Order (PNO) form to the Council together with an £80 fee.

I3 6. Following receipt of a PNO application the Council has 56 days to determine the application, including at least 21 days for consultation. The criteria / tests against which PNO applications are assessed are listed below.

7. For the A1/A2 to C3 change these tests are:

• the parking / highways impacts of the development; • contamination risks in relation to the building; • flooding risks in relation to the building; and • the impact of the change of use: a) on adequate provision of services in A1 or A2 use – but only where there is a reasonable prospect of the building being used to provide such services, or b) where the building is located in a key shopping area , on the sustainability of that shopping area.

8. The term “key shopping area” is clarified in the guidance to include town centres, a term which the NPPF defines as covering city, town, district and local centres (the Council identifies 26 local centres), but excludes small parades. Thus, because the vast majority of shop units in the Borough are located in centres within the key shopping area definition, the Council will be able to apply the impact test as set out above, and in accordance with Kingston’s Core Strategy policy that seeks to protect the Borough’s town centres by resisting change that would threaten the predominance of A1 uses in the centres (Policy DM19).

9. In proposing an A1 to C3 change, the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate there is no reasonable prospect of the building being used as a retail outlet, and that the change would not impact unacceptably on the sustainability of the centre. Thus, in terms of shop uses the permitted development changes do not represent a serious weakening of the Council’s planning controls, and set a high ‘bar’ for applicant’s to reach to satisfy the regulatory tests.

10. For the B1 to C3 change the tests are:

• flooding risks in relation to the building; • contamination risks in relation to the building; and • parking or highways impacts of the development.

11. The Council can require the developer to submit such information regarding the impacts as may reasonably be required in order to determine the application. This information may require an assessment of impacts or risks and statements setting out how the impacts or risks are to be mitigated. The application site must be in lawful A1/A2 or B1 use at the time of submission otherwise the PNO is invalid. These tests are much less onerous than the tests that apply to the A1/2 to C3 change.

12. If the Council does not issue a decision letter within the 56-day period deemed consent is automatically granted for the change of use. The developer will then have three years to implement the A1/A2 to C3 change of use (or up to May 2016 1 in the case of B1 to C3). If the change is not implemented by that date Prior Approval lapses and planning permission would be required.

1 The Government are currently consulting on a proposal to extend the period to May 2019 I4 13. If the PNO is not considered to satisfy the tests the Council can refuse Prior Approval, and as is shown in the next section a significant proportion of office to residential PNOs have been refused. The applicant has the right of appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse a PNO in exactly the same way the right exists for planning applications.

14. Critically in terms of the Council’s ability to provide the necessary infrastructure to support new development PNOs are not subject to a requirement to enter into planning obligations or to make affordable housing contributions.

The impact of the changes

Office to Residential

15. In the first nine months following introduction of the change the Council received a total of 81 PNO applications in relation to 61 separate properties.

16. The applications range from modest schemes to convert small offices into single residential units, to large schemes such as that for New Malden House that proposed the replacement of 6,851sqm office space by 77 new residential units, but was refused principally on grounds of unacceptable on-site parking impact.

17. A total of 67 (of the 81) PNO applications that have been determined, with the following decision profile: • 37 approved (55%) • 21 refused (31%) • 9 withdrawn (14%) Total 67 have been determined

18. A quarter of applications have been refused with the most common reason for refusal being the lack of evidence to demonstrate that the proposed site was in lawful use as a B1(a) office at the time of submission. The three tests referred to above are not proving difficult for applicants to satisfy.

19. The potential loss of affordable housing and planning obligations resulting from the loss of planning control is significant. Based on a policy compliant 50% affordable housing contribution, the 37 approved schemes could have contributed 122 affordable units had they been the subject of planning applications. Again based on the Council’s Planning Obligations Strategy tariff Section 106 contributions from the 37 approvals would have been in the order of £1.5 million.

20. Half (31) of the 61 buildings subject to PNO for change of use from B1a to C3 are located in the Borough’s strategic sites - Kingston town centre, the district centres and the key industrial sites (the Strategic Industrial Locations and Locally Significant Industrial Sites). The distribution is as follows:

• Kingston Town Centre 9 • New Malden District Centre 6 • Surbiton District Centre 4 • Tolworth District Centre 3 • LSISs and SILs 9 31

I5 21. In its response to the Government consultation on the proposed relaxation of Permitted Development Rights in February 2013, RBK specifically requested that Kingston Town Centre and the Strategic Industrial Locations of Chessington Industrial Estate and Barwell Business Park should be exempted. However, as was the case for most other London boroughs proposing exemptions, the Government did not agree to this request.

22. The Council’s recent Economic Analysis Study prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners identifies a number of other areas within the Borough as important employment locations providing good quality office space in attractive accessible locations, including the area close to Norbiton Station, referred to as Norbiton Station environs, for which there is evidence of significant demand for business representation, and where there has been PNO activity. Three office buildings in the Norbiton Station environs area have been the subject of PNO applications, and due to its attraction and accessibility it is an area where office use should be defended through the withdrawal of permitted development rights.

23. The office floorspace potentially lost through the approved 37 PNOs totals 18,658sqm , which represents 6% of the Borough’s total office floorspace (290,000sq.m 2). Of this approximately half is located within the strategic sites boundaries.

24. Not all approved PNOs will be implemented. To date development has commenced on 12 PNO sites, removing 6,600sqm of office floorspace for the gain of 119 residential units. This loss of office accommodation needs to be considered in the context of the employment growth forecasts that underpin the Mayor of London’s Further Alterations to the London Plan, and evidence recently prepared to support the Borough’s Local Plan. The Further Alterations to the London Plan forecasts an increase in office workers in the Borough of 500pa, a figure about average for the forecasts for outer London boroughs. Local commercial agents point to the opportunity for Kingston to accommodate a start-up enterprise centre in the short to medium term that would take advantage of Kingston’s University’s reputation as a leading producer of entrepreneurs. There is also growing interest in the Borough and Kingston Town in particular for representation from office occupiers most notably the recent relocation to Kingston of 800 employees of oil company Saipem. It is clear that the Borough is in a position to contribute to the growth in employment forecast in the Further Alterations to the London Plan, but the loss of office property to residential through the permitted development regime puts this growth at risk.

25. Of the 37 approved PNOs, over half (20) of the office buildings were part of fully occupied, which means many businesses would have to relocate, quite possibly out of the Borough, and possibly downsize or even cease trading altogether. This fact is of significant relevance, as it was not the Government’s intention that occupied sought after office accommodation should be lost; the policy aim was to encourage the reuse of vacant and hard to let property.

26. Examples of business impact include:

• Northamber House (Chessington Industrial Area) a purpose-built modern office building that was occupied at the time of the PNO application by a business employing over 50 staff. Prior Approval was granted for 28 flats in May this year.

2 source NLP 2014 Economic Analysis Study I6 • Cowleaze House (Canbury Park Industrial Site) a converted former factory built in the 1950s that offers sought-after flexible work spaces that are favoured by start-up businesses and small and medium enterprises because of the opportunity for business synergies. Such space is hard to find in the Borough. It was almost fully occupied at the time of the PNO application by eight businesses, ranging from one person businesses to a business employing 22 staff. Redevelopment is likely to commence later this year, meaning businesses that in combination employ 40 employees would have to relocate. At least one of these businesses (with seven staff) is likely to leave the Borough if forced to relocate. • St Andrew’s House (Surbiton District Centre) a purpose-built 1970s office block that was part-occupied at the time of the PNO application by two businesses. If required to relocate, one of the businesses with 20 employees has indicated that relocation would also mean downsizing. • Kings Avenue House (New Malden District Centre) a purpose-built 1960s office block that was part-occupied at the time of the PNO application by three businesses. Prior Approval was granted for 3 flats in May 2014 and works have commenced on site. • Kingstons House (Norbiton Station Environs) a purpose-built 1970s office block occupied by approximately 16 businesses at the time of the PNO application. The businesses all have served with eviction notices requiring them to vacate the premises by September this year. This site is the subject of interest for a free school, which would be subject to a separate Prior Notification process.

27. These examples demonstrate that the Borough is losing the type of office premises that the Government didn’t intend should be lost, i.e. buildings occupied by businesses located in sought after attractive and accessible locations.

28. Whilst the indications are that most businesses threatened with displacement would like to relocate within the Borough, the lack of suitable available space in the Borough means office occupiers need to seriously consider a move out of Borough.

29. Many of these change of use proposals would not have satisfied the Council’s planning controls, and in particular: • compliance with minimum floorspace standards; • poor mix of units – lack of 3-bed units; • lack of amenity space – no balconies or garden space provided in most cases; • poor locations – poor access and lack of nearby facilities such as parks; • daylight/sunlight and outlook issues – in some cases there are no windows provided for bedrooms and/or flats are single-aspect North facing; • privacy issues – close proximity to other buildings and public highways; • no provision of affordable housing; • no provision of S106 contribution towards education, open space or highways/ environmental improvements; • lifetime homes/accessibility; and • sustainability – none of the units were required to meet the relevant code for sustainable homes standards.

I7 30. Many, probably the majority of these proposals would have been refused had they been considered under planning controls. This is a serious concern due to the poor quality of residential units delivered through the relaxation of permitted development rights.

31. The poor quality of the residential accommodation provided together with the loss of office accommodation for which there is occupier demand, and the damaging impact this will have on the ability of the Borough to deliver the employment growth targets set out in the London Plan, indicates that recovering planning controls will be necessary to pursue economic prosperity.

Retail to Residential

32. The shop to residential change came into force in April 2014, but the Council is still awaiting its first A1or A2 to C3 PNO application.

33. The change could be of interest to developers in locations where residential values out-perform retail. Whilst retail uses compared to residential will be far more valuable in Kingston Town Centre and in the prime areas within the District Centres, residential is likely to be more valuable than retail on the outer margins of Kingston Town Centre, the outer areas of the District Centres, in the 28 designated Local Centres and in the case of out-of-centre standalone retail units across the Borough. However, as referred to above there are stringent criteria and tests that must be applied and satisfied before change of use from retail to residential can be allowed.

34. The two key criteria are that (i) this change of use does not apply to buildings located within Conservation Areas and (ii) it does not apply to buildings with A1/2 floorspace greater than 150sqm (the size of a small shop unit). These criteria take many of the Borough’s retail units out of scope for this change. The other key requirement for applicants to satisfy is the impact test. In this regard the importance of attractive retail frontages to town centre vitality and viability would need to be thoroughly assessed to identify any potential harmful and unacceptable impacts. Kingston’s retail centres have very low vacancy rates, and there is clearly a need and demand for retail premises. The loss of active and attractive shop frontages and replacement with residential use would detract from a centre’s vitality and harm the overall viability, thereby constituting an unacceptable impact and grounds for resisting the PNO. Options for recovering planning control

35. The Council has the option to recover planning control by removing Permitted Development Rights through the making of an Article 4 Direction.

36. DCLG guidance states that Local Planning Authorities should consider making Article 4 directions “ only in those exceptional circumstances where evidence suggests that the exercise of permitted development rights would harm local amenity or the proper planning of the area” . (our emphasis)

37. There is clear evidence that the change is merited in the case of the change from office, but not in the case of the change from retail.

38. Article 4 Directions must relate to specific classes of permitted development. There is flexibility over (i) the timing of the date the Direction becomes effective, (ii) the geographical extent and (iii) the degree of permanence. These three issues and the risks attached to the alternative approaches are considered below. I8

Timing Options : two options

i. Immediate - comes into effect within twelve months of the publication of the Notice of the making of the Direction. The introduction of a Direction within 12 months of the Notice being served carries the risk of land owners /developers making what could be substantial compensation claims (see below). ii. Non-immediate - coming into effect at least twelve months after the publication of the Notice of the making of the Direction. The Regulations state that where a Direction is introduced 12 months after the serving of the Notice compensation cannot be sought by owners/developers.

The Issue of Compensation

39. Where an Article 4 Direction comes into effect within twelve months of the publication of the Notice of the making of the Direction, and a planning application is submitted within 12 months of the making of that Direction for the permitted development taken away, and planning permission for that development is subsequently refused or granted subject to conditions, then anyone with an interest in the land can claim compensation for:

i. expenditure in carrying out work which is rendered abortive (e.g. costs associated with preparing and submitting a planning application over and above the cost of the PNO); and

ii. loss or damage which is attributable to the removal of the permitted development rights. This would include:

a. in the case of a sale following a planning refusal - the difference between the price paid for the building in its existing use (without the benefit of the prior approval) and the open market value of the building with the benefit of the prior approval;

b. in the case of a development following a planning refusal the difference in profit arising from the carrying out of a ‘lesser’ development on the land i.e any reduction in profit after comparing the profit earned in developing the building for its existing use with the estimated level of profit for a development of the building with the benefit of the prior approval;

c. In the case of a planning permission granted subject to conditions - the difference in cost in complying with those conditions compared with conditions which might be granted under a prior approval.

40. If a claim for compensation is made and is not agreed by the Council then this will be determined by the Upper Tribunal of the Land Chamber.

41. To make a claim for compensation a claimant will need to show (i.e. crystallise) a loss. This will commonly arise on a property sale or re-development. The fact that a claimant can satisfy the conditions referred to above, but has not sold or re- developed its land is unlikely to give rise to a claim. While the claimant may be able to point to a ‘paper’ loss, that ‘loss’ will vary from day to day as values change. Only when this loss is crystallised e.g. by a sale or re-development will there be grounds for a claim to be made.

I9 42. To avoid the risk of potentially substantial compensation claims we recommend the introduction of an Article 4 Direction for the office to residential change via the non- immediate route.

Geographical Extent - two options

• Limited to specific sites or areas, e.g. within the town and district centres. • Blanket Borough-wide coverage.

43. In a recent statement, the Planning Minister, Nick Boles, accused some Councils of “undermining” the office-to-residential reforms and stated that blanket coverage was a “disproportionate” use of powers. Whilst the express approval of the Secretary of State is no longer needed to introduce such a Direction, the Secretary of State has a reserve power over Article 4 Directions and local authorities opting to use them are required to inform the DCLG of their intention to do so.

44. We recommend limiting the geographical extent of the B1 to C3 coverage to:

i. Kingston Town Centre, ii. the three District Centres (Surbiton, New Malden and Tolworth), iii. the Strategic Employment Areas and iv. Norbiton Station environs employment area

45. The boundaries for these areas are consistent with the boundary definitions shown on the Council’s Core Strategy Proposals Map in all cases except the last names area. The Norbiton Station environs is not an area defined by an adopted Council Plan or Strategy, and the area has been identified to seek to protect the office buildings in that locality. All the areas included are shown on the maps appended to this Report.

Period of coverage: two options

• Temporary – a possible option given the change of use needs to be fully implemented within a specific timescale - 3 years. However, it is understood that Government are considering making some or all of the changes permanent.

• Permanent – Avoids the need for a new direction should the Government extend or make permanent the permitted development rights. Could be revoked in the future as necessary.

46. A permanent Direction is recommended.

Timescale

47. A programme of tasks required to work towards the introduction of an Article 4 Direction is set out below.

Programme Tasks Timetable Preparation of case to Consult on introduction of A4D a. seek approval to proceed with A4D consultation via Cttee 11 Sept ’14 b. draft consultation materials – letters, Notice, advert etc IP&C Committee setting out the rationale justifying the introduction of an A4D

I10 Public Consultation – a. serving Notice on owners/occupiers in the specific locations 22 Sept – 3 Nov ’14 (the Regulations recognise that it may be difficult to Consultation period identify/locate every owner/occupier, and does no not require the serving of the Notice in such cases). b. serving Notice in the local press, Fri 26 Sept ‘14 c. display the Notice in a minimum of two locations within each Notice in the Comet area, and d. notify the Secretary of State.

e. consider representations received, and review if there is a mandate to confirm the Direction. Nb If the consultation indicates material changes are necessary (e.g. changes to the geography) re-consultation will be required. Confirm the Direction – a. Consideration by a Strategic Committee 20 Nov or 4 Dec ’14 b. Serve confirmation of Notice on every owner/occupier, press IP&C or P&F Cttee and SoS Dec’14: Serve the Notice Implementation Non-immediate : would come into force no less than a year from the date the Notice is confirmed to avoid any possible Dec ‘15 claims for compensation (but cannot be a period more than two years from the date the notice is served). This is the recommended option.

[Immediate : would come into force when the Notice is served, but delivers potential liability for significant compensation claims.]

Resource Implications

48. The report sets out the risks of compensation claims against the Council in relation to the introduction of an Article 4 Direction that comes into effect immediately or within 12 months of the publication of the Notice of the making of the Direction. Claims could run to very significant sums, for which no budgetary provision has been made in the accounts. The financial risk from compensation claims fall away where the Direction comes into force more than 12 months after publication of the Notice of the making of the Direction.

49. Planning applications submitted where an Article 4 Direction is in force do not require the submission of a planning application fee. The overall impact of the introduction of a Direction to remove permitted development rights for B1 to C3 is not considered likely to have a significant impact on fee income, as the clawing back of planning control in itself is likely to limit the number of such proposals.

50. The recovery of planning control for this change would allow the Council to seek infrastructure contributions from applicants for the B1 to C3 change. Thus, the Council would be able to require financial as well as in-kind contributions for the not insubstantial infrastructure needs of residential compared to business use. Planning obligation financial contributions could be significant amounts.

I11 Legal Implications

51. The General Permitted Development Order (2014) is a Statutory Instrument that came into force on the 6 th April 2014.

52. An assessment of its implications for the Borough has been undertaken. The Council can redeem its planning powers using Article 4 Directions. However, depending on the approach taken, the Council could be liable to pay compensation. The risk and type of compensation payable has been considered. It is advisable to only implement Article 4 Directions after a 12 month notification period, otherwise the Council could be liable to pay compensation for the reasons set out in this report.

Risk Assessment

53. The key risk with introducing an Order relate to the opportunity for developers to make successful claims for compensation if the Order is introduced within 12 months of the publication of the Notice. Claims could amount to substantial sums. Claims cannot be made if the Order is made 12 months after publication of the Notice.

54. There is a risk that the Secretary of State could revoke the Order if the case for introduction is not evidence based, and not geographically targeted. This risk has been minimised by the identification of evidence that pin points the areas of particular concern in the case of office to residential.

55. There is a risk that the public consultation will not support the introduction of an Article 4 Direction. This risk has been minimised by collection of data that indicates the clear benefits of recovering planning control to further the Borough’s economic and employment objectives.

Equalities Impact Assessment

56. The impact of the loss of employment opportunities in the Borough significantly out- weighs the advantages of the provision of a modest amount of additional housing (much of it of substandard quality), for vulnerable and minority groups in the Borough. The recovery of planning control for office to residential proposals does not impact on any one particular community group, and therefore does not have an equalities implication.

Environmental Implications

57. The recommendations to make Article 4 Directions for changes of use from Use Class B1 to C3 support Core Strategy policy, and the aims of sustainable development and sustainable communities by retaining and maintaining viable employment areas.

Appendices: 1. Maps depicting the areas where the Article 4 Direction will apply.

Background papers : held by A. Lynch – 020 8547 5376 , e-mail: [email protected] Author of report - A. Lynch I12

List of reports/documents • The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 – Sections 107 & 108 • The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013 – no 1101 • The Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (amendment & consequential Provisions) Order 2014 and (Compensation) Order – nos 564 and 565. J1 Appendix J Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee 11 September 2014

Kingston Community Infrastructure Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Planning Obligations SPD Report by Director of Place

Purpose

To agree the Draft Charging Schedule submission and the draft Planning Obligations Strategy for public consultation and thereafter submit for consideration by the Secretary of State by either written representation or public enquiry

Recommendations of the Lead Member for Environment and Transport

To resolve that

1. the Draft Charging Schedule submission version, incorporating minor modifications and its background documents, as set out in paragraphs 8-10, are agreed for a four week public consultation and thereafter submitted for consideration by the Secretary of State by either written representation or public enquiry.

2. the revised draft Planning Obligations Strategy incorporating modifications, as set out in paragraphs 19 -22, are also agreed for a 4 week joint public consultation with the Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule submission version.

Key Points

A. In March 2013 Place and Sustainability (P&S) Committee approved the first draft RBK Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule for public consultation – referred to as the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule. The consultation on this document took place in spring 2013. B. In November 2013 the P&S Committee approved the second draft RBK Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule referred to as the Draft Charging Schedule and the Draft Planning Obligations SPD for public consultation. The consultation on these documents took place between January - March 2014. C. This report summarises the representations received from this latest consultation and identifies proposed modifications to the Charging Schedule and Draft Planning Obligations SPD in light of the representations received. D. The Draft Charging Schedule and The Draft Planning Obligations SPD incorporating the proposed modification and background documents will be made available for a four week public consultation in September/October and submitted for consideration by the Secretary of State by either written representation or public enquiry.

Context J2 1. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a new system of funding infrastructure through planning charges that the Council can ask developers to pay for most new building projects. The money raised can be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure needed to support new development within the Council, not necessarily in the location where the money is raised. 2. CIL takes the form of a tariff per m2 of additional floorspace. The level of the tariff is set by the local authority based on the needs identified through infrastructure planning, but also tested to ensure that it will not affect the viability of developments. The RBK CIL Viability Study 2014 provides the background scoping and viability work for setting CIL rates across the borough. This piece of work was prepared by consultants BNP Paribas Real Estate, recognised leaders in this field. 3. The government has decided that a tariff based approach to funding strategic infrastructure delivery is fairer, faster, provides more certainty and is more transparent than the current system of planning obligations under section 106 which are negotiated on a site by site basis. It is also payable by most new development which relies on the infrastructure not just by a few larger-scale schemes. 4. CIL would therefore be the main source of developer contributions towards infrastructure beyond the immediate needs of the development site. However, the CIL regime does not replace S106 completely. Section 106 planning obligations will remain for affordable housing and site-specific infrastructure that are required to make a development acceptable in planning terms. 5. The Council consulted in January 2014, on a revised Planning Obligations (Section 106) Strategy alongside the CIL, this is to ensure that the development industry and others have a clear understanding on the likely combined level of the Borough’s CIL and Section 106 planning obligations, which they will have to meet to ensure that any proposed development is acceptable and also makes a reasonable contribution to the infrastructure needs of the Borough.

Consultations 6. Representations on the Draft Charging Schedule were received from a total of 37 separate parties, including representatives from the construction and development industry, infrastructure providers, national stakeholder groups, local residents and the Council’s Neighbourhood Committees. A full schedule of consultation representations, together with the Council’s responses is presented in the Statement of Consultation. This document forms part of the background papers.

Consultation Summary (further details can be found in the Statement of Consultation – Background document) 7. Summary of the main issues raised by the representations: • Support for £0 rate on public services and community facilities; • Comments on the proportion of CIL spend allocated to neighbourhoods and infrastructure projects on Draft Regulation123 List; • Objection made to the proposed CIL rates for retail development and comments on the lack of viability evidence with regard to retail development; • Comments were made on state aid implications; forthcoming CIL reforms; and exemptions and relief policies; • Objection by the University on the proposed CIL rate for student accommodation, comment was made that no allowance was made for geographical location and the evidence use to justify rate; J3 • Mayor of London, acknowledged that the Mayoral CIL has been taken into account in viability testing and was content that the CIL proposals will not put at risk the objectives and detailed policies in the London Plan; • Comments were made on viability and on the approach taken in assessing the Bench Land Value, proposed CIL rate combined with current policies such as affordable housing and Code for Sustainable Homes, instalment policy, the proposed viability cushion of 20%; • Objections were made on the proposed financial contributions in the sustainable Construction/Climate Change Section of the Draft Planning Obligation SPD; • Comments were made on viability testing, raising details on the assumptions and comparables used in particularly in relation to retail and housing; • Suggestion of a nil rate to be given for all uses in the Eden Walk shopping Centre site and a nil rate for all retail development in the town centre; • Comments were made on the proposed nominal rate of £20 for all other uses and suggested that a nil rate be used as a precautionary approach; and • Suggested amendments were recommended to the Planning Obligations SPD with regards Employment Development, Training and Business support, Heritage assets, Travel Plans and Site Specific Transport Requirement.

Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) 8. No significant changes were made to the Draft Charging Schedule. 9. After representation made by Kingston University, the Council looked into the inclusion into the DCS of a nil rate for Student accommodation (with a fixed period being 7 years the period cited as the “clawback” period referred to in Regulation 48 of the CIL Regulations 2010) for nomination schemes set at a affordable rental value of £160 per week and a £220 m2 rate for direct let student housing schemes at market rent levels and also the inclusion of wording in the draft S106 SPD to allow for a policy mechanism for securing lower rents on University nomination schemes. However at a meeting with the University, the Council was informed that the University are no longer offering nomination agreements, it has also been acknowledged and evidenced that securing a rental value of below £180 is unrealistic. Therefore the initial proposal for a flat rate of £220 for Student housing has been taken forward. The Council has agreed after representation made by British Land/USS to carry out separate viability testing on Eden Walk development site. This issue remains unresolved because British Land/ USS have not submitted an appropriate, detailed scheme for testing by our appointed consultants.

J4

Proposed CIL rates:

Development type Proposed CIL rate (£/sqm)

Residential* Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4

£210 £130 £85 £50 Care Homes & Retirement £50 £20 housing

Extra Care housing £20

Student housing £220

Retail - Convenience based supermarkets and superstores £200 and retail warehousing (net retail space >280sm) Kingston Town Centre - Primary Rest of Borough Shopping Area All other Retail (A1-5) £200 £20

All other Uses (with the exception £20 of those identified below) Public Services and Community nil facilities

*The Residential Zones are shown on an Ordnance Survey map extract in Appendix 1 of the Draft Charging Schedule *Kingston Town Centre Primary Shopping Area is shown on an Ordnance Survey map extract in Appendix 2 of the Draft Charging Schedule

Exemptions and Relief from the Community Infrastructure Levy 10. The CIL Regulations 2010 state that the following types of development are exempt from paying CIL, including both the Mayoral CIL (adopted April 2012) the Council’s CIL when adopted • Buildings into which people don’t normally go, or only go into to perform maintenance. This covers things like water pump stations or electrical substations; • Affordable housing is exempt subject to an application by a landowner for 'relief'; • Development by charities which is to be used for charitable purposes is exempt, subject to certain criteria; and • New mandatory exemptions for self-build housing, and for residential annexes and extensions. ( Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2014)

Exceptional Circumstances J5 11. A charging authority can choose to offer relief from paying the levy in exceptional circumstances where a specific scheme cannot afford to pay it, however, there are a number of strict conditions that must be met. 12. The Council is not proposing at this stage to offer relief for Exceptional Circumstances but the need for such a policy will be kept under review.

Instalment Policy 13. Kingston Council intends to introduce a CIL Instalment Policy, which would be offered in all cases where the total CIL liability is greater than £100,000 (This policy has been prepared in accordance with the Regulation 69B of the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2011). In light of the representations received from the last (DCS) consultation, this policy has been amended to extend the payment period for CIL Amounts equal to or more than £500,000. (Below, text to be removed is shown as stri kethrough ; inserted text is indicated as underlined ). 14. The Council will allow payment of CIL by Instalments according to the total amount of liability as follows:

Amount of CIL Liability Number of Payment Periods and Amounts instalments

Any amount less than No instalments Total amount payable within 60 days of £100,000 commencement of development

Amounts equal to or Two instalments £100,000 payable within 60 days of more than £1000,000 commencement of development. but less than £250,000 Balance payable within 120 days of commencement of development Amounts equal to or Three £100,000 payable within 60 days of more than £250,000 but instalments commencement of development. less than £500,000 Balance payable in a further two equal instalments within 120 and 180 days of commencement of development Amounts equal to or Four instalments £250,000 payable within 60 days of more than £500,000 commencement of development Balance payable in a further three instalments of equal amount within 120, 180 and 240 360 days of commencement of development

Regulation 123 list 15. The draft Regs 123 list, is a list of infrastructure projects that the Council intends to fund, at least in part through the CIL (the R123 list). 16. Projects included on this list cannot be funded through S106 planning obligations. The purpose of the R123 list is to clearly identify which projects / infrastructure types will be funded from CIL and to avoid ‘double dipping’ where developers could be charged twice (ie through S106 and CIL) for the same element of infrastructure. 17. The draft Infrastructure list is as far as possible project specific, and avoids referring to a general infrastructure category to avoid not only the above mentioned issue, but also retains the opportunity to use a S106 planning obligation to secure a contribution to mitigate a site specific impact. Revised Planning Obligations Strategy J6 18. The Council also consulted in January 2014- March 2014, on the Draft Revised Planning Obligations SPD alongside the Draft Charging Schedule (DCS). They both would be jointly adopted. In light of the representations received from the consultation and internal review on how the information is presented in the SPD, the following changes are proposed to the Planning Obligations Strategy SPD including some re-formatting and presentation of material. 19. Changes are proposed to the Sustainable Construction/Climate Change section now titled Sustainable Construction/Climate Change and Flood Risk section as set out below: • Sustainable design and construction; this section has changed to state that when the required BREAAM/ Code for Sustainable Homes targets cannot be met, developers may be required to contribute to a CO2 offset fund which will go towards the funding of off-site CO2 reduction measures in the locality. In future this contribution will be used to fund "allowable solutions"; • Decentralised Energy Network; a new paragraph has been added to ensure that where applicable developments are expected to connect to a decentralised energy network where one is available nearby and use the heat, unless developers can demonstrate it is not technically feasible or financially viable; • Flood Risk: revised text has been added to ensure new development reduces fluvial, tidal and surface water flood risk and manages residual risks through appropriate flood risk measures; and • Air Quality; a new section has been added to ensure that where applicable development sites provide site specific monitoring and control of air quality emissions. 20. Changes are proposed to Affordable Housing Section to quantify how many student cluster flats and self contained flats trigger the provision of affordable housing.

Timescale 21. Task Indicative Timetable 4 Week consultation on September 2014 minor modifications Submission for October 2014 independent examination Examination c. November 2014 Adoption March 2015

Resource Implications 22. The Community Infrastructure Levy will replace S106 once the Council CIL is adopted or from April 2015 as the mechanism to generate contributions from new development for spending on new infrastructure provision. It is important to note that once the rates are approved it is non-negotiable charge on all new development, therefore the move to CIL will maximise returns on funding for infrastructure projects over and above S106 returns particularly given the increased limitations in use of S106s for strategic infrastructure post April 2015. 23. The introduction of MCIL and CIL and the day-to-day discharge of the Council’s duties as the ‘Charging Authority’ will be resource intensive. In line with the CIL Regulations, the Council can apply up to 5% of its own CIL income to cover administrative expenses. It is recommended that a 5% charge is used to cover CIL administration, and also to retrospectively recover the cost of the viability studies, J7 independent examination into the CIL Charging Schedule and CIL management software required to introduce CIL. Legal Implications 24. Under the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (and subsequent 2011, 2012 and 2013 amendments) developers are required to pay the appropriate Community Infrastructure Levy rates on scheme commencement. CIL, like S106 will be registered on the property as a local land charge until discharged following receipt of payment.

Risk Assessment

25. There is a risk that CIL could render development unviable. However, the viability appraisal has been undertaken by a consultant leading in this market sector to ensure as far as is possible that the appraisal is robust and the charging rates strike an appropriate balance between raising funds to support the provision of new infrastructure and ensuring the rates set do not ‘choke off’ development. 26. There is a risk of not adopting by April 2015 deadline, this could mean that the Council will not gain the benefits of CIL income nor the existing benefits for collecting section 106 contribution for strategic infrastructure post April 2015, which in turn could mean we do not secure strategic infrastructure. This could result in a reduction in economic growth and undermine the Council’s local plans. 27. Failure to maintain the delivery of affordable housing, CIL is a statutory charge and affordable housing will need to be negotiated separately. CIL may have an impact on viability and ability to maintain or improve affordable housing delivery. 28. There is a risk that the CIL could be delayed at examination to resolve representation made by Eden Walk Shopping Centre General Partner Ltd. The Council has agreed after representation made by Eden Walk Shopping Centre General Partner Ltd to carry out separate viability testing on Eden Walk development site thereby giving a separate CIL rate in the Charging Schedule. This issue remains unresolved because Eden Walk Shopping Centre General Partner Ltd have not submitted an appropriate, detailed scheme for testing by our appointed consultants. Elsewhere similar examples had led to the postponement of an examination.

Equalities Impact Assessment

29. The Community Infrastructure Levy like S106 can be used to secure measures to support greater equality, such as by improvements to community facilities, public transport infrastructure and access improvements. Relief from CIL will apply to the development of affordable housing and charities, and a nil charge rate will be applied to public services and community facilities. Therefore CIL will have a double positive effect on the delivery of essential facilities that support the needs of the various equality strands. An Equalities Impact Assessment Form B was also completed for the Charging Schedule.

Background papers – held by Jamie Fox Author of report - [email protected] (ext 4693)

List of reports/documents • Draft Charging Schedule (Submission version) • Draft Planning Obligations SPD • Infrastructure Funding Gap Assessment and Regulation123 List • CIL Viability Study J8 • CIL Instalment Policy

K1 Appendix K Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee 11 September 2014

Food Law Enforcement Service Plan 2014/15 Report by Director of Place

Purpose To consider and approve the Food Law Enforcement Service Plan 2014/15 to ensure that the Council is compliant with the requirements of the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

Recommendations of the Lead Member for Environment and Transport To resolve that the draft Food Law Enforcement Service Plan for 2014/15 set out in Annex 1 is approved.

Key Points

A The purpose of this report is to seek approval for a statutory annual plan that sets out how the Council will address issues of food safety regulation and enforcement across the Borough during 2014/15. B The annual plan has previously been approved at a service level but, in order to demonstrate greater transparency and accountability, the plan for this year is being brought to committee in line with best practice and current guidance from the Food Standards Agency (FSA). C The suggested strengthening of the approval route for the plan is a recent development. In future, the committee will be provided with a draft plan at the start of the financial year.

Background 1. Following a severe food poisoning outbreak in Lanarkshire in 1996/97 when 20 people died, the local authority involved was heavily criticised in the subsequent enquiry for failing to properly enforce food safety standards to protect the community. Criticisms were levelled at both officers and members. 2. The government’s response in 2001, through the Food Standards Agency, was to require that all councils produce an annual plan setting out how they proposed to tackle food safety in their area. 3. Any council that fails to provide an effective food safety service risks having the function removed by the FSA and placed with another provider. 4. The FSA expects the annual plan to be considered and agreed at a ‘relevant’ level within each council, to demonstrate its commitment to providing resources and the appropriate priority required for food safety. 5. Initially, many councils interpreted the relevant level as being Full Council and amended their constitutions accordingly. In recent years, the FSA have provided clearer advice but, without being prescriptive, they still provide a strong steer that it should be signed off at a senior level within each organisation.

K2 6. At Kingston, an annual plan has always been produced but it recently became clear that the approval route lacked clarity and needed strengthening to satisfy the current FSA requirements in terms of transparency and accountability. To address this, the 2014/15 plan is presented to this committee for consideration and approval.

Structure and presentation of the plan 7. The draft Food Safety Law Enforcement Service Plan for 2014 is attached at Annex 1. 8. The plan closely follows a national template designed by the FSA, including required chapter and section headings. Extra commentary may be added but the minimum information required must be provided. The document would be used by the FSA as the basis for monitoring and auditing the Council if they chose to do so. 9. The plan also contains a lot of detail that the FSA expects to see around the number of food premises, numbers of inspections and exactly how we will deploy staff resources etc. 10. The committee is asked to consider the overall strategy, the aims and objectives of the plan and how the service contributes to the corporate objectives of the organisation and for our wider communities.

Key elements of the plan 11. The plan explains the broad range of functions and activities carried out by the Food Safety Team and how resources are deployed to handle complaints and enquiries, food sampling, food hazard warnings, outbreak control, health promotion, training and publicity. These tasks remain relatively constant year on year. 12. The plan reflects both the reactive and proactive nature of this work. Reactive work includes consumer complaints and requests for advice or information from the business community, residents, employees in the borough and tourists. 13. Proactive work comprises mainly the achievement of routine inspection targets. Kingston has approximately 1400 registered food premises requiring inspection. The frequency of such inspections is determined by a nationally agreed risk-based inspection rating scheme. This means that higher-risk businesses, like butchers, are inspected regularly whilst others, like garage forecourt shops, will be inspected much less frequently, unless we receive a specific complaint. 14. In recent years the government has directed councils to prioritise and focus resources by adopting an ‘intelligence-led’ approach to visits and inspections. What this means is that we should never carry out random visits without good cause and only inspect where we know there are higher risk activities taking place and/or where we have local intelligence about a problem (e.g. a complaint). 15. This approach seeks to strike a balance between keeping people safe and supporting local economies by avoiding over-regulation and ensuring a level playing field. This is also highlighted by the FSA’s current Reducing Regulation programme which seeks to make regulations easier for business, the public sector and civil society groups to understand and comply with, without compromising public health. It supports wider government approaches to reducing regulation, such as the Red Tape Challenge introduced in 2011. 16. In delivering the plan, the Food Safety Team is reliant on the support of other council services such as legal, communications and public health.

K3 Performance during 2013/14 17. Each year the plan includes a summary of our activity during the previous year in relation to reactive and proactive work. The key activities in 2013/14 were: • 120 cases of potential food borne disease were reported to RBK by the Health Protection Agency for further investigation. • There were 87 food complaints, 32 of which related to the condition and labelling of foodstuffs. • Overall there were 956 complaints/enquiries relating to food premises from members of the public and requests for advice from businesses. • 76% of premises that were due for a food hygiene inspection received it during the year. By prioritising resources, this included 100% of the higher risk premises. The balance of inspections has been ‘rolled over’ and built into the 2014/15 programme. • 92% of the food standards inspection target was achieved. Again the balance has been carried over into 2014/15 . • 18 premises were subject to formal enforcement notices. • 342 premises were issued with warning letters covering a range of relatively minor through to more significant food hygiene matters. • 3 premises were prosecuted for failure to comply with food hygiene regulations. • 2 premises agreed to close voluntarily because of unsatisfactory conditions. 18. A key requirement of this annual plan is that any challenges and difficulties experienced in delivering the programme are clarified. This was a critical lesson learnt from the Lanarkshire enquiry. 19. The plan therefore identifies a number of staffing resource issues during 2013/14 that the service responded to and managed e.g. maternity leave and staff leaving to take up posts elsewhere. These issues have largely been resolved and we believe that the programme for 2014/15 is robust and achievable within existing resources .

Activities and improvements during 2014/15 20. The plan sets out the proactive inspection programme for 2014/15. Complaints and enquiries are demand-led but an appropriate level of resources is available to respond to both proactive and reactive demands. 21. Although the service is largely resourced for advice, regulation and enforcement, opportunities do arise to support the broader public health agenda such as participation in the promotion of physical activity and a healthy catering scheme, working with NHS partners and the RBK public health team. 22. During 2014/15 the quality of our regulatory activities will be monitored by canvassing the views of those running businesses subject to inspections, those requesting advice and support and those subject to formal and informal action. 23. In parallel with the action above, arrangements will be introduced to measure public satisfaction with RBK responses to the investigation of complaints and, if possible, to establish the level of public confidence in RBK food safety and food standard services. 24. The service will continue to actively support and participate in the Place Shaping initiative and agenda, agreed at the Place and Sustainability Committee in February 2014 and currently under review (July 2014). The service is part of the Priority 1 K4 (Commissioning of Environment and Planning and Transport services) work, which includes the possible joint commissioning of a number of service areas, including Regulatory Services.

Timescale 25. In terms of timing, it is clearly far from ideal for the committee to receive such a report mid-year when it has a limited opportunity to comment upon and influence the Council’s work in such an important service area. 26. In future, the committee will receive a draft plan at the start of the year. The plan requires a critical review of service performance over the previous year; therefore, the earliest opportunity to provide the 2015/16 plan to committee will be April 2015.

Resource Implications 27. The proposed programme of activities is fully funded by the approved budget for 2014/15. 28. Delivery of the plan is highly dependent on maintaining and managing an adequate staff resource of suitably qualified, trained and accredited staff. The Food Safety Team is appropriately resourced but, occasionally, unplanned events will require the temporary employment of agency staff to supplement the programme’s delivery.

Legal Implications

29. The draft plan complies fully with the Council’s statutory obligations under relevant food safety legislation and related codes of practice.

Risk Assessment

30. The plan is designed to respond to identified food safety risks. 31. There is a risk that the FSA could be dissatisfied with the plan or its implementation. However, the plan is believed to fully demonstrate the Council’s commitment to tackling food safety issues to protect the health, safety and well-being of people in the borough.

Equality Impact Assessment 32. The activities of the food safety service closely follow the guidance and codes of practice issued by the FSA. This includes taking all reasonable steps to minimise any adverse or disproportionate impacts on certain sections of our communities. This is particularly relevant to food businesses operated by ethnic minorities where an understanding of English may be a difficulty.

Background papers – Held by Mark Reed, Interim Group Manager Environmental Health and Trading Standards

K5 Annex 1

ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & TRADING STANDARDS SERVICE

FOOD LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE PLAN 2014/15

K6

INTRODUCTION

This is the Council’s statutory annual plan for the effective regulation and enforcement of food safety legislation within the borough. It is a public document and can be accessed through our website.

It closely follows the national template set by the Food Safety Agency (FSA) within a framework agreement established with local authorities.

The overall aim of this plan is to ensure that a programme of food regulation and enforcement activity is carried out, providing public confidence that food is produced without risk and sold under hygienic and safe conditions in Kingston.

The plan sets out the operational arrangements and resources in place to deliver our services and it guides our enforcement, regulation and the provision of advice to ensure we are efficient, targeted and help businesses comply with their legal obligations.

Each year, we set out the specific objectives for the service over the 12 month period and, whilst these remain largely unchanged, we review the focus of our activities each year in response to national, regional and local priorities. We also constantly review our established practices and develop new ways of working in response to the challenging financial environment in which we operate.

We recognise that good regulation and effective enforcement supports business growth in the borough. With this in mind, the plan explains how we seek to reduce the burden on businesses by avoiding inappropriate or excessive regulation whilst also ensuring that we are effective in tackling food safety and food hygiene risks to protect those that live, work or visit Kingston. .

1. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1.1 The specific objectives of the food safety service are:

• to ensure that food and drink intended for sale for human consumption, which is produced, stored, distributed, handled or consumed within the borough is without risk to the health or safety of the consumer.

• to investigate suspected and confirmed food poisoning incidents, locate the source of contamination and prevent it spreading to protect the health of the public.

• provide information and advice on food safety matters for business and members of the public.

- 2 -

K7

2. LINKS TO CORPORATE OBJECTIVES

2.1 The broad aims of the Food Law Enforcement Service Plan Food Service Plan support objectives within the Kingston Plan 2014-18 that sets out a shared vision by the Council and our partners, under the theme of ‘ Safe, Healthy and Strong’ . Our contribution to these objectives is set out in the Council’s corporate plan known as Destination Kingston and subsequently in the Environment Service Plan 2014-15.

2.2 The plan aims to ensure that we meet our statutory duties to make Kingston a cleaner, greener, safer and more attractive place to live, work and visit, with a fair, healthy and safe trading, domestic and commercial environment.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Profile

3.1.1 The borough is an Outer London borough with a population of around 167,000 and covers an area of 38.66 sq kilometres.

Much of the borough is residential in nature, and there are no large industrial sites. Kingston has a leading commercial and retail centre and supports a major university. The surrounding districts of New Malden, Surbiton, Tolworth and Chessington also have significant retail areas.

3.2 Organisational Arrangements

3.2.1 The Council’s functions are divided into five Directorates under the overall responsibility of the Chief Executive. The authority given to officers by the Council to carry out the activities and exercise the powers covered by this plan are set out clearly in the Council’s Constitution (Part 3B).

3.2.2 Environmental Health responsibilities for food enforcement, licensing, infectious disease control, noise, pollution and health and safety enforcement are part of the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Service within Environment as part of the Place Directorate.

3.2.3 Food law enforcement services are directly provided by staff within the Food and Safety Team.

3.2.4 In addition to all aspects of food law enforcement, the team is responsible for the health and safety enforcement in commercial premises, investigation of environmental complaints from commercial premises, quality of water supplies and infectious disease investigations.

- 3 -

K8

3.3. Scope of Food Service and Priorities

3.3.1 The team delivers the Council's responsibilities under the Food Safety Act 1990 and associated legislation, including:

• Infectious disease enquiries and investigations • Food alert warnings • Food hygiene inspections – planned and in response to complaints • Food standards inspections, sampling and response to complaints. • Complaints concerning drinking water • Health and safety inspections and accident investigations • Environmental complaints about food premises e.g. odour

3.3.2 The types of businesses subject to inspections include restaurants, cafes, public houses, retail shops, schools, nursing homes, and market stalls. They are prioritised according to risk (see 4.1).

3.3.3 We do not offer specific training in food hygiene or food standards to local businesses ourselves, although we always offer advice and support on request and provide information through the Council’s website.

3.3.4 Our officers work as part of an environmental health team that provides a wide range of services outside of food matters. We have to carefully prioritise the use of our resources to respond to changing demands but we always focus on achieving our targets and meeting the requirements of the FSA.

3.3.5 Some of our officers have specialist food responsibilities e.g.

• European Union regulatory controls • Monitoring and audit • Food Standards • Food hazard warnings and major food incidents.

3.3.6 Specialist services for the examination of food stuffs etc. are provided by:-

Compositional analysis of food and feeding stuffs etc. Public Analyst Scientific Services Ltd (Mr. J. Wootten)

Microbiological examinations etc. of food, and water. Health Protection Agency. London Food, Water and Environmental Micro Biology Laboratory,Colindale. Public Health Laboratory at the Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel.

3.4 Home Authority and Primary Authority Responsibilities

Kingston acts as ‘home’ authority on an informal basis to a number of national businesses situated in this area, assisting and providing advice on setting up

- 4 -

K9

food businesses to comply with regulatory requirements, including initial advice on labelling of food stuffs.

4. DEMANDS ON THE FOOD SERVICE

4.1 As at 1 April 2014 there were 1430 food businesses within the borough (up from 1368 in 2013/14). Each business is rated for hygiene purposes into five categories depending on the level of risk that they could present to the public. The higher the risk the more often we will inspect, with a range of six months to three years. Each business is also rated for food standards matters (such as composition and labelling) into one of three categories and may be inspected between 1 and 5 years.

4.2 The breakdown of the food business into risk categories for food hygiene purposes as at the 1 April 2014 is as follows:-

Food Hygiene

Risk category Inspection No. interval premises (months) High A 6 12 B 12 65 Medium C 18 366* D 24 551* Low E 36 393

Unrated** 43 TOTAL 1,430

*A revised Code of Practice was issued in April this year. The Food Standards Agency has indicated that changes to the risk rating categories should be brought into effect on 6 April. This has had the effect of reducing the number of interventions carried out for food hygiene at an 18 month intervals (risk category C) by 192 this year. These businesses are now due an intervention at 2 year intervals instead.

** Unrated refers to premises that may have recently opened or changed hands.

- 5 -

K10

Food Standards

Risk category Inspection No. interval premises (months) High A 12 0 Medium B 36 68 Low C 60 1315 Unrated 47 TOTAL 1430

Note: The figures in both tables represent a snapshot of the profile of premises and their risk category on 1 April 2014. Over the year, premises may move between risk categories (e.g. change in the nature of their activities or in the level of confidence that we have in their management of their activities).

4.3 A demand specific to our food hygiene inspection programme is that, at the start of 2014/15, 380 premises in the C and D category are overdue for a visit from the previous year and have to be included in the inspection programme for this year. We will manage this additional work but it does mean that some of the information available to consumers as part of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (a scheme to help consumers choose where to eat out or shop for food) is not as up-to-date as we would like.

4.4 Demands that potentially affect both food hygiene and food standards include:

• 17 premises which, because of the nature of what they manufacture or sell, fall within the animals feeding stuffs requirements, and 6 of these are subject to specific European Union regulations. • The large number of catering outlets, including branches of most of the larger restaurant chains, public houses, and take-away companies together with a wide range of independent restaurants and takeaways. • A large fresh fish packing unit located in Chessington serving the major national supermarkets. • The number of Korean retail and catering outlets in New Malden serving a significant Korean population in the area. • The presence of Chessington World of Adventures, one of the U.K's major theme parks, comprising our largest overall catering outlet. • A number of companies importing foods and an increasing number of retailers who import from outside the European Union.

5. SERVICE DELIVERY

5.1 The Environmental Health and Trading Standards Service is located within Guildhall 2 in the centre of Kingston with a contact centre which is open to the public between the hours of 8.30 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday – Friday. Any significant food poisoning outbreaks or major food contamination issues - 6 -

K11

outside normal working hours can be reported to the Council’s emergency service and more major incidents may be dealt with as part of the Council’s contingency planning arrangements.

6. ENFORCEMENT POLICY

6.1 We support the principles set out within the Regulator’s Code 2013, produced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Better Regulation Delivery Office). This code requires us to support those we regulate to comply and to grow by not imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens.

6.2 We have adopted the Enforcement Concordat, promoted by the Cabinet Office and the principles set out within it have been translated into our own Enforcement Policy that we introduced in 2012. This sets out our general approach to enforcement in more detail in terms of being open, consistent and fair. We follow these principles when deciding whether we should take formal or informal action where there is a contravention of the law. Our Enforcement Policy is available both as a hard copy on request and on our website.

6.3 We ensure that only officers who are competent by qualification, training and experience are authorised to undertake enforcement action. We keep this under regular review and we monitor the quality of the work of each individual officer and ensure consistency in approach across all officers.

7. SERVICE DELIVERY FOR 2014/15

7.1 Food Premises Inspection plan

7.1.1 We aim to inspect premises in accordance with the Code of Practice issued by the Food Standards Agency and the planned inspection programme is:

Food Hygiene Inspections

Risk rating category No. planned inspections A 24 B 65 C 250 D 414 E* 329 TOTAL 1,082

Unrated premises = 43

- 7 -

K12

Food Standards Inspections

Risk rating category No. planned inspections High - A 0 Medium - B 24 Low – C* 793 TOTAL 817

Unrated premises = 47

7.1.2 This year we will not automatically inspect all the lowest risk premises in the categories marked with an asterisk in the tables, following instructions from the Food Standards Agency that we should adopt a more focused and intelligence-led approach to the use of our resources. Therefore, although we still have to identify the number of planned inspections due, the actual number of inspections is likely to be in the order of 300 premises from both of the lowest categories. . 7.2 Food Complaints

7.2.1 We will thoroughly investigate all complaints about the quality, composition and labelling of foods or animal feeding stuffs in a prompt and consistent manner and in accordance with all relevant codes of practice.

7.2.2 We will record all complaints and if, after initial investigation, the complaint is founded, we will notify the suppliers/manufacturers immediately, particularly in those instances where corrective action is required to prevent any further risk to health or contravention of food law.

7.2.3 Where appropriate, the home, lead or primary local authority will be notified as a matter of urgency.

7.2.4 We will always ensure that complainants are kept fully advised of action that the Council is taking.

7.2.5 In considering whether to take formal action, the factors in our Enforcement Policy that we will take into account are:

• Whether the complaint is serious in nature and whether it has, or could have, resulted in personal injury or food poisoning to a consumer. • If labelling and composition are likely to be fraudulent. • Where there are specific contraventions of compositional standards where advice from the home or primary authority has not been followed. • Cases where food complaints concern manufacturers who have failed to carry out recommendations laid down by their respective home authority. • If there have been repeated visits/complaints concerning retailers selling unfit or poor quality or out-of-date foodstuffs. - 8 -

K13

7.2.6 We estimate that we will deal with around 120 complaints about food and food premises during 2014 based on past trends in this area. Our aim is to respond to all food complaints within 3 working days. There are no other service- specific service performance standards and targets and this is an area for development during the year.

7.3 Advice to Businesses

7.3.1 We recognise the need for food businesses to be provided with a locally based source of guidance and advice on regulatory compliance and for a system to resolve problems and disputes.

7.3.2 For those food businesses whose main manufacturing or import/export head office is located within the borough, we will monitor food products and provide a response to requests for advice and guidance and respond to enquiries from other enforcing authorities.

7.3.3 We will ensure the competency of staff involved and commit ourselves to confidentiality. Advice will, if necessary, be sought from the Public Analyst on interpretation of food law and labelling of products.

7.3.4 The team will advise companies, and particularly small businesses, operating within the borough and will help anyone proposing to establish a food business within the area. Guidance and literature on food hygiene and standards is available to all enquirers, and we will promote access to it via our website.

7.4 Food and Feeding Stuffs Sampling

7.4.1 The objective of our food sampling is to ensure the protection of the consumer.

7.4.2 A co-ordinated group sampling programme is carried out in conjunction with the other boroughs in the South-West London Sector, the London Food Co- ordinating Group and the FSA. In addition, the sampling plan reflects local needs, including examination of complaints, local manufacturers and importers and ethnic foods.

7.4.3 Following recently revised guidance on sampling, the types of food sampled will in future be risk assessed and, as part of the co-ordinated group programme, we estimate that we will proactively take and check 80 food samples during the year. We are likely to take a further 20 samples as a result of complaints, food poisoning investigations or as a result of inspections.

7.4.4 For the year 2014/15 there is a budget of £8,000 for food sampling. This is to cover the cost of purchase of samples and also analysis by the Public Analyst. Costs for analysis are typically £50 to £250 per sample depending on type of sample and type of analysis required

- 9 -

K14

7.5 Control and investigation of outbreaks and food related infectious disease

7.5.1 Dr. Barry Walsh, Director and Consultant in Communicable Disease Control (CCDC) of the Public Health Team at Public Health England (PHE) is the Council's Proper Officer for infectious disease. PHE work with national and local government, industry and the NHS to protect and improve the nation's health. They advise on general health protection or public health matters, and outbreaks of infection. Kingston’s Environmental Health staff work under the general direction of the Proper Officer in the investigation of infectious disease but the control and investigation of premises involved is the sole responsibility of the Kingston Environmental Health Service.

7.5.2 Where a food premises is suspected of being the source of food poisoning, we will visit and carry out an inspection of the premises.

7.5.3 Should an outbreak of infectious disease be declared then the CCDC, in collaboration with the Group Manager, Environmental Health and Trading Standards or, in their absence, the Environmental Health Manager - Food and Safety, will be responsible for instituting the joint outbreak documented plan, and establishment of the outbreak control team. This will link with the Council’s in-house contingency plans as necessary, dependent on the scale of the outbreak.

7.5.4 Based on previous year’s notifications, it is estimated that there will be 120 cases of infectious disease notified during 2014/15.

7.6 Food Safety Incidents

7.6.1 We will ensure that all responses to food alerts received from the FSA and other food safety incidents are actioned in accordance with the procedure laid down in the relevant Code of Practice and that the FSA and other agencies are notified of any serious incident or wider food safety problems, including food fraud, that is suspected or found to have occurred.

7.7 Liaison with other Organisations

7.7.1 In order to achieve consistency in enforcement measures and a co-ordinated approach to food sampling and food safety, we support the London Borough’s Food Liaison Arrangements and we are a member of the South West London Food Liaison Group, contributing to the formulation of sector policies.

7.7.2 Regular liaison takes place with Kingston’s public health team and the Public Analyst, and meetings to discuss infectious disease issues are held with the CCDC.

- 10 -

K15

7.8 Food Safety and Standards Promotion

7.8.1 We consider food safety education to be an integral part of the inspection process and we provide details of local training courses, together with a wide range of advisory leaflets giving guidance on food safety advice and standards to food businesses at the time of inspection and/or with enforcement letters.

7.8.2 In addition, our officers will give advice, particularly to small businesses, as well as the general public upon enquiries, on food matters including labelling and compositional standards.

8. RESOURCES

8.1 Staffing Allocation

8.1.1 The Food and Safety section currently has the following establishment.

Manager - Food & Safety (F/T) Environmental Health Officer (2 posts) (F/T) Environmental Health Officer (4 posts) (P/T) Technical Officer (F/T)

8.1.2 The team is part of a larger Environmental Health and Trading Standards service, currently led by Mark Reed, Interim Group Manager, who is also a qualified Environmental Health Officer and former Head of Environmental Health.

8.1.3 There is the equivalent of 3.33 full time equivalent (FTE) officers dealing with food service responsibilities. The remainder of the resource available is directed towards other activities, mainly health and safety.

8.1.4 In early 2013, the administrative support provided to the team underwent significant change with the transfer of resource (1 FTE) to a centralised business support team in the Council. This required a period of adjustment but has resulted in a more consistent and resilient administrative support service.

9. STAFF DEVELOPMENT

9.1 We recognise that our staff are our most important resource in achieving the objectives of this plan and we encourage individual and team training to ensure the highest possible professional delivery of services.

9.2 We seek to train and motivate our staff to ensure they remain competent and authorised to carry out their duties. Specifically, they must meet the statutory requirements for training set out in the Food & Safety Code of Practice.

- 11 -

K16

9.3 The training resource available is within a single corporate budget and we bid for appropriate resources each year. We anticipate that the reasonable training needs of the staff will be fully met within 2014.

9.4 We appraise our staff annually and also have half year reviews, providing opportunities to identify training needs. Development of staff is by:

• Departmental and team meetings at which legislation, policies and procedures are discussed. • Officers giving presentations and cascading information from courses and seminars attended. An important element is the issue of consistency in enforcement and this is supported by regular shadowing by officers to validate and update skills through the team. • Attendance at seminars, courses and presentations by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (C.I.E.H.), the FSA, our own trainers, outside organisations and other professional bodies. • Attendance on courses leading to approved qualifications. • Use of online training.

10. QUALITY ASSESSMENT

10.1 We have a procedure in place to monitor inspections and documentation including:-

• review of records and correspondence to check that inspection procedures etc. have been carried out. • checks on formal and informal notices and documents. • accompanied inspections and visits to check quality and practices. • cross checking of all changes to risk assessments of higher risk food premises.

10.2 In addition, our performance against this plan will be monitored by the Environmental Health Management Team, including:

(a) comparison of quarterly and annual inspection and complaint statistics against the planned inspection programme etc.

(b) annual review of food sampling.

(c) review of procedural guidance etc.

(d) review following any major outbreak of food-borne disease.

(e) annual training assessment at appraisal.

- 12 -

K17

11. REVIEW OF 2013/2014

11.1 The following summarises activity in the year under review.

• Food Related Cases of Infectious Disease

120 cases of potential food-borne disease were reported by the Health Protection Agency. Action was taken to identify the source of infection and advice given concerning possible spread.

In November 2013 we were alerted to a large food poisoning incident affecting guests at a wedding party. The cause was found to be norovirus, although its source could not be determined.

• Food Hazard Warnings, Incidents and Complaints

Overall there were 87 complaints, 32 of which related to the condition and labelling of foodstuffs and there were 956 enquiries and request for advice from businesses. All complaints were investigated and enforcement action taken or advice given where appropriate.

• Food Sampling

78 samples were examined for bacteriological, compositional and/or labelling standards. 18 were unsatisfactory and appropriate enforcement action was taken.

In spring 2013, in response to the ‘horsemeat scandal’, samples of meat products on sale in the borough were tested. Most were satisfactory apart from one sample called ‘hot dog’ assumed to be pork but found to contain mainly chicken and turkey.

• Food Hygiene and Food Standards Inspection

The following tables set out the level of programmed inspections achieved last year:

Food Hygiene Inspections 2013/14 Note: figures represent risk-rated premises .

Risk rating Number of category inspections carried out A 16 B 76 C 243 D 73 E 29 TOTAL 437

- 13 -

K18

In addition, 211 revisits and other food related visits were made.

Food Standards Inspections 2013/14

Risk rating Number of category inspections carried out High 1 Medium 31 Low 40 TOTAL 72

In addition 27 revisits and other visits were made.

In summary: • We inspected 76% of premises that were due for a food hygiene inspection during the year. By prioritising our resources, this included 100% of the higher risk premises. The balance of inspections has been ‘rolled over’ and built in to the into 2014/15 programme. • We achieved 92% of our food standards inspection target. Again, the balance has been carried over into 2014/15.

• Enforcement Action o 18 premises were subject to formal enforcement notices.

o 342 premises received letters covering a range of possible food hygiene contraventions (for minor to more significant matters).

o 3 premises were prosecuted for failure to comply with food hygiene regulations. These were:

§ Spice House, Tolworth Broadway, Tolworth – 4 offences. Fined £1,050 including costs. § Bruschetta, London Road, Kingston – 3 offences. Fined £3,690 including costs. § Ayngaran, 80 Burlington Road, New Malden – 10 offences. Fined £2,230 including costs. § 2 premises agreed to close voluntarily because of unsatisfactory conditions.

- 14 -

K19

• Staffing

There were a number of staffing changes during the year creating vacancies and the need for additional support. There was a delay in recruiting replacements for two posts due to employment market conditions and, as a result of the delay, agency staff were recruited for the final few weeks of the year to assist with inspection numbers. Replacement staff have now been recruited and there are no vacancies at the start of 2014/15

• Training

Members of the team attended a number of training courses, including the proposed new Food Information Regulations, vacuum packing processes and various risk assessment and evaluation courses.

• Healthy Catering Commitment

During the year we moved forward with the NHS Kingston to support the Healthy Weight and Physical Activity Needs Assessment and Strategy 2012-2016, promoting schemes such as healthy catering in the borough.

We worked on the implementation of the strategy as a pilot scheme and issued two certificates to premises in the borough. An evaluation of the pilot was carried out and discussions are underway whether this can be rolled out to other premises through the year 2014/15.

• Safer Food Better Business Funded Coaching

During the year several London Boroughs, including Kingston, were contacted by the FSA and offered funding to support food takeaway businesses. Free one-to-one coaching sessions were offered to help improve food hygiene by helping to implement food safety systems. 25 premises were selected as likely to benefit from this assistance. They were individually contacted and 11 decided to participate. The scheme is still being evaluated locally to ascertain if any improvement in standards at participating premises were achieved as a result and whether that can be maintained.

• Partnership Working

Team members regularly attended meetings with the Health Protection Agency on infectious disease control, the South West London Sector Food Group on food law enforcement and sampling, the FSA on issues such as monitoring and with NHS South-West London on healthy catering.

- 15 -

K20

11.2 Variations from the plan in 2013/14

As noted previously, a number of unplanned staffing resource issues arose during 2013/14 that challenged and stretched our resources. These issues arise in any reasonably sized team of professional and technical staff and resources were prioritised accordingly to ensure service delivery.

At the start of 2014/15 we were close to full establishment with only the maternity leave still being covered by agency until mid-summer.

There has been a temporary impact on the level of inspections carried out which overall was lower than planned at the start of the year. The team was also not able to progress on a number of issues, including sampling of foodstuffs, traceability of meat, the continuance of a project from earlier years on high risk ambient foods and increased surveillance of premises where there may be a likelihood of E. Coli. We are confident that we will address the shortfall in inspections this year and progress the other issues listed.

12. SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS AND INITIATIVES DURING 2014/15

In 2014/15 we plan to:

§ continue with the NHS Kingston and Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Public Health, Healthy Weight and Physical Activity Needs Assessment and Strategy 2012-2016, including promoting schemes such as healthy catering in the borough.

§ introduce arrangements to monitor the quality of our regulatory activities by canvassing the views of those running businesses subject to inspections, those requesting advice and support and those subject to formal and informal action.

§ in parallel with the action above, we will introduce arrangements to measure public satisfaction with our response to the investigation of complaints and, if possible, to establish the level of public confidence in our food safety and food standard services.

§ continue to actively support and participate in the Place Shaping initiative and agenda, agreed at the Place and Sustainability Committee in February 2014 and currently under review (July 2014). The service is part of the Priority 1 (Commissioning of Environment and Planning and Transport services) work, that includes the possible joint commissioning of a number of service areas, including Regulatory Services.

Mark Reed Group Manager – Environmental Health and Trading Standards

- 16 -