Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026

Home , London Electricity Board, Thames Tideway Scheme

Prepared for: l Westminster City

Council

Prepared by: URS Corporation

Limited

November 2009

44935320

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 November 2009

Issue No 3 44935320

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Project Title: Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Report Title: Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Project No: 44935320 Report Ref: Status: Final Client Contact Name: Mike Fairmaner, Sara Dilmamode Client Company Name: Westminster City Council Issued By: Document Production / Approval Record Issue No: Name Signature Date Position 1

Anthony Batten

Prepared 09/11/09 Project Managers by Esther Howe

Elena Di Biase 09/11/09 Research Consultant

Natalie Thomas 09/11/09 Research Consultant

Checked and Project Director Rory Brooke 09/11/09 approved by

Document Revision Record Issue No Date Details of Revisions 1 March 2009 Original issue

2 October 2009 Revised draft

3 November 2009 Final report

November 2009

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

November 2009

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

LIMITATION

URS Corporation Limited (URS) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Westminster City Council in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by us. This Report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of URS. Unless otherwise stated in this Report, the assessments made assume that the sites and facilities will continue to be used for their current purpose without significant change. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested. Information obtained from third parties has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report.

November 2009

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

November 2009

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

CONTENTS

Section Page No

ABBREVIATIONS ...... 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 23

1.1. Introduction ...... 23 1.2. Objectives ...... 23 1.3. Westminster: Growth and Change ...... 24 1.4. Report Structure ...... 28

2. INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY SCOPE AND APPROACH...... 30

2.1. Desk-Based Research ...... 31 2.2. Consultations ...... 31 2.3. Modelling ...... 31 2.4. Summary of Model Results ...... 34

3. HARD INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT ...... 36

3.1. Electricity ...... 36 3.2. Gas ...... 45 3.3. Low Carbon Energy ...... 48 3.4. Telecommunications ...... 61 3.5. Water ...... 63 3.6. Sewers and Sewerage Infrastructure ...... 66 3.7. Flood Risk ...... 75 3.8. Waste Management ...... 79

4. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT ...... 84

4.1. Introduction ...... 84 4.2. Baseline ...... 84 4.3. Forecast Demand ...... 93 4.4. Planned Investment and Costs ...... 98 4.5. Assessment of Existing Growth Strategies ...... 103

5. SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT ...... 110

5.1. Early Years ...... 110 5.2. Primary Education ...... 114 5.3. Secondary Education ...... 121 5.4. Adult Learning and Further Education ...... 127 5.5. Higher Education ...... 134 5.6. Primary Healthcare...... 141 5.7. Secondary Healthcare ...... 147 5.8. Parks and Open Space ...... 150

November 2009

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

CONTENTS

Section Page No 5.9. Sports and Leisure ...... 156 5.10. Libraries ...... 161 5.11. Job Brokerage ...... 167 5.12. Cemeteries ...... 171 5.13. Community and Faith Facilities ...... 174 5.14. Police ...... 180 5.15. Fire ...... 186 5.16. Ambulance ...... 190

6. STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 193

6.1. Introduction ...... 193 6.2. Development of the Strategy Infrastructure Plan ...... 193 6.3. Strategic Infrastructure Plan Explanatory Text ...... 193 6.4. Infrastructure Priorities ...... 195 6.5. Strategic Infrastructure Locations ...... 195 6.6. Infrastructure Costs ...... 196 6.7. Delivery and Funding Responsibilities ...... 196 6.8. Recommendations ...... 197

APPENDIX 1 - TECHNICAL INPUT

APPENDIX 2 - APPROACH AND PARAMETERS

APPENDIX 3 - URS WESTMINSTER INFRASTRUCTURE MODEL

APPENDIX 4 - HUDU MODEL APPROACH

November 2009

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

ABBREVIATIONS

ADP Approved Document Part AL Adult Learning AMP Asset Management Plan AMS Asset Management Strategy BHPC Barkantine Heat and Power Company BS British Standard BSF Building Schools for the Future BT British Telecommunications CAZ Central Activities Zone CCAP Centre for Clean Air Policy CCHP Combined Cooling Heat and Power CCS Congestion Charging Scheme CIF Capital Investment Fund CIL Community Infrastructure Levy CLF Central London Forward CLG Department for Communities and Local Government CHP Combined Heat and Power CP Control Period CRT Cross River Tram Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory DBERR Reform CLG Department for Communities and Local Government DCSF Department for Children, Schools and Families DED Decentralised Energy Delivery Unit DEFRA Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs DDA Disabled Discrimination Act DfT Department for Transport DIUS Department of Innovation, Universities and Students DLR Docklands Light Railway DMAG Data Management and Analysis Group DPCR Distribution Price Control Review EA Environment Agency EfW Energy from Waste ESCO Energy Services Company FE Further Education FTE Full Time Equivalents FT Foundation Trust General Aquifer Research Development and GARDIT Investigation Team GP General Practice

November 2009 Page 1

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

GLA Greater London Authority HE Higher Education HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England HEPI Higher Education Policy Institute HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency HLDU High Level Output Statement HUDU Healthy Urban Development Unit IP In Patient ISU Integrated Services Utilities LATS Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme LBI London Bus Initiative LCCA London Climate Change Agency LDA London Development Agency LIFT Local Improvement Foundation Trust LDF Local Development Framework LPA London Planning Authority LPN Lender Participation Notes LSC Learning and Skills Council LUL London Underground Ltd m million MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment Ml/d million litres per day MPA Metropolitan Police Authority MPS Metropolitan Police Service MRF Materials Recycling Facility MSW Municipal Solid Waste MUSCo Multiple Utilities Services Company NFCDD National Flood and Coastal Defence Database NHM Natural History Museum NHS National Health Service NLWA North London Waste Authority NR National Rail OA Opportunity Area ODPM Office of Deputy Prime Minister ONS Office for National Statistics PCT Primary Care Trust PCP SfC Primary Capital Programme Strategy for Change PFI Private Finance Initiative PPP‟s Public Private Partnerships PPS Planning Policy Statement PCSO Police Community Support Officer PV Photovoltaic

November 2009 Page 2

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

PVI Private, Voluntary and Independent ROCs Renewables Obligations Certificates system RUS Route Utilisation Strategies SFRA Strategic Flood Risk assessment SHA Strategic Health Authority SOAS School of Oriental and African Studies SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance SRIF Science Research Investment Funds SSDP Strategic Service Delivery Plan SSSS Sub-Regional Strategy Support Studies SUDS Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems TER Target Emissions Rate TE2100 Thames Estuary 2100 TfL Transport for London UCL University College London UKCMRI UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation URS URS Corporation Ltd VAM Victoria & Albert Museum WCC Westminster City Council WCML West Coast Main Line

November 2009 Page 3

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

November 2009 Page 4

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Objectives

1. In September 2008 Westminster City Council (WCC) commissioned URS Corporation Ltd (URS) and partners to assess strategic infrastructure needs and to develop a strategic infrastructure plan for its administrative area. This work provides part of the evidence base for WCC‟s emerging LDF. It will also feed into the development of a methodology for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) so WCC is ready, if it wishes, to impose the levy on new developments once the legislation comes into effect.

2. A key driver for this work is the need to deliver the ambitious targets for population and employment growth in WCC in a sustainable manner, in line with the guidance on infrastructure planning in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12.

Approach

3. For utilities („hard‟), transport and social infrastructure areas1 the study explores current provision. It examines the strategies and plans of providers in terms of the quantum of provision, costs and planned investment. Existing or potential future gaps in provision are highlighted, as are risks to delivery. Where possible demand and costs are independently modelled to give a comparison with providers‟ forward strategies. This includes identifying the timing or location of need and provision.

4. A summary of the approach to this study is set out in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Westminster Infrastructure Study, Methodology

1 See table at end of the executive summary for a list of all the components of this infrastructure.

November 2009 Page 5

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Demand Framework

5. To put our analysis in to context we looked at overall expected growth and the relationship of the infrastructure assessment exercise to various factors affecting overall scale and distribution of demand for services.

6. The anticipated changes in population, commercial floorspace and dwellings are summarised in Table 1. These figures are the inputs driving the forecasts of infrastructure demand. Estimated baseline figures showing the current position are also provided2.

Table 1: Baseline and Projected Residential and Commercial Growth

Growth to Growth as % Category3 Existing 2026 of Existing Population (people) 231,874 25,840 11% Dwellings (units) 117,442 13,600 12% Business/Office Floorspace (Sqm) 5,592,000 1,137,363 20% Retail (Sqm) 2,094,000 441,933 21% Leisure (Sqm) Info not available 105,458 N/a

7. Table 1 illustrates that growth over the plan period is significant – representing between around 10% to 20% of the baseline situation.

8. These figures have been used as an input in to our analysis of infrastructure needs. However there are a number of caveats to modelling demand for infrastructure according to projected growth in homes and jobs. Relevant points include:

There is likely to be significant background growth in demand which is not captured in our analysis of additional infrastructure requirements. For example within inner city administrative areas such as Westminster there is evidence of increasing intensity of occupation and use of existing development: household sizes appear to be increasing for the first time in years; vacant space is being brought back into use; and other space is being used more intensively than previously.

There is a changing nature of demand and provision. London is becoming a 24 hour city and uses are becoming increasingly intensified in response to changing technology and lack of space. This requires new thinking about the relationship between development and the spatial and financial outcomes of the resulting demand for infrastructure.

2 For a full discussion of the methodology adopted to arrive at these figures please refer to the „Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026, Draft Report‟, which accompanies this Summary Report, Section 1.3.

3 Baseline figures are sourced as follows: Population: ONS, 2007; Dwellings: ONS 2006; Business / Office Floorspace: ONS, 2007; Retail Floorspace: ONS, 2007.

November 2009 Page 6

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

There is particular uncertainty over the modelling of future demand for energy and water. Forecasts need to take account of government policy which promotes more sustainable living and therefore a potential reduction in per capita usage. However, historically usage has increased year on year, and there is as yet no clear evidence that government policy will counter this.

9. In planning infrastructure for growth it is often relevant to consider the location of growth and relative issues of growth in different locations. In the context of this exercise the spatial distribution of growth is less relevant. This is because Westminster is a dense urban area in the middle of the wider urban area of London and although planned growth is significant it is relatively dispersed on a large number of development opportunities each of which forms a small element of overall provision. In this context, a consideration of overall development levels is more relevant to strategic infrastructure requirements than consideration of particular sites or discrete geographical areas. While there are some specific issues associated with Opportunity Areas, which are covered below, the focus of our analysis is on overall needs and strategic planning.

Existing Information, Strategy and Planned Investment

10. Through our research and stakeholder consultation we sought to establish the degree to which providers themselves had forecast demand associated with new growth, and planned for it. This exercise proved difficult because of gaps in provider strategy and information. Reasons for these issues include:

Strategic planning requirements and priorities for service providers do not match with the LDF Core Strategy. The LDF Core Strategy process considers growth and infrastructure requirements typically over a 20 year planning period. For many infrastructure providers development strategy and funding on such timescales is not meaningful or necessary.

There is little incentive for some service providers to engage in the LDF Core Strategy planning process. For example electricity, gas and water utilities providers tend to plan local infrastructure on a reactive basis that subsequently can be charged to third parties. They have little reason to plan more strategically.

The regulatory environment encouraging competition may discourage/prevent co- ordinated strategic planning.

Some providers are behind schedule/disorganised in their strategy planning exercises. For example the London Strategic Health Authority appears to have little information on planned investment in secondary healthcare.

11. In summary for the following infrastructure types providers‟ strategy and information were well or at least reasonably developed in a format which related well to our demand forecasts:

Transport

Primary and secondary education

November 2009 Page 7

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Libraries

Parks, sports and leisure.

12. For the following infrastructure types strategic infrastructure plans do not exist and/or detailed information to feed into the strategic infrastructure planning exercise was not available:

Gas, electricity, water, sewerage and telecommunications

Early years education and child care

Further education and adult learning

Primary and secondary healthcare

Emergency services (police, fire, ambulance)

Community and faith facilities, job brokerage, burials.

13. A more detailed analysis of service providers‟ plans is given in Table 4 at the end of this executive summary. This outlines the adequacy of the providers‟ planning documents and processes in the context of identified LDF growth. It can be seen that in most cases providers‟ estimates of forecast demand were not available.

URS Assessment of Demand

14. To provide an independent assessment of the likely demand associated with planned growth in Westminster we modelled the requirements for various infrastructures to 2026. It was not meaningful or feasible to quantify demand for all infrastructures, and the scope of the exercise was necessarily broad brush and strategic. The outcomes provide an estimate of the scale of likely future requirements and were tested with providers where possible.

15. Table 2 sets out the estimates of quantum of demand for various infrastructures derived from the URS modelling exercise. (The HUDU model was used for primary and secondary healthcare). Our estimates of infrastructure demand were compared with those of the infrastructure providers where possible, as shown in Table 2. Where providers‟ forecasts were available or investment plans were in place, they sometimes mirrored our own forecasts (e.g. libraries, indoor sports space, secondary schools). Elsewhere they were different, for example WCC forecast much less demand for additional primary school places than our model.

16. With regard to utilities, in our model we have taken a pragmatic, worst case scenario which draws on strategic / design standards used currently by utilities companies. Ultimately, this point emphasises the significance of meeting demand for energy and water through low carbon renewable sources, and these issues are examined in a separate section within the report.

November 2009 Page 8

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 2: Projected Requirements for Strategic Infrastructure 2006 – 2026 (Indicative estimate of worst case scenario) Total Capital Infrastructure Theme Infrastructure Item Total Requirement Spatial Requirements Cost (£)* Education Early Years 1,895 Places 6,601 Sqm 26,530,586 Primary Education 1,857 Places 11,787 Sqm 26,002,859 Secondary Education 915 Places 8,576 Sqm 21,509,483 Further Education and Adult Learning 2,243 Places 22,434 Sqm 56,084,757 Health GP and Primary Care Services 15 GP and Primary Care Services 2,525 Sqm 13,890,175 Acute and Mental Care 72 Acute and Mental Beds 3,478 Sqm 22,766,541 Intermediate Care 30 Intermediate Beds and Day Spaces 1,728 Sqm 10,628,496 Sports, Leisure and Health Stations 614 Health Stations 3,068 Sqm 21,476,606 Recreation Sports Halls N/a 2,039 Sqm 4,077,366 Swimming Pools N/a 1,669 Sqm 10,979,404 Outdoor Sports Facilities N/a 55 Ha 7,439,539 Playable Space - Doorstops (0-4) 350 Spaces 34,966 Sqm 6,974,990 Playable Space - Local (5-11) 68 Spaces 20,267 Sqm 4,042,841 Playable Space - Youth (12-17) 89 Spaces 17,726 Sqm 3,536,041 Parks N/a 78 Ha 36,209,539 Community and Other Libraries N/a 1,446 Sqm 4,338,838 Community Centres N/a - Sqm 0 Faith Facilities N/a - Sqm 0 Job Brokerage 7 Staff 127 Sqm 210,357 Burials N/a 0.4 Ha 134,148 Utilities Electricity 150,740 kVA N/a N/a Gas 12,498 m3/Hour N/a N/a Water 13,163,847 Litres/Day N/a N/a Sewerage 21,179,897 Litres/Day N/a N/a Total 276,832,566 *This includes construction costs only. **Worst-case scenario of requirement only. See Section 5.2 for details of approach and assessment.

November 2009 Page 9

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Infrastructure Priorities

17. Below the assessment is summarised under the headings „critical‟ and „significant‟. The groupings take account of whether each infrastructure item is critical to ensuring development, and the implications of not providing it. Works required to bring existing infrastructure up to standard, or to meet existing deficits in provision, are considered as well as increased pressure associated with new population and commercial growth.

18. The report also lays out, where possible, when and where the infrastructure is required, who is responsible for delivery and funding, and potential costs as identified by the provider and/or by URS. These dimensions of the analysis inform and add detail to the assessment of infrastructure priority.

Critical Priority Infrastructure Items

19. The critical priority infrastructure items are those that are definitely required over the plan period so as to enable anticipated development to take place. Without adequate provision of these items there is a major risk that residential and commercial growth cannot continue beyond certain thresholds.

20. The relevant infrastructure items include:

Electricity and water supply, including capacity increases and enhancements. Details on the location and extent of the enhancements required are not available due to the lack of thorough information on the baseline conditions of the network in Westminster.

Transport improvements, covering schemes focused on congestion relief and providing capacity increases, including improved accessibility and/or station congestion schemes at Paddington, Victoria, Tottenham Court Road, Marylebone and Charing Cross underground stations, as well as rail stations capacity expansions.

Sewerage capacity increases and improvements, including new and refurbished sewage pumping stations, particularly at: the northern end of Whitehall; Trafalgar Square; Chippenham Road; and Westbourne Grove.

Flood mitigation, including flood defence investigation and repair of the flood defence wall at Millbank, and the Thames Tideway scheme.

Significant Infrastructure Items

21. The items listed below will certainly be required if development is to take place sustainably. However, lack of these items is less likely to prevent development taking place in the short term. Provision might be successfully made at a later stage in the development process. The requirement for some of the items is likely to arise from policy more than from other drivers, in the short term at least.

November 2009 Page 10

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

22. In general, these items cover:

Gas – failure to meet requirement would constitute a potential showstopper for development. However, consultation with National Grid suggests that the network is likely to have sufficient capacity to meet Westminster‟s projected residential and population growth up to 2026. No detailed information was made available by National Grid in terms of potential hotspots where additional demand may result in excessive pressure on the network.

Waste management facilities – these are unlikely to be critical to enabling development and growth to take place, though under-provision has the potential to threaten the sustainability of development in the longer term. The main driver of waste management is the landfill target up to 2016 and the financial implications for WCC of not meeting these targets.

Telecommunications improvements – BT have confirmed that although existing infrastructure would not be sufficient to cope with forecast levels of development, the rapidly advancing level of technology, including implementation of fibre optic cables across the wider system, implies that there would be more than adequate capacity within the network to cope with demand in advance of any development thresholds being met.

Sustainable energy initiatives – again, lack of sustainable energy solutions is unlikely to be a showstopper in the short to medium term, though the longer term, wider implications for sustainable development are highly significant. Areas where further analysis may confirm the opportunity to introduce CHP schemes include: Queen‟s Park; Marylebone; Soho; Paddington; Tottenham Court Road; Victoria; and the Imperial College area.

Local transport improvements, covering accessibility improvements, public realm enhancements and promotion of healthy travel options including town centre schemes at: Leicester Square; Oxford Street; Praed Street; Harrow Road; and Marylebone High Street.

Social infrastructure – as population is the major driver of demand for social infrastructure additional requirements are likely to be concentrated in Westminster‟s Opportunity Areas. There are planned increased in provision social infrastructure in Paddington and Victoria. Additional demand will however add pressure throughout Westminster, including for adult learning facilities, parks and open space (particularly in the north of Westminster), library space (at present there are planned extensions at Church Street, Marylebone and St John‟s Wood) and community and faith facilities (particularly in the north of Westminster).

November 2009 Page 11

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Geographical Distribution of Growth and Opportunities

23. Growth is likely to be concentrated in certain parts of the City of Westminster. The London Plan (2008) and the emerging Westminster LDF refer to three Opportunity Areas where jobs, population and associated infrastructure demand are likely to be greatest. While the URS Westminster infrastructure model did not explicitly model growth and requirements according to these Opportunity Areas, particular needs were identified as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Opportunity Areas (OAs) and Infrastructure Requirements

Forecast OA Identified Schemes / Requirements Jobs4

Paddington 23,200 At Paddington underground station: Station Congestion Scheme Redevelopment of Westminster College Parks and playable spaces Potential works at Paddington Green Police Station Expansion of Paddington Children‟s library Opportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required) Victoria 8,000 At Victoria underground station: improved accessibility, Station Congestion Scheme At Victoria rail station: Integrated Kent Franchise scheme, Brighton and Sussex trains, Major Stations programme Parks and playable spaces Expansion of Victoria and Pimlico library facilities Opportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required) Tottenham Court 2,0005 At Tottenham Court Road underground station: Station Congestion Road Scheme Parks and playable spaces Opportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required) Other locations At Church Street, Marylebone and St John‟s Wood: Expansion of library facilities At Queen‟s Park, Marylebone, Soho, and Imperial College: Opportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required) Paddington, Tottenham Court Road, Victoria

4 London Plan 2008

5 Approximately 60% of the Tottenham Court Road opportunity area falls within LB Camden‟s boundaries, so that out of the total 5,000 jobs that the area is expected to generate only 40% will be in Westminster.

November 2009 Page 12

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Next Steps and Recommendations

Recommendations on Infrastructure Planning and Engagement

24. A key finding was the lack of information and strategy on the part of many infrastructure providers. This presents a serious risk to the delivery of sustainable growth, and makes the formulation of a robust LDF which reflects future infrastructure requirements challenging. We recommend presenting this report to CLG (and potentially other sponsor departments) and holding discussions with these organisations in order to raise awareness of, and seek solutions to, this issue.

25. We recommend carrying out a separate study looking at setting up mechanisms to improve strategic infrastructure planning and assessment. Such mechanisms might include a new unit to take on this task, or new requirements through the regulatory frameworks. The study would need to involve discussions with regulators, providers, CLG and other stakeholders so that the current planning processes and their complexities (relationship with competition rules, for examples) can be properly understood and addressed.

26. Relevant providers should be lobbied to enter in to the strategic planning process and engage with the local authorities. This point is especially applicable to the utilities providers, as these infrastructure items are of critical importance to the delivery of sustainable growth, noting that providers and their regulatory systems are not conducive to engagement and joined up planning.

27. WCC should also progress its agenda to meet future energy demand through sustainable energy generation and move to a zero carbon energy supply. This could include building on the opportunities identified within this report for connectivity at the local and cross-boundary level; pushing forward programmes for low carbon energy production; establishment of new partnership management arrangements between water, waste (liquid and solid), telecoms, power, heat and cooling suppliers to determine feasibility of Multiple Utilities Services Companies and development of sustainable policies which promote renewable energy sources and reduced energy consumption.

Recommendations on CIL and Funding

28. This report provides a sound basis for further work to assess the appropriateness of CIL in a Westminster context.

November 2009 Page 13

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 4: Strategic Planning for Infrastructure

Relevant Strategic Infrastructure Adequacy of Strategic Infra- Planning Provider/ Planning structure Process/Documents Responsible Process/Document for Item Timeframe Agency Projected LDF Growths Geographical Coverage Electricity EDF No strategic plan for Not available and insufficient electricity infrastructure is information. publicly available. No Westminster specific plan exists or has been made publicly available. Gas National Grid No strategic plan for gas Not available and insufficient infrastructure is publicly information. available. No Westminster specific plan exists or has been made publicly available. Water Thames Water „Draft Water Resources The plan extends beyond the Management Plan, 2010- LDF planning period. 2035‟ (2008) However, the plan does not Extends over 25 years. provide detailed information on Covers the entire Thames baseline or future demand or Water region area. supply at the Westminster level. No Westminster specific plan exists or has been made The document is not entirely in publicly available. a format that readily lends itself to translation into this study and the requirements of PPS12.

November 2009 Page 14

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Relevant Strategic Infrastructure Adequacy of Strategic Infra- Planning Provider/ Planning structure Process/Documents Responsible Process/Document for Item Timeframe Agency Projected LDF Growths Geographical Coverage Sewerage Thames Water „Five Year Plan from 2010 to The plans extend over five and 2015‟ (2008) 25 years respectively.

Extends over 5 years. However, neither plan provides Covers the entire Thames detailed baseline or future Water region area. demand or supply at the Westminster level.

„Taking Care of Water: The The document is not entirely in next 25 Years, 2010/2025‟ (2008) a format that readily lends itself to translation into this study Extends over 25 years. and the requirements of Covers the entire Thames PPS12. Water region area.

No Westminster specific plan exists or has been made publicly available.

Flood risk WCC „Draft Strategic Flood Risk Thames Water plans extend Assessment‟ (2008) over five and 25 years Covers the Westminster respectively. The area. Environmental Agency (EA) is also preparing a tidal flood risk „Five Year Plan from 2010 to management plan for the 2015‟ (2008) Thames estuary though to the end of the century. Extends over 5 years. Whilst the EA plan is still being Covers the entire Thames finalised, neither of Thames Water region area. Water plans provides detailed baseline or future sewer „Taking Care of Water: The next 25 Years, 2010/2025‟ flooding issues at the (2008) Westminster level.

Extends over 25 years. The available documents are only partially in a format that Covers the entire Thames readily lends itself to Water region area. translation into this study and the requirements of PPS12.

November 2009 Page 15

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Relevant Strategic Infrastructure Adequacy of Strategic Infra- Planning Provider/ Planning structure Process/Documents Responsible Process/Document for Item Timeframe Agency Projected LDF Growths Geographical Coverage Waste WCC „Westminster Municipal The programme only extends management Waste Management Strategy over eight years up to 2012 Implementation Programme and the strategy does not 2004-2012‟ (2004). consider capacity or facilities Extends over eight years. development matters.

Covers the Westminster The document is only partially area. in a format that readily lends itself to translation into this study and the requirements of PPS12.

Transport Transport for „TfL Business Plan 2009/10 – The suite of strategic London (TfL) 2017/18‟ documents prepared both at the Greater London and WCC Extends over 10 years. Westminster level is generally Covers the Greater London adequate to assess the area. implication of additional demand for transport „TfLTransport 2025: infrastructure arising from Transport Vision for a projected growth up to 2026. Growing World City‟ (2006) Generally over 20 years.

Covers the Greater London area.

„WCC Local Implementation Plan‟ Extends over four years.

Covers the Greater London area.

Early Years and WCC „Primary Strategy for Change‟ As the document identifies Primary future needs arising from Published June 2008, education projected growth up to 2013 extends up to 2013. only, it is not in a format that Covers the Westminster readily lends itself to area. translation into this study and the requirements of PPS12.

November 2009 Page 16

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Relevant Strategic Infrastructure Adequacy of Strategic Infra- Planning Provider/ Planning structure Process/Documents Responsible Process/Document for Item Timeframe Agency Projected LDF Growths Geographical Coverage Secondary WCC „WCC Building Schools for Whilst some information on the education the Future‟ planned schemes is available Generally extends over 10 from WCC‟s website, no years. comprehensive BSF document has been available for review Covers the Westminster at the time of writing. area. Therefore no comment can be made on its adequacy to plan for additional secondary education needs arising from new growth in Westminster up to 2026.

Further Learning and „LSC London Strategic No detailed information is Education and Skills Council Analysis‟ (2007) available at the Westminster Adult Learning Extends over one year. level on current or planned demand and supply for FE and Covers the Greater London AL facilities overall, although area. some individual providers have estates strategies in place (e.g. The London „LSC Building Westminster Adult Education Colleges for the Future‟ has Service). not been made available for review. Therefore the available Extends over one year. documents are not in a format that readily lends itself to Covers the Greater London translation into this study and area. the requirements of PPS12.

Higher Higher Education „Strategic Plan 2006-2011‟ No detailed information is Education Funding Council (2008) available at the Westminster for England Extends over five years. level on current or planned (HEFCE) demand and supply for HE Covers the entire England facilities. Also, the individual

area. universities‟ estates strategies do not adequately quantify the extent of future needs and the likely financial requirements.

Insufficient information is available in the HEFCE plan to plan for additional demands arising from projected growth up to 2026.

November 2009 Page 17

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Relevant Strategic Infrastructure Adequacy of Strategic Infra- Planning Provider/ Planning structure Process/Documents Responsible Process/Document for Item Timeframe Agency Projected LDF Growths Geographical Coverage Primary Westminster PCT „Westminster PCT Strategic Neither plan goes beyond healthcare Service Development Plan 2013. 2008-2013‟ (2008) Both plans are focused on Extends over five years. strategy and issues in current Covers the Westminster provision rather than planning area. for needs arising from new growth. „Westminster PCT Estates Strategy 2008-2013‟ (2008) The documents are not in a format that readily lends itself Extends over five years. to translation into this study Covers the Westminster and the requirements of area. PPS12.

Secondary London Strategic „NHS London Strategic Plan‟ Neither plan goes beyond healthcare Health Authority (2008) 2013.

Westminster PCT Extends over five years. Neither of the plans provides Covers the Greater London detailed baseline of projected area. demand or supply information. Neither plan is focused on „Westminster PCT Strategic planning for needs arising from Service Development Plan 2008-2013‟ (2008) new growth. Extends over five years. The documents are not in a format that readily lends itself Covers the Westminster to translation into this study area. and the requirements of PPS12.

Health stations WCC „Active Westminster: Sport The Sport and Physical Activity Sports halls and Physical Activity Strategy Strategy and Open Space 2008-2013‟ (2008) Swimming pools Strategy provides baseline Extends over five years. information, but no quantitative Outdoor sports evidence of analysis of future facilities Covers the Westminster demand arising from growth. area.

„City of Westminster Open Space Strategy‟ (2007) The documents are not in a format that readily lends itself The timeframe of the strategy to translation into this study is unclear. and the requirements of Covers the Westminster PPS12. area.

November 2009 Page 18

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Relevant Strategic Infrastructure Adequacy of Strategic Infra- Planning Provider/ Planning structure Process/Documents Responsible Process/Document for Item Timeframe Agency Projected LDF Growths Geographical Coverage Playable space WCC „Westminster Play Strategy The Play Strategy extends only – doorstops, 2005-2009‟ (2005). over five years, and the local and youth Extends over five years. timeframe of the Open Space Strategy timeline is unclear. Covers the Westminster Neither provide quantitative area. evidence of analysis of future demand arising from growth. „City of Westminster Open Space Strategy‟ (2007). The documents are not in a format that readily lends itself The timeframe of the strategy to translation into this study is unclear. and the requirements of Covers the Westminster PPS12. area.

Parks WCC „City of Westminster Open The document does not Space Strategy‟ (2007) provide detailed baseline of The timeframe of the strategy projected demand or supply, is unclear. only briefly discussing population growth up to 2016. Covers the Westminster area. The document is not in a format that readily lends itself to translation into this study and the requirements of PPS12.

Libraries WCC „Westminster 2008/09 Identifies planned provision Libraries, Archives, Arts and and costs up to 2012. Culture Business Plan‟ (City Does not provide detailed of Westminster, 2008) baseline information on adequacy of supply, nor projections of future demand and associated infrastructure needs.

The document is not in a format that readily lends itself to translation into this study and the requirements of PPS12.

Burials WCC No strategic plan for burials Not available. exists.

November 2009 Page 19

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Job brokerage WCC No strategic plan for job Not available. brokerage exists. DWP Police Metropolitan „Asset Management Plan, The Asset Management plan Police Westminster‟ (2007) illustrates proposed works up to 2010, whilst the Policing Metropolitan Extends over three years. London business plan provides Police Authority Covers the Westminster capital funding allocations up area. to 2012, and then up to 2015.

„Policing London 2008-2011 Neither of the documents Business Plan‟ (2008) provides detailed baseline information on adequacy of Extends over three years supply, nor projections of (capital funding is estimated future demand and associated up to 2015). infrastructure needs. Covers the Greater London The available documents are area. not in a format that readily lends itself to translation into this study and the requirements of PPS12.

November 2009 Page 20

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Relevant Strategic Infrastructure Adequacy of Strategic Infra- Planning Provider/ Planning structure Process/Documents Responsible Process/Document for Item Timeframe Agency Projected LDF Growths Geographical Coverage Fire London Fire and „Westminster Borough The timeline for the documents Emergency Profile‟ (2007) is generally shorter than the Planning Authority Extends over three years. LDF planning period.

Covers the Westminster None of the available area. documents provides Westminster specific detailed „London Fire Brigade Fire baseline information on Safety Plan‟ (2008) adequacy of supply. Also the documents do not include Extends over three years. projections of future demand Covers the Greater London and associated infrastructure area. needs at the Westminster level. „London Fire Brigade Draft Asset Management Property The available documents are Plan‟ (2008) not in a format that readily lends itself to translation into Extends over 15 years this study and the Covers the Greater London requirements of PPS12 area.

Ambulance NHS London „London Ambulance Service The plan only covers the Ambulance NHS Trust Strategic Plan‟ period up to 2013. Services (2007) The plan does not provide Extends over five years. Westminster specific detailed Covers the Greater London baseline information on area. adequacy of supply. Also the document does not include projections of future demand and associated infrastructure needs at the Westminster level.

The plan is not in a format that readily lends itself to translation into this study and the requirements of PPS12

November 2009 Page 21

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

November 2009 Page 22

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction

In September 2008 Westminster City Council (WCC) commissioned URS Corporation Ltd (URS), in association with partnering sub contractors6, to assess its strategic infrastructure needs and to develop a strategic infrastructure plan for its administrative area.

This work will subsequently feed into the development of a methodology for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) so WCC is ready, if it wishes, to impose the levy on new developments once the legislation comes into effect.

This work expands upon the results of the parallel study being undertaken by URS and partners for Central London Forward (CLF)7 to assess the infrastructure needs of Central London for the next 15-20 years, to coincide with the time horizon of the Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy in a manner that enables boroughs to reflect these needs in their individual LDF Core Strategies.

1.2. Objectives

The project brief identifies the key objectives as being:

To assess and provide a report on the infrastructure needs of the City of Westminster for the next 15-20 years, to coincide with the time horizon of the LDF Core Strategy.

To prepare a strategic infrastructure plan for the City of Westminster to set out how this infrastructure should be provided, by whom and with indicative costs.

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12: Local Spatial Planning requires planning authorities to place infrastructure planning at the heart of the planning process. It states that the Core Strategy should be supported by evidence of physical and social infrastructure requirements and advocates a strategic, collaborative and comprehensive approach to the forward planning of infrastructure. The implementation of the CIL also implies the need for quantitative and robust analysis of infrastructure requirements, costs and delivery mechanisms.

A key driver for this work is the need to deliver the ambitious targets for population and employment growth in WCC in a sustainable manner. For various infrastructure areas, the study explores current demand and provision. It then examines the forecasts and

6 The study team being headed by URS comprises Davis Langdon (costings), Integrated Services & Utilities Limited (utilities), Linklaters (planning law), Montagu Evans (property) and Steer Davis Gleave (transportation).

7 Central London Forward is a cross-sectoral partnership led by City of London, LB Camden, LB Islington, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, LB Southwark and Westminster City Council.

November 2009 Page 23

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

plans of providers in terms of the quantum of provision, costs and planned investment. In this way, existing or potential future gaps in provision are highlighted, as are risks to delivery. Where possible, we independently model the demand for infrastructure and associated costs for the 2006-2026 planning period, so as to allow an assessment of the adequacy of providers‟ forward strategies, and to provide an estimate of future demand and costs where none is yet available. This includes identifying the timing or location of need and provision where possible. All costs are 2009 prices.

In this way, implications for the planning activities of WCC and other delivery partners are identified. The Strategic Infrastructure Plan is also a key step in the development of a methodology for the CIL and WCC‟s first Annual Investment Plan to set out how the levy will be spent.

1.3. Westminster: Growth and Change

As of 2007, there were just over 117,000 dwellings in Westminster, with a daytime population of over one million adding pressure to the demand for services arising from its usual residents8. There is also over 5.6 million sqm of office space with a further 2 million sqm of retail space9. Westminster now accommodates 14% of all Greater London jobs10, predominantly in the service sector, the finance, IT and other business activities sector and the distribution, hotel and accommodation sector.

Westminster is also however host to some of the most deprived areas in the country; four of its wards, concentrated in the north west of Westminster, are within the 20% most deprived in the country. Westminster‟s success is also challenged by problems of road safety and crime and the fear of crime.

WCC has consulted on its LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options and the final LDF Core Strategy will be adopted in 2010. The emerging LDF Core Strategy sets out the planning framework to address the problems currently facing the Westminster and to deliver Westminster‟s spatial vision for the future, and highlights key challenges arising from growth.

Up to 2026 Westminster will experience considerable growth in housing and population. Significant growth is also forecast for commercial/employment, retail, leisure and other uses. Based on our analysis the City of Westminster forecasts suggest an additional 13,600 dwellings by 2026 and the development of 1.4 million sqm of business/office floorspace. There is also an expected increase in both leisure and retail floorspace by 2026, with an additional 105,458 sqm and 441,933 sqm of floorspace respectively.

8 „Westminster Core Strategy Preferred Options‟, (City of Westminster, July 2008)

9 Valuation Office Agency data, 2005, Net Internal Area, ONS, 2007. Westminster City Council estimates 7.5 m sqm for office and 1.7 m sqm for retail in CAZ alone.

10 ONS, 2009

November 2009 Page 24

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Residential Growth

The London Plan11 sets a target for the City of Westminster to provide 680 dwellings per annum between 2007/08 and 2016/17. Whilst a London wide assessment to identify housing capacity and needs up to 2026 is underway, there is currently transition period where no formal target applies. To help address this issue, which potentially leaves local authorities‟ Core Strategies open to challenge, the Government Office for London and the GLA have issued a statement suggesting that London authorities should roll forward the London Plan annual target (i.e. 680 p.a. for City of Westminster) up to 2026 as an indicative figure12.

For the purpose of this Infrastructure Study we have rolled forward the current London Plan housing target up to 2026 to provide an indication of the extent of dwelling growth in Westminster. This results in a total of 13,600 additional dwellings distributed across Westminster, including the three opportunity areas (Paddington, Victoria, Tottenham Court Road).

Based on the expected growth in dwellings we estimate Westminster will see a growth in resident population of approximately 26,000 people as a result of new development. Figure 1-1 presents the projected additional population. Section 2.3 sets out in greater detail the methodology that informed this analysis.

The City of Westminster has now prepared a housing trajectory as part of their Core Strategy. It shows that as a minimum, an average of 680 new homes will be delivered annually within Westminster up to 2011 when the new borough target is expected to be published in the London Plan. Rolling the London Plan figures forward it shows there is the capacity to achieve 13,600 within the Core Strategy time frame, though there is a high reliance on windfall sites. It is anticipated that housing delivery will slow in the later plan period as the number of larger available sites diminishes.

11 „The London Plan, Consolidated with Alterations since 2004‟ (GLA, 2008)

12 „Addressing PPS3 requirements for a 15-year housing land supply (Interim Approach)‟ (Government Office for London, GLA, 2008).

November 2009 Page 25

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 1-1: Housing and Population Projections in Westminster Associated with New Development, ‘000s, 2006-202613 Westminster CouncilCity

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Resident Population Number of Dwellings

Source: URS analysis

Commercial Growth

Significant growth is also forecast for commercial space - that is retail, leisure and business/offices. Figure 1-2 below sets out forecast development growth across the study area, which total an additional 1,137,363 sqm (GIA) of business, 441,933 sqm (GIA) of retail and 105,458 sqm (GIA) of leisure floorspace (Section 2.3 below elaborates upon our methodology for collating such information and its limitations).

13 As noted above, this is based on housing trajectory rates as discussed as opposed to the GLA‟s population projections. See Section 2 for further details.

November 2009 Page 26

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 1-2: Commercial Floorspace Projections Associated with New Development, ‘000s, 2006-202614 Westminster CouncilCity

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Leisure Retail Business Source: URS analysis

Geographical Distribution of Growth and Opportunities

Growth is likely to be concentrated in certain parts of Westminster. The London Plan (2008) and the emerging Westminster LDF Core Strategy refer to three Opportunity Areas where jobs, population and associated infrastructure demand are likely to be greatest. While the URS Westminster infrastructure model did not explicitly model growth and requirements according to these Opportunity Areas, particular needs were identified as fully illustrated in shown in Table 3.

Table 1-1: Opportunity Areas (OAs) and Infrastructure Requirements

Forecast OA Jobs15 Identified Schemes / Requirements Paddington 23,200 At Paddington underground station: Station Congestion Scheme Redevelopment of Westminster College Parks and playable spaces Potential works at Paddington Green Police Station Expansion of Paddington Children‟s library Opportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required) Victoria 8,000 At Victoria underground station: improved accessibility, Station Congestion Scheme

14 Additional Floorspace, Gross Internal.

15 „The London Plan, Consolidated with Alterations since 2004‟ (GLA, 2008)

November 2009 Page 27

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Forecast OA Jobs15 Identified Schemes / Requirements At Victoria rail station: Integrated Kent Franchise scheme, Brighton and Sussex trains, Major Stations programme Parks and playable spaces Expansion of Victoria and Pimlico library facilities Opportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required) Tottenham 2,00016 At Tottenham Court Road underground station: Station Congestion Scheme Court Parks and playable spaces Road Opportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required) Other At Church Street, Marylebone and St John‟s Wood: Expansion of library facilities locations At Queen‟s Park, Marylebone, Soho, and Imperial College: Opportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required) Paddington, Tottenham Court Road, Victoria Source: URS analysis

1.4. Report Structure

The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

Section 2 sets out the approach that informed the study.

Sections 3 to 6 set out the consultants‟ research findings in relation to each of the infrastructure needs assessments. Section 3 covers energy (electricity, gas and low carbon sources); telecommunication; water and sewerage; flood risk and waste management. Section 4 covers transport. Finally Section 5 covers social infrastructure, including: pre-school, primary and secondary education; further education and adult learning; higher education; primary and secondary healthcare; indoor and outdoor sports, leisure and recreation facilities; community facilities and other social infrastructure; and emergency services. Conclusions and infrastructure priorities are identified where possible at the end of each section.

Section 6 summarises infrastructure quantums, costs and relative priorities where possible and identifies how, when, where infrastructure should come forward in the form of a strategic infrastructure plan for Westminster.

Appendix 1 outlines how different parts of this Strategic Infrastructure Plan were covered by different parts of the of the consultants‟ team.

Appendix 2 sets out the approach and parameters of the analysis for each of the infrastructure areas, and the sources of information and details on the URS Westminster Infrastructure Model that has been used to assess the impact that projected growth in residential and non-residential land uses are likely to have on social infrastructure and utilities.

16 Approximately 60% of the Tottenham Court Road opportunity area falls within Camden‟s boundaries, so that out of the total 5,000 jobs that the area is expected to generate only 40% will be in Westminster.

November 2009 Page 28

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Appendix 3 presents URS‟ Westminster Infrastructure Model.

Appendix 4 sets out the main assumptions of the HUDU model, which has been used to assess the impact that projected growth in residential uses is likely to have on primary and secondary healthcare in the study area.

November 2009 Page 29

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

2. INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY SCOPE AND APPROACH

In terms of the approach to the analysis a common framework for the research has been followed so as to ensure consistent reporting across the infrastructure areas. The research framework covers the following areas of analysis:

Defining parameters of the work, based on professional experience, review of relevant available information and consultation with stakeholders

Review of policy framework, business plans and previous studies undertaken

Analysis of current supply and baseline situation

Estimate of projected demand and issues (including a critique of how the demand for infrastructure has been projected)

Identification of planned investment and costs, based on publicly available documents, consultation and URS Infrastructure model

Identification of gaps

Summary, including commentary on priorities going forward.

Figure 2-1 below sets out the Westminster Infrastructure Study methodology. The full detail on the scope of each area of analysis is set out in Appendix 2.

Figure 2-1: Westminster Infrastructure Study, Methodology

November 2009 Page 30

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

The key steps in the research and analysis, and any associated limitations of the approach, are described below.

2.1. Desk-Based Research

In order to establish the parameters of the infrastructure study and to execute the assessment, we reviewed a range of WCC strategies, evidence-base and policy documents, and service provider business plans and forward strategies which were publicly available or sourced through consultation. A full list of the information sources is presented in Appendix 2 for each of the infrastructure areas.

2.2. Consultations

We contacted service providers, including WCC departments and external organisations, by telephone to source relevant data and information. Contacts were made both by phone and email – details of stakeholders who were successfully or unsuccessfully contacted are presented in the assessment subsections for each infrastructure area. Furthermore, Steer Davies Gleeve met in person with organisations such as Transport for London and ISU met in person with utilities providers17.

In addition, a seminar was held on 23rd Jan 2009 to which key stakeholders from WCC were invited to discuss the approach adopted to the analysis as well as the key assumptions underpinning the study.

2.3. Modelling

Where possible, we independently modelled demand for infrastructure and the associated requirements and costs between 2006 and 2026 based on development growth projections for different uses. The modelling exercise covered most of social infrastructure areas, including: pre-school, primary and secondary education; further education and adult learning; primary and secondary healthcare; indoor and outdoor sports, leisure and recreation facilities; community facilities and other social infrastructure.

We also modelled additional demand for utilities, namely water, sewerage, gas and electricity to enable comparison with and assessment of providers‟ growth strategies.

The starting point for this URS Infrastructure Model is the estimate of growth in residential and commercial floorspace between 2006 and 2026. The growth projections were refined and agreed with WCC to ensure their consistency with evidence submitted as part of the LDF process.

17 EDF, National Grid; unsuccessful attempts were made to establish meetings with BT and Thames Water.

November 2009 Page 31

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Estimating Population Growth

At the moment the available information on housing growth at the local authority and London level cannot be considered as finalised. The London Housing Strategy is currently at Consultation Draft Stage (with the final strategy to be published towards the end of 2009). This means that local authority level dwelling targets may be revised within a year. Also, as the local authorities progress in their LDF process they may revise both their housing trajectory and the demographic assumptions, which would then in turn result in changes in the overall population growth figures. It should also be noted that discrepancies in population projections can be found even between the GLA and ONS estimates – adding to the complexity of establishing a reliable information base on which to conduct the analysis.

Given the lack of established population projections reflecting the recent and imminent changes in the WCC‟s housing trajectory and regional policies, we consider it appropriate to use assumptions that, albeit less sophisticated, are transparent enough to allow a clear understanding of the relation between the number of dwellings that each authority is set to host and the resulting population.

Accordingly, based on the projected dwellings growth as discussed and agreed with WCC we have estimated the additional population based on standard assumptions on the tenure mix, size mix and occupancy rates. The approach can be considered somewhat crude compared with full demographic models such as the ones used for the GLA or ONS projections, it also has a number of advantages.

The assumptions in which our calculations are based are listed below:

The tenure split is 50% private housing, with the remainder 50% further split between social (70%) and intermediate (30%), as per the London Plan 2008

The dwelling size split is taken from London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 4 (2008), using figures from 2006/2007 LDD

A standard occupancy rate of 1.9 across all tenures and size as per discussions with WCC.

With regards to residential growth, being able to relate the projected population growth to the housing trajectory is essential for the purpose of this study. For example the main reason is that the driver of future demand is the number of dwellings for certain infrastructure areas (for instance electricity and gas) but the number of new residents for others (including water and sewerage and social infrastructure).

As the population resulting from our URS Infrastructure Model is consistently above the GLA estimates, it should be considered as an indicative upper constraint to Westminster‟s infrastructure needs.

November 2009 Page 32

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Estimating Commercial Growth

Significant growth is also forecast for commercial space between 2006 and 2026 - that is retail, leisure and business/offices18. The information was sourced as follows:

Office floorspace is from the GLA London Office Policy Review 2007

Retail floorspace is taken as comparison goods floorspace requirements as set out in the GLA 2008 Experian's „Consumer Expenditure and Comparison Goods Floorspace Need in London‟ – it should be noted that the estimated are based on expenditure and as such potentially overestimating the requirement; also site capacity and availability and the recent downturn are not reflected.

Leisure floorspace is recreational and sporting services including cultural services, games of chance, restaurants, cafes, accommodation services, hairdressing salons and personal grooming establishments as per the GLA 2008 Experian's „Consumer Expenditure and Comparison Goods Floorspace Need in London‟ – it should be noted that the figures from which the requirements is calculated exclude domestic tourism, therefore the floorspace is potentially an under-estimate for Central London.

Estimating Demand for Infrastructure

Different approaches were adopted to assess the impact of residential and commercial growth on demand for services, over the LDF period between 2006 and 2026:

For utilities it was possible to model additional demand based on additional resident population and commercial floorspace – detailed assumptions are presented in Sheet A5 of URS Infrastructure Model attached in Appendix 3.

For most of the social infrastructure areas there is little or no quantitative evidence of the impact of commercial floorspace growth on demand. Where no evidence was available, professional judgement and discussion with providers was used to derive a „non-residential factor‟ by which to increase the demand stemming from residential growth19. We also discuss in each infrastructure section particular concerns raised by providers on the impact of non-residential demand on services and the resulting infrastructure requirements.

18 The forecasts were developed by the GLA before the beginning of the current economic recession and do not consider the potential impact of the downturn nor whether this will have a long lasting impact on future commercial and residential growth. As such it is recommended that the projections, and the study as a result, are kept under review.

Furthermore, the retail growth estimates have been derived from perceived demand, based on population and spending projections, rather than shopping centre capacity assessments. The figures assume that as the population and its spending power increases, that there will be an exponentially increased demand for additional retail floor space. The figures also assume a 1.5% productivity growth which appears unlikely in the short-term.

19 Detailed information is provided in Appendix 2 for the individual infrastructure areas.

November 2009 Page 33

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

For primary and secondary healthcare demand the HUDU model was used and no adjustment has been made to consider the impact of non-residential growth.

The outputs of the model constitute a technical estimate only assessment, which does not incorporate considerations about spare capacity but only provision standards and key trends in emerging policy or professional practice (although these issues are considered in the individual assessments). The model outputs feed into the assessment of each infrastructure where forecast demand and planned provision is examined and potential gaps identified. The model‟s results provide estimates of future demand and costs where none are yet available. Where service providers‟ forward strategies are available the model results provide a comparative assessment and enable a critique of service providers‟ plans.

However, forecast demand and costs could not be modelled and linked to requirements for all infrastructure items. For example, while satisfactory estimates of demand for power could be derived from the projection of new dwellings and non-residential floorspace, it is not considered meaningful to apply unitary costs to estimate required investment, as many other factors would need to be taken account of such as impact of emerging technologies etc. For infrastructure areas such as flood defences, higher education and emergency services, neither demand nor cost can be satisfactorily linked on a pro rata basis to dwellings, population or non-residential floorspace. The approach to modelling requirements for different infrastructure areas was formulated in collaboration with service providers where possible.

A detailed explanation of the method utilised in both the URS and HUDU models is presented in Appendices 1 and 2. The URS Infrastructure Model is structured as follows:

Sheets A1 to A5 outline the assumptions utilised to estimate population growth, education, health and utilities demand respectively

Sheets I1 and I2 outline the growth rate in residential and non-residential uses and the analysis of such projected growth, identifying the sources and method

Sheets R1 to R6 set out the results of the analysis.

2.4. Summary of Model Results

The outcomes of the URS Infrastructure Model are summarised below.

November 2009 Page 34

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 2-1: Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Demand and Social Infrastructure Costs Associated with New Development, 2006 – 2026

Spatial Total Capital Infrastructure Theme Infrastructure Item Total Requirement Requirements Cost (£)* Education Early Years 1,895 Places 6,601 Sqm 26,530,586 Primary Education 1,857 Places 11,787 Sqm 26,002,859 Secondary Education 915 Places 8,576 Sqm 21,509,483 Further Education and Adult Learning 2,243 Places 22,434 Sqm 56,084,757 Health GP and Primary Care Services 15 GP and Primary Care Services 2,525 Sqm 13,890,175 Acute and Mental Care 72 Acute and Mental Beds 3,478 Sqm 22,766,541 Intermediate Care 30 Intermediate Beds and Day Spaces 1,728 Sqm 10,628,496 Sports, Leisure and Health Stations 614 Health Stations 3,068 Sqm 21,476,606 Recreation Sports Halls N/a 2,039 Sqm 4,077,366 Swimming Pools N/a 1,669 Sqm 10,979,404 Outdoor Sports Facilities N/a 55 Ha 7,439,539 Playable Space - Doorstops (0-4) 350 Spaces 34,966 Sqm 6,974,990 Playable Space - Local (5-11) 68 Spaces 20,267 Sqm 4,042,841 Playable Space - Youth (12-17) 89 Spaces 17,726 Sqm 3,536,041 Parks N/a 78 Ha 36,209,539 Community and Other Libraries N/a 1,446 Sqm 4,338,838 Community Centres N/a - Sqm 0 Faith Facilities N/a - Sqm 0 Job Brokerage 7 Staff 127 Sqm 210,357 Burials N/a 0.4 Ha 134,148

Utilities Electricity 150,740 kVA - - Gas 12,498 m3/Hour - - Water 13,163,847 Litres/Day - - Sewerage 21,179,897 Litres/Day - - Total 276,832,566 * This includes construction costs only ** Worst-case scenario of requirement. See Section 5.2 for details of approach and assessment.

November 2009 Page 35

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

3. HARD INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT

3.1. Electricity

3.1.1. Baseline The „host‟ provider for the London area is EDF Energy and this is under a licence issued by OFGEM, the Regulator, for a footprint known as London Power Networks; in essence, the old „London Electricity Board‟ zone. The consultant team met with EDF strategic planning officers in order to obtain evidence regarding the current capacity of the network, current demand, forecast demand and provision, forecast cost and planned investment. This included presenting the URS Infrastructure Model of future demand in Westminster, details of which are provided in Appendix 3. The information obtained is included here; however, this information remains relatively limited despite numerous attempts to engage with EDF.

EDF are obliged to manage their network against many criteria but with quality and consistency being the main „public‟ facing measurements. Typically, this is to provide electricity at 230V, with a tolerance of +10% -6%, to each residential unit assuming a single phase intake. Of course, taking this as a given, the expectation is that electricity is available at all times of the day and year.

Technically, EDF generally take in at 132kV (132,000 volts) and transform this down to 33kV or 11kV via major substations located in positions throughout each local authority area. From these strategic points, local networks are established to afford connection and interconnection, maintaining supplies and quality as previously identified. A map of the EDF London Network Development Plan covering Central London is presented in below.

November 2009 Page 36

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 3-1: Central London Network Development Plan

Source: EDF

November 2009 Page 37

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

The electricity demand for the whole of the LPN zone (in effect most of Greater London), identified by EDF during September 2008, was 5,100MW supplying 2.25M customers via some 35,000km of underground cabling. The impact of the growth over and above that already planned is significant and therefore the delivery timescales need to ensure that EDF engage early in the planning process although more defined development areas may well be required in order to establish appropriate and specific design.

The design of the EDF network is unique in the UK as it recognises the importance of the need to maintain uninterruptible supplies, probably to a higher degree than that of more provincial areas, by employing a configuration that mitigates against faults that result in „customer minutes lost‟ (one of the KPI measurements utilised by OFGEM). In essence, faults do occur but they do not necessarily mean that electricity is disconnected.

3.1.2. Forecast Demand The network is ageing20 and at the same time must respond to requirements associated with new development.

Per capita consumption of electricity may increase in future years, implying that even if there were no new developments at all, the demand for energy would still increase - for example, due to the increasing aspirations of individuals and more materialistic outcomes (televisions in more than one room being a good example). Of course, Government aims to increase energy efficiency and encourage lower per capita energy usage, and this may be achieved through the Code for Sustainable Homes and other regulatory initiatives. However, there is as yet no quantifiable evidence of success and so a pragmatic, cautionary approach appears sensible at this time (this is reflected in the URS model of demand).

It is also not yet clear how much energy might in future be supplied by renewable or low carbon sources. Though there are significant policy drivers, the electricity network in the UK has not generally been built to accommodate generation at this level and there are technical issues with connecting or, indeed, feeding energy back into the grid.

Combined heat and power (CHP) systems can generate electricity with relative efficiency; however, where they have been successfully established they generally run on „private wire‟ type grids, though large CHPs have grid synchronised systems. The regulatory system and competition rules are also complex, often negating or limiting the wider Government policy aspirations (see Section 3.3 on Low Carbon Energy for further details).

Micro-generation is subject to feed-in tariff incentives whilst CHP operates on a Renewables Obligations Certificates system (ROCs) that is designed to encourage investment.

20 The Electricity, Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 specify safety standards to protect the general public and consumer from danger. In addition, the regulations specify power quality and supply continuity requirements to ensure efficient and economic electricity supply service to consumers.

November 2009 Page 38

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

EDF have identified and planned for a degree of growth according to known development requirements extracted from the wider planning process. At the same time however, planning, securing land for substations, negotiating cable routes in highway and cashflow are all factors that influence their decision making process. OFGEM, as Regulator, also demands delivery of Asset Replacement in line with pre-agreed charging structures to recover capital expenditure established via the DPCR.21

The EDF Distribution Price Control Review (DPCR)22 lays out plans to provide for growth currently anticipated for London‟s central area and notes that the West End is predominantly driven by tourism and leisure with other areas being lead by redevelopment of residential areas. The impact of the Olympics is also a major influence even though the location of the main facilities is not directly within the study zone.

Currently, the EDF Distribution Review considers that Westminster is likely to experience the third greatest demand for electricity when compared to adjacent Local Authorities, following the City of London and the Canary Wharf complex in Tower Hamlets. This is represented in Figure 3-2.

21 EDF secure forward capital expenditure via agreement with OFGEM whom effectively check to ensure that monies spent deliver customer benefit. This occurs every 5 years and lasts for 5 years so the upgrading of infrastructure becomes ever more important. EDF recover the cost of upgrades via charges it makes to suppliers, who then pass the charge on to customers.

22 Distribution Price Control Review (DPCR). As DNOs are natural monopolies, OFGEM protects customers‟ interests by regulating the companies through five-year price control periods, which include curbs on expenditure as well as incentives to be efficient and innovative. The review process, on which we are consulting with you here (DPCR5), will determine the amount of money which can be invested in our networks between 2010 and 2015, and also looks ahead to long term requirements.

November 2009 Page 39

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 3-2: Projected Electricity Demand for Central London, 2015

City of London kw / km2 x > 300 MW / 105 km2 by 2015

West End Docklands

Source: EDF Energy

Delivery wise, this should not be assumed to reflect the most physical work given that capacity may already be present and / or provided via schemes in hand, or indeed already underway. Schemes already underway include a deep tunnel under the river to afford better interconnection between north and south London with upgrading works to existing strategic intake points being completed. Other imminent schemes include two new major substations (132kV transformation points) at Paddington and Fulham as well as a deep tunnel from the City of London to East London (see Figure 3-3).

November 2009 Page 40

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 3-3: Brunswick Wharf to Osborn Street Tunnel

Source: EDF

Significant planning is required to deliver development schemes over and above those already in the planning process. In addition, practicalities will also influence matters – for example, the Olympics will potentially dominate planned works so other reinforcement schemes may well be delayed.

In the absence of provider information, URS modelled demand for electricity associated with residential and non-residential forecast growth Westminster. The forecasting approach, which is described in more detail in Appendix 2, has looked at a strategic process and not individual development schemes and the workings rely on a number of assumptions. In this respect the findings represent merely indicative, broad-brush estimates and a starting point for further detailed analysis. The forecasts were presented to EDF as a means to initiate discussion on the approach and outputs. Detailed feedback was not forthcoming in time for incorporation in this report, though EDF did confirm that the findings of the assessment are in line with their expectations, suggesting that the results of the analysis are a good indication of the likely needs for Westminster over the 2006-2026 period.

November 2009 Page 41

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 3-1 and the full workings presented in sheet R4 in the URS Infrastructure Model (see Appendix 3) indicate that energy demand to 2026 could be 150,740 kVA for the Westminster area. These figures are almost certainly too high and should be treated with caution. It is likely that for a strategic perspective a greater diversity should be used than that employed for this assessment. However, EDF has confirmed that the findings of the assessment are in line with their expectations.

November 2009 Page 42

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 3-1: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Electricity from New Development, kVA, 2006-2026

Residential Demand Non-Residential Demand Total Demand 21,760 128,980 150,740 Source: URS Calculations. For assumptions and workings see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) A4 and R4 Sheets

3.1.3. Planned Investment and Costs The existing planning and funding mechanisms do not tend to promote detailed forward planning and funding of electricity provision. The normal investment vehicle follows one of two routes. The first is more strategic investment that is made by EDF and recovered via agreed processes that include household energy bills (i.e. a part of each bill that each customer pays). The second is direct investment made by developers and computed against actual scheme design; for example, if a cable is laid to solely service a new development, the cost is likely to be wholly borne by the developer although there are instances where EDF would contribute. The latter process is reactive as it uses design criteria based upon client specifications and these do vary considerably. For the development plans that lie within Westminster, it is likely that the investment required would be facilitated via the latter process.

In an ideal situation, EDF would deliver capacity in advance of development. However, this would need reasonable load assessments to be made, development sites to be identified and early monies invested. The last element is where this „ideal‟ scenario usually fails. Developers need to have known revenue returns or have an end user in mind before committing monies, particularly early – though there are strategic land developers, such as Canary Wharf, whom have invested early into the utility system so that the availability of load is present.

Such a strategy may result in slightly higher costs being borne by the developer than if the more reactive route had been followed; however, attracting major clients to Canary Wharf for example, with certainty over electricity availability would have proven attractive to incoming end users. There is, therefore, something of a vicious circle associated with the current funding arrangements.

The schemes described in the EDF plan and laid out above equate to a reported committed expenditure of £250m for Central London. The URS Infrastructure Model does not forecast costs associated with utilities infrastructure.

Given the reactive nature of the current process for planning and funding electricity, it would make sense to move towards a process of more forward planning and funding. Developers can instigate infrastructure as this is permitted via the OFGEM rules. The example of Canary Wharf, where this route has been followed, illustrates that advanced works can be completed and the security of supply provided early on, with the result that development has secured capacity that facilitates the selling of floor space (though

November 2009 Page 43

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Canary Wharf has most likely paid for infrastructure which under normal situations they would have not have been obliged to pay for; also Canary Wharf is a single landowner and estate and this approach is less practical in more typical Central London situation.

3.1.4. Assessment and Recommendations EDF are required to review network requirements every five years by the Regulator and have a plan to 2020. However, the planning process remains mostly reactive, with investment related to specific schemes when plans are worked up. The current EDF Plan identifies a number of schemes which are planned or underway, with related expenditure of £250m for the whole Central London area.

Utilities provision is fundamental to the delivery of planned growth. While data is lacking to evidence EDF‟s own plans for growth, and to quantify existing and planned capacity in the existing network, planned provision investment is unlikely to cover forecast demand.

EDF need to be engaged early in the planning process and future requirements need to be co-ordinated in a strategic manner with adjacent growth areas for the major works. Significant „local‟ works may also be required. While more defined development areas may well be required in order to establish appropriate design, the current system is, in general, too reactive to respond to the long term growth agenda and Westminster authorities should lobby for better engagement and a more strategic approach.

An immediate step could be to carry out research into options for changing the forward planning process and Regulatory requirements. This could be presented to Central Government and stakeholders.

November 2009 Page 44

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

3.2. Gas

3.2.1. Baseline The „host‟ provider for the study area is National Grid via operating licences issued by OFGEM, the Regulator.

Principally, National Grid are obliged to manage their network against many criteria but with quality, i.e. pre-set pressures, and consistency being the main „public‟ facing measurements.

To afford supplies, National Grid has incoming pressure reducing stations that transform the pressure from high or intermediate to medium, and this is subsequently then reduced from medium to low although it is somewhat dependant upon end user requirements. A factory may, for example, require gas at medium pressure whilst a residential unit would normally utilise low pressure as an end user pressure.

No information on Westminster‟s baseline position has been made available by National Grid.23

3.2.2. Forecast Demand The network is ageing and at the same time must respond to requirements associated with new development. As for electricity, there is little quantitative evidence of how per capita consumption of gas may change in the future, and of the degree to which renewable sources could meet future demand for gas.

CHP systems, when employed to provide district heating schemes as well as electricity generation, achieve greater efficiencies than individual usage means; notwithstanding the desire for ever efficient dwellings via the application of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Regardless of the aspirations, the per capita impact on the gas network is not yet fully determined, albeit there is a predicted -2% growth on the strategic gas network.

National Grid makes strategic investment which is recovered via agreed processes that include household energy bills. They are also obliged to plan for growth that is identified via the normal planning process; however, network configuration, securing land for pressure reducing stations, negotiating pipe routes in highway and cashflow are all factors that influence the investment decision making process. OFGEM also demand delivery in line with pre-agreed timeframes as part of the capital expenditure recovery structure.

23 The consultant team contacted National Grid to obtain evidence regarding the current capacity of the network, current demand, forecast demand and provision, forecast cost and planned investment. This included presenting the URS model of future demand in the City of Westminster area, details of which are provided in Appendix 3. A meeting with National Grid was held and relevant information was afforded to the consultant team, albeit with load projections not allocated to potential development sites; furthermore, no figures were provided on current gas usage in the Westminster area.

November 2009 Page 45

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

In general, therefore, the current system is not conducive to long term planning but more geared up for responding to requirements associated with specific schemes.

In the absence of provider estimates, URS modelled demand for gas associated with residential and non-residential forecast growth in Westminster. The forecasting approach, which is described in more detail in Appendices 2 and 3, has looked at a strategic process and not individual development schemes and the workings rely on a number of assumptions. The findings therefore represent indicative estimates of demand and a broad-brush starting point for analysis. The forecasts were presented to National Grid as a means to initiate discussion on the approach and outputs.

Table 3-2, and the full workings presented in sheet R6 in the URS Infrastructure Model (see Appendix 3), indicate that gas demand to 2026 could be 12,498 m3/hour for the Westminster area.

Table 3-2: URS Assessment of Additional Demand for Gas in m3/hr from New Development, 2006-2026 - Scenario 2

Residential Demand Non-Residential Demand Total Demand 7,245 5,253 12,498 Source: URS calculations A4 and R4 Sheets

The figures secured from National Grid in terms of gas loads reflected anticipated energy usage against future development aspirations as of December 200824 (scenario 1 in URS Infrastructure Model in Appendix 3). The recent revision to these aspirations25 is likely to increase the energy demand from the gas system but the effect, in terms of system capability, is not known. To achieve complete understanding of the increase, a new assessment of the gas system would need to be made.

Based on the figures presented in Table 3-3 National Grid indicated that there was sufficient capacity with regard to gas on the medium and higher pressure systems within the existing network to cater for projected demand to 2026.

24 In December the model was still assuming office growth as per London Office Policy Review 2006, and population growth based on a 45% affordable housing in the tenure split.

25 In the version of the model that can be found in Appendix 3 the office floorspace figures have been updated in line with the London Office Policy Review 2007, and population estimates have been updated to reflect the London Plan targets on affordable housing.

November 2009 Page 46

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 3-3: URS Assessment of Demand Additional Demand for Gas in m3/hr from New Development, 2006-2026 - Scenario 1

Residential Demand Non-Residential Demand Total Demand 7,245 6,205 13,450 Source: URS calculations A4 and R4 Sheets

3.2.3. Planned Investment and Costs No information was available from providers.

3.2.4. Assessment and Recommendations Consultation with National Grid indicated that there is likely to be sufficient capacity with regard to medium and the higher pressure gas networks to cater for demand up to 2026.

The gas providers do not publish strategic plans and engagement is difficult. This highlights the need for an improved framework for strategic partnership working, and to engage early where at all possible.

November 2009 Page 47

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

3.3. Low Carbon Energy

3.3.1. Baseline

„The Mayor‟s Climate Change Action Plan‟, February 2007, demonstrates the Mayor‟s top priority for reducing London‟s carbon dioxide emissions is to move away from reliance on the national grid and on to a local, low carbon energy supply. This approach is often termed „decentralised energy‟ and is reinforced by the London Plan policies on provision of heating and cooling networks (Policy 4A.5) and decentralised energy (Policy 4A.6).

The Mayor‟s goal is to enable a quarter of London‟s energy supply to be moved off the grid and on to local, decentralised energy systems by 2025, with the majority of London‟s energy being supplied in this way by 2050. The City of Westminster‟s emerging spatial vision is very much in keeping with the ambitions of the Mayor of London.

The aim of this section is to provide an initial consideration of likely geographical areas within Westminster, as well as the surrounding boroughs, that can also support sustainable energy infrastructure. Potential elements of a Westminster/ Wandsworth/ Lambeth/ Southwark/ City of London/ Camden/ Kensington & Chelsea sustainable energy infrastructure network are illustrated in Figure 3-4).

In the rest of this section we present existing decentralised energy systems in Westminster and the surrounding boroughs, which are illustrated in Figure 3-4.

City of Westminster

Pimlico and Whitehall District Heating Schemes Westminster has two large district heating networks. These are both over 50 years old, and each recently underwent a major retrofit for CHP plant operation. These are the Pimlico and Whitehall district heating schemes.

The Pimlico District Heating Undertaking (PDHU) was established in 1950 to heat the Churchill Gardens Estate. Originally powered by waste heat from Battersea Power Station and subsequently from gas fired boiler plant on the power station site, on site CHP plant in Churchill Gardens Estate with a capacity of 30MW now provides the heat (via a 2500 m3 heat storage accumulator) and generates electrical power. It is connected to 3,256 CityWest homes, 47 commercial premises and two schools. It was recently connected to the new Pimlico secondary school and other local extensions are under consideration. Electrical power is exported to the national grid.

The LDA is currently working on a study on the potential to connect the Pimlico and Whitehall district heating schemes.

A tunnel passing beneath the Thames connecting Battersea Power Station to Pimlico is still serviceable and contains redundant hot water pipework. This offers an opportunity to investigate a cross-boundary/river connection/partnership with the anticipated Battersea Power Station development (see Section 2.3.3).

November 2009 Page 48

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Imperial College London and the Natural History Museum Until 2000, the Natural History Museum (NHM) and Imperial College London were part of a 42MW district heating scheme that also included the adjacent Science Museum and Victoria & Albert Museum (VAM). Imperial College London and the Science Museum withdrew from the heating scheme in 2000.

A new combined heat and power scheme at Imperial College London provides electrical power to the College buildings, lecture theatres, and halls of residence for 9,000 students. A subsidiary of London Power Company, London Heat & Power Company will operate the plant for a 15 year period. The plant will provide all the heating, hot water and electricity for the College and campus, with any additional electricity being exported to the grid.

When Imperial College and the Science Museum withdrew from the heating scheme, the running costs of the two remaining partners (NHM and VAM) increased substantially. To bring the cost back to its original price, £3.7M funds were raised from The Co-operative Bank to upgrade the existing system.

In 2006 a partnership between NHM, VAM, The Co-operative Bank and Vital Energi Ltd was established, with Vital Energi Limited in charge of operation and maintenance of the Energy Centre for 15 years from its start up.

The partnership employed two Danish consulting engineering firms, JPH for the design of the refurbishment of the Energy Centre and COWI for the analysis of the existing district heating network and design of the new cooling network.

The project demonstrates how an existing heating system of an iconic London landmark can be retrofitted to enhance low carbon decentralised energy systems without incurring large scale modifications.

The new energy system includes CHP plant generating 1.8MWe of electricity and

1.7MWth of thermal energy at full load, a waste heat recovery boiler to recover the thermal energy in the flue gases and engine jacket, and two heat fired absorption chillers each

providing 705kWcoolth of cooling. Two boilers were retained as back-up boilers and fitted

with new low NOx gas burners. The existing electrical chillers were de-commissioned.

These schemes are examples of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI).

London Borough of Camden

University College London – Gower Street and Bloomsbury Heat and Power Schemes

The heat and power schemes serve 450,000m2 of educational and research facilities. Clients include the University College London (UCL) main campus, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), Institute of Education, Birbeck College and various other colleges of University of London.

November 2009 Page 49

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Approximately 58,000MWh of heat and 33,000MWh of electrical power is currently

generated by the heat and power schemes. The primary CHP plant capacity is 4.5MW e.

The heat and electrical power supplies form the two schemes are supplied under long term Public Private Partnership (PPP) contracts.

City of London

Citigen Citigen is a wholly owned subsidiary of E-on UK (ESCo) and was established to serve The City of London Corporation. Due to the contractual relationship between Citigen and the City of London Corporation, this scheme represents a Public Private Partnership.

The combined cooling, heat and power (CCHP) plant consists of two 15.8MW e/12.5MWth diesel/natural gas fired CHP engines and provides district heating and cooling (via absorption chillers), with the electrical power being exported to the grid and traded through the parent E-on group. The heat and electrical power generation efficiency is 70%. The system produces approximately 60,000MWh of heat (including output from auxiliary boilers), 32,000MWh of electricity, and 30,000MWh of chilled water per year.

PB Power has been commissioned to undertake a study for an expansion of the Citigen CCHP system. The results of this study were expected in September 2009, and although it is now unconfirmed when they will be published it is anticipated that the study will indicate the feasibility of an expansion of the district heating and cooling networks into Islington and Westminster. Citigen fully grasp the commercial viability of a sustainable energy network and have always expressed an interest in expansion and the delivery of services for heating, cooling and electrical power to additional consumers/customers.

The City of London tunnels and heat network study (see Section 2.3.3.) will assess the feasibility of using existing service tunnels, managed and owned by the City of London, to expand district heating and cooling networks.

3.3.2. Forecast Demand This section discusses the opportunities for meeting future energy demand arising from projected growth in Westminster through low carbon energy. It considers both potential schemes within the city, and opportunities outside its boundaries to highlight the potential for a sustainable energy infrastructure network. Potential areas within Westminster and the surrounding areas are illustrated where feasibility work is already being conducted and where networks would benefit from mixed loads associated with anchor heat demand customers (e.g. housing estates, leisure centres, hospitals, schools, universities, etc.).

Such elements of a potential low carbon energy infrastructure network for Westminster and the surrounding local authorities are shown in Figure 3-4. It should be noted that Figure 3-4 and the accompanying text describe potential areas for further investigation only; the feasibility of the schemes and potential linkages described has not been tested. Work is currently underway by the LDA and partners to look into these and other potential

November 2009 Page 50

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 3-4: Elements of a Potential Sustainable Energy Infrastructure Network for Westminster and the Surrounding Local Authorities

Source: URS and WCC

November 2009 Page 51l

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

opportunities in more detail. Other potential anchor heat loads not shown / discussed here are large retail and office buildings as well as hotels.

The ambition of the possible low carbon infrastructure network is to demonstrate a network that supports multiple suppliers and ensures customers can benefit from competition. The importance of competition within the energy supply market and the benefits from mixed loads is further discussed in Section 3.3.4.

City of Westminster

Queen‟s Park Geographical Area The Queen‟s Park geographical area has a relatively high proportion of housing estates blocks, offering anchor heat demands that incentivise the implementation of decentralised energy. Further, its locality to the Paddington Opportunity Area might present an opportunity for an effective connection, as shown in Figure 3-5. However, it should also be noted that some locations within the areas are low density residential housing which incurs in greater connection costs, putting restrictions on the viability of a decentralised energy system.

Paddington Opportunity Area The Paddington Opportunity Area is Westminster‟s most significant opportunity area for large scale regeneration. This area, designated in 1988 and focused around Paddington Station, has seen considerable development, which has redefined the area. By 2008, over £2 billion has been invested in the area, 35 new companies have located to the area, 8,000 jobs have been created and more than 900 homes have been constructed. Significant infrastructure projects are also planned for the area, including the delivery of Crossrail. Further, key sites such as St Mary‟s Hospital, have been identified within the opportunity area that would benefit from redevelopment and renewal.

This mix of uses and the offering of anchor heat demands incentivises the implementation of decentralised energy. Additional opportunities should be investigated for energy networks deriving from the link with Crossrail as well as the potential to utilise the same tunnels system to allow a technically robust solution for pipework distribution, i.e. the expansion/extension of a decentralised energy system. The potential for a network to serve sites within both the Opportunity Area and the Queen‟s Park Geographical Area is shown in Figure 3-5.

November 2009 Page 52

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 3-5: Paddington Opportunity Area – Potential to Serve All Sites within the Opportunity Area and Queen’s Park

Source: URS and WCC

November 2009 Page 53l

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Marylebone Geographical Area The Marylebone geographical area has a large number of anchor heat demands (i.e. hospitals, schools, etc.) that incentivise the implementation of decentralised energy. Further, its locality to the Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area and the possible Euston Road district heating scheme suggest and opportunity for effective inter-and cross-boundary connections/partnerships that should be further investigated. Soho Geographical Area Addressing the sustainability challenges of historic, mixed-use city core areas and resulting carbon dioxide emissions from existing commercial buildings is a neglected policy issue that requires urgent attention. A study by the University of Westminster has identified the Soho geographical area as a possible exemplar for demonstrating how greater sustainability can be achieved and put into practice in the West End and would, due to the visibility of the location, quickly disseminate such best practice widely. This is discussed in „Retrofitting Soho, Improving the Sustainability of Historic Core Areas‟, December 2008.

The key findings of the report identify that an integrated approach to retrofitting is essential to driving savings in carbon dioxide emissions. The greatest benefits are to be achieved through scaling up to community wide solutions, such as a heat and power network.

London Borough of Camden

Both the Tottenham Court Road and King‟s Cross Opportunity Areas and the Euston Road District Heating Scheme offer the opportunity of investigating the potential for cross-boundary interactions with potential decentralised energy schemes at Marylebone, Soho and the Tottenham Court Road Opportunity area. Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area The Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area has been established by Westminster to encourage regeneration and growth. Key development sites include sites for the delivery of Crossrail, a large postal sorting office site and a large retail site. Additionally, like the Soho geographical area, there are a large number of historic buildings in the area.

This mix of uses and the offering of anchor heat demands incentivise the implementation of decentralised energy. As for the Paddington Growth Area, Crossrail offers additional opportunities for energy networks that could be further explored.

Euston Road District Heating Scheme and King‟s Cross Opportunity Area The London Development Agency (LDA) has recently completed the first part of a two- stage study, according to the „Euston Road District Heating Scheme, Executive Summary – November 2008‟26. The benefits and feasibility of developing an area-wide district

26 „Euston Road District Heating Scheme, Executive Summary‟ (LDA, 2008)

November 2009 Page 54

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

heating network are assessed for the Euston Road area, extending from Regent‟s Park in the west to Caledonian Road in the east. The LDA has no specific land interests in this area but is taking a strategic view, to identify and appraise this scheme, which could have commercial and environmental benefits for all concerned.

A number of existing buildings in this area could potentially be connected to such a scheme, including local authority housing, the British Library, Camden Civic Offices and Town Hall, the Wellcome Buildings and Regents Place. There are also a number of major new developments planned and under construction, including the areas around Euston and King‟s Cross Stations (British Land and Argent respectively), the UKCMRI (a new medical research facility) and a new HQ for Unison on Euston Road itself.

Existing heat and power networks already supply two University College London campuses in the area, Bloomsbury Heat and Power and Gower Street Heat and Power (see Section 2.3.2), and there are a large number of communal heating schemes serving local authority housing estates, particularly in Camden on the northern side of Euston Road.

King‟s Cross is adjacent to the possible Euston Road district heating scheme is identified as a major redevelopment area. This has been reflected in the recent redevelopment of St Pancras and King‟s Cross Station for Eurorail services. The opportunity for an inter- boundary connection to the possible Euston Road district heating network incentivises the implementation of an extension to and reinforcement of the district heating network.

City of London

The possible decentralised energy systems in the City of London tunnels and in the Heat Network Geographical Study Area allow further examining the potential for cross- boundary interactions with potential schemes at Soho and the Tottenham Court Road Opportunity area. City of London Corporation Tunnels and Heat Network Geographical Study Area Forecast growth in the City of London creates a unique opportunity for further decentralised energy development. The City is currently looking into the feasibility of delivering low carbon heating, cooling and electricity district networks across the entire Square Mile. However, substantial growth in the City has put much pressure on the traditional infrastructure and it is not possible to plan for new network infrastructure. Developing these networks will therefore have to explore ways of using the existing service tunnels ("pipe subways") managed and owned by the City of London Corporation or to expand them. One of the options could also be to use disused tunnels (legacy infrastructure) to supply energy.

Southwark

The potential schemes in the South Bank and at Battersea Power Station further suggest investigating the potential for cross-boundary interactions with schemes at Soho and the

November 2009 Page 55

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Tottenham Court Road Opportunity area in Westminster and the Tunnels and the Heat Network Geographical Study Area in the City of London. South Bank Employers Group The LDA has funded the South Bank Employers‟ Group (SBEG), in conjunction with South Bank University, to look at the potential for an extensive heat and power scheme across London's South Bank. The scheme would connect major energy users.

Existing public and private buildings such as St Thomas' Hospital, the South Bank Arts complex and Shell buildings are all possible heat customers, as well as a number of planned high density mixed use developments. The SBEG have now suggested a number of feasible schemes and the SBEG and the Decentralised Energy Delivery Unit are in discussions on how to progress the heat and power scheme.

Wandsworth

Battersea Power Station The proposed development of the Battersea Power Station site will create a new urban district of London. Providing the energy required for this scale of development in a sustainable manner is one of the project‟s key objectives. The current scheme is being developed around a decentralised plant strategy (to take account of the phasing of the development), which is to serve the total development with plant and systems chosen to meet a significant amount of the energy in use of the site.

Battersea Power Station development forms part of the Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF). As a result, the LDA has taken a keen interest in this development and will look to pursue the export of heat from the site to support the OAPF ambitions. Whilst there may be a conflict in exporting heat to Pimlico (see Figure 2-2) and not the Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea area, the development of these areas will be subject to a longer lead in time than the currently anticipated extension of the Pimlico district heating scheme. The Energy Services Company (ESCo) or Multiple Utility Services Company (MUSCo) selected to operate the decentralised plant services is likely to determine that the most commercially viable route for expansion is to utilise the existing tunnels and redundant district heating pipework beneath the Thames, which already connect the Battersea Power Station site to Pimlico.

November 2009 Page 56

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

3.3.3. Analysis

WCC is working with the support of the London Development Agency (LDA) to develop heat mapping of all of Westminster, based on actual energy use data. This will enable an objective assessment to be made of potential clusters for future district heat and power networks, as well as connections between existing local heating systems and CHP plant. The LDA is also supporting WCC to develop their capacity for energy master-planning to inform this process.

Economic Incentives Economic incentives will be introduced that recognise the potential for carbon dioxide savings from decentralised energy. The „Energy Act 2008‟27 provides for the introduction of feed-in tariffs for renewable electricity and incentives for renewable heat. This will improve the economic viability of establishing new energy centres and increasing the capacity of existing energy centres. Of more significance to district heating schemes, however, is OFGEM‟s reconsideration of the Class C supply licence exemption for

schemes of up to 1MWe and whether this is increased or a junior licensing regime for embedded generation is put into place.

These financial incentives and the work being carried out by OFGEM and BERR will improve the business case for sustainable energy and encourage private sector energy companies to expand their current decentralised energy provision to meet this demand for investment. However, the availability and likelihood of obtaining funding remains a key priority going forward. It is anticipated that where Westminster and the surrounding boroughs will need to contribute is in creating the opportunities for energy centres or, where this is not feasible, ensure that private developers make adequate provision for decentralised heating through the planning process.

The current process of decentralised energy is influenced by limitations set by OFGEM; however, notwithstanding these implications, the electricity distribution system in London, as elsewhere in the UK, has not historically been designed to accommodate connection from local electrical power generation.

This situation is likely to deteriorate as the increasing demand on the electricity network leads EDF to consider their distribution protocols and this, in turn, is likely to exacerbate the matter further. In essence, fault levels computed on the EDF network are likely to be significantly increased and this will potentially impact upon connection options.

EDF currently considers that decentralised energy will only be delivered if the networks effectively stand alone without any interconnection with the wider public network. To achieve this, OFGEM may therefore need to consider rule changes, specifically as they relate to competition rules.

27 „Energy Act 2008‟

November 2009 Page 57

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Opportunities for Decentralised Energy through Inter- and Cross-Boundary Connections/Partnerships In some localities in London, decentralised energy is already being provided at a district scale where is can most efficiently be delivered. Further, a number of boroughs have already initiated studies in relation to establishing decentralised energy strategies. These include Westminster and its surrounding boroughs.

This report goes some way to identifying a possible Westminster/ Wandsworth/ Lambeth/ Southwark/ City of London/ Camden/ Kensington & Chelsea sustainable energy infrastructure network for further investigation. Figure 3-4 clearly identifies the importance of inter- and cross-boundary connections/partnerships in delivering decentralised energy. For example, the viability of the prospective Euston Road district heating scheme is dependent on upgrading the Gower Street and Bloomsbury combined heat and power schemes to allow a number of existing and proposed buildings to be connected. They offer an opportunity for an expansion on the existing PPP. An example of a possible cross-boundary interconnection is between Pimlico and Battersea Power Station.

Mixed Loads and Energy Supply Competition Decentralised energy is only effective in saving carbon dioxide emissions when it is located where heating, cooling and power can be supplied most efficiently, i.e. where there are supporting mixed loads associated with anchor heat demand customers (e.g. housing estates, leisure centres, hospitals, schools, universities, etc.). It is essential that the public sector continue to connect these mixed loads to kick start decentralised energy schemes and ensure their economic viability, as has been the case for the Pimlico district heating scheme. With the uncertainty of how the national grid will respond to multiple local connection points associated with the export of electrical power to the grid, and ensuring effective competition for heat supply, sustainable energy infrastructure networks are essential to ensuring customers can benefit from competition.

Partnerships for Funding and Delivery Bodies such as the London Development Agency‟s Decentralised Energy Delivery Unit are in a position to take advantage of possible Government funding, and to establish inter- and cross-boundary PPP‟s to deliver decentralised energy. They are responsible for actively seeking to invest in projects and create commercially viable ESCo‟s serving local communities. Their involvement is critical to implement a successful sustainable energy infrastructure.

PDHU is wholly owned by WCC and managed through CityWest Homes. However, PFI‟s and PPP‟s are typically the funding vehicle required to achieve financial viability of projects, and a number have already been established by energy service companies (ESCo‟s). All of the existing heat and power schemes described form part of a PFI or PPP. With the enactment of the Energy Act 2008, economic incentives have been established for renewable electricity and heat with the introduction of feed-in tariffs.

November 2009 Page 58

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Additionally, the work being carried out by OFGEM and BERR in this area in relation to the distributed/decentralised generation review, the renewable energy strategy and the heat strategy will strengthen the viability of PFI‟s and PPP‟s. Banks and energy companies will need to further work together on innovative ways of securing funding for low carbon decentralised energy projects.

Industry Standards and Regulation There is a requirement to not only establish London wide standards and technical specifications for heat networks, but to also establish national heat network standards. Whilst we are only considering the Westminster infrastructure opportunities, decentralised energy strategies should be applied on a national scale where feasible, i.e. for large urban centres.

To ensure the long term viability of district heating schemes in terms of establishing a competitive heat supply market and from a heat supply customer perspective, an industry wide Code of Practice for heat networks which includes consumer protection agreements and guarantees of minimum service levels is required. In addition, OFGEM should oversee the appointment of a heat supply ombudsman as part of the Energy Ombudsman‟s longer term/policy/regulatory change.

The definition of zero carbon to recognise near site provision is becoming an extremely prevalent topic and the Government has undertaken public consultation – „Definition of Zero Carbon Homes and Non-Domestic Buildings, Consultation, December 2008‟28 – relating to the definition of zero carbon homes that will apply for new homes built from 2016 and it also seeks views on Government‟s ambition that new non-domestic buildings should be zero carbon from 2019. This consultation document, for which responses have been collected and published in July 2009, recognises the range of off site solutions to tackling the carbon dioxide emissions remaining after high levels of energy efficiency and passive design measures are applied and on site renewable energy supply is provided.

3.3.4. Assessment and Recommendations This section of the Draft Westminster Infrastructure Plan has offered a preliminary overview of possible district heating developments and the possibility of creating a sustainable infrastructure network in central London (Westminster/ Wandsworth/ Lambeth/ Southwark/ City of London/ Camden/ Kensington & Chelsea).

This analysis is not based on a technical appraisal of such issues as data on heat density, safeguarding possible heat distribution network routes within the growth areas, growth area interconnection through a borough wide heat distribution network, identifying the customer base and establishing expectations for the customer base to connect to heat distribution networks. As such detailed technical appraisal would need to be commissioned to provide a reliable assessment of realistic potential and priority areas for

28 „Definition of Zero Carbon Homes and Non-Domestic Buildings, Consultation‟ (CLG, 2008)

November 2009 Page 59

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

the delivery of a sustainable infrastructure network in Westminster and in neighbouring Central London boroughs. This appraisal is now in progress and WCC is at the time currently working to develop heat mapping of the whole of Westminster. There may also be the need for further research on legal structures required for schemes to progress or if two schemes can be linked.

While recent policy developments represent significant steps forward in terms of the promotion of decentralised energy schemes and renewable energy technologies, a series of risks to delivery remain, most importantly relating to the technical risks such as exporting electrical power into the national grid, and regulatory issues such as competition law and the role of the ombudsman. There is uncertainty about how these issues will be resolved in the future and how the context for developing sustainable energy infrastructure will evolve. Economic incentivisation is identified as essential to overcoming cost barriers and driving the uptake of a decentralised energy; these policy drivers are emerging. While cross-boundary collaboration and funding partnerships present opportunities to develop decentralised energy solutions, they also present new complexities, issues and challenges.

November 2009 Page 60

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

3.4. Telecommunications

3.4.1. Baseline BT, given their history as the General Post Office, have been considered to be the significant provider for the study zone. However, there are an increasing number of „host‟ providers offering connection to telecommunication networks in the study area, such as Virgin Media, Cable and Wireless, Kingston Communications, Global Crossing and Energis to name but a few possible alternatives. Wider issues relating to these providers have been considered also.

The consultant team applied to BT in order to obtain information on the baseline position, forecast demand for and planned provision of telecommunication services, and forecast costs and investment. A comprehensive response was not forth-coming, though some data on highway works was supplied. There are no published BT documents on long term planning for demand in the City of Westminster or which quantify current usage.

Technically, BT utilise a mixture of fibre optic cables as well as copper cables. Historically, the copper network would have afforded connectivity but as demand for higher quality telephone and / or data transmission, fibre optic cabling will become increasingly utilised for all aspects of the service. This is especially relevant for businesses, though the recently announced government aspiration for all homes to have broadband by 2012 highlights the implications of changing lifestyles at home as well29.

3.4.2. Forecast Demand With regard to new development opportunities, alternative providers are increasingly offering connection to telecommunication networks, often via the application of high quality lines secured via fibre optic. The result is that there are other providers vying for the same highway space, which is known to be limited, or sharing duct tracks with providers whom already have infrastructure in place (effectively renting duct space).

Discussions with BT have identified that the works in the highway to complete renewals and / or new duct tracks are likely to increase on average by 15%, or so, by 2026. Southwark and Islington will see an increase in planned works of circa 33% and 24% respectively. Conversely, Westminster, whilst experiencing the highest volume of planned works will only see an increase of circa 9%.

This information provides limited insight given that works can be so diverse. For example, there is no delineation of whether the proposed project covers the replacement of 250m of cable or 4km, and not all works are necessarily intrusive.

BT do not have plans for establishing new exchanges at this stage but they are looking at high fault areas, or ageing networks, so that priority replacement works can be targeted.

29 „Digital Britain‟ (Department of Culture, Media and Sport, 2009)

November 2009 Page 61

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

The outcomes of the consultation with BT demonstrate that the provider is geared up to react to forth-coming schemes rather than to forward plan in a strategic manner. Certainly, technology does change very quickly and therefore strategic planning is somewhat limited, given that end user demands change in line with opportunities. However, residential requirements and applications are likely to be more static.

Whilst the cabling and associated technology changes at some pace, there is every opportunity for BT, and other providers if appropriate, to install new infrastructure duct work early on in the development process so that demand for new connections can be delivered relatively easily and without repetitive disruption to stakeholders in the area.

3.4.3. Planned Investment and Costs No information was available on forecast costs and planned investment for telecommunications infrastructure.

Funding frameworks have changed in recent years. For local schemes, BT now charge beyond a certain ceiling for connections (previously connections were free); strategic works can be funded out of BT‟s overhead structure.

3.4.4. Conclusions The consultation process indicates that BT is set up to respond reactively to development rather than to plan provision in a strategic way. In general capacity constraints are less of an issue for telecommunications than for some other areas of infrastructure.

Early and ongoing communication by the City of Westminster is suggested so that a co- ordinated delivery can be established and to minimise risks to the delivery of growth. Again, it may be useful to review options for the strategic planning regulatory framework.

November 2009 Page 62

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

3.5. Water

3.5.1. Baseline Clean water to Westminster is supplied by Thames Water. The Thames Water supply area is divided into six independent water resource zones. The largest of these is London which covers the Greater London Area.

Attempts to engage with Thames Water were unsuccessful. This section therefore reflects information obtained from published documentation only, predominantly from Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP, currently in draft for consultation form) that Thames Water issue as part of their long term planning objectives, as well as the more immediate 2010-2015 five yearly business plan.

The clean water resources for Westminster are largely based on abstraction from rivers which is stored in reservoirs. The clean water resources for the areas subject to the Infrastructure Study are drawn from the Rivers Thames and Lee.

In the whole of their supply area for the year 2006/07, Thames Water estimated that household consumption accounted for 47% of demand, non-household consumption 21%, and unbilled and operational use 2%. Leakage accounted for 30% of demand, split into 22% distribution losses (mains in road) and 8% customer supply pipe (individual service pipes to properties) leakage30.

No data is available on current levels of water consumption for Westminster-based Thames Water customers only.

3.5.2. Forecast Demand Thames Water assesses that up until 2034/35 within London, the population will rise by 1M people with a consideration via an additional allowance for clandestine („uncounted‟) population and / or short term migrant population. Over the whole of its supply area, Thames Water estimate that each person uses on average 160 litres of water per day although conventional planning approaches normally apply a slightly lower range of 150 litres of water per day31.

Water use per person is affected by several factors; typically, these are household occupancy, water use via appliances, fixture and fittings within the property, householders‟ water use behaviour, garden use and whether the property is metered or not. It is certainly possible that per capita usage of water will decrease in future years due to the economic climate, policy drivers such as the Code for Sustainable Homes and supply-side measures such as use of harvested rainwater. Thames Water identify that

30 Thames Water, „WRMP Appendices Volume 3‟, 2008, available at http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/5392.htm

31 Thames Water: http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/5390.htm and http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/2804.htm, accessed on 18/04/09

November 2009 Page 63

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

although there is increasing pressure to use more water efficient appliances and an improvement in the education of the wider population to use water more wisely, this will not be enough to off-set other factors. They forecast that overall demand for water will rise due to an increasing population, an increase rise in single occupancy houses still using all the appliances of a larger unit, smaller family groups and climate change.

Thames Water has calculated non-household volumes by subtracting measured household volumes from total billed measured volumes and, from this reasonably basic assessment, they have produced forecasts for both service and non-service sectors in each WRZ. The outcomes of their calculations are not published.

The London zone is predominantly made up of service sector industries and Thames Water indicate that there has been a marked decline in non-service demand (mainly in the food, drink and tobacco sector), though this reduction has been more than off-set by a rise in the service sector demand.

Based on current forecasts, Thames Water predict, as a whole, that London will have a supply demand deficit increasing from 2% in 2009/10 to 20% by 2034/35 without expanded provision. The deficit is essentially being driven by demand but leakage management may off set an element of the shortfall.

Current proposals are to follow a „twin track approach‟ in balancing the supply and demand which involves the use of enhanced demand management activities combined with the development of new resource schemes.

Initially, Thames Water is proposing a significant programme of demand management to close the supply demand deficit which primarily include leakage reduction techniques (the replacement of Victorian mains) and active leakage control; in addition, a progressive programme to employ compulsory metering (the plan being to increase the proportion of domestic properties with meters from 25% to approximately 54% over the next 5 years) and establish an enhanced water efficiency programme.

Management of demand alone however is unlikely to close the deficit and therefore a desalination water treatment plant is being constructed in Beckton and works are already underway. There are also plans for construction of a large reservoir in Oxfordshire which it is hoped will be operational by 2021.

In the absence of provider forecasts, URS Infrastructure Model has been used to estimate likely additional demand for potable water to 2026. The methodology and assumptions are described in Appendices 2 and 3. This high level exercise produces an indicative estimate only as a starting point for more detailed assessment. As no response to the workings was obtained from Thames Water, it is not possible to comment on how the outcomes of the modelling exercise compare to the providers‟ calculations of future demand.

Table 3-4 indicates that additional demand for potable water could total 13.2m litres per day across Westminster up to 2026.

November 2009 Page 64

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 3-4: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Water from New Development, 2006-2026

Residential Demand Non-Residential Demand Total Demand

3,876,000 9,287,847 13,163,847 Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) A4 and R4 Sheets

3.5.3. Planned Investment and Costs No costs are available for the schemes described above.

As for the previous infrastructure areas, funding for strategic long term projects will be sourced from Thames Waters‟ revenue, while developers may make contributions to more local infrastructure associated with specific schemes.

3.5.4. Conclusions Thames Water have identified a likely future deficit in supply of water in the London water resource zone to 2034, and strategic plans to address this are being formulated. However, detailed information on the methodology used to establish estimated demand and of the investment programmes was not available. Therefore a meaningful comparison with URS Infrastructure Model estimates of demand, and a critique of the needs assessment, was not possible.

Like the other utility providers, Thames Water is in the main set up to respond to detailed development schemes as they come forward and their capacity to engage in meaningful dialogue with partners on strategic planning is somewhat limited. This is a flaw in the existing system and a risk to growth. The City of Westminster continue attempts to engage in meaningful dialogue with Thames Water at the earliest possible stage in the authorities‟ strategic planning process.

November 2009 Page 65

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

3.6. Sewers and Sewerage Infrastructure

3.6.1. Baseline The existing combined surface water and foul sewer system in Westminster as in the rest of London was originally developed in the late 19th century based on a much smaller population than exists today, and was designed based on a rainfall depth of 6.5 mm within the River Thames catchment.32 As London grew the system was expanded in line with economic and population growth and increasing rainfall intensities.

A combined sewer has the advantage of providing a single network of pipes and is therefore cheaper to build. Historically most urban sewers were built as combined systems in the 19th and 20th centuries. During dry weather, all water entering the system is treated at a sewer treatment works (e.g. Beckton), including rainwater, then the clean effluent is discharged to the river. However, during wet weather the volume of water entering the system is much higher because of the additional rainfall. The sewer may 'surcharge', which is when the flow is too high for the pipes to carry, resulting in sewage 'backing up' within the system causing sewer flooding. To relieve surcharging, the sewage is allowed to overflow into rivers via 'combined sewer outfalls' or CSOs.

The disadvantage of a combined sewer system is that rivers and surrounding ecosystems can become polluted by CSO discharges containing untreated human and industrial waste, toxic materials and debris during high rainfall events. EU regulations have been introduced to protect water quality and biodiversity, such as the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive introduced in 1995 to protect the environment from the adverse effects of sewage discharges, and the Water Framework Directive introduced in 2000 with the aim of reaching good chemical and ecological status in inland and coastal waters by 2015.

Thames Water own and operate 68,000 km of sewer, 800,000 manholes, 2,530 pumping stations and 349 sewage treatment works receiving 4.3 million cubic meters of sewage per day33.

The treatment plants serving Westminster are located outside its boundaries in Mogden, Beckton and Crossness. Existing assets require routine maintenance including sewage treatment works, pumping stations, sludge treatment, sewers and ancillary equipment including maintenance and control equipment, IT and buildings. Twelve combined sewerage outfalls currently discharging to the Westminster stretch of the River Thames, with eight located in Westminster and another four in Lambeth and Southwark.

32 A combined sewer can be defined as a partially separated system for foul or sanitary drainage and surface water or storm-water run-off. The purpose of a sewer system is to remove all waste water, including rainwater from roofs and paved or impermeable surfaces, and convey it to treatment works.

33 However it should be noted that the entire Thames Water region constitutes a total area of 37,700 km2 of which Westminster is only 21.48 km2 (0.06% by area).

November 2009 Page 66

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Currently the sewers in Westminster are close to capacity during a 2-year return period storm event, and most sewers combine surface water with foul water. Since much of Westminster is heavily developed there is a significant risk of surface water flooding as a result34. Sewer flooding can be caused by excess inflow such as heavy rainfall in surface water sewers or due to blockages occurring in foul or surface water sewers. Westminster is already heavily developed which means that the area is at significant risk from sewer flooding. The problem has been worsened in the past due to urbanisation, most significantly where gardens have been paved over preventing rainwater from soaking into the soil naturally. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are generally implemented in new developments to mitigate this problem, although most SUDS are difficult to implement in an urban environment. Porous paving, attenuation tanks, green roofs and rainwater harvesting are likely to be the most viable options.

Thames Water has legal obligations set at EU and national UK level to meet effluent quality targets. The Environment Agency (EA) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) are responsible for making sure Thames Water meets environmental standards for treated sewage effluent. Each treatment works has a permit to discharge and if effluent quality targets are not met Thames Water can be prosecuted by the Environment Agency. Population growth in recent years has increased pressure on treatment works, which increases the risk of breach in effluent quality targets. Currently, combined sewage overflows into the tidal reaches of the River Thames are an infringement of the EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive.

3.6.2. Forecast Demand The forecasted need for and provision of sewerage infrastructure has been identified by Thames Water in their Draft Five Year Plan 2010 to 2015 (AMP 5), and in their long term report Taking Care of Water – The Next 25 Years (2010-2035). Beyond 2015 Thames Water have not yet made detailed investment plans other than the long term investment plans outlined here.

Without further investment, the existing sewers system would have insufficient capacity to cope with future development anticipated within Westminster. Planning Policy Statement 25, Development and Flood Risk indicates that the anticipated increase in rainfall intensity due to climate change is estimated to be 5% in the period up to 2025. Extreme rainfall events are predicted to increase in frequency over the years requiring greater capacity in sewers. Hotter, drier summers will increase the demand for water and therefore increase pressure on sewers. Investment in treatment works will be required to meet increasingly stringent water quality targets.

The resident population and employees in Westminster is anticipated to increase which will necessitate increased capacities of the network, treatment works and sludge disposal. Average household occupancy is anticipated to decrease, which will increase per capita water use. Metering of household water should counteract increased demand:

34 „Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Preferred Options‟ (City of Westminster, July 2008)

November 2009 Page 67

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

meters will be installed in 28% of households by 2010 and 84% by 2025. The implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in new developments will also be an important measure mitigating increased run-off from developed areas35.

At national and EU level, major policy drivers will be the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the Water Framework Directive improving water quality standards and the forthcoming Flood and Water Management Bill currently in draft form. To address requirements for quality improvements, the proposed Thames Tideway Tunnel will capture and transport raw sewage that would otherwise discharge into the River Thames. These discharges create foul conditions in the river, resulting in an elevated health risk to river users and damage to the ecology of the river. The project will also help to alleviate some of the flood risk due to sewers and surface water.

The Thames Tideway project comprises two new tunnels to substantially reduce the amount of untreated sewage discharged to the River Thames and its tributary the River Lee after heavy rainfall via CSOs. The Thames Tunnel is the larger of the two projects which will comprise a 32 km long tunnel under the Thames from the west of the city to Beckton treatment works although the precise route is yet to be determined. Construction is provisionally scheduled to start in 2012 and finish in 2020. At this stage Thames Water expect to submit a planning application in late 2011. The overflow of untreated sewage into the Thames is a legacy of the original design for London‟s sewers and currently occurs around once per week. On average 32 million cubic metres is discharged every year and the situation is predicted to get worse due to expected population growth and more intense rain storms as the climate changes. The Tideway Tunnel project is also intended to address surface water flooding. Continuing urbanisation through paving over landscaped areas preventing rainfall from being soaked up by the ground is adding to the problem of surface water flooding.

The UK Water and Flood Management Bill, published in draft form in April 2009, is designed to improve flood risk management in response to the summer 2007 floods. Under the proposed Bill, WCC would gain new roles and responsibilities including local flood risk mapping and identifying ownership to resolve flooding problems as they arise, and would have new responsibilities for drainage. Developers‟ automatic right to connect to the sewer system under the Water Industry Act 1991 would be removed and connection would become conditional on meeting new standards including SUDS implementation.

In future years, existing assets will continue to require routine maintenance. The total length of sewers to be maintained by Thames Water across its entire area will increase from 68,000 to 108,000 km by 2015. In addition, investment is required to reduce sewer flooding and reduce odour from sewage treatment works. Cleaning and repairs will be

35 SUDS are designed to mimic the rainwater attenuation properties of a natural landscape and prevent large volumes of surface water runoff into the sewer system following intense rainstorms. SUDS can significantly reduce surface water or sewer flooding and methods suitable for urban environments are available such as porous paving and rainwater harvesting.

November 2009 Page 68

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

increased in sewers where blockages are known to occur. Sewer flooding is disproportionately high in Westminster due to the number of basement flats and low lying sewers and the fact that rainwater is mixed with foul sewage. In 2010, 1,937 properties will still be at risk and an additional 1,995 by 2015. Thames Water aims to virtually eliminate high risk flooding by 2035 and to prioritise prevention of sewer floods within properties over flooding of external areas. In most cases, oversized pipes or tanks will be used to increase sewer capacity. Sewer design standards are to be enhanced to increase capacity for the projected increased flows and network models will be developed to assess where capacity improvements are required.

Sewer flooding of residential properties occurred in a total of 8 properties within the SW1 V1 and SW1 V2 postcode areas between 1997 and 200736. According to WCC, sewer flooding is confined to a few isolated areas including the area between the northern end of Whitehall and Trafalgar Square, the area around Chippenham Road and along Westbourne Grove, the latter area having been severely affected during the July 2007 floods. In response, Thames Water are currently constructing a sewer relief scheme on Westbourne Grove involving laying a new 1.5m diameter sewer and underground storage sewer within the Hallfield Estate.

In their Draft Five Year Plan 2010 to 2015 (AMP 5) Thames Water identifies possible measures to meet future expansion in levels of service provision through new infrastructure and improved existing infrastructure. At this stage, no detailed options have been made available. Possible measures to expand service provision are as follows:

Upgrades to treatment works including sludge capacity and odour reduction

Improving quality and monitoring of treated effluent

Improving security and provision for emergency measures relating to sewage and drinking water

Measures to reduce CO2 emissions

Tideway Tunnel project including improvements to Beckton treatment works

New infrastructure to accommodate population growth

Protection of key sites from surface and sewer flooding alleviation, eg the Westbourne Grove and Hallfield Estate scheme.

The provision standards that will be used to calculate the demand for new sewerage infrastructure arising from economic and population growth are based on the standard industry procedure used to design adoptable sewers37.

36 „Westminster Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Draft, „ (WCC, August 2008)

37 „Sewers for Adoption 6th Edition‟, clause 2.12.2 (Water Research Council, 2006)

November 2009 Page 69

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 3-5: Sewerage Provision Standards

Development Provision Standard Residential 200 L/day per person

Commercial Low water use (offices, retail) 1.1 L/s per hectare

Intermediate water use 1.35 L/s per hectare

High water use (industrial) 1.6 L/s per hectare Source: Sewers for Adoption 6th Edition, Water Research

Since most of the commercial development in Westminster will be office and retail, the water use is likely to be low and therefore a rate of 1.1 L/s per hectare was used in the calculations. The baseline quantities of sewage arising from residential and commercial developments for the baseline and 2026 scenarios are shown in the table below. The total volume of sewage was calculated by multiplying the appropriate rate by either the residential population or commercial area then adding the two together.

As a comparison, the table shows an estimate of total sewage produced in Westminster based on data provided by Thames Water. Thames Water treats 4.3M cubic metres per day for 13.5M customers in their region38. This means that Thames Water receives approximately 319 L/day per customer at their sewer treatment works. Thames Water estimated that the number of sewer customers would increase by 380,000 by 201539. Assuming the trend continues there will be 14.4M sewer customers by 2026, i.e. an increase from 2007 to 2026 of 47,500 per year. The baseline population of Westminster is 234,100. Using the rate of 319 L/day this means that Westminster produces 74.7 M L/day of sewage and the predicted 2026 population of 259,940 will produce 82.9 M L/day.

Table 3-6: URS Assessment of Additional Sewer Flow Rates from New Development Compared to Thames Water Data, 2026 Scenario

Development Volume of sewage (L/day) Baseline 2026 Residential 46.8M 52.7M

Commercial (Office, Retail) 73.0M 85.7M

Total (Thames Water figures in brackets) 119.8M (74.7M) 138.4M (82.9M) Source: URS calculations see Utilities, A5 and R6 sheets and http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/4625.htm

38 http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/4625.htm Thames Water, About Us, Our Business, Facts and Figures. Accessed on 13 February 2009.

39 ‟Five-Year Plan from 2010 to 2015‟, Draft Report, p. 50 (Thames Water, 2008)

November 2009 Page 70

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

The above assessment is a technical estimate only assessment of likely future demand, based on very limited data and makes a number of assumptions: for example, the volume of sewage treated per customer will remain the same in 2026; the surface water flow is not considered; and the number of Thames Water customers increases at a constant rate from now until 2026. These factors are all unknown at this stage and the assessment is therefore based on the limited information currently available. However, given that the volumes of sewage calculated for 2026 using the two methods have increased by approximately the same proportion (between 10% and 15%) it can be concluded that Thames Water have accurately predicted the required sewerage infrastructure for Westminster.

3.6.3. Planned Investment and Costs The Thames Water region includes not only Westminster but also most of the Thames catchment area, from Warwickshire to Sussex and from Gloucestershire to Essex. Thames Water was unable to provide figures for Westminster since much of their investment is directed towards large-scale assets, which serve areas greater than the study area. The figures presented in the rest of this section for Thames Water costs are for the whole Thames Water region, with approximate figures for Westminster shown which were estimated based on equivalent population where relevant40.

Across their entire area, current Thames Water maintenance expenditure is on average £1bn per year („Taking Care of Water – The Next 25 Years (2010-2035)‟, Thames Water). Thames Water plans to invest a total of £6.5bn between 2010 and 2015 in both water supply and sewer services, and a total of £27bn over the next 25 years. Sewerage investment in 2010 to 2015 in the AMP 4 period will total £4.2bn („Five-Year Plan from 2010 to 2015„, Draft Report, Thames Water).

Table 3-7 below shows capital investment in sewerage infrastructure within Westminster, 2010-2015. Detailed investment information is available for the period from 2010 to 2015 and more approximate costs are available for 2015-2020. Projects will be funded by revenue from Thames Water customers averaged over the whole Thames Water region. Long-term costs have been evaluated for the Thames Tideway project due for completion in 2020.

40 The entire Thames Water region constitutes a total area of 37,700 km2 of which Westminster is only 21.48 km2 (0.05% by area). In terms of population Westminster is slightly more significant; around 0.234m people live in Westminster compared to a total population of 13.5m in the Thames Region (1.7% by population).

November 2009 Page 71

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 3-7: Capital Investment in Sewerage Infrastructure within Westminster up to 2025

Estimated Westminster Cost (Thames Water Region Cost in Brackets) 41 2007- 2010- 2015- 2020- Key Activity Projections 2010 2015 2020 2025 £39m £35m New and renovated sewers (£2,297m) (£2,079m) £30m £29m New and refurbished treatment works (£1,755m) (£1,682m)

£2m £2m New and refurbished pumping stations (£125m) (£118m) £3m £3m Management and general costs (£191m) (£199m)

Thames Tideway Project (also includes £22m the Lee tunnel) (£1,321.3m) £20m £74m £69m £68m42 Total (£1,200m) (£4,369m) (£4,080m) (£4,025m) Source: „Taking Care of Water – The Next 25 Years (2010-2035)‟, Thames Water p. 67; „Five-Year Plan from 2010 to 2015‟, Draft Report, Thames Water p. 88-89

Following consultations between Thames Water and their customers, the highest priority in terms of investment will be to reduce sewer flooding within properties and to deal with odour nuisance caused by treatment works. While protecting the aquatic environment within watercourses is considered a priority, the proposed Thames Tideway has still not yet received planning permission and therefore may not be implemented in its planned form.

3.6.4. Conclusions Thames Water has based their assessments on existing asset maintenance costs and projections of required improvements and additional infrastructure required to meet forecasted demand. Several factors may have an impact on the predicted investment plans as follows, including public expectations, the state of physical assets and the external environment. Increased incidences of surface water flooding, and increased frequency of CSO discharges into the River Thames are examples of drivers that would require investment in further improvements to the sewerage system.

41 Estimated Westminster cost is based on population equivalent: Westminster population is 0.234m; Thames Water Region population is 13.5m.

42 Based on predicted total capital investment of £5,750m in 2020-2025 assuming 70% covers sewerage (the rest covers water supply), based on long term cost assessments („Taking Care of Water – The Next 25 Years (2010- 2035‟, p. 67, Thames Water,2008)

November 2009 Page 72

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 3-8: Potential Factors Affecting Future Required Investment in Sewers in Westminster

Population Assets External Environment Demographic changes: Innovations in treatment Extent of climate change may Increasingly mobile and/or technology such as fuel cells differ from predictions transient population makes it Efficiency improvements such Downturn in the economy will difficult to predict demand for as automated monitoring constrain investment; market sewerage services forces will affect demand and Development of smaller scale, Evolving public expectations price for sewage services localised solutions regarding level of service, e.g. Changing land use plans sewer flooding and river water Resilience of assets to climate could alter existing / forecast quality change impacts - degradation drainage patterns may be accelerated or Adaptation to and tolerance of capacity exceeded Restructuring of the water climate change impacts, e.g. industry to stimulate increased water use in the Pressure to cut carbon competition will affect summer months; if Greywater emissions investment plans recycling becomes common place (i.e. rainwater harvesting Tightening legislative and for garden use and wc flushing) regulatory environment demand may be reduced ‟Taking Care of Water – The Next 25 Years (2010-2035)‟, Thames Water p. 13

In an assessment of projected foul sewer flow rates (see spreadsheet R6 Utilities) it was estimated that by 2026, residential developments in Westminster would generate around six million litres/day43 of foul sewerage. Thames Water were unable to provide figures for projected increase in sewerage therefore it was not possible to compare this figure directly. In terms of costs, Thames Water estimates that £231m investment in sewerage infrastructure will be required in the period up to 2025 for Westminster.

There are potential gaps in provision in terms of both the planning system and financial risk. Under the current planning regime, developers have an automatic right to connect new developments to the public sewer system once planning permission has been granted44. In previous consultations with WCC45 in response to Alternative Option 2A, in which planning permission would be conditional on demonstration that sufficient sewerage capacity either exists already or would be funded by the developer, Thames Water commented that:

“Water and sewerage undertakers have limited powers under the Water Industry Act to prevent connection ahead of infrastructure

43 Based on 4000 litres/day/dwelling, „Sewers for Adoption 6th Edition‟ (Water Research Council, 2006)

44 Pitt Report Executive Summary, paragraph ES.28

45 „City of Westminster, Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Preferred Options‟, p. 43 (WCC, July 2008)

November 2009 Page 73

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

upgrades… where there is a (sewer) capacity problem and no improvements are programmed … the developer needs to contact the undertaker to agree what improvements are required and how they will be funded.”

Another potential gap in provision could arise due to the Tideway scheme not yet having received planning permission and therefore it may not be implemented in its planned form.

Investment in sewerage infrastructure will be subject to financial risk. Thames Water is a private company and although their prices are limited by Ofwat to protect consumers, the proposed investment in sewer infrastructure is subject to financial risks. Thames Water will need to raise over £30bn in debt to finance their investment plans. The scale of the proposed investment will exceed the capacity of any single debt market, therefore the company will require access to a wide range of capital markets. Large projects such as the Thames tunnel may require funding in alternative ways to better define and allocate risk, as these projects have a different risk profile to a standard capital programme. To regulate prices, Ofwat sets cost efficiency targets every five years and benefits of cost savings are hence shared with sewerage customers. In summary there is a risk that the costs of the proposed investment may increase due to both the cost of borrowing and due to the high risks involved in major construction projects, but these are controlled to an extent by Ofwat to protect consumers from excessive price increases.

Complementary to works that Thames Water will be responsible for, WCC is in the position to encourage a range of initiatives as part of the planning process so as to reduce the cumulative impact of new developments on carrying capacity of sewers and water treatment infrastructure. These could include the introduction of SUDS, water efficient measures, attenuation, protected gardens, and sustainable design standard.

November 2009 Page 74

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

3.7. Flood Risk

3.7.1. Baseline Flood Risk

The WCC Draft Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (August 2008, City of Westminster and Halcrow) finds that the potential sources of flood risk for the City of Westminster include groundwater, sewer, surface water, fluvial, and tidal. In addition, the flood risk caused by canals and docks is identified. Each source of flooding is been given a degree of risk as high, medium or low corresponding with the results determined in the SFRA. See Table 3-9 for a summary of these findings.

Table 3-9: Sources of Flooding and the Degree of Risk

Sources of Flooding Degree of Risk Groundwater Low

Sewer High

Surface water High

Fluvial High

Tidal Low – High Residual

Canals and Water Features and Water Mains Low Source: WCC Draft SFRA

The City of Westminster is reporting a low groundwater flooding risk. To this end, WCC should continue to work with General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team (GARDIT) formed by Thames Water Utilities, London Underground Limited and the EA in 1992 to mitigate the problem. GARDIT has been able to increase the groundwater abstraction in London by up to 50 million litres per day (Ml/d), which has reduced the rate of groundwater rise considerably.

The City of Westminster has a high sewerage and surface water flood risk. This condition is caused by the majority of the sewers in the area being combined foul and surface water sewers that are at capacity during 1 in 1 year and 1 in 2 year storm events. Therefore, small storm events can cause extensive sewer flooding where surface water cannot drain into the sewerage network. Surface water flooding then occurs when the excess surface water flows downhill as overland flow.

The fluvial and tidal risks in the City of Westminster are due to the River Thames and its tributaries. The Thames Barrier along with 32km of flood defences protects the boroughs of London for storms up to and including the 1 in 1000 year or 0.1% annual probability storm event. However, in 2030 the Barrier is expected to reach its design life due to the

November 2009 Page 75

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

unanticipated increasing rate in sea level rise. This is coupled with the risk that the extreme storm events may breach the existing flood defence walls.

Canals and water features and water mains pose a minimal flood risk in the City of Westminster. None of the canals within Westminster are on embankments. In addition, there are no locks within Westminster itself and the nearest upstream lock is 16km west of Westminster. Also, as indicated in the SFRA, the water features of Westminster are the result of „hidden rivers‟ and are unlikely to flood. Many water mains in Westminster date from Victorian times. Burst water mains are a minimal risk for Westminster as the areas affected by this type of flooding would be mainly localised to the source of flooding. Additionally, Thames Water has already begun its Victorian mains replacement programme which is aiming to replace 2,500km of water mains in London by 2015.

Flood Defences

Within in the SFRA, the presence of flood defences is identified. The SFRA identifies the Environment Agency‟s National Flood and Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD) grades for the River Thames flood defences in Westminster. Westminster‟s flood defence wall is in good (grade 2) condition, though one section (Millbank) is subject to seepage.46 WCC should work to maintain this condition level and investigate the repair of the section of the flood defence wall in Millbank.

3.7.2. Forecast Demand The effects of climate change on both rainfall intensities and sea level rise pose serious flood risk concerns from a variety of sources to the City of Westminster, particularly in light of the revised sea level rise predictions.

The potential risks associated with the Thames Barrier and the flood defence walls (due to either a failure or to an extreme event that results in breaching) are considered as part of the Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100), an Environment Agency (EA) project to develop a tidal flood risk management plan for the Thames estuary through to the end of the century. The plan will evaluate the region‟s flood risk including the effects of climate change, rising sea levels and the aging of existing flood defences. The EA‟s website states that TE 2100 is due to be submitted to the Government in March 2010. The results of TE 2100 should outline other areas of investment that can be pursued by London Boroughs.

Landowners of sites (riparian owners) have legal responsibility to maintain and repair defences of sites adjacent to the Thames. As well as planning flood for fluvial and tidal flood risk on a long term basis, the EA inspects flood defences twice a year and enforces

46 Source: WCC Draft SFRA Appendix 1: Westminster Breach Analysis and Surface Water Flooding Assessment, Section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. Data provided by the Environment Agency to the authors of the SFRAs from the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD). Grades - Very Good (1), Good (2), Fair (3), Poor (4), Very Poor (5).

November 2009 Page 76

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

the obligation for action if necessary. The EA has a contributions policy which can help landowners with costs where necessary.

In terms of sewerage and surface flooding, Thames Water has a five year Asset Management Plan and also a 25 year investment plan which covers measures to maintain sewers and reduce flooding; see Sewerage section of the report for full details. The Thames Tideway scheme will help to alleviate some of the risk. Construction on this scheme is expected to start in 20012 and to complete in 2020.

Developers are required to mitigate sewerage and surface flood risk impacts associated with specific sites as a condition of planning permission.

Defra has recently issued guidance on Surface Water Management Plans, which may be a requirement in the forthcoming Floods and Water Bill (expected Spring 09).47 Local Authorities will be expected to co-ordinate surface water management and produce plans containing information on existing surface water drainage infrastructure and setting out actions relating to capital works / maintenance programmes and a drainage strategy for new development. There will be a requirement for local authorities to work closely with water & sewerage companies, and to inform the LDF.

3.7.3. Planned Investment and Costs There is insufficient data to enable costs associated with flood defences in Westminster to be separated from higher level cost information available from Thames Water and the EA.

Thames Water plan to invest approximately £2bn in the Thames Tideway storm overflow scheme, which will help to alleviate some of the flood risk due to sewers and surface water. Although construction of this scheme is set to start in 20012, detailed information and costs are not available although they have been requested from Thames Water on more than one occasion.

3.7.4. Assessment and Recommendations Thames Water and the EA are making long term plans to mitigate flood risk through the Thames Tunnel and TE2100 schemes. However, there is insufficient data available on these planned investments to enable a detailed assessment of these strategies to manage increased flood risk, or to identify costs specifically associated with Westminster. It will be important for WCC to engage early with TW, EA and other agencies involved in the planning and funding of these schemes.

While maintaining hard flood defences is vital, it will be important for Westminster to work with the EA to implement flood management standards that are similar to the other authorities which make up the Central London Central Activities Zone. The standards should help reduce the amount of surface water generated by developments with the

47 See http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/surfacewaterdrainage.htm

November 2009 Page 77

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

implementation of sustainable drainage systems and encourage the implementation of flood resilient architecture.

November 2009 Page 78

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

3.8. Waste Management

3.8.1. Baseline Westminster currently collects approximately 190,000 tonnes of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) per year of which 56% is commercial waste, 34% is from households and 10% is street litter48. This is a reduction on the quantity of 214,066 tonnes collected in 2003/2004 which comprised 60% commercial, 30% household and 10% street cleansing wastes49. Reasons for the reduction in the volume of waste over this period are not apparent in the available documentation, although it is noted in the Waste Implementation Programme report that there has been a declining trend since at least 1996/1997. WCC reportedly only collects commercial waste from 30% of the businesses in the City of Westminster, the remainder being collected by independent waste contractors.

MSW is also collected by WCC from approximately 140 „Micro Recycling Centres‟ and 140 „Big Black Bins‟ located across the Westminster. The Micro Recycling Centres and Big Black Bins are usually placed non-residential streets and are often, but not always, located together. Both are for the storage of household waste, with the Micro Recycling Centres storing recyclable wastes such as glass, plastics, cans, paper, cardboard and textiles, and the Big Black Bins storing general (non-recyclable) household waste. According to WCC, the Micro Recycling Centres are emptied weekly or even daily as required and there are no problems with them becoming over filled. However, commercial waste is occasionally fly-tipped into the Big Black Bins, but these are emptied approximately three times per day.

According to the Waste Strategy Manager for WCC, approximately 250 tonnes of residential garden waste and 700 tonnes of street leaves are collected each year. These waste streams are transferred to a composting facility in Rainham, Essex. WCC has also recently introduced a food waste collection service, which collects approximately 1 tonne of food waste per week from the Church Street Estate. This waste is transferred off site to an in-vessel rocket composter (operated by Vital Regeneration) and then the resulting compost is transferred to local parks.

WCC transfers most (94% in 2003/2004) of its MSW out of Westminster‟s boundaries. According to the Waste Strategy Manager for WCC, waste from smaller vehicles (e.g. street litter) is initially transferred to either Cringle Dock Waste Transfer Station (London Borough of Wandsworth)50 or Smugglers Way Waste Transfer Station (London Borough

48 Information received from WCC on the 5th of February 2009, via email.

49 „Municipal Waste Management Strategy Implementation Programme 2004-2016‟ (City of Westminster, 2003)

50 It should also be noted that planning conditions, contractual obligations and Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) are not necessarily flexible enough to allow changes to the arrangements at a waste management facility. For example, according to the Greater London Authority (GLA), the owner of a waste wharf in Battersea wishes to treat waste generated on site in an on-site Energy from Waste plant; but this is not possible as the waste has been contracted to be treated at a facility in Belvedere.”

November 2009 Page 79

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

of Wandsworth) from where it is transferred to a landfill site in Mucking (Essex) via the River Thames. Larger collection vehicles, containing the remaining waste streams, transport the waste to the South East London Combined Heat and Power (SELCHP) facility in Lewisham during the day and to Brent Waste Transfer Station (London Borough of Brent) at night. Waste is transferred from Brent in the morning either to SELCHP for incineration or to Springfield Farm Landfill site in Buckinghamshire.

A new Energy from Waste facility, Riverside at Belvedere, has been proposed which will be able to accept 585,000 tonnes of waste per annum. WCC has indicated that waste currently going to landfill from the waste transfer stations will in future be transferred to the new Belvedere facility upon its completion (estimated to be in 2010).

The Mayor‟s Municipal Waste Management Strategy (GLA, 2003) indicates that there are no Civic Amenity (CA) sites within Westminster, whilst typically other London authorities have one or two civic amenity sites. WCC‟s duty to provide a CA facility is achieved by having contractual access for residents to use the Western Riverside Waste Authority CA sites at Cringle Dock in Battersea and Smugglers Way in Wandsworth. WCC reportedly owns a strategic waste depot on Mandela Way in the London Borough of Southwark, but currently rents this facility out to third parties rather than use the facility itself. This depot may be used from September 2010, when WCC‟s next Waste Collection contract is due to commence, for parking for the fleet of refuse collection vehicles as well as salt stores for winter gritting operations.

As outlined above there is evidence of under-provision for dealing with MSW within the boundaries of the City of Westminster. Waste is primarily transferred, treated and disposed of outside the Westminster‟s boundaries.

3.8.2. Forecast Demand The composition of Westminster‟s MSW is predominantly generated by commercial and industrial activities rather than by households. Therefore it is it is less possible to link future demand for waste infrastructure to population or household growth than some other London LPAs.

WCC anticipates that the key future drivers of demand and supply will be EU Directives, Waste Strategies, Regulations and Guidance. For example the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) introduces significant and innovative changes in waste policy and practice for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill. The Scheme is intended to provide a cost effective way of enabling England to meet its targets for reducing the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste under Article 5(2) of the EC Landfill Directive.

According to the WCC Waste Implementation Programme, waste arisings in 2015/2016 will remain the same as in 2003/2004 (at 214,066 tonnes) despite a projected growth in population. However, there will be a change in the percentages of the different waste streams to 55% commercial (117,377 tonnes), 28% household (66,015 tonnes) and 14% street cleansing (29,645 tonnes). It is anticipated that in 2015/2016, 15% of the waste generated by Westminster will be recycled/composted, 77% will be combusted (Energy

November 2009 Page 80

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

from Waste) and 8% will be landfilled. This represents a significant change from 2003/2004 when for example, a total of 32.5% was sent to landfill.

The table below shows the projected percentage changes of the different waste streams in the City of Westminster.

Table 3-10: Percentage of Waste Streams in Westminster

Commercial Household Street Cleansing Year (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) 2003/4 62.5% (134,213) 27.5% (58,585) 10% (21,268)51

2015/2016 55% (117,377) 28% (66,015) 14% (29,645) Source: WCC Waste Implementation Programme and Personal Communication, WCC, 05/02/2009

According to the WCC Waste Implementation Programme, the proportion of waste which will be disposed of to landfill will decrease from 33% (2003/4) to 8% (2015/2016) as shown in the table below.

Table 3-11: Destination of Waste

Combusted Recycled (Energy from Year Composted Waste) Landfilled 2003/4 6% 61% 33%

2015/2016 15% 77% 8% Source: WCC Waste Implementation Programme

The London Plan states that Westminster (as well as the other London authorities) should identify sufficient land to manage waste that has been apportioned at local authority level. The London Plan does not indicate any locations for recycling and waste treatment facilities within Westminster. The Mayor has apportioned 216,000 tonnes of waste to Westminster, to be managed by 2020 through the identification of recycling and waste treatment facilities in the Westminster or by pooling arrangements with other boroughs. (This apportionment includes commercial and industrial waste as well as domestic waste).

The emerging LDF recognises the need for greater self-sufficiency but indicates it may be unrealistic to identify additional waste facilities in Westminster, given the land-use constraints; and indicates that a large proportion of waste will always need to be handled outside the boundary of the City of Westminster. WCC is currently preparing the tender documents to deliver waste collection, recycling and street cleansing services during the period 2010 - 2017. Its current waste disposal contracts expire in 2016/17 and tender documents for the post-2017 disposal needs will be prepared during 2010. Both tender

51 N.B. This figure includes Parks Waste.

November 2009 Page 81

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

processes but particularly the latter will have major infrastructure implications. However, no further information is available.

The Waste Implementation Programme indicates that a new Material Recycling Facility (MRF) at Smugglers Way (London Borough of Wandsworth) is proposed. Planning permission was granted a couple of years ago but construction is yet to start. The MRF will be able to sort recyclables received from Westminster. The facility is likely to have a capacity of 84,000 tonnes/year and is planned to be operational from 2010.

3.8.3. Planned Investment and Costs Very little information is available in relation to the funding of future projects in Westminster.

Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) are one of the main mechanisms through which local authorities can procure assets in a value for money way in partnership with the private sector; in that it is a procurement methodology for asset-based services. Local Authorities can enter into long term fixed price contracts with private sector contractors to deliver services to specified performance standards. For example, Defra was granted £280 million of funding through PFI credits in 2007/08, which will be available to help local authorities invest in sustainable waste management options. The PFI credits will rise to £600 million in 2008/09 and £700 million in 2009/10 and 2010/1152.

Waste PFI schemes will help the UK meet the EU Landfill Directive diversion and recycling targets. They also encourage better partnership working between local authorities resulting in efficiency gains, more integrated waste management solutions and the benefits of economies of scale that flow from this and a more strategic approach to planning and procurement.

In the last couple of years, there has been an increase in the number of projects submitted to Defra for consideration for PFI credit support. With that increase has come an improvement in the environmental solutions being proposed. Most of the recently submitted projects have proposed long-term recycling and composting solutions in line with national targets in the Waste Strategy for England 2007; as well as diversion from landfill in excess of EU targets and ambitious waste minimisation proposals that aim to reduce waste growth to 0% per annum in the long term.

Funding is also available from other sources such as the Waste Resource and Action Programme (WRAP). For Greater London in general additional funding is available from the London Waste and Recycling Fund, which has already funded: a green waste composting facility, improvements to civic amenity sites, recycling on estates, the proposed new Riverside Energy from Waste facility at Belvedere, and a planning application for an MBT plant located at Southwark.

52 http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/waste/localauth/funding/pfi/

November 2009 Page 82

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Between 2005 and 2008, funding was also available through the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) via the Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) Programme. The programme was established to return to business £284 million of money raised over that period through the landfill tax escalator. The projects it funded included assisting the construction, manufacturing, retail, recycling and reprocessing industries to reduce waste and encourage recycling53.

Following this programme, a range of advice and support is now available to businesses and Local Authorities through Business Link54 and the Brew Centre55.

3.8.4. Assessment and Recommendations There is limited information concerning the funding or potential capacity of WCC‟s planned waste management facilities. However, work is be undertaken by WCC to address this. WCC see a growing role for 'micro treatment' facilities such as that at the Church Street Estate, and is currently surveying other potential sites (especially housing estates) for similar food waste collection/processing operations.

The composition of Westminster‟s MSW is predominantly generated by commercial and visitor activities. The City of Westminster has predicted that the population of the borough will increase but has also predicted that this will not lead to a corresponding increase in the total arisings of MSW. No information was available to confirm how Westminster plans to reduce the volume of MSW generated per person. However, this could be linked to a predicted reduction in commercial waste or street litter. Therefore URS cannot make a judgement as to whether this prediction is reasonable. However, URS has observed that waste generation in the borough has decreased since 1996/7.

As described above, WCC transfers the majority of MSW out of Westminster for treatment or disposal, therefore relying on the availability of resources of surrounding London boroughs. Anecdotal evidence from the City of Westminster indicates that this arrangement is currently providing an adequate service for the volume of waste generated in the Westminster. As WCC has predicted that waste arisings will not increase in the future, it could also be assumed that adequate provision may be available in the future. However, there is no guarantee that the services currently provided by surrounding boroughs will be available in the future and this constitutes a risk to the adequate management of waste in the future.

53 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/support/

54 http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?topicId=1079068363&r.s=tl

55 http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=1212811

November 2009 Page 83

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

4. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT

4.1. Introduction The City of Westminster is a major employment area with 568,900 workers (Core Strategy Preferred Options, July 2008). Westminster is also a major tourism and retail destination, and together these uses significantly expand the daytime resident population of some 230,000 people. Westminster, therefore, experiences a large daily influx of workers and visitors that places significant pressure on available transport resources, including roads, car parks and public spaces.

Given its central location, much of the transport infrastructure that serves movements to, from and within Westminster are provided by other parties, including Transport fro London and Network Rail. However, Westminster is the highway authority for over 90% of roads in Westminster and is responsible for public spaces and several car parks.

While the majority of trips into Westminster arrive by rail or tube, the majority of movements around Westminster are by vehicle (car, bus, taxi, coach, cycle etc.) or on foot. The intensity of such movements, and especially walk movements on confined footways, creates a need to continuously ensure that such facilities are maintained to standards sufficient to maintain the status of Westminster as an attractive place to live, work or visit.

4.2. Baseline Baseline travel conditions within Westminster have been assessed for each mode of travel. This forms the basis for an assessment of future needs and areas where there may be gaps in infrastructure provision.

The City of Westminster is well served by public transport. An assessment of public transport accessibility levels (PTAL) for the City of Westminster shows that the majority of the city has an excellent or very good PTAL index. This is illustrated in Figure 4-1.

November 2009 Page 84

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 4-1: City of Westminster Public Transport Accessibility Levels

Source: WCC, Planning and City Development

This high level of accessibility and connectivity is provided by the London Underground network (32 stations providing links to all underground lines except the Waterloo & City line), a high provision of bus services and the rail network. Accessibility is very good across almost the whole of Westminster, with only areas north of Regent‟s Park and south Pimlico showing moderate levels of accessibility.

A key determinant of peak travel demands in Westminster is journeys to work, with many trips being made by non-city residents into Westminster. The 2001 census data includes details of journeys to work by mode of travel and data has been extracted for both jobs located in Westminster (inbound) and jobs held by residents but located outside Westminster (outbound). Table 4-1 shows the modal characteristics of inbound and outbound journeys to work.

November 2009 Page 85

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 4-1: Journey to Work Modal Share for City of Westminster (2001)

Inbound to Jobs in Outbound to Jobs Westminster from Westminster Mode (%) (%) London Underground 36 36

National Rail 32 4

Bus 10 14

Car (driver and passenger) 12 16

Taxi 1 2

Motorcycle 2 1

Bicycle 2 3

Walk 5 22

Other 0 1

Total 100 100 Source: Census (2001)

Table 4-1 shows that the majority of trips to work in Westminster are by rail modes, i.e. London Underground (36%) and National Rail (32%). Together with bus and taxi use, public transport modes account for 79% of all inbound trips. Only 10% of jobs in Westminster are accessed by car.

Westminster residents show a higher propensity to travel to work by car (this includes travel to jobs) with 16% using this mode. A high percentage of residents walk to work (22%), reflecting the high numbers of residents who both live and work in Westminster.

The level of crowding on the public transport network facilitates an understanding of travel conditions on the public transport network. Existing levels of crowding on the tube network in Westminster is detailed in Figure 4-2. The black bands represent very crowded conditions and the red bands indicate crowded conditions. The Victoria line between Victoria and Green Park and north of Oxford Circus is very crowded. The Bakerloo line between Oxford Circus and Marylebone is also very crowded.

November 2009 Page 86

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 4-2: London Underground Crowding in 2005 (AM Peak)

Baker Street

Holborn Bond Street

Victoria Very Crowded Crowded Busy Uncrowded Source: T2025

As well as crowding on underground lines in the City of Westminster, there are also significant levels of crowding at a number of LUL stations. In the most extreme cases, this can lead to partial or full station closures during peak period. Of the ten busiest stations, in 2005/06, on the underground network four are located in the City of Westminster, namely Victoria (67.82 million passengers), Oxford Circus (63.06 million passengers), Paddington (34.29 million passengers) and Piccadilly Circus (33.76 million passengers). The four stations that are included in LUL‟s forward programme of congestion relief works are all located within the City of Westminster, namely; Victoria; Tottenham Court Road; Paddington; and Bond Street stations.

Only Westminster underground station has step free access. Projects are planned for Tottenham Court Road, Victoria, Paddington, Green Park and Baker Street stations.

Several stations have poor quality public realm these include Victoria, Paddington and Tottenham Court Road stations.

The National Rail Network serving Westminster operates out of four main line termini, namely Marylebone, Paddington, Victoria and Charing Cross, serving the north-west, west London, the south-west and the south-east, all of which have step free access. Figure 4-3 shows crowding levels on National Rail services. There is crowding on lines into Marylebone and Paddington. All four stations cater for high numbers of passengers. Paddington and Victoria provide direct connections to Gatwick and Heathrow airports.

November 2009 Page 87

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

The GLA‟s Transport Committee produced „The Big Squeeze – Rail overcrowding in London‟ (February 2009). This document reports that London‟s rail network is overcrowded and that trains are more crowded than reported in official figures. In addition two-thirds of London commuters are dissatisfied with crowding on peak rail services with some services so packed that there are health and safety risks. In fact London performs worse than in other areas of the UK.

Figure 4-3: National Rail Crowding in 2006 (Peak)

Source: T2025

The Interchange Plan – Improving interchange in London (Transport for London, August 2002) identifies Paddington, Victoria and Charing Cross as major central London termini requiring future investment/development. Tottenham Court Road, Leicester Square, Piccadilly Circus, Edgware Road (H&C line), Oxford Circus and Bond Street are all a priority within the other major central London termini category. These have been selected because the quality gap is greatest. Particular interchanges, such as Victoria, have been selected because they suffer from capacity constraints as a result of high levels of interchange, which mean that they have to close regularly to control passenger flows. It is not possible to consistently compare measures of crowding at stations due to differences in the composition of stations such as platform length and any problems tend to be isolated to specific areas of facilities, such as gatelines or escalators.

A number of the National Rail stations have poor quality public realm, including Victoria, Paddington and Charing Cross stations.

November 2009 Page 88

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Over 80 bus routes service the City of Westminster. This high level of service provision benefits Westminster in terms of the levels of public transport accessibility provided for residents, workers and visitors travelling to, from and within Westminster. The density of routes enables most major corridors to provide high levels of frequency. However, the sheer volume of buses in some areas, such as Oxford Street, contributes to congestion in the area. This in turn detrimentally impacts bus passenger journey times. Way to Go! Planning for better transport (Nov 2008) highlighted the Mayor's vision for transport in advance of the formal process to revise the Transport Strategy. The document recognises that wall to wall buses on routes such as Oxford Street can be counter productive for pedestrians and the environment.

The London Bus Initiative (LBI) has done much to improve the reliability of buses operating in Westminster with the implementation of bus lanes and other measures. However, buses are still susceptible to road congestion, particularly as a result of road works.

A total of 229 miles of carriageway is located within the City of Westminster, of which 180 miles is within the remit of WCC, 15 miles forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and 35 miles comprises privately maintained streets. TfL is also responsible for the maintenance and operation of traffic signals in Westminster. An area bounded by Vauxhall Bridge Road, Grosvenor Place, Park Lane, Edgware Road, Marylebone Road and Euston Road is subject to the Congestion Charging Scheme (CCS). Recent consultation has determined that the Western Extension of the scheme will be abolished. On the 27 November 2008 the Mayor of London announced his intention to remove the Western Extension of the congestion charging zone following a non-statutory consultation with the public and stakeholders. The earliest the Western extension could be removed is 2010.

Westminster‟s UDP states that „The City of Westminster has unacceptably high levels of through traffic and traffic congestion‟. It is more difficult to define highway conditions due to the diffuse character of the road network. Historically, in central London and therefore in Westminster, average traffic speeds have changed little in the last 100 years at around 10 miles per hour. The introduction of the CCS in February 2003 had a very marked initial effect on traffic volumes entering the charging area. In the first year, all motor vehicles declined by 14% but, since the first year, and despite subsequent increases in charges, the reduction in 2007 is only 16% compared with 2002.

Transport for London also monitors congestion within the charging zone as reported in the Sixth Annual Report (Transport for London, July 2008). In 2002, the average excess vehicle time per kilometre in central London was 2.3 minutes (equivalent to a reduction in speed from 30 mph to 14 mph). Initially, congestion fell following the introduction of charging but by 2007 excess travel time per kilometre was back to 2.3 minutes. There are several contributory factors to this higher level of congestion, including road works, but taking these factors into account there is still an unexplained increase.

How well traffic flows is important not just for private vehicles and buses but for freight as well. Congestion therefore impacts the movement of goods as well as people through Westminster.

November 2009 Page 89

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Walking is seen as an increasingly important mode of transport in its own right. Walking relieves pressure on the public transport network, particularly in central London. Walking from major interchanges such as Victoria helps to relieve overcrowded tube and bus services. The importance of walk trips over short distances is illustrated by the modal shares detailed in Table 4-1, particularly for trips made from the City of Westminster.

The Legible London project by TfL/City of Westminster aims to encourage more people to make short journeys on foot rather than by mechanised modes. Westminster LIP invests in schemes to enhance and improve accessibility for pedestrians. Pedestrians, however, are highly susceptible to a range of problems that reduce the amenity of the walking environment, including traffic, poorly located crossings, narrow footways and street clutter.

The Central London Pedestrian Study (Intelligence Space/Atkins, December 2007) examined pedestrian conditions at 102 key locations and systematically audited these sites against fixed criteria. It is noted that this study only focuses on locations on the TLRN. Several of the sites identified as having the highest priority for improvement are within the City of Westminster. The highest priority sites include Westminster Bridge, Baker Street, Marble Arch and Victoria Station. Many of the problems identified at these locations arise from high pedestrian volumes in areas with inadequate footways and/or formal crossings.

The City of Westminster is served by three piers, namely Embankment Pier, Westminster Millennium Pier and Millbank Millennium Pier. These are served by commuter river services to/from the east (Canary Wharf and Greenwich) and to the west (Putney and Chelsea Harbour). Leisure services also operate to destinations such as Kew and Greenwich.

Opportunity Areas

The London Plan identifies three Opportunity Areas, located within the CAZ, for growth in jobs and homes within Westminster. These are Victoria, Tottenham Court and Paddington and are located around existing key transport interchanges.

Victoria Opportunity Area

The Victoria Opportunity Area is located around Victoria station and is predominantly an area with office and retail uses located adjacent to a residential area. Westminster‟s emerging Core Strategy (July 2008) extends the area to include Chelsea Barracks and Victoria Coach Terminus. The Victoria Area Planning Brief (adopted April 2006) provides strategic planning and transport advice for the area. Since 2006 the Opportunity Area has changed therefore the City of Westminster are in the process of updating the brief.

The 2006 planning brief reports that the Victoria Station is one of the busiest interchanges in London with approximately 75 million passengers per annum using the facilities. The interchange is not adequately catering for this existing demand because:

The LUL station is regularly closed for short periods during the morning peak due to excessive demand

November 2009 Page 90

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Interchange between Network Rail/LUL and bus is across a line of taxis

The interchange is surrounded by strategic highway routes. The network surrounding the station operates at approximately 80% saturation at key junctions during the peak periods

The existing bus station cannot accommodate bus service frequency increases or passenger demand, bus stops are dispersed around the interchange (on-street and within the Terminus Place Bus Station)

Pedestrian space is limited and demand is high, which results in congested footways also a key route (Victoria Interchange to Victoria Street/Bressenden Place) involves crossing three roads

The scale of activity, movement and development results in conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. The area „lacks a coherent sense of place and urban quality‟.

Victoria station is therefore one of the stations included in LUL‟s and Network Rails station improvement/congestion relief scheme.

The Victoria Street, Buckingham Gate and Palace Street draft Planning Brief (March 2007), which is likely to be superseded by the new version of the Victoria Area Planning Brief, also discusses the baseline transport situation. It highlights the high provision of public transport services, including Victoria national rail, underground and bus services, St James‟s Park underground station and the bus services along Victoria Street. The brief raises concerns about the level of pedestrian and vehicle congestion on Victoria Street due, respectively, to a very high level of pedestrian demand and buses stopping to pick up/set down passengers.

Paddington Opportunity Area

The Paddington Opportunity Area is located around Paddington station. It is already a successful regeneration area with new office and residential developments in a predominantly residential location. The emerging LDF Core Strategy extends the boundary to include the area of railway land west of Paddington Goods Yard and school site.

The Paddington Station and Environs revisions to draft planning brief cited some key conclusions from the July 2006 Paddington Area Transport Study 4:

There are likely to be significant capacity problems at Paddington and Edgware Road, Bakerloo, and Hammersmith and City underground stations, although Crossrail and various proposed improvements could relieve these problems

Line capacity is most constrained on the Bakerloo Line (southbound). Proposed line improvements and Crossrail would relieve these problems

November 2009 Page 91

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

There is scope to enhance the bus network to provide greater accessibility and capacity.

Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area

The Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area is located at the eastern end of Oxford Street and is therefore dominated by retail and entertainment uses, with some office use.

Tottenham Court Road station is very accessible by public transport and it will be substantially enhanced with the delivery of Crossrail. It is served by Tottenham Court Road station and numerous bus services, but is within walking distance to Holborn, Covent Garden, Goodge Street and Leicester Square underground stations.

The Tottenham Court Road area is a highly constrained environment for pedestrians and public transport passengers with narrow and constricted footways, often cluttered by street vendors, and roads with poor crossing facilities. It is one of the busiest parts of central London and is home to tourist attractions, retail, bars and theatres. It is also an important location for interchange between buses and the underground.

Despite the good access to different modes, interchange is difficult. However, the provision of new transport infrastructure is the opportunity required to improve interchange opportunities.

Pedestrian activity has increased without any increase in footway capacity. For example the north side of Oxford Street, adjacent to the Tottenham Pub, is a pinch point. The location of the tube entrance/exits on the southern side causes congestion. Consequently, pedestrians spill onto the road to pass each other at all locations in this area.

There is a lack of pedestrian facilities on the west side of Charing Cross Road because of the water feature in front of the Centre Point building. Therefore a lot of pedestrian activity occurs on the west side although people do still walk alongside the water fountain. There are many impediments to convenient pedestrian movement; very high two way footfall, narrow and non-existent footways and lack of pedestrian crossing facilities.

The high amount of pedestrian activity during the day and the night leaves very little time for undertaking servicing activities during quieter periods.

A high number of bus movements including terminating services occur here. The total number of buses negotiating the junction during the day is in the region of 325 buses per hour. The buses emerging onto the St Giles Street junction from Oxford Street are the infamous (described in the Way to Go! Planning for better transport 2008) services that contribute towards the streets reputation as being a „red wall‟ of buses. Buses along with taxis make up the majority of vehicles to/from Oxford Street. It is possible that competing demand for road space as a result of

The area is also an unpleasant area to cycle around. It is difficult to introduce cycle lanes because of the limited road space, complex junctions, heavy traffic and one-way systems. The one-way systems have reduced the quality of the environment and therefore have led to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists being insufficiently provided for.

November 2009 Page 92

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Tottenham Court Road station, like much of the surrounding area, suffers from congestion throughout the day. It is one of the stations included in Transport for London‟s congestion relief programme and is currently being enlarged.

Retail Centres

The emerging LDF Core Strategy designates the West End and Knightsbridge as „International Centres‟, which are the focus of large scale retail activity. Both destinations require comprehensive public transport provision to facilitate access to the centres.

Oxford Street has a high level of pedestrian activity. Pedestrian surveys undertaken as part of the Jan Gehl Public Spaces and Public Life study (2004) showed that pedestrian traffic on Oxford Street peaks between 11.30am and 6.30pm. Pedestrian counts undertaken on 9 July 2003 displayed that a total of 127,857 pedestrians used Oxford Street West between 8.00am and 10.00pm. For Oxford Street East the total figure was 138,080 pedestrians. No additional footway capacity has been provided to cater for the level of demand. The pedestrian environment is constrained for pedestrians and public transport passengers.

Oxford Circus is one of the busiest stations on the underground network. Figure 4-2 illustrated the crowded nature of the tube lines serving Oxford Circus and other stations that serve Oxford Street.

Buses along with taxis comprise the majority of vehicles on Oxford Street. Buses have the reputation of being a „red wall‟ of buses along the street. The level of capacity provided along Oxford Street is in excess of demand because the busiest point on a route drives the level of service provided and are located elsewhere. Buses are therefore a significant contributor to the levels of road congestion in the area. Way to Go! Planning for better transport 2008 recognises that wall to wall buses can be counter productive for pedestrians and the environment.

The Crossrail Bond Street Station Eastern Ticket Hall Draft Planning Brief highlights the existing conflict between pedestrians and vehicles in and around Hanover Square. Any additional demand, particularly for routes to Oxford Street and Regent Street will therefore require detailed consideration of how to cater for it. The Crossrail: Bond Street Station Western Ticket Hall Draft Planning Brief also raises the issue of conflict between pedestrians and vehicles around the northern end of Davies Street and adjoining streets.

The emerging LDF Core Strategy recommends that an improved pedestrian environment along Oxford Street and some adjoining streets, including „the formation of Oasis‟s of open space and the reduction of pedestrian and vehicular congestion‟ are provided. Improved linkages to visitor attractions such as the British Museum and Covent Garden should also be provided.

4.3. Forecast Demand As employment levels and the number of residents increase in the City of Westminster travel demand is projected to increase significantly. The City of Westminster‟s target as

November 2009 Page 93

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

set out in the London Plan (2008) for additional homes up to 2016/17 is set at 6,800 homes.

More specifically, the three Opportunity Areas (Victoria, Tottenham Court and Paddington) identified in the London Plan as areas for growth in jobs and homes within Westminster. These Opportunity Areas are located around existing key transport interchanges and have indicative employment and new home forecasts. Table 4-2 details the theoretical capacity for jobs and minimum capacity for homes as set out in the Draft Core Strategy Preferred Options document.

Table 4-2: Indicative Employment and New Home Forecasts for City of Westminster Opportunity Areas

Indicative Indicative new Area employment homes (minimum) Opportunity Area (ha) capacity 2001-2026 2001-2026 Paddington 38 23,200 3,000

Tottenham Court Road 19* 5,000 1,000

Victoria 52 8,000 1,000 * only 36% of the Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area is in Westminster, comprising 6.8 ha.

Source: Emerging LDF Core Strategy

To meet these growth projections various transport measures are required in order to provide the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the movement of people and goods to and from the area. These measures are outlined in Westminster‟s emerging LDF Core Strategy. The measures required for the Victoria Opportunity Area are:

Significant improvements in pedestrian routes, movement and environment

Upgrades to increase capacity of the Victoria line and the District and Circle line stations

Improved rail station

Improved London buses interchange design and layout

Safeguarding of Crossrail Line 2

Improved public realm throughout the transport interchange

Cycle parking facilities.

The measures required for the Paddington Opportunity Area are:

Provision of public transport improvements to meet the long term needs of the area, including Crossrail and improvements to underground stations

November 2009 Page 94

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Improvements to pedestrian accessibility.

The Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area will require:

The provision of public transport improvements to meet the long term needs of the area, including accommodation of Crossrail and associated station upgrades

Public realm improvements.

There is no specific data for expected changes in modal patterns in the City of Westminster. However, T2025 provides a general indication of changes in modal patterns in London. In general car trips are expected to fall and public transport and cycle trips to increase.

T2025 does provide an indication of rail growth by corridor and this is shown in Figure 4-4. Rail trips into central London are forecast to increase by between 10% and 40% with the highest levels of growth into Paddington in the City of Westminster.

Figure 4-4: Growth in Rail Trips into Central London to 2025

Source: T2025

Recent evidence given to the GLA Assembly by Transport for London (Cross River Tram, London Assembly Transport Committee, October 2008) included an update of the T2025 Reference Case rail crowding assessment. The revised assessment for 2026 includes all PPP upgrades, Crossrail and Cross River Tram (for which preparatory work has since been suspended). Figure 4-5 shows projected crowding levels on the tube network.

November 2009 Page 95

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 4-5: London Underground Crowding Levels in 2026

Source: Cross River Tram, London Assembly Transport Committee, October 2008

Figure 4-5 shows only a marginal worsening of conditions compared with the base (2006) situation shown in Figure 4-2. Crowding on the Jubilee line between Baker Street and Green Park has worsened. Crossrail, in particular, has helped to alleviate some of the crowding on east/west links. The omission of Cross River Tram is expected to increase crowding levels on the Victoria, Northern and Piccadilly lines within the central area, including Westminster by about 5%.

The equivalent rail crowding levels in 2026 are shown in Figure 4-6.

November 2009 Page 96

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 4-6: National Rail Crowding Levels in 2026

Source: Cross River Tram, London Assembly Transport Committee, October 2008

Crowding levels at Paddington station are shown to have been alleviated by Crossrail.

The forward investment programme is outlined below and this now includes several high profile schemes such as Crossrail that will start to provide much needed capacity improvements.

Bus trips into central London have increased markedly in recent years and T2025 is projecting a further 40% increase in bus patronage. In general, increased bus use is simply met by the provision of more frequent services on heavily used routes. There have been some changes to bus technology with higher capacity vehicles, although the Mayor has announced a phased reduction in articulated (bendy) buses that have the highest carrying capacity.

Way to Go! Planning for better transport 2008 also recognises that wall to wall buses on some routes in central London (such as Oxford Street) can be counter-productive for pedestrians and the environment. A more efficient distribution of bus capacity is sought but there is no easy answer to this problem given the difficulties inherent in changing the bus network. It is likely that any changes to bus services will continue to be incremental. However, the cancellation of Cross River Tram would require extra capacity to be provided on the routes it would have served in order to minimise over-crowding. The long term provision of terminating space for bus services will also need to be considered.

November 2009 Page 97

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

4.4. Planned Investment and Costs The investment programmes that will impinge upon travel conditions in the City of Westminster are being delivered by national and regional governments and the local highway authorities.

Westminster‟s LIP, published in July 2004, sets out the transport proposals which support the Mayor‟s Transport Strategy. The LIP identifies proposals to improve accessibility, reduce congestion, improve social inclusion, reduce the amount of traffic, reduce emissions, improve safety and security, improve air quality, reduce noise quality and improve the health and Londoners.

The LIP outlines projects to improve the accessibility to the City of Westminster. It includes accessibility improvements to Paddington, Charing Cross and Victoria stations. It discusses the importance of bus priority and the need to improve bus journey times. The LIP details a number of bus priority schemes and proposes a list of works to make all bus stops accessible. Improvements to pedestrian facilities and pedestrian safety are proposed. A programme of improvements to improve conditions for pedestrians, to investigate pedestrian phases at signalled controlled junctions and footway schemes are detailed in the LIP.

Improving traffic flows is also addressed specifically for buses and taxis. Proposals to improve the public realm are included, including integration with interchange schemes such as Paddington and Victoria. Westminster recognises the importance of coach travel in Westminster and as such will ensure that on-street provision is made for coaches near main tourist attractions, public transport hubs and other key destinations for coaches. Cycling schemes including LCN proposed routes and non LCN initiatives are detailed. Table 4-3 details the schemes contained in Westminster‟s LIP and associated costs to the date of opening.

November 2009 Page 98

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 4-3: City of Westminster Infrastructure Projects

Opening Project Status Date Cost1

Mayor‟s 100 Public Spaces FC 2009 To be confirmed

Accessibility including Subway, TTS UC 2009 £1,650,000 and Tactile

Station Access Marylebone Station FC 2009 To be confirmed

Station Access Charing Cross UC 2009 £811,000 Station

Station Access Victoria Station FC 2009 To be confirmed

Bus Priority FC 2009 To be confirmed

Bus Stop Accessibility UC 2009 £434,000

Cycling LCN+ UC 2009 £2,975,000

Cycling Non LCN+ Cycle Parking UC 2009 £320,000

Walking UC 2009 £2,700,000

Town Centre Schemes – West End UC 2009 £16,010 Leicester Square Town Centre Schemes – West End FC 2009 To be confirmed Oxford Street Town Centre Schemes – Shopping UC 2009 £1,000,000 Streets: Praed Street Town Centre Schemes – Shopping UC 2009 £2,900,000 Streets: Harrow Road Town Centre Schemes – Shopping UC 2009 £3,000,000 Streets: Marylebone High Street Accessibility including Subway, TTS and Tactile Paving and Signing UC 2009 £1,650,000 Improvements 1 Funding total for 2005-2009 U/C – Under Construction, C - Committed Source: Local Implementation Plan

The emerging LDF Core Strategy states that Westminster „will support and promote improvements to transport infrastructure as detailed in the LIP (as outlined above) and include the following:

Crossrail

Victoria

November 2009 Page 99

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Cross River Tram

Paddington

Improvements to Underground stations including access and environment

Improvements to the public realm, with a focus on meeting the needs of people with disabilities and more vulnerable people

Increasing cycle parking across Westminster.

Network Rail is responsible for the national rail network, including the major rail termini, but its spending priorities are set by the Department for Transport and the Office of the Rail Regulator. Transport for London is responsible for strategic roads and buses and manages the tube PPP contract.

For the purposes of defining infrastructure, these have been grouped into Network Rail, Transport for London and City of Westminster schemes. Schemes are also grouped by status as either under construction, committed or planned. Committed schemes have completed all statutory processes and have a funding commitment. All schemes considered would increase transport provision in central London, including schemes that would provide additional capacity for travellers into the CAZ.

Network Rail forward plans are developed through its route utilisation strategies (RUS) that are specific to each line group or franchise. A RUS covers a ten year period – there are several that are relevant to central London although some, such as the South London RUS (March 2008).

Rail priorities are set by the Department for Transport in its High Level Output Statement (HLOS), which are incorporated into the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan. The latter currently covers the period 2009 to 2014 and is known as Control Period 4 (CP4). Table 4-4 summarises Network Rail projects programmed in CP4. Projects beyond CP4 are discussed below but any such schemes are subject to DfT approval and funding.

Table 4-4: Network Rail Infrastructure Projects

Opening Project Description Status Date Cost1 Integrated Kent 12-car trains to Charing Cross/8- C 2014 £56 million Franchise car trains to Victoria 12-car trains East Grinstead to Brighton and £101 Victoria/10-car suburban trains to C 2014 Sussex million Victoria

Major Stations Victoria C/P ? n/a

1 – Costs for 2014 schemes taken from Office of Rail Regulator Periodic Review PR08 Source: Network Rail Strategic Business Plan

November 2009 Page 100

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Service improvements on the lines into Charing Cross and Victoria will increase capacity on busy commuter routes through the introduction of longer trains.

Network Rail has a programme of improvements at major rail termini, including Victoria station. In most cases, major improvements are linked to station development masterplans and involve private sector partnerships.

The period from 2014 is less clear and will depend upon the Strategic Business Plan for Control Period 5 (to 2019). The Route Utilisation Strategies (where available) do provide some indication of priorities and possible schemes but it is too early in the scheme development and funding process to put too much weight on possibilities. However, CP5 is likely to continue the theme of increasing capacity, where possible, on routes into London terminals.

Transport for London has varied responsibilities for transport services in London. TfL is the sponsor for responsible for delivering the Crossrail project and will let the contract to operate the services.

TfL operates tube stations and trains but rolling stock, track and signalling systems are maintained and upgraded by the Private Public Partnership (PPP) companies that, in effect, make these systems available to London Underground. Payments to the PPP are based on availability and performance. However, the recent demise of Metronet has resulted in its contractual responsibilities being assumed by TfL. The remaining PPP Infraco, Tube Lines, remains responsible for the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines.

Transport for London rail and tube projects that are relevant to the City of Westminster are summarised in Table 4-5. The list of schemes in Table 4-5 is taken from the TfL Business Plan – this lists schemes that, in most cases, will be completed by 2018 and includes costs only to this date.

November 2009 Page 101

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 4-5: Transport for London Infrastructure Projects

Opening Project Description Status Date Cost

Crossrail East/West rail link C 2017 £17 billion

New signalling system to allow 30 Jubilee Line trains per hour in peak (25% U/C 2009 n/a increase in capacity) Higher frequency and larger trains Victoria Line C 2012 n/a (19% increase in capacity) Phase 1 signalling system to U/C 2012 n/a improve speeds and frequency

Northern Line (20% increase in capacity)

Phase 2 separation of Bank and P 2020 n/a Charing Cross lines at Kennington New signalling system and trains Piccadilly Line C 2014 n/a (25% increase in capacity) New train stock with longer and District Line more frequent trains (47% C 2018 n/a increase in capacity) New train stock and higher Metropolitan Line frequency services (49% increase C 2016 n/a in capacity) New train stock, longer trains and Circle and higher frequency with merged T- Hammersmith & C 2016 n/a cup service (49% increase in City Lines capacity) New trains, signalling and Bakerloo Line improved frequency (40% C 2022 n/a increase in capacity) Station Victoria (2017), Paddington Congestion (2014), Tottenham Court Road C n/a Schemes (2016), Bond Street (2016) U/C – Under Construction, C – Committed, P - Planned Source: TfL Business Plan

The above table does include one scheme that is post-2018 and that is the separation of the Northern line branches at Kennington, which is currently not committed. This is regarded as a priority by LUL as it would release additional capacity on the Northern line branches through central London. However, the definition of this scheme is still being considered and there are several options for how separation could be achieved. Full separation would also trigger additional station upgrade costs.

Beyond 2018, it is also likely that further consideration will be given to Cross River Tram. Other major projects that are ongoing include Cooling the Tube and the increasing roll- out of air conditioned carriages on sub-surface lines.

Way to Go! Planning for better transport 2008 states that Transport for London will do everything in its power to facilitate an increase in the number of people walking in

November 2009 Page 102

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

London. This will require the removal of physical or perceived barriers to walking including improving safety and security, the provision of high quality public space the removal of street clutter. A balance will need to be struck between pedestrian accessibility and capacity and traffic flows.

Continuing programmes to increase the number of cyclists are detailed in T2025 and include:

Upgrade and expand the cycle network

Increase cycle safety, access and priority

Improve facilities at origin, on route and destination

Improve education and training

Promote cycling as part of a healthy lifestyle.

This is promoted by the Mayor in Way to Go! Planning for better transport 2008. In addition the introduction of the London Cycle Hire Scheme will further promote cycling. Conflict between cyclists and other road users, including pedestrians will need to be addressed.

4.5. Assessment of Existing Growth Strategies Network Rail, through its Strategic Business Plan, and Transport for London, through its Business Plan, are both making provision for increased commuter demand on rail and tube routes serving the City of Westminster. Both deliver significant increases in capacity in the medium term.

The London underground network will see significant enhancements to its line capacity over the next 10 years. The programme of investment also includes some station congestion relief schemes, which are scheduled for Victoria, Paddington, Tottenham Court Road and Bond Street stations. These schemes are necessary to cater for the additional demand that will be generated by the growth in employment and homes that will occur at these locations and are supported by Westminster‟s emerging LDF Core Strategy.

The existing and future capacities on rail and tube lines have been assessed and these are an accurate reflection of programmed improvements to 2014 and 2018 respectively. Network Rail gives forecasts to 2014 and beyond this an average rate of growth is assumed derived from DfT sources. Tube passenger growth has been profiled based on employment growth – this is a simplification given expected variations by corridor.

The Network Rail investment programme discussed above will deliver higher capacity on rail routes into the main London terminals. Table 4-6 summarises an assessment of the effects of this programme and projects this forward to 2026. Load factors are given for each station (defined as seats plus standing space divided by 0.45m2 per passenger on commuter services).

November 2009 Page 103

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 4-6: Load Factors on Rail Routes into London Terminals located in City of Westminster

Existing Load Capacit Load Load Demand Capacit Factor Demand y Factor Demand Factor Terminal 2008/9 y (%) 2013/14 2013/14 (%) 20261 (%)

Marylebone 4,600 7,500 61 5,200 8,800 59 6,200 70

Paddington 11,500 11,900 97 12,900 13,400 96 15,400 115

Victoria 29,300 41,900 70 32,100 46,500 69 38,400 83

Total 45,400 61,300 74 50,200 68,700 73 60,000 87

1 – Assumes 1.5% per annum growth on all routes Source: Delivering Sustainable Railways White Paper CM7176, DfT

The current load factor (2008/09) for the London terminal stations within the City of Westminster is 74%, with Paddington station operating close to capacity. The overall load factor is projected to remain at a similar level to 2014 based on increases in capacity included in the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan. Paddington station, therefore, will continue to operate close to capacity. By 2026, however, the overall load factor will increase to 87%, with Paddington Station operating over capacity.

Crossrail will provide additional rail capacity into Paddington from 2017/18 onwards. In theory, Crossrail will provide a peak hour capacity of 15,000 passengers into Paddington (based on provisional capacity of 1,500 passengers per train). However, the 10 Crossrail trains in the peak hour will replace existing commuter services. Crossrail will provide relief to London Underground services as much as to National Rail services.

Transport for London PPP upgrades, as discussed above, will deliver significant additional capacity on tube lines into Westminster. Table 4-7 summarises load factors by line into the City of Westminster. Load factors are based on LUL planning standards and reflect committed line upgrade plans as discussed above.

November 2009 Page 104

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 4-7: Load Factors on London Underground Lines into Westminster

Existing Load Capacit Load Load Demand Capacit Factor Demand y Factor Demand Factor Line (from) 2007 y (%) 2018 2018 (%) 2026 (%)

Northern (North) 8,662 13,034 66 10,317 15,641 66 11,885 63

Bakerloo (North) 7,070 15,994 44 8,421 22,072 38 9,701 44

Victoria (North) 21,056 23,240 91 25,080 27656 91 28,892 104

Piccadilly (East) 10,075 16,368 62 12,000 20,460 59 13,824 68

Central (East) 14,003 26,640 53 16,679 33,300 50 19,214 58

Metropolitan 11,938 14,588 82 14,220 21,736 65 16,381 75 (North)

Hammersmith & 3,518 5,152 68 4,190 7,676 55 4,827 63 City (East)

District (East) 9,118 18,128 50 10,861 26,648 41 12,511 47

Jubilee (East) 13,223 17,052 78 15,750 22,679 69 18,144 80

Circle (East) 1,548 5,152 30 1,844 7,676 24 2,124 28

Northern (South) 10,683 13,720 78 12,725 16,464 77 14,659 74

Bakerloo (South) 6,180 15,994 39 7,361 22,072 33 8,480 38

Victoria (South) 16,012 23,240 69 19,072 27,656 69 21,971 79

District (West) 14,389 18,128 79 17,139 26,648 64 19,744 74

Piccadilly (West) 11,847 16,368 72 14,111 20,460 69 16,256 79

Central (West) 13,972 23,976 58 16,642 29,970 56 19,172 64

Metropolitan 2,748 14,588 19 3,273 17,506 19 3,771 22 (South)

Jubilee (North) 15,753 19,488 81 18,764 25,919 72 21,615 83

Circle (West) 2,689 5,152 52 3,203 7,676 42 3,690 48

Total 189,906 311,154 61 228,218 407,592 56 260,577 63

1 No capacity changes assumed post-2018 except for the Northern line Source: RODs

November 2009 Page 105

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

London Underground services into the City of Westminster are currently operating at 61% capacity. The Victoria line from the north is currently operating in excess of 90% of capacity. Some lines have a significant amount of spare capacity as they enter the City of Westminster such as the Circle line from the east and the Metropolitan line from the south.

Planned line upgrades to 2018 will increase tube capacity into the City of Westminster by 30%. As such the operating load factor into the City falls by 5% to 56% of capacity. Nevertheless the Victoria line from the north will continue to operate in excess of 90%.

In 2026 all London Underground lines, with the exception of the Victoria line from the North are shown to be operating well within capacity in 2026.

Rail and tube upgrades will provide most of the increase in public transport capacity to 2026.

The forward investment programme will therefore start to provide much needed capacity improvements. However, there will still be high levels of crowding on some commuter routes and station congestion. Westminster‟s emerging LDF Core Strategy also supports the transport infrastructure improvements at Victoria and Paddington stations, but also supports improvements to underground station, including access to/from them and their surrounding environment.

Bus trips into central London and therefore Westminster have increased markedly in recent years. T2025 is projecting a further increase in bus patronage. In general terms increase in bus use has been addressed by increasing frequencies, particularly on key bus corridors where services are heavily used. In some cases additional capacity has been provided by higher capacity vehicles such as articulated buses on routes such as the 38 and 73.

Transport for London expects to operate an additional 8% bus kilometres by 2018 but it is projecting a 40% increase in patronage by 2026. A more efficient distribution of bus capacity is sought but there is no easy answer to this problem given the difficulties inherent in changing the bus network. A strategic review of bus services in London is commencing in Spring 2009 and only after this has been reported will it be possible to gauge the extent to which current investment plans are adequate.

The cancellation of Cross River Tram would remove the only tram/transit project serving the City of Westminster from Transport for London‟s investment programme. It is unlikely in the short term, with current financial constraints, that any proposals will now come forward before 2018. Cross River Tram is supported by Westminster‟s emerging LDF Core Strategy.

Bus priority and bus stop accessibility projects continue to be provided for within Westminster‟s LIP.

There are no plans for major new highways in the City of Westminster or indeed central London. Transport for London‟s emphasis is now firmly on traffic management to improve capacity. Capacity increases are expected to be generated by increasing green time for

November 2009 Page 106

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

vehicles at traffic signals and through other signal improvements. In this light, schemes such as Parliament Square that could have potentially reduced highway capacity have been shelved. This will facilitate the movement of freight as well as private vehicles.

There are no plans for additional piers within Westminster. However, use of the Thames for the movement of people and waste is promoted in the emerging LDF Core Strategy. Enhanced access to the river is also discussed.

The London Cycle Network (LCN) within Westminster continues to be a project contained within the LIP. In addition Westminster will look to provide additional cycle parking within Westminster both through WCC initiatives and through private development.

Conclusions

The infrastructure investment programme for the rail and underground network serving the City of Westminster should cater for the increase in demand that will result from housing and employment growth to 2026. Our analysis shows that committed schemes in the City of Westminster, and on rail routes into Westminster, should at least hold conditions on the rail network stable and, at the same time, providing much needed modernisation. The funding of this programme is subject to several factors, including central Government grants, private sector contributions and primary legislation on supplementary business rates, and its delivery is contingent upon target levels of funding being achieved.

These line upgrades, however, will require an increase in station capacity on the network. Victoria, Paddington, Bond Street and Tottenham Court Road are the only stations in the City of Westminster that are programmed for improvement. These are probably higher on the agenda as a result of developer funding/contributions and Crossrail.

The increased numbers of passengers travelling into Westminster‟s mainline termini will in turn increase demand on the tube, bus, and street networks connecting into Victoria and Charing Cross as these passengers continue their onward journey. It is possible that these additional numbers could negate planned improvements. Consequently catering for the onward movement of people from Westminster‟s mainline termini and key stations is important. Promoting walking rather than onward movement by underground ort bus will be crucial to reducing congestion on these modes during peak hours. This will require investment in public realm and wayfinding.

Bus patronage is projected to increase by 40% in London and by a broadly comparable amount in central London and therefore Westminster, yet London Buses expects bus kilometres operated to increase by only 8% to 2018. The placing of Cross River Tram in cold storage places even greater emphasis on the bus network to deliver full capacity for shorter distance trips within the central area, which is considered unrealistic so the need for the Cross River Tram is likely to remain. Way to Go! Planning for better transport 2008 proposes a fresh look at bus services and Transport for London has already commended a review of how it procures bus services. It is expected that this will herald a more comprehensive strategic review of bus services.

November 2009 Page 107

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Regardless of the number of buses and bus passengers circulating in central London, buses are just as prone as other vehicles to delays caused by congestion and road works. The Mayor has announced a blitz on road works but the reality is that the replacement of life-expired utilities will continue for many years. Buses, in recent years, have helped to relieve pressure on congested rail services and this should abate in coming years.

Westminster‟s emerging LDF Core Strategy requires a higher level of priority to be given to the pedestrian environment. This is particularly appropriate for areas that have high numbers of pedestrian movements such as Oxford Street and Victoria. Initiatives brought forward by WCC within the LIP to improve accessibility for pedestrians and London wide schemes such as Legible London should encourage higher numbers of walking in Westminster.

Increased pedestrian capacity and improvements to the pedestrian environment including way-finding will be necessary to cater for this increasingly important mode. This is particularly important around stations where there is a significant amount of onward movement of people such as at Victoria and Tottenham Court Road. This is a priority in the short term.

Higher levels of cycling are likely given WCC and TfL promotion and investment in the LCN+, cycle parking, bikeability and the cycle hire schemes and cycle superhighway. This will encourage higher levels of cycling for commuters and visitors.

An increase in walking and cycling trips should reduce shorter distance trips on buses. It is worth noting that increases in pedestrians and cycles, compete for capacity with vehicles. This will need addressing, particularly in areas that are already congested.

Delays caused by congestion and road works affect private vehicles, freight and buses. The Mayor has announced a blitz on road works but the reality is that the replacement of life-expired utilities will continue for many years.

The Congestion Charging Scheme has reduced the number of vehicles entering the zone by 16% compared with 2002 levels, but still about 380,000 vehicles per day enter during the hours of charging. Of the vehicles (excluding pedal cycles) circulating within the zone, less than 63% are potentially chargeable (as measured by vehicle kilometres driven). The congestion benefits of the charging zone have been largely negated in recent years by road works and many highway routes within the zone are seriously congested. There are no plans for significant infrastructure investment in Westminster or central London, but Transport for London makes a significant financial commitment to traffic management improvements, new signal systems (SCOOT) and real-time monitoring. The Mayor has announced a programme of re-timing traffic signals to increase capacity but this will take several years to complete.

The current strategy based on high-tech traffic management solutions and focusing on blackspots is the correct approach. However, the impact upon pedestrian flows needs to be considered.

November 2009 Page 108

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

The current investment plans to 2018, which include LUL upgrades and Crossrail clearly add significant additional public transport capacity but leave several residual problems or issues. Post-2018, further capacity increases will be required but, at present, no firm proposals exist. The main investment priorities from this analysis are considered to be as follows:

Extension of LUL station congestion relief programme and improvements to the station environs and access to stations

Strategic review of bus services to redistribute capacity and to compensate for Cross River Tram scheme not being progressed further

Interchange improvements at stations, particularly Paddington

More targeted traffic management measures to alleviate congestion hotspots

Crossrail 2 Chelsea to Hackney line (although funding in unlikely to become available until 2025 so potentially this would not be within the current LDF plan periods)

Public realm improvements at locations identified in Central London Pedestrian Study and other key locations and enhancement to pedestrian facilities to promote walking and to ensure that the needs of vulnerable people and people with disabilities are catered for

Public realm improvements at rail and underground stations

Public realm improvements at major development schemes

Provision of step free access at LUL stations

Revisit Cross River Tram

Wayfinding and directional signage initiatives

Introduction of Legible London

More positive measures to assist cyclists, including priority measures, cycle hire schemes and cycle parking

Possible further extensions to the DLR to Charing Cross and Victoria.

It is important that future transport strategies for each mode are closely linked.

November 2009 Page 109

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5. SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT

5.1. Early Years

5.1.1. Baseline

Childcare in Westminster is delivered by a broad range of providers across the private, voluntary, independent and maintained sectors. Childcare can be full day care or sessional, or delivered in alignment with school hours. Providers in Westminster vary in their approach to charging and fees can be requested on a sessional, weekly, or termly basis. In Westminster charges for childcare can vary between a free government entitlement place for three and four year olds for 12.5 hours a week, and a high end cost of circa £400 for a private full time equivalent place.

The number of children aged between 0 and five taking up childcare places in Westminster is estimated to be between 3,637 and 4,085. There are a total of 112 registered providers across the Private, Voluntary, Independent (PVI) and maintained sector (and an additional 148 childminders) offering a total of 4,352 registered places. Existing spare capacity is estimated at circa 300 places (these are not all full time). This is 9% of the market‟s capacity. Providers rarely work towards 100% because of staffing and ratio factors56.

Based on GLA projection data there are an estimated 11,919 0 to five year olds in Westminster. This means that if every child resident in Westminster wanted to access a childcare place there would be 2.73 children per place.

In 2008 local planning authorities were given a statutory duty to secure sufficient childcare (as far as is reasonably practicable) to meet the needs of parents who want to work or train, particularly in areas of deprivation. National indicators 116, NI153 and LAA 14 to reduce the percentage of children in workless households and increase the number of disadvantaged people in employment reinforce this requirement. Developing a childcare market which is affordable and available to the community supports the child poverty agenda and the city Recovery Programme for sustainable employment. Westminster has a deficit of affordable childcare to meet the needs of low income parents, in the form of affordable full day care and the delivery of free early years places for three and four year olds57. Westminster also has a deficit of holiday places for the three to five age group during the holidays.

56 Personal communication, Early Years Department, WCC, 2009

57 The government requires LAs to deliver free early years places for all three and four year olds. Currently the requirement is for 12.5 hours of free provision per week; this will be increased to 15 hours per week in 2010/11. Westminster currently has a large deficit of free entitlement places for three and four year olds and is not achieving 92% coverage of free entitlement places.

November 2009 Page 110

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

The priority areas for the 0 to five group (i.e. where there is a deficit of childcare places relative to the number of children) are: Bayswater (with 5.5 children per childcare place), Harrow Road (with 5.6), Little Venice (with 5.5), West End (with 4.8). Furthermore a number of areas are key target for affordable / free entitlement places for three and four year olds in low income families, and these include Harrow Road, Church Street, Queen's Park and Westbourne.

5.1.2. Forecast Demand

There is an emphasis on raising the take up of childcare by low income households which is expected to raise the demand for affordable childcare places and the take up of places in general. Providing a sufficient number of childcare places and funding arrangements to ensure childcare provision for everyone will increase the take up from parents. A pilot scheme to provide 15 hours per week free child care for two year olds is likely to further increase the uptake of two year old places, and therefore an increase in demand for child care provision in Westminster is expected58.

Lone Parent Welfare reforms mean that lone parents with children aged seven to12 that currently claim income support will be moved onto Job Seekers Allowance. It is expected that this will increase demand for a childcare place / a „safe place to be‟ for the seven+ age group.59

Table 5-47 summarises the results of URS Westminster infrastructure Model, which was used to forecast demand in the absence of comprehensive provider estimates beyond the five year period. It provides a broad-brush, indicative estimate of the likely increase in demand for early years places and associated spatial requirements arising from the projected residential and commercial growth. The additional demand up to 2026 takes into account the projected growth in resident population and an additional component expected to demand services even if residing elsewhere60. While this demand is expressed as nursery classes of a standard size, as indicated in Section 5.1.1 the nature of the provision, including class sizes, will be much more diverse in reality.

58 Personal communication, Children‟s Strategy, Planning and Performance, WCC, 20/02/2009

59 The reforms will take place as follows: children aged 12 or over from November 2008; children aged 10 or over from October 2009; children aged 7 or over from October 2010. There is support via Extended Schools services / or After School and Out of School provision.

60 Westminster Children Services have suggested that this „non-residential‟ component currently built into the model could be too low, leading to an underestimate of the actual non-residential demand for pre-school places. However at this stage no quantitative evidence has been made available.

November 2009 Page 111

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-1: URS Indicative Estimate of Additional Demand for Early Years Places from New Development, 2006 – 2026

Total Demand for Spatial Early Years Places, Number of Number of Requirements, FTE Classes Nurseries* Sqm

1,895 74 37 6,601 Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) sheets A1, A2, R1 and A2

5.1.3. Planned investment and costs

Early years receive external funding in three year cycle from the DCSF. These are based on the numbers of children under five accessing early years provision and on the deprivation levels in the authority. Funding allocations are reviewed in the Corporate Spending Review and it is anticipated that there will be significant reductions in external grant as a result of the recession and the need to cut public spending61. The two year pilot scheme to provide 15 hours per week of free childcare for two year olds is likely to further increase the uptake of two years old places, although it is not yet guaranteed that this funding will be mainstreamed.

Changes in the mode of provision are likely to influence future supply of childcare services. Westminster Children Services have underlined the importance of integrating children services, by considering health, education and youth services holistically. Child poverty, child care and youth provision, children‟s centres, play provision, and school place provision are all aspects that will play an increasing role in defining a wider early years strategy62. Children centres in particular are expected to expand their services to offer services during weekends and for longer hours during the working week.

There has been a capital allocation of approximately £1million to support PVI settings and primary schools to develop their provision for under fives. Some of this is being used to develop outdoor provision but it is mostly being used to develop the indoor learning environment and for resources rather than to expand existing capacity. It is not anticipated that there will be any capital allocations post 201163.

The URS Westminster Infrastructure Model was used to provide an indicative, broad- brush estimate of future costs associated with the delivery of the required additional early years places, in the absence of comprehensive provider estimates beyond the five year period. Table 5-2 below shows that the estimated cost is approximately £26.5m up to 2026.

61 Personal communication, Early Years Department, WCC, 2009

62 Personal communication, Children‟s Strategy, Planning and Performance, WCC, 20/02/2009

63 Personal communication, Early Years Department, WCC, 2009

November 2009 Page 112

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-2: URS Indicative Estimate of Cost of Additional Early Years Places, 2006 – 2026, £

Total Demand for Early Spatial Requirements, Years Places, FTE Sqm Total Capital Cost, £

1,895 6,601 26,530,586 Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) A1, A2, R1 and A2 Sheet

5.1.4. Assessment and Recommendations

Future funding for expansion of childcare provision will depend on the outcome of the three-yearly funding allocation from central government. There has been a capital allocation of approximately £1million to support PVI settings and primary schools to develop their provision for under fives in Westminster, but it is not anticipated that there will be any capital allocations post 2011.

In the absence of long term provider forecasts, the URS Westminster Infrastructure Model estimates a need for 1,895 new early years places up to 2026, equating a total of 74 new classes: 0 to two years old (32 classes), two years old (17 classes) and three to four years old (25 classes), at an overall capital cost of approximately £26.5m. This is not a cost that is expected to be met64.

Early Years Extended Services and Play (EYESP) seeks support from S106, corporate property and BSF to develop new premises and receive contributions to support new childcare, affordable childcare, the expansion in the existing childcare market, and the delivery of Children‟s Centre activities in areas of deprivation where there is limited space65. EYESP will continue to work with existing providers to increase capacity and deal with the priority issues of childcare stock, childcare affordability, holiday provision, and increasing the offer of government funded three and four year old places to meet the needs of the most disadvantaged children in Westminster.

WCC is in the process of developing baseline data to establish a childcare sufficiency formula to inform policy on affordability and increased access to early years provision. In order to deliver its vision for early years and children services in general WCC should actively promote an interdepartmental approach to planning for infrastructure. Consultation with Children Services has particularly highlighted the importance of integrating children services, with plans to develop integrated services within three localities to provide education, health and youth facilities. Play provision should also be crucially considered in the context of services for children of all ages, together with extended services hours in children centres.

64 Personal communication, Early Years Department, WCC, 2009

65 Ibid.

November 2009 Page 113

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.2. Primary Education

5.2.1. Baseline

There are a total of 4066 primary schools in the City of Westminster, which are shown in Figure 5-1 together with secondary schools. There are noticeable clusters surrounding the housing estates in the north-west and the south of Westminster. The map does not include King Solomon Academy, the primary section of which opened in September 2007 and now has 60 places in both the reception and Year 1 age groups.

The total supply of school places for reception to year six is shown in Table 5-3. The table highlights that the total number of school places January 2008 was 9,813 with a surplus of 666 primary school places across 31 schools. Data from WCC Children‟s Services indicates that the number on roll in primary schools for 2009 is 10,999.

WCC Children Services emphasise that in addition to existing surplus capacity in some Westminster schools (especially in SW1), approximately of 20% of pupils at Westminster primary schools reside outside of Westminster. The pattern of admissions to Westminster primary schools is complex with a high proportion of faith primary schools and over a third of schools located close to Westminster boundaries. Nonetheless, there should be some scope to increase the proportion of places for Westminster residents as demand increases.67

Table 5-3: Supply of Primary School Places in Westminster, As of January 2008

Total Number on Roll 9,813

Number on Roll in Schools with Spare Capacity 7,075

Net Capacity in Schools with Spare Capacity 7,741

Surplus in Schools with Spare Capacity 666

Source: DfES Supply of School Places 2008

66 2008 Statistical Returns to Secretary of State Supply of School Places as of 01/12/2008, WCC.

67 Personal communication, Children and Learning Directorate, WCC, 2009

November 2009 Page 114

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 5-1: Primary and Secondary Schools in Westminster

Source: URS and WCC

November 2009 Page 115

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.2.2. Forecast Demand

The table below highlights the WCC forecasts for reception to year six, over the 2008 / 09 to 2014 / 15 period. There is an estimated increase in the number of school places required by 272.

The projections use GLA school roll projections as the main source of data for its submissions to the DSCF. The data provided by the GLA takes into account existing school roll and demographic trends together with planned housing developments.

The projections also take into account the mean 'seepage' for the last three years for higher year groups - that is, the percentage reduction in school cohorts as they move from one school year to the next. For the period 2005-2008 this varied from nil (Reception to Y1) to 2.2% (Y4-Y5).

WCC Children‟s Services highlights that projections beyond 5 years become more difficult and unreliable as so many factors can change over this time, especially in areas such as Westminster (and some other parts of central London) where there are a more limited number of major development sites compared to many other London boroughs.

Table 5-4: Local Authority District Forecasts for Westminster, adjusted GLA figures using mean seepage 2005-2008

Actual Reception Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Total 2008/09 1,428 1,394 1,430 1,398 1,416 1,311 1,342 9,719

2009/10 1,485 1,428 1,369 1,410 1,376 1,385 1,300 9,752

2010/11 1,470 1,485 1,402 1,350 1,387 1,346 1,372 9,812

2011/12 1,480 1,470 1,458 1,383 1,328 1,357 1,333 9,809

2012/13 1,488 1,480 1,444 1,438 1,361 1,299 1,344 9,853

2013/14 1,495 1,488 1,453 1,423 1,415 1,331 1,287 9,892

2014/15 1,499 1,495 1,461 1,433 1,401 1,384 1,319 9,991

Source: WCC Schools and Learning Directorate

In the absence of a longer term forecasts of the requirement for primary school places, URS modelled the likely increase in demand and associated spatial requirements arising from the projected new residential and commercial growth, 2006 to 2026 (Table 5-5).

The URS Infrastructure Model provides a broad-brush, indicative estimate only. The figures potentially over-estimate demand by a significant margin. The model is a snap- shot of demand at a particular time, whereas is reality demand trends are dynamic. Annual variations in the housing trajectory and in cohort size, as well as more detailed

November 2009 Page 116

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

demographic trends, are not taken into account. Therefore these figures represent a technical estimate only and a starting point for further analysis and refinement.68

The URS Infrastructure Model suggests that in a five year time period approximately additional 500 pupils would demand primary education. Such a demand would potentially be absorbed by existing capacity in the system (666 places in Jan 2008). Total additional demand for primary school places to 2026 is estimated to be 1,857 pupils (equivalent to four two-form-entry primary schools). As noted above, obtaining accurate long term forecasts are problematic and this figure is likely to be an over-estimate.

Table 5-5: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Primary School Places from New Development, 2006 – 2026 (Worst Case Scenario)

Total Demand for Spatial Primary School Number of Forms Requirements, Places, FTE of Entry Number of Schools Sqm

1,857 9 4 6,724 Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) A1, A2, R1 and A2 Sheet

5.2.3. Planned Investment and Costs

The Westminster Primary Capital Programme Strategy for Change (PCP SfC) (June 2008) sets out the investment priorities for Westminster and the financial programme from 2009-11. Westminster is allocated a total of £8.7m in Primary Capital Programme Grants, which has recently been signed off by DCSF.

68 The model does take into account WCCs‟ suggested 30% discount in pupils yield accounting for leakage to other boroughs and private education, as well as the fact that a proportion of pupils taking up the new housing may be already residing in Westminster. This assumption draws on the „Supplementary Planning Guidance on Planning Obligations‟ (WCC, 2008). WCC Children Services have confirmed that Westminster experiences both considerable leakage to the private sector and inflow of pupils from adjacent boroughs.

November 2009 Page 117

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-6: Westminster Primary Schools, Financial Programming 2009-11

How Programme allocated? 2009/10 2010/11 Total

Strategy for Primary Capital Programme Change 3,165,621 5,543,621 8,709,242

NDS Modernisation AMP data 367,356 940,929 1,308,285

ICT Per pupil 442,935 482,332 925,267

Other WCC (Basic Need; Access; Pupil forecasts Extended schools) and formula 762,329 629,818 1,392,147

AMP data and no LCVAP of schools 1,800,373 1,800,373 3,600,746

Schools Capital Devolved formula 2,547,000 2,547,000 5,094,000

Source: WCC Primary Capital Programme Strategy for Change, June 2008

Three projects likely to be implemented in the first wave of PCP SfC are:

Paddington Green and St Luke‟s: upgrade buildings and facilities, particularly for community and family support activities; provide spaces for multi-agency working

Hallfield and George Eliot: amalgamate the infant and junior sections within each of these schools

SW1 Area Review: identify the schools best placed for expansion given significant housing development expected in the south of the borough, and any further investment to transform unsuitable accommodation.

There is planned expansion at Millbank primary school from 1.5 FE to 2 FE and the intention is to rebuild the two George Elliot Schools. The rebuilt school will be about 400m further into Westminster and will serve the St Johns Wood barracks development, with the result that more of the attendees are likely to be residing in Westminster (approximately 98% of the children are currently from LB Camden)69.

In the absence of forecast costs covering the entire planning period to 2026, URS Westminster Infrastructure Model has been used to provide indicative costs associated with the delivery of the required additional primary school places. These estimates rely on broad-brush assumptions and providing a starting point for further analysis. Table 5-7 below shows that the estimated cost is nearly £26m up to 2026.

69 Personal communication, Children and Learning Directorate, WCC, 2009

November 2009 Page 118

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-7: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Primary School Places, 2006-2026, £

Total Demand for Spatial Primary School Number of Forms Requirements, Total Capital Cost, Places, FTE of Entry Sqm £

1,857 9 11,787 26,002,859 Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) A1, A2, R1 and A2 Sheet

5.2.4. Assessment and Recommendations

The DfES Supply of School Places 2008 indicates that in 2008 31 of Westminster„s primary schools had a total of over 600 spare places. WCC estimate an increase in demand of 272 new places over the next five years. Forecasts of primary school capacity are not available. Based on the information available on current capacity, it appears that there is adequate capacity to cope with forecast demand in the short term.

WCC‟s estimates of forecast demand are lower than those coming out of the URS Infrastructure Model. However, as explained above, the model estimates should be taken as a worse case scenario and potentially overestimate of demand, as various dynamic and demographic factors such as cohort size are not taken into account (as they are in WCC estimates), and predicting medium to long term trends is complex. Therefore these figures represent a technical estimate only and a starting point for further analysis and refinement. Ongoing monitoring including more detailed assessments of medium to long term needs would need to examine geographical variations in provision and to be sensitive to a number of demographic factors.

The URS Infrastructure Model estimates costs of approximately £26m associated with new primary schools to 2026. Research has identified a provisional £21m allocated in capital funding to 2010 / 11; however, details of exactly what these funds might cover are not clear.

The major risk to meeting future demand for primary education rests with funding. Planning for primary education needs follows a five year cycle, as shown by the DfES Supply of School Places 2008. However, funding is allocated on a three year basis, in line with the Comprehensive Spending Review process. This means that facilities likely to be needed ahead of the three year budget period will not see committed funding prior to the following budget cycle. Also, at present the funding arrangements for many elements of social infrastructure are such that need is catered for as and when it arises, so that under capacity is likely to be addressed only reactively. With regard to primary schools, for example, there is a three year design/build/contract process. Bids must be made to DCSF but will only come forward when the number of children residing in the area justifies a new facility.

Should WCC face funding gaps in providing education facilities to meet the projected population growth it should seek potential partners facing similar constraints and lobby for

November 2009 Page 119

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

changes to the policy and the introduction of appropriate forward funding mechanisms, which may still include PFI, to deliver new facilities.

November 2009 Page 120

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.3. Secondary Education

5.3.1. Baseline

There are a total of 10 secondary schools in the City of Westminster, of which two are all age special schools. Figure 5-1 shows that as with primary schools the facilities are located close to the concentrations of housing estates in the north-west and the south of Westminster. Westminster, Paddington and King Soloman Academies (not shown on Figure 5-1) were rebuilt under the City Academies funding stream; the secondary section of King Solomans will open in September 2009, admitting 60 pupils into Year 7.

The total supply of school places for secondary schools years seven to thirteen (age groups 11-17) has been identified using the number on roll (NOR), net capacity, and the surplus capacity as at January 2008. Table 5-8 illustrates the total number on roll as at January 2008 as 6,590; only three of Westminster‟s secondary schools have a surplus of places, totalling 54 places. It should be noted that these DCSF Return figures do not include Academies.

Table 5-8: Supply of Secondary School Places in Westminster, 2008

Total Number on Roll 6,590

Number on Roll in Schools with Spare Capacity 3,209

Net Capacity in Schools with Spare Capacity 3,334

Surplus with Spare Capacity 54 Source: DfES Supply of School Places 2008 (Personal communication: Westminster Education Department forwarded by Children‟s Services)

Up to date information excluding Pimlico Academy indicates that there were 5,280 secondary school pupils in 200970. Including the academies, approximately 53% of pupils attending Westminster's secondary schools come from Westminster and this figure is probably if academies are included. According to DCSF data, based on London-wide school roll information:

73.2% of secondary school pupils resident in Westminster attend a maintained school/academy in Westminster

27.8% (1,347) attend a maintained school/academy elsewhere - 9.0% in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, 5.1% in LB Brent

in Westminster‟s secondary maintained schools and academies, 52.9% of school population resident in Westminster, and 47.1% of school population resident elsewhere (9.9% from Camden).

70 Personal Communication, School Admissions Team, Schools & Learning Directorate, WCC, 25/09/2009

November 2009 Page 121

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Westminster has seen a number of Academies opening since 2006, providing secondary and further education within the same building. North Westminster Community School, WCC‟s largest school, was closed and its pupils were transferred to Paddington Academy or Westminster Academy. As of January 2008, the total number on roll at both academies was 1,905 as shown in Table 5-9. Once the academies reach full capacity they will offer 1,260 secondary places each.

Table 5-9: Westminster Academies Number on Roll, 2008

Name Year 7-11 Year 12-13 Total

Paddington Academy 862 237 1,099

Westminster Academy 751 55 806

Total 1,631 292 1,905 Source: Personal communication: Westminster Education Department (forwarded by Children‟s Services 20/02/2009)

5.3.2. Forecast Demand

The DFES projected forecast for secondary school places has been based on a number of additional factors such as housing developments, boundary changes, expected migration, rationalisation proposals, age of transfer changes, and error margins. The places have been adjusted to take account of the expansion of three schools from January 2011 but also the closure and reopening of Pimlico School and the North Westminster schools in Westminster. Table 5-10 illustrates an estimated increase in the number of secondary school places up to 2014-2015 for both years 7-11 and years 12 and 13. Based on these figures years 7-11 are forecast to expand by 419 places over a 7 year period up to 2015. It should be noted that these DCSF Return figures do not include Academies.

Table 5-10: Local Authority District Forecasts for Westminster Secondary Schools

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Years 7-11 4,324 4,326 4,406 4,492 4,576 4,660 4,743

Years 12 & 13 1065 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,220 1,525 1,525

Total 5,389 5,391 5,471 5,557 5,796 6,186 6,268 Secondary Source: DFES Supply of School Places 2008; Personal communication: Westminster Education Department (forwarded from Children‟s Services 20/02/2009)

November 2009 Page 122

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

As local authority forecasts do not cover the entire planning period, the URS Infrastructure Model has been used to generate an indicative, broad-brush estimate of potential future demand for places and associated spatial requirements arising from the projected residential and commercial growth. These figures represent a technical estimate only and a starting point for further analysis. Table 5-11 shows the additional demand up to 2026, taking into account the projected growth in resident population and WCCs‟ suggested 30% discount in pupils yield accounting for leakage to other boroughs and private education, as well as the fact that a proportion of pupils taking up the new housing may be already residing in Westminster 71.

Information retrieved from WCC is in line with the results of our model, which suggests that in a seven year period an additional approximate 320 (slightly below WCC‟s projection) pupils would demand secondary education, resulting in the need for a new forms of entry. Based on current capacity, this forecast demand might be offset by the existing 54 surplus places in Westminster‟s secondary schools.

Table 5-11: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Secondary School Places from New Development, 2006 – 2026

Total Demand for Spatial Secondary School Number of Forms Requirements, Places, FTE of Entry Number of Schools Sqm

915 6 2 7,982 Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) A1, A2, R1 and A2 Sheet

5.3.3. Planned Investment and Costs

Westminster is a Wave 3 Building Schools for the Future (BSF) Authority, so all secondary schools will be either remodelled or rebuilt between 2008 and 2010. BSF is the government‟s national capital programme to change and enhance education for secondary school students. Figure 5-2 highlights the location of Westminster‟s secondary schools that are part of the BSF programme.

The BSF schools in Westminster include a combination of new build, refurbishment, and improvement as identified in Table 5-12. There is no additional information available on costs72.

71 „Supplementary Planning Guidance on Planning Obligations‟ (WCC, 2008). Westminster Children Services have confirmed that Westminster experience both considerable leakage to the private sector and inflow of pupils from adjacent boroughs.

72 Unable to comment on forecast investment or costs. Personal communication, Children‟s Strategy, Planning and Performance, WCC by email 20/02/2009

November 2009 Page 123

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 5-2: Map of the Building Schools for the Future in Westminster

Source: Building Schools for the Future 2008 see www.westminster.gov.uk/educationandlearning

November 2009 Page 124

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-12: BSF Schools in Westminster

BSF School Proposal A new facility to help young people who have had difficulty in mainstream Beachcroft School schools continue their education College Park School Complete rebuild specialising on education for ASD pupils New block at the St. Andrew‟s site. State of the art facilities for drama, The Grey Coat music, art and film studies. Improvements to St. Andrew‟s and St Michaels School to increase dining and study space £34 million rebuild of the Lupus Street site school. Enhanced sports provision and facilities to support the schools and specialism as Pimlico Academy performing and visual arts college. New community library and adult education centre. 2011 completion date Queen Elizabeth II Refurbishment and new build. New hydrotherapy and physiotherapy suite. Jubilee School New post-16 centre with independent living suite and gymnasium. Quintin Kynaston Complete rebuild using BSF and Co-location funding with facilities to co- School locate a range of services for children and young people Refurbishment of main teaching block. New science laboratories to St. Augustine‟s CE support the school's specialism in science. New atrium dining area linking High School the existing main school buildings...New drama and activity studios New full size sports hall available for community use. Improvements to current school building to provide extra space for pupils. St. George‟s RC New sports hall. Conversion of the existing gym into new drama and music School spaces Redevelopment of the Blandford Street site into a university style learning St. Marylebone centre for children aged 14 – 19. Refurbishment of the High Street site to School support the school's specialist subjects of performing arts, maths and computing. 2010 completion date Creation of new classrooms, improved sixth form provision and a sports Westminster School hall for the school and community. Development of new music rooms and a drama studio. New art department. 2010 completion date. Source: Building Schools for the Future 2008 see www.westminster.gov.uk/educationandlearning

Given the lack of detailed cost information for the period up to 2026, the URS Infrastructure Model has been used to provide an indicative, broad-brush estimate of costs associated with the delivery of the required additional secondary school places. The estimate is a technical assessment based on a series of assumptions and a starting point for more detailed analysis. Table 5-13 below shows that the estimated cost is just over £20m up to 2026.

November 2009 Page 125

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-13: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Secondary School Places, 2006-2026, £

Total Demand for Spatial Secondary School Number of Forms Requirements, Total Capital Cos, Places, FTE of Entry Sqm £

915 6 7,982 21,509,483 Source: URS calculations. For assumptions and workings see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) A1, A2, R1 and A2 Sheet

5.3.4. Assessment and Recommendations

According to the 2008 DfES Supply of School Places 2008, only three of Westminster‟s secondary schools have a surplus of places, totalling 54 places. Because secondary schools‟ catchment areas are much wider than primary schools‟, with children likely to travel across Westminster to school, this spare capacity could help meet the additional projected demand. Also, WCC have already estimated an increase in demand of about 400 new places over the next 7 years, suggesting that secondary school needs planning is adequately incorporating the Westminster‟s projected growth.

The URS Infrastructure Model estimates the need for approximately 900 new secondary school places up to 2026, at an overall capital cost of approximately £21m.

The major risk to meeting future demand for secondary education rests with funding. Whilst planning for secondary education needs follows a seven year cycle, as shown by the DfES Supply of School Places 2008, funding is allocated on a three year basis, in line with the Comprehensive Spending Review process. This means that secondary education is potentially subject to the same funding time-lag issues as primary education.

Should WCC face funding gaps in providing education facilities to meet the projected population growth it should seek potential partners facing similar constraints and lobby for the introduction of forward funding mechanisms. WCC should however also consider an increased use of PFI mechanisms to deliver new facilities.

November 2009 Page 126

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.4. Adult Learning and Further Education

5.4.1. Baseline

There are a total of three colleges in Westminster offering FE and adult education, which are shown in Table 5-14. Westminster Adult Education Service (WAES) is one of the largest providers of adult education in London offering full-time and part-time study in the daytime, evenings and at weekends.

Table 5-14: Westminster Colleges

College

City of Westminster College

Westminster Adult Education Service

Westminster Kingsway College Source: Building Schools for the Future 2008 see www.westminster.gov.uk/educationandlearning

The LSC‟s London Strategic Analysis 2007-200873 highlights that London has 32% of existing provision renewed, below the national average of 45% and one of the lowest in the country. It states that local London needs are urgent so the pace of capital investment needs to increase. The Strategic Analysis also indicates that FE and Work Based Learning success rates in London have improved but are still below the national average. Minimum levels of performance, Notices to Improve; Frameworks for Excellence, provider specialisation and National Skills Academies will be used to address poor quality and unresponsive learning. More detailed, Westminster-specific information on the scale and quality of current FE and Adult Learning provision in WCC was not available from the LSC74.

Table 5-15 shows the number of 16-18 learners and adult learners above the age of 19 in England75. It illustrates the different categories of learners and the split at a national level between learners at the different age groups.

73 „LSC London Strategic Analysis 2007/2008‟ (LSC, 2007)

74 FE and Adult learners often attend colleges in different boroughs to the one they reside in, therefore it is difficult to gather exact FE and AL numbers for WCC. Personal communication, LSC London by phone, December 2008

75 Information on the number FE and adult learners in Westminster was unavailable. Personal communication, LSC London by phone and email December and January 2008/2009

November 2009 Page 127

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-15: Total Number of 16-18 Age Group and Adult Learners in England 2007/2008

No. of Learners

Sub-total 16-18 age group 1,447,000

Sub-total 19+ age group 3,306,000

Total learners 4,753,000 Source: LSC Statement of Priorities 2009-10 www.westminster.gov.uk/educationandlearning

While figures on the current number of FE students and Adult Learners in Westminster were not available, participation can be estimated by applying current take up rates to the relevant age group within each local authority. URS in their model of assessment have considered the take up rate for 16-18 year olds requiring Further Education provision and the 19 + years that require Adult Education provision, these rates are shown in Table 5-16.

Table 5-16 Participation Rates in England, by Age Group

Age Group Participation Rate

16-17 years old 0.84

18 years old 0.56

18-65 years old 0.10 Source: Take up rates are calculated from 'Government Investment Strategy 2009-10, LSC Grant Letters and LSC Statement of Priorities' (LSC, 2008, Investment and Allocations section).

5.4.2. Forecast Demand

Westminster specific forecasts are unavailable. A core government target is to encourage more young people to stay in education until the age of 18; therefore it is essential to increase the number of 16-18 year olds in education at levels 2 and 3. The LSC‟s London Strategic Analysis 2007/200876 contains forecast growth in the 16-18 age group in London. GLA 2006 population figures are used, and then growth is projected to 2008 and 2021. GLA projections indicate that London‟s population will increase by just over 500,000 (6.5%) between 2006 and 2016, with adults (19+) accounting for three quarters of the estimated growth.77 Table 5-17 highlights central London has a significant percentage change from 2006-2021 at 9.4%.

76 LSC London Strategic Analysis (LSC, 2007)

77 GLA Population Projections Scenario 9.07, in „London Strategic Analysis 2007/2008‟ (LSC, 2007)

November 2009 Page 128

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-17:16-18 Age Group Population Growth, LSC Estimates up to 2021

Total London number of Percentage Sub- learners by change 2006- Region 2006 2006-2008 2006-2021 2021 2021

London 40,362 -266 +3,828 44,190 9.4% Central78 Source: LSC based on GLA Population Projections

Table 5-18 highlights the current participation and projected participation of 16-18 age group and adults (19+) in FE and Adult Learning in England. Participation in LSC funded learning is predicted to increase for the 16-18 age group, though the number of Adult Learners will in fact fall from 2007/08 levels by 2009/10.

Table 5-18: Projected FE Participation Rates in England, by Age Group

2007/08 2008/2009 2009/2010 Age Group 16 88% 92% 95%

17 79% 81% 84%

18 56% 56% 56% Source: LSC Statement of Priorities 2009-10

In the absence of provider forecasts, the URS Infrastructure Model has been used to provide an indicative estimate of the likely increase in demand for further education and adult learning places, and associated spatial requirements, arising from the projected residential and commercial growth. These estimates are broad-brush and intended as a starting point for more detailed analysis. The additional demand up to 2026 takes into account the projected growth in resident population, and total 2,243 places for people aged 16-18 and 19+ (Table 5-19).

78 Central London sub area consists of Camden, Islington, Royal borough of Kensington & Chelsea, Southwark, Wandsworth

November 2009 Page 129

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-19: URS Indicative Assessment of Demand for 16-18 and 19+ Further Education and Adult Education Provision and number of places in Westminster from New Development, 2006-2026

16-18 Years Olds 19+ Year Olds Spatial Requiring Further Requiring Adult Total Demand Requirements, Education Education Sqm

564 1,679 2,243 22,434 Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) Children Population Estimate from Dwelling Number, R1 and A2 Sheet

5.4.3. Planned Investment and Costs

WCC is planning to bring forward proposals to deliver new facilities for adult education. The Westminster Adult Education Service (WAES) will join the strategic approach to worklessness and the employability and training agenda. As one of the biggest providers of adult learning opportunities in central London, WAES is well placed to support Westminster‟s wider work to deliver economic regeneration, with more training for local people to take up local jobs79.

WCC has approved the WAES property strategy that incorporates a new, centrally located main centre and three smaller satellite centres. Once the plans are completed they will total 7,800 sqm of FE and AL floorspace to replace existing facilities located elsewhere. The main centre will be 6,000 sqm in size and will be located on part of the Moxon Street car park in Marylebone. The three satellite centres, each 600 sqm in size, will be located in north and south Westminster, and Soho. The proposed satellite centre in the south has been approved and is scheduled for completion by summer 2010, as part of the new Pimlico School rebuild. The new build will provide eight excellent classrooms, a learning centre, crèche and café.

The Learning and Skills Council have agreed a capital grant of £9.2 million to contribute towards the £21 million cost of the main centre at Moxon Street. However, the delivery is uncertain due to the recently emerged funding commitments on behalf of the LSC. Therefore it will not meet the scheduled open date of September 2010.

Table 5-20 shows the Westminster Capital Applications in Detail Approved in 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. Three applications related to the City of Westminster College, with the refurbishment of the Maida Vale site and expansion of the Paddington site80.

79 „2008 One City Plan‟ (WCC, 2008)

80 Unfortunately full details of the additional floorspace that the expansion will introduce are not available.

November 2009 Page 130

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-20: London Capital Applications in Detail Approved 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 (as of 01/09/08)

Total Proposed College Project LSC Funding Description Cost Contribution Gap

Phase 1: Renting of 13,000 m2 of temporary accommodation £12,703,953 £10,023,419 £2,680,534 for decant purposes and refurbishment / adaptation of the space prior to occupation.

Phase 2(a): Demolition and City of clearance of the current Westminster Paddington Centre site and £3,201,370 £1,120,480 £2,080,890 College subsequent site preparation, including the expansion of the existing electricity substation.

Phase 2(b): Construction of 23,320m2 of new £101,943,250 £87,668,000 £14,275,250 accommodation at Paddington Green

Construction of new building containing a 4 badminton court St Charles gym, fitness suite and 6 Sixth Form £6,099,569 £4,391,690 £1,707,879 classrooms. Relaying of College MUGA. Removal of temporary accommodation. Source: LSC Capital Applications Approved 2007/2008 – 2008/2009 (as of 01/9/08)

No further detail for capital investment in Westminster is available. Consultation highlighted to the following more general / national trends and issues which have implications for the planning and funding FE and AL in Westminster:

The wider LSC budget allocation is driven by historical rates of allocation to schools, FE providers, and colleges. There is no substantial planned growth in national budget for FE and AL.

The main capital programme for both 16-19 learners and 19+ learners is the FE capital programme. This is an application based system where colleges can apply either individually for funding for specific projects or as part of wider regional strategies for a 5-10 year period.

Capital funding for the 14-19 age group is under reform. There will be a major shift in the way education and training is delivered, with schools, colleges, higher education and work based providers involved in consortia to deliver the curriculum and qualifications entitlement. In particular the Diploma will require specialist facilities. The scale of, and the approach to, providing these facilities will vary across each area depending upon the current level of readiness.

November 2009 Page 131

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Evolving policy is expected to shift responsibility for FE funding from the LSC to local authorities supported by a new non-departmental public body, the Young Person‟s Learning Agency, reporting to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) as of the 1st April 2010. For adult learning and training, funding duties will be overseen by the new Skills Funding Agency, to be an agency of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS)

Given the lack of detailed cost information for the period up to 2026, the URS Infrastructure Model has been used to provide an indicative, broad-brush estimate of costs associated with the delivery of the required additional FE and AL places. Table 5-21 below shows that the estimated cost is just over £57m up to 2026.

Table 5-21: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Further Education and Adult Learning School Places, 2006-2026, £

16-19 Years Olds 19+ Year Olds Requiring Further Requiring Adult Total Capital Cost, Education Education Total Demand £

564 1,679 2,243 56,084,757 Source: URS calculations A1, A2, R1 and A2 Sheet

The proposed new centre at Moxon Street with its three satellite sites is expected to deliver 7,800 sqm of FE and AL floorspace, with more space to be provided at the expanded Paddington site. However, these proposals are mainly to replace facilities to be disposed of elsewhere.

5.4.4. Assessment and Recommendations

WCC has approved the WAES property strategy that incorporates a new, centrally located main centre and three smaller satellite centres. Once the plans are completed they will total 7,800 sqm of FE and AL floorspace, though this floorspace will primarily replace facilities to be disposed of elsewhere. Expansion plans have already been approved for the Paddington site of the City of Westminster College (details on the additional floorspace to be provided are not available at the moment) as well as two other projects at the college and construction of new building at St Charles Sixth Form College. Part of the funding for these facilities has already been allocated, with the LSC contributing over £103m to the projects. However, a substantial funding gap remains, of over £20.7m. In addition, there is now uncertainty regarding the availability of LSC funds; a lack of these funds could threaten the project.

Even once these planned projects are completed, indicative estimates from the URS Infrastructure Model suggests there may be a substantial demand that remains unmet, with a total additional demand for floorspace expected to reach 23,000 sqm up to 2026 at a cost of approximately £57.5m. In considering the adequacy of existing provision and future provision, it is however critical to appreciate that students seeking FE and AL courses more often than not do not stay within the boundaries of the borough in which

November 2009 Page 132

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

they are resident. This reflects the fact that particularly FE colleges function as specialist providers attracting learners from across London and even further away.

The lack of more detailed information on the baseline position, LSC plans and funding at the Westminster level makes it difficult to assess whether the scale of requirement suggested by the URS Infrastructure Model is in line with LSC expectations. WCC should therefore liaise with the LSC and emerging new bodies overseeing FE and AL funding to ensure they are aware of the residential growth that Westminster is expecting over the London Plan period, so as to ensure that accurate estimate for future demand area undertaken and an adequate delivery plan is developed.

November 2009 Page 133

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.5. Higher Education

5.5.1. Baseline

Of the 24 Universities in Central London 10 are in Westminster, and their location is shown in Figure 5-3.

The University of the Arts and University of Westminster have the largest number of enrolled students, as shown in Table 5-22. The table also shows that a majority of them offering predominantly higher education courses as opposed to further education ones (the exception is the University of the Arts London). All institutions have a mix of undergraduate and postgraduates within each university. However, in total there are a greater number of students enrolled in undergraduate degree courses.

Table 5-22: The Breakdown of Total Number of Students

Total Number Total Total FE Total HE Total Post University of Under Students Students Graduate Students Graduate Enrolled

University of Westminster 24,710 0 24,710 17,850 6,860

Kings College London 21,230 0 21,230 14,010 7,220

London School of Economics and 9,030 0 9,030 3,825 5,205 Political Science

London Business School 1,495 0 1,495 0 1,495

Royal Academy of Music 700 0 700 320 380

Royal College of Music 650 0 650 350 300

Royal College of Art 920 0 920 0 920

The Royal College of Nursing 650 0 650 460 190

University of the Arts London 30,885 15,975 14,910 12,460 2,450

Courtauld Institute of Art 455 0 455 155 300

TOTAL 90,725 15,975 74,750 49,430 25,320

Source: High Education Statistics Agency Limited (HESA) 2008

November 2009 Page 134

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 5-3: Higher Education Institutions in Westminster

Source: URS and WCC

November 2009 Page 135

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Higher education demand is not derived solely from the resident or employee population. Table 5-23 identifies the proportion of full time first degree accepted applicants in 2007- 08 who came from the region in which the institution was located. The table shows that the catchment for higher education is national and international rather than local or regional.

Table 5-23: Proportion of Accepted Applicants from Institution’s Region / Studying in Home Region

Proportion of Institution’s Proportion of Region’s Students Coming from Applicants Studying in Region of institution Institution’s Region Home Region

North East 48% 65%

North West 63% 66%

Yorkshire and the Humber 40% 59%

East Midlands 34% 43%

West Midlands 54% 50%

East of England 49% 28%

Greater London 63% 57%

South East 47% 41%

South West 42% 47%

Source: UCAS Statistical Services,2009 5.5.2. Forecast Demand

The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) has no information on the breakdown of forecast student numbers at local authority level or by institution81. Trends in Westminster may reflect national trends reviewed below.

HEPI identifies the forecast national demand for HE up to 2029. HEPI have identified the main driver of demand in full time student numbers as population. HEPI have used assumptions based on the number of people aged 18+ and the potential proportion that will attend University82.

Figure 5-4 identifies the total changes in three different age cohorts 2008-2029. All three experience a steady increase in numbers from 2008 until early the next decade. The

81 Personal communication, HEPI Director by email 24/12/2008

82 Personal Communication, HEPI Director, November 2008

November 2009 Page 136

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

largest age group is the 25-29 which continues to steadily increase until 2018 where it begins to slightly decline like the other two age cohorts.

Figure 5-4: Changes in Different Age Cohorts 2008-2029 (000s)

4500.0 18-20 21-24 25-29 4000.0

3500.0

3000.0

2500.0

2000.0

1500.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

Source: ONS population estimates and GAD projections as in HEPI Demand for Higher Education to 2029 (HEPI, 2008) Table 5-24 sets out the change in full time student numbers that would occur over the next two decades, if higher education numbers changed in line with demographic changes illustrated above in Figure 5-4. The trend illustrated in Table 5-24 shows a decrease in student numbers to 2020/2021 followed by an increase in 2028/2029.

Table 5-24: Changes in Full Time English Domiciled Student Numbers at English HE Institutes from Changes in the Population

Estimated Change in Total Change in Total Student Numbers Student Numbers Student Numbers 2007-08 to Numbers 2007-08 to Numbers 2007-08 2020-21 2020-21 2028-29 2028-29

All males 375,043 -25,368 349,675 11,462 386,505

All females 482,405 -33,856 448,549 13,496 495,901

Total 857,448 -59,224 798,224 24,958 882,406 Source: HEPI Demand for Higher Education beyond 2029 (HEPI, 2008)

November 2009 Page 137

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.5.3. Planned Investment and Costs

HEFCE is the main funding body for universities capital investment. Funding is allocated on a four-year basis. The HEFCE Strategic Plan 2006-201183 identifies the key performance targets and measures for Higher Education, as illustrated in Table 5-25.

Table 5-25: Key performance targets and measures for Higher Education

Enhancing excellence in teaching and learning

Widening participation and fair access

Enhancing excellence in research

Enhancing the contribution of Higher Education to the economy and society

Enhancing a high-quality Higher Education sector

Enabling excellence

Source: Strategic Plan 2006-2011 (HEFCE, 2008)

Capital expenditure plans for each institution in the City of Westminster were not available84. However, the Estates Strategy for each university provides come relevant information on future investment plans. The Estate Strategies contain an overview of the Estate Strategy and Master Plan, Corporate Plan & Financial Strategy, Changes to the Estate and Development & Refurbishment Opportunities. The Estates Strategies for each university in Westminster were reviewed to identify major issues regarding future demand and provision of HE.

The Estates Strategies highlight that considerable funds are required to maintain the existing estate. In addition ambitious major projects are underway and planned for future years. Needs for new space relate not just to academic uses but also student housing and support services, and to wider drivers such as the research sector and local regeneration initiatives.

A summary of the key findings emerging from these documents are outlined below.

University of Westminster

The Estate Strategy 2008 indicates that while overall the Estate is in a reasonable condition, the cost of realising all of the university‟s ambitions is approximately £135

83 „Strategic Plan 2006-2011‟ (HEFCE, 2008)

84 HESA hold this information but it is not publicly available (a fee is levied)

November 2009 Page 138

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

million over the period 2008-2018. The following major projects have been identified85. Not all the estate is within Westminster (one of the four sites in Harrow); where the information is available the sites to which the projects apply have been specified.

Maintain and improve the estate (2008-2018, c.£35 million)

Improve the utilisation of general teaching spaces (2008-2010, c.£7 million and embedded in other major projects)

Develop the Marylebone site (2008-2017, c.£16.3 million) and the Harrow site (2008-2013, £37 million)

Refocus the West End by developing 115 New Cavendish Street as a centre for undergraduate teaching and 309 Regent Street as a centre for high quality postgraduate teaching and interaction with industry and commerce

Develop additional bedrooms: 600 bedrooms at Harrow (2008-2017, £35.75 million); approximately 650 beds at Wembley for delivery in 2011 (via a nominations agreement with Quintain); development of the International House site to deliver approximately 250 beds

Develop sports & leisure facilities at the Harrow site (2008-13).

University of the Arts London

The Estates Strategy (2007) outlines strategic interventions comprising the consolidation and rationalisation of distant and disparate premises (many of which are outside Westminster) into a smaller number of purpose-built facilities, preferably on a single campus. Strategic proposals comprise adaptation, extension and improvement of existing premises, while operational interventions are more usually related to maintenance activities.

5.5.4. Assessment and Recommendations

There are currently 10 universities in City of Westminster, with a total of 90,725 students enrolled in 2007.

A meaningful strategic assessment of demand for HE in Westminster is difficult as demand is not related directly to residential or commercial growth. Based on age cohort analysis, there is an expected decrease in demand across England for Higher Education up to 2021, following an increase up to 2029.

A sample analysis of estates strategies for two of the largest Westminster universities already identify major issues regarding future demand and provision of Higher Education highlighting that considerable funds are required to maintain the existing estate. It should

85 „Westminster Estate Strategy 2008-2016‟ (University of Westminster, 2007)

November 2009 Page 139

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

be noted that some of the estate of these and other universities is located outside Westminster itself.

In addition ambitious major projects are underway and planned for future years. Needs for new space relate not just to academic uses but also student housing and support services, and to wider drivers such as the research sector and local regeneration initiatives. The documents however highlight the difficulty in meeting the required expansion of both academic and accommodation facilities, due to the pressing maintenance and refurbishment needs of the existing stock.

November 2009 Page 140

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.6. Primary Healthcare

5.6.1. Baseline

The Westminster Strategic Service Development Plan (2008-2013) highlights that Westminster PCT serves more than 247,000 registered patients, but there are an estimated million people who live, work and visit Westminster each day and use some of its services, therefore adding pressure on Westminster‟s primary healthcare system.

The table below, Table 5-26, illustrates Westminster‟s GP Profile identifying the total number of GP practices, registered patients, single handed practitioners, and aged 60+ practitioners in Westminster. 86

Table 5-26: Westminster GP Profile

No. of GP practices in Westminster PCT 53

Total No. of Patients Registered 247,000

No. of GP‟s Aged 60+ 18

No. of Single Handed Practices (no assistants) 13

No. of Single Handed Practitioners aged 60+ 5

No. of Single Handed Practitioners with list size 2500+ 7

No. of Aged 60+ practitioners with list size 2500+ 3

Total No. of Patients Registered with a Single Handed GP 33,825 Source: Westminster NHS Strategic Service Development Plan 2008 – 2013, September 2008. The information is correct of the publishing date.

Using the ODPM recommended standard of provision87 of 1 GP per 1,700 residents has been used to record current baseline figures and whether Westminster is above or below the OPDM national average, see Table 5-27.

86 In addition to GPs other PCT health facilities include community pharmacies, dental contractors and optometry contractors. It is not within the scope of this study to cover these elements separately, given their varying operational and contractual arrangements. (Some health centres in Westminster include these services - see Table 5-28).

87 'Reforming Planning Obligations' (ODPM, 2004).

November 2009 Page 141

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-27: Primary Service Providers for Westminster

Above or No. of GP No. of GP’s Total Resident Population Below OPDM practices (FTE) Population per GP average

1,767 Below Source: Information Centre for Health and Social Care, September 2007.

Westminster is host to a number of health centres offering a range of health services within the same facility, including health visiting, district nursing, community dentistry, sexual health, and a number of GP surgeries. We provide an overview of the extent of such centres in Table 5-28.

Table 5-28: Westminster Health Centres

Total Floorspace, Location Number Sqm Queens Park / Paddington 2 4,648

Soho / West End 1 4,474

St. John‟s Wood / Marylebone 2 2,815

Pimlico / Victoria 1 2,075

Total 6 14,012 Source: Westminster PCT Estates Strategy (Westminster PCT, 2008)

Westminster PCT has prepared both a Services and an Estates Strategy adopted in September 2008 providing a ten year strategy for the PCTs estate portfolio. The strategy is aimed at ensuring that the PCT retains and supports the development of a high quality estate in the right locations to deliver modern, accessible primary care services.

Westminster PCT has a significant estate, but it is old and will not support the flexibility in the provision of services88. Coupled with this is the high number of workers and visitors that increase significantly the pressure on existing facilities. Of Westminster‟s 53 GPs, 23% of the practices are single handed and are seen as unable to provide the access and the range of services which is appropriate for the modern provision of primary care89.

Recent investments have been made to upgrade and expand GP accommodation and these are outlined in Table 5-29.

88 „Westminster PCT Estates Strategy 2008‟ (Westminster PCT, 2008)

89 „Westminster Strategic Service Development Plan 2008-2013‟ (Westminster PCT, 2008)

November 2009 Page 142

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-29: Recent Projects for Westminster PCT

Current Proposals:

Victoria Medical Centre providing enhanced facility for an existing GP practice

Brampton House GP led primary care centre relocated another GP onto its premises

Hallfield Clinic refurbished for use as GP surgery

Extension of a GP surgery in Victoria to enable practice to develop integrated service and become a training practice Source: Westminster PCT Estates Strategy (Westminster PCT, 2008)

5.6.2. Forecast Demand

Detailed information on forecast provision of primary health care services was unavailable90. Service planning is extremely complex in Westminster as demand is not merely related to the residential population.

The PCT‟s key priorities up to 2013 however suggest that a number of capital programmes will be undertaken to ensure the delivery of integrated and localised service, alternative healthcare settings and improve the performance and efficiency of the Trust‟s estate. This is in line with evolving national policy: the report „Healthcare for London – A framework for Action‟ published in July 2007, the supporting technical paper and the more recent „Healthcare for London: Consulting the Capital – a consultation document‟ produced in November 2007 have emphasised that services should be more personalised, closer to peoples‟ homes, more integrated, focussed on prevention and tackle health inequalities.

The Westminster PCT Estates Strategy highlights the proposals that are being considered for implementation across Westminster. These include the development of either a „hub and spokes‟ model or a single polyclinic model, for which Westminster PCT has been the first to submit a proposal to NHS London.

GP led health centres are also proposed to offer „a combined approach to providing new and integrated services or work as part of a federated solution‟91. Westminster PCT has also submitted two proposals to NHS London for the development of two GP led health centres based in its two most deprived areas. Emerging Westminster policy is particularly supportive of this mode of provision.

The HUDU model was used to offer an indication of the likely growth-related demand and cost potential primary and secondary healthcare requirements in Westminster. The limitations of the model, including the problematic nature of linking future primary care

90 Personal communication, Westminster PCT

91 „Westminster PCT Estates Strategy‟ (Westminster PCT, 2008), page 24

November 2009 Page 143

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

requirements to population growth, are acknowledge. However, in the absence of any provider projections, the model is considered to provide a useful indicative estimate of future demand and a starting point for further analysis. Table 5-30 shows the results of the analysis. The forecast GP and primary care units and space requirements are presented for Westminster. Because the HUDU model does not allow for factoring in additional demand deriving from non residential growth the figures presented are likely to be a lower bound estimate of the likely additional demand for primary care services.

Table 5-30: HUDU Model Results, Primary Healthcare Additional Requirements from New Development, 2006 – 2026

Total Requirements (Number of GP and Primary Care Units) Space Requirements (Sqm)

4 685 Source: HUDU Planning Contribution Model, EDAW/AECOM, 2007

5.6.3. Planned Investment and Costs

There are a variety of funding options to support primary and community care premises in Westminster, including central government, PPIs and private developers‟ contributions.

Funding requirements for PCT capital allocations will be determined through expenditure plans submitted to and agreed with the London NHS92. The NHS London Strategic Plan 2008 outlines high level performance targets and goals, with detailed planned and forecast investment costs or strategies still evolving and under review.

Information on planned investment is available in Westminster‟s Strategic Service Delivery Plan (SSDP) and Westminster‟s Estates Strategy. The priorities for Westminster are:

To plan for the patients of retiring GPs over the next year to be accommodated in existing premises

To work to develop GP-led health centres and polysystems

To work with the Local Authority and other partners on developments

To work with practices on minor premises improvements to provide extra space and or to improve quality of existing premises, including meeting access requirements.

Recent investments which have been completed in Westminster are outlined in Table 5-29. Table 5-31 is taken from Westminster PCT Estates Strategy 2008-2013. While it shows capital bids rather than funded projects, it illustrates the scale of planned investment by Westminster PCT in upkeep of the primary health estate. A total of

92 „Westminster PCT Estates Strategy 2008‟ (Westminster PCT, 2008)

November 2009 Page 144

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

£2,186,261 has been forecast for estates capital bids for the period 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11.

Table 5-31: Total Westminster PCT Estates Capital Bids for 2008-2011, £

Building Condition Statutory Compliance Total

1,443,707 992,554 2,186,261

Source: Westminster Estates Strategy 2008-2013

The HUDU model was used to quantify and cost potential primary and secondary healthcare requirements in WCC. While the HUDU model is a useful tool, it should be noted that it does not take the baseline position (i.e. existing capacity) into account. In addition, the model does not reflect evolving models of healthcare provision, for example the drive to better integrate health and care services and to shift care wherever possible out into the community, and the associated move towards health centres and polysystems93. Work is already underway to identify potential sites for such provision in Westminster. Therefore the estimates of required provision and associated costs generated may be exaggerated and the units of provision used to express primary healthcare requirements (number of GPs) may in the future become less appropriate.

Table 5-32 shows the results of the analysis. It illustrates the likely building costs associated with providing primary health care services in Westminster. The extent of the additional spatial requirements, compared with the size of existing primary healthcare facilities in Westminster, suggests that the implementation of the proposed health centres and polysystems may be more than adequate to meet the projected additional needs.

Table 5-32: HUDU Model Results, Total Capital Costs, 2006 – 2026

Space Requirements, Sqm Total Capital Costs (£)

685 2,416,305 Source: HUDU Planning Contribution Model, EDAW/AECOM, 2007

5.6.4. Assessment and Recommendations

Westminster PCT has a significant estate, but a considerable portion of it is not deemed adequate to support the PCTs strategy of integrated and localised service, alternative healthcare settings and an improved performance and efficiency of the Trust‟s estate.

The HUDU model forecasts a need for an additional 685 sqm of primary care facilities, at an overall cost of £2.4m. It should be noted that the HUDU model does not take the

93 „London‟s Health Services: A Framework for Action‟ (Professor Darzi, 2007)

November 2009 Page 145

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

baseline position into account and also does not reflect evolving models of healthcare provision, and so the estimates of required provision and associated costs generated may be exaggerated. On the other hand, the fact that the HUDU model does not incorporate the demand of primary healthcare services arising from commercial uses may balance the risk of over-estimating the requirements.

Changes in the preferred model of healthcare provision are key drivers of the PCT‟s estate and service strategy, including the expansion of GP led health centres and the development of new polysystems across Westminster. Although full details of the projected additional number and size of facilities is not available at this stage, the evolving plan is being reflected in the emerging LDF Core Strategy. It is likely that should the PCT‟s estate plans be fully implemented the additional demand arising from projected growth will be met through the newly developed facilities.

Funding for primary health is allocated on a three year basis, making assessment of planned long term future investment difficult. Whilst some evidence on capital bids for the years 2008-2011 is available, there is no information on funding that is specifically allocated to expand services and facilities.

November 2009 Page 146

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.7. Secondary Healthcare

5.7.1. Baseline

NHS London is one of 10 strategic health authorities (SHAs) in England. It was established in July 2006 to lead the NHS across London. NHS London is accountable for the performance of 31 primary care trusts (PCTs); 24 acute trusts94; five mental health trusts and the London Ambulance Service. London Strategic Health Authority assesses capacity of secondary health care provision by the total number of hospital beds95; however, no details for Westminster were available.

According to the Westminster PCT Strategic Service Delivery Plan 2008 there are 16 secondary care providers in Westminster. These include the Imperial Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (St Mary‟s); Chelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust; University College London Hospital; Central and North West London Mental Health Trust, including Gordon Hospital (Mental Health) and Butterworth Centre; and a series of other provider organisations engaged via Service Level Agreements (SLAs).

5.7.2. Forecast Demand

The London Strategic Health Authority indicated that individual PCTs hold information on forecast demand for and planned provision of secondary healthcare. However, consultation with the PCT revealed that this strategic planning activity is driven by the individual hospital trust.96

Some information is available from the annual reports of the Imperial Healthcare and the Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trusts (FT). The Foundation Trust Status held by both the Imperial Healthcare and the Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation FT allows them greater financial flexibility. FTs‟ capital funding is less reliant on centrally allocated resources and more on affordable borrowing on the private capital market. For instance the Chelsea & Westminster NHS FT reports a £19.4m capital programme which includes expansion of their Children‟s Accident and Emergency department97. The Imperial Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust also reports considerable capital investment in 2008, totalling £72m, which included the acquisition of the Paterson building and the start of a major scheme to facilities on the St Mary‟s site98.

94 Acute trusts are responsible of the quality and efficiency of hospital services provisions. They also decide on a strategy for how the hospital will develop, so that services improve.

95 Personal communication, London Strategic Health Authority (by phone) December 2008

96 Personal communication, London Strategic Health Authority (by phone and email) December 2008

97 „Annual Report and Summary Financial Statements, 2007/08‟ (Chelsea & Westminster NHS FT, 2008)

98 „Annual Report, 2007/08‟ (Imperial Healthcare NHS FT, 2008)

November 2009 Page 147

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

In the absence of provider forecasts, the HUDU model was used to as a starting point for quantifying and costing potential primary and secondary healthcare requirements in Westminster. While the HUDU model is a useful tool, it should be noted that it does not take the baseline position (i.e. existing capacity) into account. In addition, the model does not reflect evolving models of healthcare provision, in particular the drive to provide more acute services through primary healthcare facilities which may reduce the demand for secondary healthcare space. For these reasons, the estimates of required provision and associated costs generated may be exaggerated.

Table 5-33 provides results in terms of additional units of service required, i.e. number of beds or of places as appropriate, and illustrates the space required to physically provide them.

Table 5-33: HUDU Model Results, Additional Secondary Healthcare Requirements from New Development, 2006 – 2026

Total Requirements (Number of Units) Acute and Mental Beds Intermediate Beds Intermediate Day Spaces

19 4 4 Source: HUDU Planning Contribution Model, EDAW/AECOM, 2007

5.7.3. Planned Investment and Costs

Consultation with London Strategic Health Authority indicated that information was available from Westminster PCT. However, consultation with Westminster PCT was unfruitful with respect to both demand and planned investments in secondary care.

In 2007/08, London‟s PCTs spent £11.5 billion commissioning health services for Londoners. However, there is no breakdown of what this figure includes99.

In the absence of information from providers the HUDU model was used to provide indicative quantify and cost estimates of potential primary and secondary healthcare requirements in Westminster. Table 5-34 outlines the capital required to build the new facilities and operate them. Future requirements for Westminster PCT they are just under £5m.

Table 5-34: HUDU Model Results, Total Capital Costs, 2006 – 2026

Spatial Requirements, Sqm Capital Costs (£) 1,335 4,837,925 Source: HUDU Planning Contribution Model, EDAW/AECOM, 2007

99 „NHS London annual report and statement of accounts 2007/08‟ (NHS, 2008).

November 2009 Page 148

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Total revenue costs for primary and secondary healthcare required to operate new facilities in Westminster are £18.3m.

5.7.4. Assessment and Recommendations

The HUDU model forecasts an indicative need for an additional 1,335 sqm of secondary care facilities, at an overall capital cost of £4.8m. It should be noted that the HUDU model does not take the baseline position into account and also does not reflect evolving models of healthcare provision, and so the estimates of required provision and associated costs generated may be exaggerated. On the other hand, the fact that the HUDU model does not incorporate the demand of primary healthcare services arising from commercial uses may balance the risk of over-estimating the requirements.

The major finding of the assessment is the lack of systematic information. Westminster PCT‟s Strategic Service Delivery Plan lists existing acute, mental and intermediate care providers. However, limited evidence on their current capacity is available either through the individual PCTs or through the London Strategic Health Authority. The same holds for analysis of future demand and planned costs and investments.

The absence of publicly available details on Westminster based secondary healthcare institutions risks hindering the delivery of residential and commercial growth in Westminster, as no analysis of current and future needs is possible. The lack of unique source of information at the regional (London) or sub-regional (Central London) level may constitute an additional obstacle to the delivery of the additional infrastructure required to satisfy projected level of demand. Cross boundary movements can be considerable for secondary healthcare services, and integrated information may be essential in ensuring provision throughout Central London in time to meet additional demand.

November 2009 Page 149

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.8. Parks and Open Space

5.8.1. Baseline

There are a total of 172 open spaces in Westminster (excluding ten civic spaces) covering an area of 527 hectares. Of these 527 hectares, 454 hectares (87 open spaces) have public access and the remaining 73 hectares (85 open spaces) is made up of open spaces on housing estates and other private spaces.

Based on 2005 population figures, the Westminster‟s Open Space Strategy 2007100 calculated that this equates to 1.86 hectares of publicly accessible open space per 1,000 population. The figure is higher than the generally accepted standard of 1.6 ha per 1000.101 However, there are two Westminster specific features which suggest that WCC should aim to maintain such (higher) provision of publicly accessible open space. First, if Westminster‟s estimated daytime population numbers of approximately one million is considered the level of provision drops to a standard of 0.45 per 1,000 population. Second, the majority of Westminster‟s open space lies within Royal Parks, which, being distant from residential areas, may not be highly accessible to Westminster‟s resident population.

Table 5-35 identifies the open space in different areas of Westminster with the total hectares per 1,000 populations. The central area has the largest number of public open space, with Marylebone the fewest.

Table 5-35: Open Space in Westminster per 1,000 Population

Westminster Public Open Housing Estate Area Space Land Totals

Total Hectares per Number Hectares Number Hectares Hectares. 1,000 population

Central 27 291 0 0 291 11.6

South 15 4.5 1 0.03 4.54 0.13

Bayswater 13 6.3 2 1.33 7.64 0.2

Maida Vale 13 16.2 0 0 16.2 0.46

Marylebone 4 1.4 0 0 1.4 1.07

St. John‟s Wood 9 134.8 2 2 134.94 5 Source: Westminster Open Space Strategy 2007

100 „Open Space Strategy 2007‟ (WCC, 2007)

101 Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor and Sports Play, 2008

November 2009 Page 150

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-47 below presents the results of the Open Space Strategy analysis of Westminster‟s open spaces, including their number, indicative size and geographical importance.

Table 5-36: Westminster Public Open Space Hierarchy (2007)

Type Number Size Guideline (ha) Examples Comments

Hyde Park, Regional / national in Metropolitan 3 60-400 Kensington Gardens, their Regents Park importance St. James‟s Park, District 2 20-60 Green Park Paddington Rec., Victoria Local Parks 4 2-20 Tower Gardens (north) Includes Small Local Bessborough 13 0.4-2 London Gardens Parks Squares Includes London Pocket Parks 4 <0.4 Rembrandt Gardens Squares and playgrounds Footpaths Linear open Thames Walk Grand along River 4 Variable Space Union Canal path Thames and Canals Hard Civic Spaces 10 Variable Trafalgar Square landscaped areas

Total 97

Source: Westminster Open Space Strategy 2007

The Open Space Strategy maps areas of deficiency in Westminster with regard to both open space (Map WR5 p.29) and children‟s play spaces (Map WR2 p.30). Areas of deficiency are widespread in the north and south of Westminster, including parts of the Opportunity Areas identified within the emerging LDF as suitable for accommodating significant jobs and housing growth (Paddington, Victoria, Tottenham Court Road).

5.8.2. Forecast Demand

The demand for open space in Westminster is likely to increase as the residential population does. The Open Space Strategy highlights that without any action to increase open space provision the ratio of public open space per 1,000 population is likely to fall considerably from 1.86 hectares to 1.51 hectares based on 2005 figures102.

102 „Westminster Open Space Strategy 2007‟ (WCC 2007)

November 2009 Page 151

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

The Open Space Strategy underlines the importance of creating more city spaces to cater for the shared space with visitors and workers. In addition the likely increase in the number of children and of households without gardens is expected to result in additional demand for child play space.

The Strategy puts forward an Action Plan which sets out committed works to open spaces across the borough on a year by year basis. As of 2008, completed or planned works included the refurbishment and improvement of existing facilities and improved accessibility. Also planned are the creation of new child play space at the Mozart estate, an Environmental Area at Paddington Recreation Ground and a wildlife area at Queen‟s Park Gardens103.

In order to provide a longer term, comprehensive indicative assessment of likely future additional demand for open space, the URS Infrastructure Model was used. The findings are an indicative, broad-brush estimate only. As shown in Table 5-37 and Table 5-38 the results confirm the Open Space Strategy initial findings. It shows the likely increase in demand and associated spatial requirements for both parks and playable space104 arising from the projected residential and commercial growth. The additional demand for parks up to 2026 takes into account the projected growth in resident population and an additional component expected to use Westminster parks even if residing elsewhere.

It should be noted that this exercise represents a technical estimate only and should be considered in the context of the very limited availability of land in Westminster. As such additional provision should be sought wherever possible, but improvements to existing space and increased accessibility are likely to contribute mostly to meeting the estimated new demand.

Table 5-37: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Parks from New Development, 2006-2026

Number of People Requiring Additional Parks Space Additional Spatial Requirements (Ha) 42,119 78 Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R4 sheets

103 „Westminster Open Space Strategy, 2007 – Action Plan Update‟ (WCC, December 2008), available at http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/AMR_2007_2008_Appendix_2_Open_Space_Actio n_Plan_Review.pdf

104 As defined in „Supplementary Planning Guidance: Providing for Children and Young Peoples Play and Informal Recreation‟ (GLA, 2008)

November 2009 Page 152

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-38: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Playable Spaces from New Development, 2006-2026

Number of Additional Additional Spatial Type of Playable Space Playable Spaces Requirements (Sqm) Playable Space - Doorstops (0-4) 350 34,966 Playable Space - Local (5-10) 68 20,267 Playable Space - Youth (11-17) 89 17,726 Total 506 72,959 Source: URS calculations see Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R4 sheets

Generally private developers are required to find solutions to incorporate the required doorstops playable spaces as part of their proposed development design, and local and youth playable spaces may be delivered within primary and secondary education establishments.

Consultation with WCC has however confirmed that given the land availability constraints in Westminster it is expected that not all large scale projects/ developments will be able accommodate the required amount of open space or play space. When this is the case, WCC will usually seek contributions to improving existing open space/play space in the form of biodiversity in parks and green infrastructure such as green walls, green roofs and trees.

5.8.3. Planned Investment and Costs

Local Authorities have a role in ensuring that sufficient open space for residents and employees is provided on schemes that are brought forward by developers. Charitable and quasi-governmental bodies could play a key role in delivering such spaces if resources can be secured. As grant funding is the major source of capital resources to deliver additional open space, there is a risk of mis-match between the variety of funding streams that may contribute to an individual scheme. This may be exacerbated by inadequate staff resources, resulting in underspending of the available funding or delays in the delivery. With regards to playspace, an important source of provision is private developers delivering residential developments. Playable spaces associated with primary or secondary schools are an additional source of play space for children aged 5 and above, although there is limited opportunity to increase provision. Such places should not however be considered as interchangeable with playable spaces located outside school premises, as children‟s play needs extend outside school hours. These spaces would generally be funded through Primary Capital Programme or Building Schools for the Future monies. In order to provide a starting point for detailed analysis, the URS Infrastructure Model provides indicative costs associated with the delivery of the required additional open

November 2009 Page 153

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

space provision. Table 5-39 and Table 5-40 below show that the estimated cost is to provide the additional 78 hectares of parks provision is in excess of £36m. While providing a point of reference for the cost of open space provision, this cost estimate is of limited applicability in the Westminster context given land availability constraints. The focus for future investment is likely to be small scale provision and improvements.

Table 5-39: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Parks Provision, 2006-2026, £ (2009 Prices)

Additional Spatial Requirements (Ha) Total Capital Cost 78 36,209,539 Source: URS calculations see Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R sheets

Table 5-40: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Expanding Playable Spaces, 2006-2026, £ (2009 Prices)

Additional Spatial Type of Playable Space Requirements (Sqm) Total Capital Cost Playable Space - Doorstops (0-4) 34,966 6,974,990 Playable Space - Local (5-10) 20,267 4,042,841 Playable Space - Youth (11-17) 17,726 3,536,041 Total 72,959 14,553,872 Source: URS calculations see Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R4 sheets

5.8.4. Assessment and Recommendations

The baseline analysis highlights that many parts of the north and south of Westminster already suffer from an existing deficit with regard to open space and playspace, including parts of the three opportunity areas due to accommodate significant housing and jobs growth.

Given Westminster‟s central London location, land constraints will not allow for the delivery of additional parks space in the scale suggested by the application of the URS Infrastructure Model an additional 78 ha of parks and just under 73,000 sqm of children play space. For this reason wherever it is not possible to create new local parks, small local parks and pocket parks alternative measures should be identified to improve existing open space/play space in the form of biodiversity in parks and green infrastructure such as green walls, green roofs and trees. This approach is aligned with that currently employed by WCC.

November 2009 Page 154

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Out of the total additional playspace needed to meet the additional projected demand over a third is for children aged 0 to 4. As such private developers delivering the residential schemes will be expected to incorporate them into their designs, or to give financial contributions for off-site delivery. The remainder of additional playspace (local and youth playable space) can potentially be delivered within primary or secondary schools developments, and as such its cost would be incorporated in the school‟s funding bid. As a result, it is expected that both private developers and education funding will contribute to the children playspace expected capital cost of £14.6m.

The URS Infrastructure Model estimates also a costs of approximately £36.2m associated with new parks space. However, on the basis of Westminster‟s land constraints, the actual deliverable space is expected to be lower, resulting in a lower cost.

As parks and open space are not funded through a streamlined capital source, there are risks in terms of potential funding gaps. As grant funding is the major source of capital resources to deliver additional open space, there is also a risk of mis-match between the variety of funding streams that may contribute to a large individual scheme. This may be exacerbated by inadequate staff resources, resulting in underspending of the available funding or delays in the delivery. Should WCC face funding gaps in providing open space to meet the projected population growth it should seek potential partners facing similar constraints and lobby for the introduction of forward funding mechanisms.

November 2009 Page 155

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.9. Sports and Leisure

5.9.1. Baseline

The „Active Westminster Sports and Physical Activity Strategy‟ highlights a current under- provision of sports halls and synthetic turf pitches. However, the Strategy identifies Westminster as being excellently served by swimming pools and health and fitness centres. Westminster has 64 different sites offering health and fitness. However, only five of them (7.8% of the total), are owned by WCC. Table 5-41 highlights the sports facility provision in Westminster assessed to identify the needs of the city.

Table 5-41: Sports Facilities in Westminster

Sports Facility Provision per 1,000 Population Sports halls 29.8 sq m

Swimming pools 48.92 sq m

Health and fitness 17.99 stations Source: ActiveWestminster Sport and Physical Activity Strategy 2008-2013

In addition to the sports facilities identified in the Active Westminster Sports and Physical Activity Strategy, WCC wishes to expand on the provision of alternative sports facilities which include climbing, martial areas, dance etc. However, there is no quantitative information available to assess the provision.

It is recognised that while swimming pool provision is very good in Westminster there is a need for swimming pools in the north-east of Westminster. Participation levels in Westminster vary and the wards of Queens Park, Church Street, Harrow Road, Tachbrook and Churchill all experience lower levels of participation than the Westminster average.

5.9.2. Forecast Demand

Forecasting for sports provision is based on population projections for Westminster. However, no detailed plan forecasting future demand is available. Indications are that there is adequate sports and leisure provision due to the three new main stream facilities in addition to existing facilities. The three new builds will be completed over the next five years, in addition to seven projects coming online under the Building Schools for the Future programme. The additional facilities will be accommodated either in purpose built sports and leisure centres or within educational establishments. The planned scheme include a variety of indoor and outdoor sports facilities, including pitches for team games, sports halls, fitness/dance suites, climbing walls, Multi Use Games Areas (MUGAs) and hydrotherapy pools. The available details on such schemes are presented in Table 5-42, which also shows that they are expected to deliver an additional 10,162 sqm of formal and informal sports facilities.

November 2009 Page 156

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-42: Planned Additional Community and Leisure Facilities Total Number Additional Type of of Timeline for Floorspace Facility Centres Location Delivery (Sqm)

Little Venice Sports Centre Late Spring 2009 N/a

Community Marshall Street Leisure Sports and 3 Spring 2010 N/a Centre Leisure Centres

Chelsea Barracks N/a N/a

Pimlico Academy Summer 2009 4,094

St. Marylebone Existing 188

Westminster City School August 2009 1,321

Quintin Kynaston 2,791

Community 105 9 St. Augustine‟s 594 sports facilities St. Georges RC 633 20010/11 The Grey Coat Hospital 218

College Park Special School 196

QE2 Special School 127

Total 12 10,162 Source: Personal communication: Principal Sports and Leisure Services Manager, WCC, 20/01/2009

In the absence of comprehensive forecasts of need for the planning period, the URS Infrastructure Model has been used to provide an indicative assessment of the likely increase in demand and associated spatial requirements for indoor and outdoor sports facilities arising from the projected residential and commercial growth. Table 5-43 summarises the results, which are a broad-brush estimate only. The additional demand for sports space up to 2026 takes into account the projected growth in resident population and an additional component expected to use Westminster sports space even if residing elsewhere as agreed with WCC.

105 A new sports hall is to be developed on the Brent side of the site. Discussions are underway with Brent Council regarding joint community use by Westminster residents.

November 2009 Page 157

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-43: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Indoor and Outdoor Sports Facilities from New Development, 2006-2026

Type Additional Spatial Requirements (Sqm) Health Stations 3,068

Sport Halls 2,039

Swimming Pools 1,669

Outdoor Sports Facilities 550,000 Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R4 sheets

Information provided by Sports and Leisure Services shows that WCC is planning to expand indoor sports provision with a range of formal and informal facilities. Based on this information, the additional floorspace that is expected to come through over the next five years is in line with the additional demand as estimated by the URS Infrastructure Model.

With regards to outdoor sports facilities, land availability constraints in Westminster mean that WCC is unlikely to be able to meet the estimated additional demand of 41 hectares. As for parks, it is therefore suggested that links to and quality of existing facilities is improved to allow wider access.

5.9.3. Planned Investment and Costs

To address the under provision of sports facilities and to meet ActiveWestminster strategy aspirations and population growth forecasts, Westminster are planning/ delivering three new community sports and leisure centres, seven new community sports facilities through the BSF programme, and an expanded programme to better work with the private sector106. Table 5-44 outlines the cost of each new centre.

106 Personal communication, Sports and Leisure, WCC, 20/01/2009

November 2009 Page 158

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-44: Planned Additional Community and Leisure Facilities

Type of Facility Total Number of Centres Cost, £ ‘000 4,000 Community Sports and 3 20,000 Leisure Centres 46,000

Community sports facilities 9 NA107

Total 12 70,000 Source: Personal communication, Principal Sports and Leisure Services Manager, WCC, 20/01/2009

Table 5-45 shows the expected cost of delivering additional sports facilities to meet the projected growth in demand as estimated through the URS Infrastructure Model. The costs are a high-level indicative estimate only. Funding for the additional indoor and outdoor sports facilities listed in Table 5-42 is already allocated, as shown in Table 5-44.

Table 5-45: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Cost of Indoor and Outdoor Sports Facilities, 2006-2026, £ (2009 Prices)

Type Total Capital Cost Health Stations 21,476,606

Sport Halls 4,077,366

Swimming Pools 10,979,404

Outdoor Sports Facilities 7,439,539

Total 43,972,915 Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) see Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R4 sheets

5.9.4. Assessment and Recommendations

WCC has planned for an additional 10,162 sqm of predominantly indoor sports facilities over the next five years, with most of the funding already allocated. The new facilities will be delivered either in purpose built sports and leisure centres or within educational

107 Funds of approximately £150m have been committed for the relevant schools through the BSF programme; this figure however is for the entire schools rather than the sports facilities exclusively. Source: Personal communication, Sports and Leisure, WCC, 20/01/2009.

November 2009 Page 159

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

establishments and will provide equipped space for a range of formal and informal sports activity.

As a result, it is expected that a significant portion of the expected £36.5m cost of indoor sports facilities is already covered by planned investment.

The key issue in meeting additional sports facilities demand arising from growth up to 2026 is land availability. The URS Infrastructure Model estimates the need for an additional 55 ha of outdoor sports space, at a cost of £7.4m. Given Westminster central London location, land constraints will not allow for the delivery of the entire additional outdoor sports facilities requirement. As for parks, it is therefore suggested that wherever it is not possible to deliver new facilities alternative measures should be identified to improve existing facilities space and improve their access and level of usage.

November 2009 Page 160

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.10. Libraries

5.10.1. Baseline

In the 2007/2008 Westminster libraries had 81,629 adult and children members, of which approximately 40% can be expected to reside outside Westminster‟s administrative boundaries108. However, an additional 2,464,342 visitors were recorded over the same period, totalling just under 2,500,000 users. Of this number Westminster has a statutory remit to supply library services for residents, workers and students109.

There are currently 14 libraries in Westminster, totalling over 11,300 sqm of library space. This includes four main libraries, other community libraries which also provide learning facilities and community spaces, the Westminster Reference Library and the Westminster Archive Centre. In addition there is also the Home Service.

Existing libraries are listed in Table 5-46.

Table 5-46: Westminster Libraries and Type

Name of Library Type Archive Centre Charing Cross Main Church Street Community Maida Vale Community Marylebone (incl. Marylebone Info Service) Main Mayfair Community Paddington Main Paddington Children Community Pimlico Community Queen's Park Community Saint James Community Saint John's Wood Community Victoria Main Westminster Reference Library Source: Personal communication, Library and Planning and Development Dpts, WCC 09/02/2009 and 01/10/2009

Libraries increasingly act as community hubs offering a range of activities and services. Among these the Westminster Libraries, Archives, Arts and Culture Business Plan 2008/09110 lists for instance: under five activities and after school homework clubs together with learning opportunities; programmes tailored to the needs of local

108 „Libraries, Archives, Arts and Culture Business Plan 2008/09‟ (WCC, 2008).

109 It has been so far impossible to quantify this additional requirement. Personal communication, Westminster Libraries, 09/02/2009

110 „Westminster 2008/09 Libraries, Archives, Arts and Culture Business Plan‟ (City of Westminster, 2008)

November 2009 Page 161

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

communities; provision on information on local health, education and other community services; and provision of material in local community languages.

Westminster‟s libraries are a mixture of both main and community libraries offering a wide range of services to the community such as specific services for commuters, the Chinese population, and specialist collections.

Despite the number of facilities and services provided, not all existing facilities are deemed to be suitable to meeting current demand. Because of the variety of services they provide, many of the existing buildings are considered to be inadequate in terms of size, layout and design111.

5.10.2. Forecast Demand

Consultation with WCC112 has confirmed that future demand for libraries is forecast based on:

Analysis of increase in the number of potential users: this includes expanding population and population drift, changes in catchment areas leading to a change in the number or members or users, and supporting the diversification of the population/BME/new communities

Analysis of patterns of library use: this includes analysis of the use of existing facilities and changes in the type of services provided

Budget and potential savings considerations.

In light of these elements, there are plans to consolidate the provision of library services. This involves re-locating collections currently located within specialist libraries to reduce the number of smaller libraries113, while remaining facilities are to be expanded to meet additional demand. The strategy is however still evolving and no agreed details are currently available, although preliminary analysis suggests a potential increase in floorspace by 2,000 sqm114.

Table 5-47 summarises the results of URS Infrastructure Model, which represents a technical estimate only of the likely increase in demand and associated spatial requirements arising from the projected residential and commercial growth. The additional demand up to 2026 takes into account the projected growth in resident population and an additional component expected to demand services even if residing

111 Personal communication, Westminster Libraries, 12/01/2009

112 Personal communication, Westminster Libraries, 09/02/2009

113 Personal communication, Westminster Libraries, 12/01/2009

114 Westminster Library Five Year Capital Programme by Scheme as approved by Cabinet 08/12/08

November 2009 Page 162

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

elsewhere115. It should be noted that the estimated quantum of demand arising from the emerging Core Strategy might be accommodated in space terms but this does not consider the increasing pressure resulting from, among other factors, the intensification in use and the high number of visitors to Westminster‟s libraries. Also, quality of space is an important factor not reflected through a straight-forward consideration of quantum of the requirement.

Table 5-47: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Library Facilities from New Development, 2006-2026

Number of People Requiring Library Services Additional Spatial Requirements (Sqm) 36,157 1,446 URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R5 sheets

In light of the information provided by Library Operations it appears that Westminster‟s library provision is currently adequate to meet existing demand, even when considering the substantial demand for services arising by commuters working and studying in Westminster but residing elsewhere. Therefore, the proposed expansion of facilities is likely to meet future growth in demand as opposed to meeting existing shortfalls in provision.

Information contained in the Library Business Plan 2008/09 only goes up to 2012. This means that the figures are not directly comparable with the findings of URS Infrastructure Model. However, should all the planned schemes go forward the additional provision appears to be adequate to meet the additional demand arising from the estimated residential and commercial growth up to 2026. It should be noted that this assessment is based on a consideration of space requirements only and does not take into account other factors such as the quality of facilities.

5.10.3. Planned Investment and Costs

Westminster Library funding is based on a five year capital investment programme outlining the investment required to improve the building stock or increase the capacity of facilities throughout Westminster. The most up to date programme sets out costs totalling £4.5m for the relocation and/or expansion of libraries across Westminster; however, it is unclear at this stage what these costs include116. We understand these capital costs are

115 The „non-residential‟ component as defined in URS Infrastructure Model could be underestimating the actual non-residential demand for library services as available statistics do not consider use by non members, and may even be underestimating the number of non-resident members.

116 Personal communication, Westminster Libraries, 09/02/2009

November 2009 Page 163

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

confirmed by the Cabinet and some of them have now been approved, although no further details are available.

In addition to the library expansion there are a number of other library works planned to improve the quality of Westminster‟s libraries. These include signage, redecoration, furniture, layout and shelving refit, archive redecorations, minor works, life upgrade, and repairs to structure.

The Library Business Plan 2008/09 outlines the financial resources set aside for the capital costs of service for libraries, archives and arts up to 2011/12. Table 5-48 illustrates the expected capital costs for new building/ capital bidding117 and identifies there is a projected increase up to 2009/10 followed by a decrease to 2011/12.

Table 5-48: Capital Costs of Service for Libraries, Archives and Arts (‘000s)

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Total Libraries 422 1,660 2,700 1,300 200 6,282 Archives 16 105 0 0 0 121 Total 438 1,765 2,700 1,300 200 6,403 Source: Westminster 2008/09 Libraries, Archives, Arts and Culture Business Plan

The outlined spending is to be considered in the context of the library consolidation strategy. Major works that are planned but for which funding has not been already allocated include118:

Transformation and expansion of Church Street Library: Major building works have already started, and a temporary library has been opened to cover this period.

Marylebone Library: There are plans to redevelop the Marylebone library and WCC House.

Relocation of Paddington Children‟s Library: the potential end of lease move from a small church hall to a premise which is three times larger in a now disused basement.

Expansion of St. John‟s Wood library: Both the expansion and the refurbishment have now been completed.

Victoria Exchange: A new funded library funded in part through developer contributions will open at Victoria in 2017, replacing the current libraries in Victoria and St James's. The new facility will offer 1,500 m2 of library services together with a range of community services.

117 „Westminster 2008/09 Libraries, Archives, Arts and Culture Business Plan‟ (City of Westminster, 2008)

118 „Westminster Library Five Year Capital Programme by Scheme‟ (Westminster Libraries, 09/02/2009; as approved by Cabinet 08/12/08).

November 2009 Page 164

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Redecoration and upgrade at Archives, Charing Cross, Mayfair and Victoria libraries.

Some data is available for some of these projects; however, at the moment there is not a complete picture of the full funding options for realising WCC‟s strategy.

The URS Infrastructure Model provides indicative costs associated with the delivery of the required additional library space provision over the whole planning period. The estimates provided are broad-brush and a starting point for more detailed assessment. Table 5-49 below shows that the estimated cost is in fact in line with WCC‟s expectations of costs in their current Five Year Capital Programme119.

Table 5-49: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Library Facilities, 2006-2026, £ (2009 Prices)

Number of People Requiring Library Additional Spatial Services Requirements (Sqm) Total Capital Cost 36,157 1,446 4,338,838 Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R5 sheets

5.10.4. Assessment and Recommendations

Current library provision in Westminster is deemed adequate to meet demand arising from projected growth. A number of schemes have been planned to address issues of quality of the library space in terms of size, layout and design. Westminster Libraries are planning to expand the overall library space by approximately 2,000 sqm120. This is in line with the URS Infrastructure Model‟s estimate of additional requirements arising from projected growth in Westminster up to 2026. It should be noted that an assessment of spatial requirements does not take into account the importance of other factors such as improvements to access and the quality of library space. The estimated costs are in the region of £4.5m, and are partly expected to be met through developer contributions.

Westminster Libraries are in the process of agreeing a comprehensive strategy aimed at consolidating the provision of library services. This involves re-locating collections are

119 The construction cost assumed to calculate the overall cost of provision is of £3,000 per sqm. This is in line with MLA recommendations, which state: 'A construction and initial fit out cost; these can vary by site and area; taking the authoritative RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered surveyors) Building Cost Information Service data, this can be from £2,807 per square metre in the East Midlands area to £3,465 per square metre in Greater London. A recommended current benchmark figure here is £3,000 per square metre'. http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/~/media/Files/pdf/2008/standard_charge2008, page 5.

120 Westminster Library Five Year Capital Programme by Scheme as approved by Cabinet 08/12/08

November 2009 Page 165

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

located within specialist libraries to reduce the number of smaller libraries121, while remaining facilities are to be expanded to meet additional demand.

WCC should continue to develop a funding strategy to support the delivery of its vision for library provision, to ensure to full funding package is adequate to meet the expected growth in demand. Such strategy should set out a comprehensive list of potential public, quasi-public and private sources of funding together with the amount that each should contribute, to ensure that the planned timeline for delivery is met.

121 Personal communication, Westminster Libraries, 12/01/2009

November 2009 Page 166

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.11. Job Brokerage

5.11.1. Baseline

Westminster Works is a new neighbourhood based training and employment programme targeting out of work residents in areas with the highest concentration of benefit claimants. The job brokerage element of the programme is being lead by Paddington Waterside Partnership via their Paddington First job brokerage service. Westminster Works effectively acts as the unemployed unique point of contact, outlining opportunities for job training or re-skilling and job search. The programme engages with local employers as well as voluntary and community sector employment support organisations122.

Jobcentre Plus is the government agency offering welfare to work services to people of working age. It is part of the Department of Work and Pensions and also has a representative on the Westminster Works board, usually referring job seekers to Westminster Works‟ staff whenever their resources do not allow a tailored enough support.

There currently are two Jobcentre Plus offices in Westminster, one in Chadwick Street and one in Lisson Grove. Information on the size of the Jobcentre Plus offices and the number of staff employed was provided by Job Centre Plus.

Consultation with Jobcentre Plus also confirmed that the demand for job brokerage services is related to the number of benefit claimants. Table 5-50 illustrates the total number of working age benefit claimants in Westminster. The benefit claimants are a proxy for Westminster‟s Jobcentre Plus customers. The total number of claimants was 17,355 in February 2008 and this figure includes job seekers, incapacity benefits, lone parents, and others on income related benefits.

Table 5-50: Benefit Claimants - Working Age Clients for Westminster February 2008

Others on Income Job Incapacity Lone Related Total Seekers Benefits Parents Benefits Claimants

Total 3,085 10,240 3,095 935 17,355 Source: Benefit Claimants - Working Age Clients for Westminster, February 2008

5.11.2. Forecast Demand

The total number of staff required is related to the total number of customers. There is an estimated need for staff in Jobcentre Plus due to the increase in unemployment attributed to the economic downturn. Westminster Works has confirmed that there has been an increase of 50% in the number of job support claimants since last year.

122 Personal Communication, Economic Development and Policy Dpt, WCC, 30/05/2009.

November 2009 Page 167

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Based on these considerations, Table 5-51 shows the results of URS Infrastructure Model technical estimates for future demand for job brokerage services. These estimates provide a broad-brush assessment and a starting point for further analysis. The total additional space requirement, based on square metres per staff at existing offices, suggests that either an expansion of existing facilities or a re-structuring of the facilities around three offices are viable options to meet the additional demand.

Table 5-51: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Job Brokerage from New Development, 2006-2026

Additional Job Brokerage Additional Spatial Additional Demand Staff Required Requirements (Sqm) 1,812 7 127 Source: URS calculations. For assumptions and workings see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R5 sheets

5.11.3. Planned Investment and Costs

Consultation with Central London‟s Jobcentre Plus Offices Partnership suggests that there are no planned new build or expansion plans to Westminster‟s Jobcentre Plus buildings123. Westminster Works has confirmed that no formal analysis of future demand is undertaken to inform an estate strategy. This is partly understood to be the result of the fact that Job Centre Plus rely predominantly on other local providers to offer a considerable proportion of job support services124.

The Department of Work and Pensions, of which Jobcentre Plus is part, has recently shifted from ownership of assets to contracting for services, coupled with a modernisation of all Jobcentre Plus buildings by 2006125. In the context of rationalisation of resources, the 2004 investment plan highlights a drive towards centralisation, so that for instance Jobcentre Plus accommodation is provided through a centrally held DWP PFI contract with Land Securities Trillion126.

123 Personal communication, Central London Partnership Manager, Jobcentre Plus, 20/01/2009

124 Personal Communication, Economic Development and Policy Dpt, WCC, 30/05/2009

125 „Departmental Investment Strategy 2005-2007‟ (DWP, 2004); „CSR 2007 Asset Management Strategy‟ (DWP, 2007)

126 „Jobcentre Plus Annual Reports and Accounts 2007/08‟ (Jobcentre Plus, 2008)

November 2009 Page 168

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Jobcentre Plus funding comes predominantly from the Department of Work and Pension, which plans to spend £8.7m on the programme nationally over the 2008-2011 Spending Review period127.

Westminster Works resources come from a variety of institutions, including WCC, the Local Strategic Partnership, S106 agreements, as well as some education or child support funding for pertinent areas of work.

The URS Infrastructure Model suggests a likely capital cost to provide adequate space for the newly required staff of just over £210,000, as shown in Table 5-52. This is a high level estimate and a starting point for further analysis. As Jobcentre Plus appear to have no plan to expand on current provision, no funding has been set aside that could cover the expected costs

Table 5-52: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Job Brokerage Facilities, 2006-2026, £ (2009 Prices)

Additional Job Brokerage Additional Spatial Staff Required Requirements (Sqm) Total Capital Cost 7 127 210,357 Source: URS calculations. For assumptions and workings see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R5 sheets

5.11.4. Assessment and Recommendations

Information on the current capacity of Jobcentre Plus offices located in Westminster is unavailable. However, given the lack of apparent expansion plans for Jobcentre Plus services in Westminster, the population growth projected up to 2026 is expected to increase pressure on existing staff numbers. Based on the URS Infrastructure Model the new resident population is expected to generate the need for at least seven new staff members, with an associated need for new floorspace.

Our analysis does not incorporate the additional needs that are likely to arise from the current economic situation, which could be medium to long term in their impact.. The estimated cost of just over £210,000 is therefore to consider a lower boundary estimate of the potential funding gap to provide for adequate job brokerage services.

It is understood that service planning is currently difficult with Jobcentre Plus operating under a strongly centralised organisational structure. WCC should therefore seek to strengthen the cooperative approach to service planning with the Jobcentre Plus Central Partnership through its Westminster Works board.

127 „Department for Work and Pensions: Three Years Business Plan 2008-2011‟ (DWP, 2008)

November 2009 Page 169

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

WCC should also ensure that both Westminster Works and Jobcentre Plus are fully aware of the projected growth in population, and the associated needs for job brokerage services, so that a critical analysis of likely future needs is undertaken to inform future strategies.

November 2009 Page 170

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.12. Cemeteries

5.12.1. Baseline

The City of Westminster operates three cemeteries, all located outside its boundaries, at which grave spaces for burial and the interment of ashes are available. The cemeteries are mainly for Christian faith burials, although the Cemeteries website states that the cemeteries offer services to people of all denomination.

On average there are 150 burials each year in Westminster‟s three cemeteries and WCC has identified an existing 20 years of burial space to cater for its residents128. WCC has however raised concern over the lack in opportunity to cater for all burials and offer a range of burial services.

Table 5-53: Cemeteries in WCC

Hanwell Cemetery (formerly City of Westminster Cemetery)

East Finchley Cemetery (formerly St. Marylebone Cemetery)

Mill Hill Cemetery (formerly Paddington New Cemetery) Source: http://www.westminster.gov.uk/cemeteries/

5.12.2. Forecast Demand

Consultation has highlighted the difficultly in forecasting the demand for burial space in Westminster, due to the choice Westminster residents have in where they get buried (London residents do not have to be buried in the local planning authority in which they live)129.

No expansion plan has emerged from the research, as WCC identifies that existing facilities are broadly adequate to meet the next 20 years‟ demand for burials. It is however understood that officers are considering the potential for introduction of burial chambers which would allow for a more intensive use of the existing spaces.

WCC is also however aware that there is a recognised demand for burial space from neighbouring boroughs, which could put a strain on the existing 20 year burial space available and impact the potential to meet future demand.

Consultation with Westminster Parks Services has also highlighted the need to take account of emergency planning such as the possibility of pandemics. This could impact the demand for cemetery space by coupling with the normal population rate of burials.

The URS Infrastructure Model was used to generate a broad-brush, technical estimate for future demand for burials. Table 5-54 shows that whilst the lack of available land is to be

128 Personal communication, Parks, Sports and Leisure Dpt, WCC, 26/03/2009

129 Personal communication, Parks, Sports and Leisure Dpt, WCC, 26/03/2009

November 2009 Page 171

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

considered an issue in the Westminster context, the total additional space required suggests that a minor expansion to the current cemetery space should be enough to meet the additional demand.

Table 5-54: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Burials from New Development, 2006-2026

Additional Burials Required Additional Spatial Requirements (Ha) 1,535 0.4 Source: URS calculations see Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R5 sheets

5.12.3. Planned Investment and Costs

Information on forecast costs and planned investment was unavailable130.

The URS Infrastructure Model was therefore used to provide an indicative cost for the entire planning period. It suggests that a likely capital cost to provide adequate space for the newly required burials is just over £150,000, as shown in Table 5-55.

Table 5-55: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Burial Space, £ (2009 Prices), 2006-2026

Additional Spatial Requirements (Ha) Total Capital Cost) 0.4 134,148 Source: URS calculations see Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R5 sheets

5.12.4. Assessment and Recommendations

Consultation with Westminster Parks Services confirmed that existing facilities, all of which are located outside of Westminster, are broadly adequate to meet the next 20 years‟ demand for burials, with the exception of larger burials for potential pandemics and possible pressure due to demand from neighbouring boroughs and the variety of faith groups which are present in Westminster.

URS Infrastructure Model estimates the need for very limited additional space, totalling 0.4 hectares of burial space, to meet demand arising from the expected growth in burial rates. When considering recommendations from Westminster Parks that future planning should incorporate emergency planning considerations, this may mean that URS

130 Personal communication, Westminster Cemeteries, by phone and email 24/03/2009

November 2009 Page 172

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Infrastructure Model‟s estimates could be underestimating the additional requirement for cemetery space over the next 20 years.

Options for intensification of use are being explored. These and if appropriate options for expansion at existing sites and associated funding need to be progressed to ensure demand can be met.

November 2009 Page 173

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.13. Community and Faith Facilities

5.13.1. Baseline

In considering community facilities the analysis looks at meeting, activity and office space offering four main areas of services:

Services for Children (crèche, play, youth clubs)

Advice Services (CAB, Law Centre, BMW community advice users, etc)

Adult and Community Learning

Meeting Rooms and Halls.

Voluntary Action Westminster (an independent charity that works with community and voluntary groups in the City of Westminster) indicate that approximately 2,000 third sector organisations are located in Westminster and deliver or run services from community spaces for a high number of residents.

No detailed information on existing floorspace and utilisation rates is available on the number of community facilities across the whole of Westminster. Moreover, a meaningful assessment of current provision should consider a number of factors that are difficult to quantify, unless a specific survey is undertaken, including: how often the facility is used, whether the facility is operating at under or over capacity, the catchment area that the facilities tend to cater for, whether the buildings are fit for purpose, etc.

Baseline information is available for the north of Westminster, where WCC has commissioned a recently completed audit of community space within the wards of Westbourne, Harrow Road and Queens Park. The audit records a total of 10,621 sqm of floorspace available in the area, with a utilisation of between 40% and 90%131. These are spread across a variety of venues, and approximately 9,700 sqm of floorspace are classified in the report as being flexible use, activity or dedicated meeting and training space132.

Figure 5-5 shows the location of youth centres in Westminster. In the same map we also present the location of primary and secondary schools, as well as sports centres. The map clearly shows a significant concentration of all the facilities in the north and south of Westminster. What is interesting is the locational pattern emerging from the map: the proximity of most facilities to one another suggests opportunities for either a partial co- location of overlapping services or for an integrated service package for young people.

131 „North Westminster Community Space Audit‟ (Harrow Road Neighbourhood Partnership and Hanson Consulting, 2009)

132 This space is provided across a wide range of venues, including mixed use community venues, community halls, libraries, schools, places of worship and private and other venues.

November 2009 Page 174

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Further work on other types of community halls and centres would enable a more thorough analysis.

More information is available on faith facilities. The City of Westminster has a prosperous faith community and is identified as one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse boroughs in the Country. The majority of Westminster‟s places of worship are used by local residents as well as visited by thousands of people from across the world every year133.

Figure 5-5 illustrates the religious diversity of Westminster (as of 2001 census), with the highest proportion of residents being of Christian faith (55%) but with 16% of no religion.

133 „Directory of Faiths in Westminster‟ (WCC, 2007)

November 2009 Page 175

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 5-5: Youth Clubs, Sports Facilities and Primary and Secondary Schools in Westminster

Source: URS and WCC

November 2009 Page 176l

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-56: Westminster 2001 Census Faith Estimates

Estimated Total Number % of Total Population by Faith Group of Residents Population

Christians 99,797 55

Muslims 21,356 12

Hindus 3,473 2

Jews 7,732 4

Sikhs 404 1

Buddhists 2,392 1

Any Other Religion 940 1

Residents with No Religion 29,299 16

Residents with Religion not stated 15,889 9

Total 181,282 100 Source: 2001 Census Faith Estimates, WCC

Among the established places of worship in Westminster there are134:

90 churches (including 45 Church of England Parish churches)

21 Mosques and centres

9 Synagogues

7 Buddhist/Bahai/Hindu temples and centres

Several more places of worship just outside of Westminster's borders that will be used by Westminster residents (such as the Central Gurdwara in Queensdale Road)135

WCC is aware of the shortage of space available for use by the Muslim community for five daily prayers in the north and south of Westminster. Currently the Muslim community uses community halls and centres for daily prayers; however, there are problems with use of these facilities for early morning and evening prayers, and there are often competing demands between groups who are sharing these spaces.

The West London Buddhist Centre also indicates the need for a larger shared space in Westminster that could be used for festivals and celebrations, albeit no indication of size

134 „Directory of Faiths in Westminster‟ (WCC, 2007)

135 Personal communication, WCC, 13/02/2009

November 2009 Page 177

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

of that space has been given. Westminster has one of the largest (and fastest growing) Buddhist communities in London136.

5.13.2. Forecast Demand

During consultation Voluntary Action Westminster underlined the challenges intrinsic in attempts to quantify future community facilities needs. This is due to the variety of both providers involved with running the facilities and of users of each community facility. The demand from each group and organisation is unique and therefore hard to quantify. For these reasons an independent assessment of potential demand for faith facilities has not been made.

With respect to faith facilities, anecdotal evidence reveals a high demand for a purpose built Muslim prayer facility and a shared Buddhist Centre.

The recently completed audit of community space in north Westminster includes an assessment of demand for space for the wards of Westbourne, Harrow Road and Queens Park137. The audit finds that for flexible use, activity or dedicated meeting and training space there is an unsatisfied demand in the area for approximately 360 sqm of additional floorspace, with a strong need for large spaces for social events, and for an additional 232 sqm of small office space for community groups and organisations.

5.13.3. Planned Investment and Costs

WCC is currently assessing the feasibility of establishing a community centre in north Westminster. As part of this process the recently completed North Westminster Community Space Audit shows that the could help meet the requirements for an additional 232 sqm of office space, 35 sqm of meeting and training space, 100 sqm of flexible activity space and 192 sqm of physical or social activity space. Discussions with WCC suggest that the centre would also provide space for daily prayers for the Muslim community; however, details of the size of that space have not yet been developed138. As the project is still at the feasibility stage no assessment of the likely cost has been undertaken139.

136 Personal communication, WCC, 27/01/2009

137 „North Westminster Community Space Audit‟ (Harrow Road Neighbourhood Partnership and Hanson Consulting, 2009)

138 Personal communication, WCC, 13/02/2009

139 There are also issues to be resolved around whether residents would accept a multi-faith community facility and how this would be managed Personal communication, Policy officer, WCC, 27/01/2009

November 2009 Page 178

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

The investment cost for a community centre, Muslim prayer room and Buddhist Centre will be identified if the project moves to a second stage. No site for the prayer room or centre has been identified as yet140.

5.13.4. Assessment and Recommendations

There is a wide consensus around the importance of an adequate provision of community and faith facilities to support sustainable communities. The range of services that these facilities generally provide, including training, advice and youth services mean that they also constitute an alternative or a complimentary option to local or central government agencies providing the same services.

It is however recognised that there are intrinsic difficulties in quantifying how much such space communities may need due to the variety of both providers involved with running the facilities and of users of each community facility. Westminster has recently completed a survey of community facilities in the North of Westminster as part of a feasibility study for a new community centre, and this could constitute the starting point for a wider assessment of the provision of community and faith spaces.

A recently completed North Westminster Community Space Audit141 shows that in Westbourne, Harrow Road and Queens Park there is a need for an additional 232 sqm of office space, 35 sqm of meeting and training space, 100 sqm of flexible activity space and 192 sqm of physical or social activity space.

WCC should encourage and support the voluntary and community sector groups in developing a robust evidence base on existing and future needs. This should include:

A realistic benchmark standard for unit costs and space requirements in Westminster, to be used in planning future provision of community and faith facilities

Developing an understanding of the baseline in terms of whether new future demand can be met by existing facilities

Integration of the work undertaken in the current study and

Provision of a base for negotiation when major developments come forward.

WCC should continue support community and faith groups in developing funding strategies to either expand or improve their facilities. As no mainstream funding source is available for this infrastructure area community groups are under considerable pressure to develop quite detailed business plans to bid for quasi-governmental funding (including for instance Big Lottery Fund monies).

140 Personal communication, WCC, 13/02/2009

141 Covering the wards of Westbourne, Harrow Road and Queens Park

November 2009 Page 179

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.14. Police

5.14.1. Baseline

Policing services in Westminster are managed by the Metropolitan Police at a London wide level and also at a local level by the Safer Neighbourhood Team. The Metropolitan Police provides police services, and its works are scrutinised and supported by the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA).

The MPA has a strategic role and is not responsible for day to day delivery of policing. The MPA work closely with the Metropolitan Police and its partners to secure an efficient police service for London and work together to provide a safer London. The Safer Neighbourhood Team is dedicated to the local community and act as an additional policing team and unit in London. They deal with day-to-day crime and disorder issues in the local community.

The Metropolitan Police is shifting to a more locally focused service provision. Police numbers have risen in recent years, from 25,400 police officers in 2000 to over 31,000 in 2007, along with almost 4,000 Police Community Support Officers, almost 2,000 special constables and 14,000 members of police staff. This growth has placed demands on the policing buildings and facilities142.

The MPA has overall responsibility for all MPS buildings and facilities in London and recognises the vital role the estate plays in supporting the delivery of effective and efficient policing across the capital143. The management of the Metropolitan Police Estate is crucial to ensure an effective police service for London. It needs to be modernised to provide accommodation that enables a more accessible, flexible and effective police service for each local authority.

The overall Metropolitan Estate is ageing; 40% of the buildings are pre-date 1940, a large number are poorly located, many are inefficient and expensive to maintain, and a lot of the estate is inappropriate for a modern police service144.

Table 5-57 below highlights the resident population and number of police officers and police staff and police community staff officers145 in Westminster.

142 „Metropolitan Police Estate, Asset Management Plan Westminster‟ (Metropolitan Police, November 2007).

143 Ibid.

144 Ibid.

145 A police officer is a member of the police force, police staff are all members involved within the police estate, and PCSO are police community staff officers which support the police officers.

November 2009 Page 180

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-57: Police Numbers in Westminster as at the End of September 2008146

Resident Population No of Police No. of Police PCSO Authority (2007) Officers Staff Strength

Westminster 234,100 1,537 319 349 Source: Metropolitan Police Authority 2008.

There are seven police stations (see Table 5-58) located in Westminster which provide a range of police services including; patrolling, custody cells, Safer Neighbourhoods Teams, and senior management teams. Figure 5-6 highlights the distribution of police stations across Westminster there is a noticeable cluster across the north of Westminster. The map also shows the distribution of hospitals, which are likely to be involved in any emergency situation by providing A&E services. New Scotland Yard is also located in Westminster but is not shown on the map.

Table 5-58: Police Stations and Services Provided

Police Station Police Service

Patrolling, Custody cells, 2 Safer Neighbourhoods Teams, Belgravia police station senior management team

Patrolling, Custody cells, 3 Safer Neighbourhoods Teams, Charring Cross police station Senior Management Team

Patrolling, 5 Safer Neighbourhoods Teams, Senior Harrow Road police station Management Team

Patrolling, Custody cells, 4 Safer Neighbourhoods Teams, Marylebone police station Senior Management Team

Custody cells, 3 Safer Neighbourhoods Teams, Senior Paddington Green police station Management Team

Patrolling, 2 Safer Neighbourhoods Teams, Senior St. John‟s Wood police station Management Team

Custody cells, 2 Safer Neighbourhood Teams, Senior West End Central police station Management Team Metropolitan Police Estate, Asset Management Plan Westminster 2007

146 A police officer is a member of the police force, police staff are all members involved within the police estate, PCSO is police community support officer, these members support the police officers.

November 2009 Page 181

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Figure 5-6: Emergency Services and Hospitals in Westminster

Source: URS and WCC

November 2009 Page 182

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.14.2. Forecast Demand

The increase in major developments is an issue to consider in terms of policing as it is expected to result in additional demand for police officers. The increase in Westminster‟s local population will particularly place a demand on local policing levels i.e. the Safer Neighbourhood Team will need to increase in order to serve a larger neighbourhood.

Quantitative forecasts for future police service requirements in WCC were not available147. Consultation with the MPA indicated that estimated demand for police officers is based predominantly on the number of calls and the number of crimes at the local authority level. This is then translated into how many officers would be required to respond to that crime and how many would need to investigate the crime.

Emergency planning also considers the location of other emergency facilities. For instance the number of officers in an area tends to be higher if there is a hospital in the area148.

Population is not the main basis on which additional officers requirements are forecast because of the great variation in demographic profile across local authorities. However, the MPA considers both the projected population and any large scale development coming forward. An assessment is made in terms of the need and level of policing to determine the demand for each ward and therefore within the individual local planning authorities.

5.14.3. Planned Investment and Costs

Future plans for Westminster Police Stations are outlined in the Metropolitan Police Estate Asset Management Plan (AMP) for Westminster149 illustrating proposed works for 2007-2010. Table 5-59 outlines the four areas of focus and proposed future plans to improve policing facilities in Westminster so that they are suitable to meet police needs in the city.

147 Personal communication, Metropolitan Police Services

148 Personal communication, London Metropolitan Police Authority, December 2008

149 „Metropolitan Police Estate Asset Management Plan, Westminster‟ (Metropolitan Police, 2007)

November 2009 Page 183

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-59: The Westminster Areas of Focus for Future Plans

Area of Focus Future Plans

Safer Neighbourhoods Local policing and working with the local community to identify and Programme tackle issues of concern at a local level Currently there are seven locations where custody cells are located in Westminster providing a total of 157 cells. New custody provision in Westminster The Paddington Green station in particular is recognised as in need of modernising and possible redevelopment, and options for this site which will include providing dedicated custody facilities. Other new solutions include five short term holding cells located in Improved patrol facilities in Selfridges which will be managed and operated by Westminster Westminster police. Westminster‟s patrolling takes place from the five sites across the city and is identified as being adequate for Westminster offering Front counters- a better fastest response times. environment for the public in Westminster Each patrolling site provides garaging for police vehicles and operational parking along with briefing rooms and locker facilities for all the patrolling officers. Inefficient use of valuable space and inappropriate facilities used Better office for functions that could be accommodated within office facilities. To accommodation in reorganise and improve back-office facilities so improved facilities Westminster for staff and officers to lead to more efficient functional teams. Source: Metropolitan Police Estate Asset Management Plan, Westminster, 2007

The AMP identifies that new demands are constantly being made for more space and better security; however, it does not provide a list of detailed and costed initiatives to meet the proposed plans for Westminster.

The Policing London Business Plan relates to a central government fund and is prepared in accordance with the Metropolitan Police Capital Strategy. The fund has been extended to cover the period of 2008/09 to 2014/15 to allow efficient investment planning and the adoption of a longer-term strategy. Table 5-60 shows the proposed capital funding. The capital funding involves current initiatives such as the Safer Neighbourhoods programme; renewal of IT infrastructure to ensure meets modern operational needs; and renewal of assets such as police vehicles. However, itemised spending forecast is not available.

Table 5-60: Capital Funding 2008/09 to 2014/15, £M

Funding 2012- Period 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2015 Total

Proposed Capital 242 302 225 165 471 1,404 Fund Source: Policing London 2008/2011 Business Plan, Metropolitan Police Authority, 2008

November 2009 Page 184

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.14.4. Assessment and Recommendations

The police do not forecast the numbers of officers required in each local authority on a population basis, and there are no such workings available to quantify future demand. WCC should engage with the Metropolitan Police to understand their future requirements and changing models of service delivery.

Future plans to improve the police estate are strategic, with no specific investment information available. There is an aim to expand the custody provision, including the refurbishment of Paddington Green Police Station, and to improve patrol facilities. There is also an overarching objective to rationalise property assets, in order to support more functional teams and make a more efficient use of resources.

November 2009 Page 185

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.15. Fire

5.15.1. Baseline

Fire stations and fire engines work across local authorities‟ boundaries therefore it is hard to assess the adequacy of current fire station provision on a local authority basis. Central London is overall described as a fire station rich with very good fire station coverage150. There are a total of three fire stations in Westminster as shown in Table 5-61.

Table 5-61: The Number of Fire Stations in Westminster

Fire Station Station Ground (km sq)

Paddington 7.2

Soho 4.0

Westminster 3.9 Source: Westminster Borough Profile, London Fire Brigade, 2007

Overall at the local authority level, Westminster has good attendance coverage with the first fire engine arriving on average in less than five minutes151. Figure 5-6 shows the three fire stations and their location, illustrating an even spread of fire service provision across Westminster. A station ground may include parts of a neighbouring authority so that appliances from that station would be mobilised to the adjoining authority.

Westminster is also the only local authority where a „peak activity inspection team„ is active, working in partnership with the Metropolitan Police and WCC to promote public safety in the context of high concentration of licensed public entertainment and special events.

Table 5-62 summarises the key fire services statistics in Westminster. Soho is the station attending the highest number of fire incidents. The London Fire Brigade Westminster Profile report also shows that the fire accidents were concentrated in the St. James and the West End wards, and that is also where the majority of malicious false alarms come from.

150 Personal communication, London Fire Planning Authority, 12/02/2009

151 Personal communication, London Fire Planning Authority, 23/02/2009

November 2009 Page 186

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 5-62: Operational Incidents 2006/07 in Westminster

Operational Incident (2006/07)

Road Other False Traffic Special Fire Station All Fires Alarms Collision Service Total

Paddington 382 1,677 68 1,232 3,359

Soho 406 3,150 43 1,127 4,726

Westminster 170 1,045 27 651 1,893 Source: Westminster Profile, London Fire Brigade, 2007

5.15.2. Forecast Demand

Fire stations and fire engines work across borough boundaries therefore it is hard to analyse future needs at the local authority level.

The London Fire Safety Plan 2008 introduced new targets to measure the performance of London Fire crews in getting to emergency incidents. The Brigade measures the percentage of occasions when first and second fire engines arrive at emergency incidents within set time thresholds (a fire engine should reach an incident in five minutes on 65% of occasions, and within eight minutes on 90% of occasions152).

Quantitative forecasts for future fire service requirements in Westminster were not available153. Consultation with the London Fire Planning Authority indicated that estimated demand for fire services is based on incidents statistics; the demand for the forth-coming year is estimated based on historical data of the number of incidents attracting two or more fire engines in each area. There are on average approximately 160,000 calls across London each year which has remained an average even despite to the increased population in the Central London.

Although population is not used directly to assess demand, population growth is considered to potentially impact on the fire service provision. New developments and any urban regeneration project, together with consideration of how accessible the area in question is, affects fire service provision. Each new development is assessed in terms of the time it takes for fire services to reach them. This is one of the factors influencing increasing fire service provision in an area. Furthermore increases in the number of commercial buildings increases the number of false alarms and therefore pressure on the fire service.

152 „London Fire Brigade, Our Performance 2007/08‟ (London Fire Brigade, 2008)

153 Personal communication, London Fire Planning Authority, 23/02/2009

November 2009 Page 187

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.15.3. Planned Investment and Costs

There are no plans to build additional fire stations in the Westminster, whilst there is a focus on refurbishing the existing ones154.

In 2007/08 the London Fire Brigade‟s gross capital programme was £47.7m; however, no detail account of what this covers is available155.

The London Fire Brigades Asset Management Plan (AMP) establishes the framework for a multi year programme that identifies and prioritises the most important property projects up to 15 years. It reports that the Westminster station was recently refurbished (after 1994), whilst results of the estates analysis show that the Soho and Paddington stations are in satisfactory conditions and fit for purpose.

Across London the AMP 2008 states that there are currently 30 fire stations (pre 1940 and over 60 years old) which need to be updated at an estimated cost of £130m (this figure includes the £47.7m 2007/08 capital programme). The document states the figure is likely to significantly grow in the next 15 years as 22 more stations move from a satisfactory to a poor status due to their age profile. It reports that preliminary work has estimated that a further £90m (this figure is in addition to the £130m). These indicative costs have been based on the average cost of recent refurbishment/replacement fire station, the new fire station safety standard, to meet changes in functional requirements for refurbishments156.

The rebuilding of fire stations is one strand of capital investment in fire service provision. The London Fire Planning Authority rely on private finance initiatives (PFI) to improve its property estate by rebuilding up to ten fire stations that are in an operationally poor and/or in a poor property condition.

The new stations will provide for mixed fire fighter accommodation and be capable of housing the latest fire fighting equipment. The Brigade aims to start advertising for a development partner in 2009 and start rebuilding in 2012/13 with the first new station operational in 2013/14. There is currently work underway on securing new sites for two of the stations in the PFI project. Site investigations are also underway for the existing sites. There will be no change in the number of fire fighters or the number of fire engines serving an area once a station is rebuilt157.

154 Personal communication, London Fire Planning Authority, 19/12/2009

155 „London Fire Brigade Fire Safety Plan 2008/09-2010/11‟ (London Fire Brigade, 2008)

156 „London Fire Brigade Draft Asset Management Property Plan‟ (London Fire Brigade, 2008)

157 London Fire Planning Authority website

November 2009 Page 188

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.15.4. Assessment and Recommendations

Fire stations and fire engines work across local authority boundaries therefore it is hard to assess the fire station provision on a local authority basis. Overall Central London is described as fire station rich with very good fire station coverage. Westminster also receives specific attention due to the high concentration of entertainment uses and special events, with a unique „peak activity inspection team„, working in partnership with the Metropolitan Police and WCC to promote public safety.

Whilst population is not used to assess demand it is considered to potentially impact on the fire service provision, together with new developments and any urban regeneration project and accessibility considerations.

Expansion of existing service may be required in the face of population and employment growth; however, current plans rather address the need to rebuild many fire stations as they are ageing and upgrade them to reflect changing models of provision. There are no current plans to build any more fire stations in Westminster nor to rebuild or refurbish existing ones.

November 2009 Page 189

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

5.16. Ambulance

5.16.1. Baseline

The main London ambulance provider is the London Ambulance Service (LAS) NHS Trust, whose services are purchased by the individual PCTs. The LAS operates in two areas, firstly Accident and Emergency (A&E) care commissioned by the individual PCTs for the population each of them caters for; secondly patient transport services (PTS), where the LAS wins contracts through competitive tendering158.

London Ambulance stations comprise main stations and satellite stations. Main stations consist of offices where managers and administrative staff are based. The satellite stations are smaller and do not have offices they act as a base for ambulances to park in159. Ambulance stations are not located within hospitals; each ambulance station is a separate premise and do not fall under hospital estate160. In the event of an incident the nearest available ambulance will be sent.

The LAS is under pressure from the increased number of 999 calls. This could be indicative of increasing demand. Of all the authorities in the Central London area, Westminster had the highest number of incidents per authority in both 2007 and 2008. There are a total of two ambulance stations in Westminster, one located in St. John‟s Wood (St. John‟s Wood Station) and the other in Millbank (Westminster Station), as 161 shown in Figure 5-6 .

In 2008 the LAS raised the declared pressure level at which it is operating from „severe pressure‟ to „critical‟ – the first time that it has reached this level since the capacity levels were introduced in late 2005. Despite the current levels of demand, the service is continuing to reach more patients, more quickly than ever before162.

5.16.2. Forecast Demand

The LAS NHS Trust Strategic Plan163 sets out the Trust‟s plans between 2007 and 2013 to respond to key changes affecting emergency and healthcare services in general. The report highlights population and visitors growth as likely to have a considerable impact on ambulance provision in terms of increased pressure on staff and facilities as well as on

158 London Ambulance Service NHS Trust Strategic Plan 2006/07-2012/13 (London Ambulance Service, 2007).

159 Personal communication, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, 19/03/2009

160 Personal communication, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, 08/01/2009

161 The map only shows Westminster Station.

162 London Ambulance Service NHS Trust website, December 2008

163 London Ambulance Service NHS Trust Strategic Plan 2006/07-2012/13 (London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, 2007)

November 2009 Page 190

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

financial resources available. However, the report does not focus on projected growth in Westminster, focussing instead on the wider London Thames Gateway.

As for the both police and fire emergency services, forecasts for future ambulance service requirements in the Westminster were not available164. The demand for ambulance provision in the local authorities is forecast using historical incident data. The number of ambulances, the location of hospitals and how well the hospitals are served all have an impact on the performance and delivery of ambulance provision in the local authorities. As it is hard to gather data particularly on London‟s day time and non- residential population, population is not directly used to forecast future ambulance needs in Westminster165.

Table 5-63 illustrates the number of incidents in Westminster between January 2007 and November 2008. Westminster has a high number of incidents in both 2007 and 2008. There is a decrease in from 2007 to 2008. However, it should be noted that December 2008 is not included in the 2008 statistics.

Table 5-63: Incidents in Westminster, January 2007-November 2008

2007 (Jan-Dec) 2008 (Jan-Nov) Total

43,640 40,423 87,685 Source: London Ambulance Service NHS Trust 2008

5.16.3. Planned Investment and Costs

LAS is predominantly funded through annually approved NHS Service Level Agreements made with each of London‟s PCTs. For patient transport services additional resources are available on a contractual basis from foundation trusts (secondary healthcare).

Consultation with the LAS NHS Trust has revealed that the current Estates Strategy is being reviewed so there are no formal plans available for ambulance provision and planned investment for the future166.

The annual report however states that one of the key areas of work in the 2006-2009 period was the reconfiguration of the estate167. As part of this process the Trust has disposed of a significant number of sites; this process is expected to be completed in the 2008/09 financial year.

164 London Ambulance Service NHS Trust website, December 2008

165 Personal communication, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, 19/12/2008

166 Personal communication, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, 23/12/2008

167 „Annual Service Plan, 2009‟ (NHS London, 2009)

November 2009 Page 191

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

This rationalisation is in line with the Trust‟s strategic plan168 which identifies opportunities for co-location of ambulance stations with PCT and emergency facilities, recommending early engagement between PCTs and LAS to ensure that the planning of new primary and secondary healthcare facilities considers such co-location opportunities.

The London Ambulance Service is conducting preparatory work to submit a Foundation Trust application169. Should its submission be successful the Trust would have more flexibility in accessing financial resources on the private market, albeit always in line with principles of prudential borrowing.

5.16.4. Assessment and Recommendations

The LAS NHS Trust forecasts demand for ambulance provision using historical incident data. While day time and non-residential population are acknowledged as having a considerable impact on required provision, population is not directly used to forecast future ambulance needs in Westminster.

A comprehensive estate strategy for the LAS NHS Trust is being updated and not currently available. Recent documents highlight that the Trust has been rationalising its facilities portfolio by disposing of smaller sites. The Trust is also moving in the direction of integrated emergency and primary care provision, by pushing for PCTs to consider the opportunity of co-locating ambulance with primary healthcare services when developing any estate strategy.

WCC should engage with the LAS NHS Trust to ensure that the potential impact of projected growth in Westminster and in the rest of Central London is adequately considered by the Trust when developing its estate strategy.

WCC should also promote active engagement between the Westminster PCT and the LAS NHS Trust to ensure that any opportunity for the co-location of primary, secondary and ambulance services are considered when estates strategies are developed.

168 „London Ambulance Service NHS Trust Strategic Plan 2006/07-2012/13‟ (London Ambulance Service, 2007).

169 „Annual Service Plan, 2009‟ (NHS London, 2009)

November 2009 Page 192

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

6. STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1. Introduction

The section pulls together the outcomes of the infrastructure assessment into a strategic infrastructure plan. Findings are presented through a matrix with accompanying text, and recommendations are laid out for WWC in moving forward as it takes the strategic infrastructure plan forward within its LDF and ongoing infrastructure planning process.

6.2. Development of the Strategy Infrastructure Plan

This Strategic Infrastructure Plan (SIP) and associated recommendations should sit alongside other research papers that constitute the evidence base in support of WCC‟s LDF and more specifically its Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD). The SIP is structured around „what‟, ‟when‟, „where‟, „how‟, and „how much‟ required infrastructure is needed to support the level of anticipated housing, employment and development growth forecasted in Westminster. These LDF requirements are set out in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12 - Local Spatial Planning (2008). The requirement for sound infrastructure planning as part of the formation and review of LDFs further explored and discussed as part of the CLG‟s fifth thematic study prepared for their Spatial Plans in Practice series170. Both sets of guidance notes have informed the basis of the SIP.

PPS12 also states that adequate and timely infrastructure provision is fundamental to the creation of sustainable communities. In recent years this principle has become central in all policy arenas and it now shapes strategy at all spatial levels. PPS12 places the need for infrastructure planning at the heart of the planning process. It states that the Core Strategy DPD should be supported by evidence of physical and social infrastructure requirements including the type, distribution, timing and responsibilities for delivery of this infrastructure. It sets out the key components of good infrastructure planning, and advocates discussions with key local partners to establish priorities.

As noted in Section 1 of the report, an additional aim of the Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan is to inform the basis of the forthcoming City of Westminster Community Infrastructure Levy and WCC‟s annual investment plan. Further reporting will be issued by mid 2008 covering this work.

6.3. Strategic Infrastructure Plan Explanatory Text

Recommended infrastructure schemes, actions and priorities are summarised in the matrices below. Please note that a grey background has been used to indicate those schemes or actions that have been identified in providers‟ plans rather than through URS independent work.

The list below explains the headings set out in the table.

170 „Infrastructure Delivery. Spatial Plans in Practice: Supporting the reform of local planning‟ (CLG, 2008)

November 2009 Page 193

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Infrastructure areas are grouped around the hard, transport and social infrastructure themes set out in the study.

Infrastructure Schemes and Actions identifies current, forthcoming or recommended infrastructure required in Westminster over the plan period to support forecast development growth as well as that needed to alleviate existing shortfalls or gaps. Schemes include those already proposed by third parties, schemes that are underway as well as those new ones that are recommended by the consultants.

Rationale for Inclusion / Risk if not included clearly states the key reason the infrastructure item is included in the plan highlighting where necessary the risk if it is not delivered over the plan period.

Drivers reflect the key rationale for the required infrastructure items including alleviating existing gaps or replacement of existing infrastructure; in response to greater demand placed upon the infrastructure derived from forecast growth; as well as policy driven. The latter are primarily related to infrastructure items such as sustainable energy infrastructure initiatives that are not necessarily „demanded‟ as such, rather they stem from EU and UK Government directives.

When should the infrastructure be delivered by? Our timeframes cover the short (2009-20014) medium (2015-2020) and long term (2021-2026) periods. Where the information is available on committed schemes, exact delivery dates have been specified.

Where should the infrastructure item be delivered? Where required infrastructure items are location specific they have been identified. In many cases infrastructure recommendations and actions are authority wide i.e. Implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) and promotion of flood resistant architecture.

Who is responsible for delivery of the infrastructure items? This identified the agency, Governmental department or organisation responsible for delivery of infrastructure item. In some cases, for example utilities delivery, the regulator will also have a key role to play as both an authority and supervisor.

Who is responsible for funding the infrastructure item? This lists the likely public sector department or agency tasked with funding the infrastructure item. In some cases the item will be delivered though a range of funding sources including private developers in the form of planning gain contributions.

Costs Identified by providers incl. status? Where the infrastructure has been costed by the provided, as ascertained through this study, this information is stated.

Costs Identified by URS / HUDU model? For infrastructure items that could be meaningfully quantified, such as social infrastructure items, URS has applied indicative costings in agreement with Davis Langdon.

November 2009 Page 194

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

6.4. Infrastructure Priorities

The priority of different infrastructures is probably best gauged by the implications of not making the relevant investment, as well as by considering how soon investment is required. An assessment of the priority is clouded by a lack of information and relevant data in many cases. However, in cases where no information has been obtained to confirm that forward planning is underway and capacity is within the system, it can be argued that a cautionary approach, whereby it is assumed that planning is not underway and capacity is not available, should be adopted in order to prepare for the „worst case scenario‟.

While all the infrastructures included in the infrastructure plan are required for sustainable growth, the priorities for investment are hard infrastructures because these are in many cases „show stoppers‟. This includes gas, electricity and water, though there is evidence that there is sufficient capacity within the gas network to accommodate forecast requirements. Without adequate provision, residential and commercial growth cannot continue beyond certain key thresholds. A lack of information makes it difficult to quantify the quantum and cost of planned investment, but because of the fundamental importance of these infrastructures the apparent lack of strategic, long-term forward planning by the relevant providers is especially concerning.

Sewage and flood repair works are also key priorities. Works are required to bring existing infrastructure up to standard as well as to prepare for increased pressure associated with population and commercial growth. Identified requirements include new and refurbished sewage pumping stations; the investigation and repair of the flood defence wall at Millbank; and the Thames Tideway scheme.

Transport is absolutely fundamental to the delivery of growth. Baseline studies highlight an existing lack of capacity in many parts of the network which must be addressed before further capacity can be found for new travellers, and the urgent need for works at key rail termini. Many of the schemes considered are scheduled or required in the short term, including town centre schemes at various locations and works to the Jubilee, Northern, Picadilly and Victoria lines. That said, the potential scale of growth in Westminster necessitates a new approach to transportation and a renewed emphasis on walking and wayfinding as an alternative to investment in capital intensive infrastructure.

A consideration of timelines emphasises the requirement to prioritise the WCC waste implementation plan. A key driver is the landfill target up to 2016 and the financial implications for WCC of not meeting the target.

6.5. Strategic Infrastructure Locations

The assessment emphasises the following high level geographical priorities for infrastructure investment:

Transport hubs, especially major rail termini. Investment here is crucial to unlocking development and ensuring growth is delivered in a sustainable way.

November 2009 Page 195

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

The opportunity areas identified in the emerging LDF. Social infrastructure needs will be most closely related to the location population, and it will be in Westminster‟s three opportunity areas at Paddington, Victoria and Tottenham Court Road where new growth is concentrated. However, future need is also likely to be concentrated in areas with potential for windfall growth.

Improving living and working conditions for existing communities is vital for the development of sustainable, cohesive communities; this emphasises the requirement within the more deprived parts of Westminster, especially the North Westminster Economic Development area.

Locations where the need for specific interventions has been identified include:

Millbank: investigation and repair of flood defence wall

North of the City: requirement for new / expanded faith and community facilities

Various locations: transport infrastructure / improvements.

6.6. Infrastructure Costs

The assessment of the likely total cost of infrastructure required to deliver growth in Westminster is limited by incomplete and imperfect information. However, we estimate that costs associated with the social infrastructure items included in the URS Infrastructure Model, including HUDU workings for health infrastructure, could total £277M. This cost is only indicative for the projected growth over the 2006-2026 period.

The assessment has found that where costs are identified in providers plans they are usually uncommitted or unapproved. Where funds are committed they generally leave a funding gap (see for instance LSC allocations for FE projects). This is to be expected to some degree given that the LDF considers long term growth and associated requirements and that most providers operate on a much more short term basis. However, the scale of the differential between the potential requirement for the items included within the URS Infrastructure Model and the funds identified as committed within providers plans highlights the urgent need to ensure that long term planning is being undertaken and that the scale of requirement in terms of funds is not being underestimated by the partners involved.

6.7. Delivery and Funding Responsibilities

The infrastructure assessment highlights the numerous agencies with a role in delivering and funding infrastructure for growth in Westminster. Stakeholders are diverse and wide ranging, including Thames Water, the utilities regulators, Network Rail, TfL, the Primary Care Trust and NHS, contractors and commissioned providers and WCC itself. There are partnerships between the private and public sector, for example in the form of BSF and the PFI redeveloping London‟s fire stations, and the voluntary and community sector also plays a role, most notably in the delivery of social infrastructure. Most fundamentally this

November 2009 Page 196

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

long and diverse list emphasises the need for collaboration and joined up working to deliver sustainable growth, across sector and geographical boundaries.

Most infrastructure funding arrangements rely on funding from central government or another national agency and then delivery and local allocation of funds through a more local organisation. The infrastructure assessment highlights some issues and tensions within this framework due to central planning and funding cycles which discourage a long term approach and encourage a more reactive system. For example, mainstream capital funding for much social infrastructure in committed every three years in line with the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) and planning often does not go beyond the next three year period. A particular issue has been flagged up around primary education because DCSF formulae fail to fully account for costs in growth areas.

6.8. Recommendations

The infrastructure assessment and strategic infrastructure plan highlights the following actions for WCC as a planning authority and delivery agency, and in potentially moving forward to develop and implement the CIL for Westminster.

Potential short-falls in funds for infrastructure constitute a significant risk to the delivery of growth. WCC and other public agencies should lobby central government for an improved system of funding allocations.

Where infrastructure bodies do not appreciate the need for strategic planning, or their structure does not facilitate it, WCC should engage with such bodies and their parent agencies in order to emphasise the urgent need for new arrangements and resources which better allow long term strategic planning.

WCC should target investment according to strategic priorities, taking forward this plan as an evidence base and drawing in kind funding and resources from the voluntary and community and private sector where opportunities arise. This will maximise the effectiveness of investment, so it acts as a catalyst to regeneration, increasing confidence and bringing land values up to a level whereby private sector investment becomes viable.

WCC should collaborate closely with partners involved in delivering and funding infrastructure, assisting with planning and providing in-kind resources where possible, such as technical expertise.

As the planning authority, WCC can assist agencies in developing their estate and investment strategy, especially where infrastructure has significant land take and implementation requires the identification of new sites. The requirements and aspirations of different partners can be reflected and taken forward within the LDF so that a strategic, joined up approach to land use planning is achieved.

Infrastructure planning is and will be an on-going process in Westminster. This plan and the analysis within it, including the indicative demand assessment, will need to be updated and monitored throughout the plan period as schemes come forward and the baseline changes.

November 2009 Page 197

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN171

Table 6-1: Hard Infrastructure

Costs Identified by providers (Estimate for When should the infrastructure Westminster including items be delivered by? Where should the Who is responsible for Who is responsible for based on URS / HUDU Infrastructure Infrastructure schemes and Rationale for inclusion / risk if not infrastructure item be delivery of the funding the model in brackets if Area # actions included Drivers (S, M, L, term) delivered? infrastructure items? infrastructure item? available) Notes

Name Agency Policy upgrade /replacement/ gap Existing for development demand Forecast Sewerage H1 New and refurnished The sewerage system is currently   M – L It will be to alleviate Thames Water (in Thames Water To 2020 This is an ambitious undertaking treatment works including operating at full capacity. The deficiencies authority wide association with the and extensive business planning odour reduction system will not be able to cope with but new and improved Regulator) Costs identified are and identification of funds will be additional forecast development. facilities are likely to be across the Thames required. located out of Westminster. Water Region at £3,437m The overall need for renewal and refurbishment works in the (Estimate for sewers system is identified by Westminster: £59m) Thames Water. However, no detail on the specifics of required works in Westminster have been made available; the additional demand for the Westminster area is an estimate.

171

November 2009 Page 198

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Name Agency Policy upgrade /replacement/ gap Existing for development demand Forecast H2 New and renovated sewers The sewerage system is currently   S – M - L Improvements should be Thames Water (in Thames Water To 2020 See comment to previous item. operating at full capacity. The city wide. Problem hotspots association with the system will not be able to cope with include northern end of Regulator) Costs identified are additional forecast development. Whitehall and Trafalgar across the Thames Investment is also required to Square, Chippenham Road Water Region at reduce sewer flooding. This and Westbourne Grove. £4,376m includes a requirement for (Estimate for increased cycles of cleaning and Westminster: £74m) prompt repairs where blockages are known.

H3 New and refurbished pumping The sewerage system if currently   S- M Improvements should be Thames Water (in Thames Water To 2020 See comment to previous item. stations required operating at full capacity. The city wide. association with the system will not be able to cope with Regulator) Costs identified are additional forecast development. across the Thames Water Region at £243m

(Estimate for Westminster: £4m)

Flood H4 Help ensure delivery of To help alleviate sewer flooding. To   S – M - L Improvements should be Thames Water Thames Water Costs identified are Also a requirement for sewerage. defence Thames Tideway scheme separate foul water from ain water. city wide. across the Thames Continued discharge of foul water (in association with the Water Region at into Thames damages ecology and Regulator) £1,321m poses a risk to river users‟ health and safety. (Estimate for Westminster: £22m)

November 2009 Page 199

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Name Agency Policy upgrade /replacement/ gap Existing for development demand Forecast H5 Implementation of Sustainable Help alleviate sewer flowing   S – M - L Improvements should be LPA Developer applicant Unknown There is an ongoing requirement Urban Drainage Systems city wide. for WCC to oversee and ensure (SUDS) and promotion of implementation of SUDS across flood resistant architecture the LP area.

H6 Investigation and repair of A breach of the Thames is possible  S Westminster Thameside Landowner (WCC) Landowner (WCC) Unknown flood defence wall at Millbank if the repair is not investigated and repaired.

Waste H7 Implement WCC Waste Unless targets are achieved, WCC  S - M City wide Westminster CC Westminster CC / Unknown Implementation Plan to will fall foul of EU and UK Central Government / ensure landfill target is Government legislation, targeting Waste contractor achieved up to 2016 reduction of waste to landfill

Electricity H8 Provision of additional Fundamental to the delivery of  S – M - L City wide Regulator / Utility Utility provider Unknown 150,740 KVA to 2026 and commercial and residential growth. provider related infrastructure.

Gas H9 Provision of additional 13,450 Fundamental to the delivery of  S – M - L City wide Regulator / Utility Utility provider Unknown Please note that no detailed m3/hr and related commercial and residential growth. provider information on the exact extent infrastructure. and location of works has been made available by National Grid; the additional demand for the Westminster area is an estimate.

Water H10 Provision of additional Thames Water have identified a   M – L City wide Regulator / Utility Utility provider Unknown Please note that no detailed 13,163,847 l/day and related likely future deficit in supply of provider information on the exact extent infrastructure. water in the London water resource and location of works has been zone to 2034, and strategic plans to made available by Thanes address this are being formulated. Water; the additional demand for However, no clear, immediate plan the Westminster area is an for mitigating investment area estimate. evident.

November 2009 Page 200

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Name Agency Policy upgrade /replacement/ gap Existing for development demand Forecast Telecoms H11 Provision of new and updated Lack of evidence of strategic   S – M - L City wide Regulator / Utility BT, other telecom Unknown telecoms infrastructure. planning by BT. provider providers

Low Carbon H12 Investigate the feasibility of Improved feasibility of delivering    S – M – L LPAs affected LPA‟s affected / PPP / PFI Unknown Energy connectivity within sustainable infrastructure London ESCO / Westminster and across LPA / Decentralised Energy Opportunity Area boundaries, Delivery Unit / Utility including: suppliers

Queen‟s Park geographical area Marylebone geographical area Soho geographical area City of London tunnels and heat network geographical area South Bank Employers‟ Group Battersea Power Station Paddington Opportunity Area Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area Whitehall and Pimlico district heating networks University College London – Gower Street and Bloomsbury Heat and Power Euston Road district heating scheme Citigen Imperial College London and the Natural History Museum

November 2009 Page 201

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 6-2: Transport Infrastructure

Costs Identified by providers (Estimate for Westminster including When should the infrastructure Where should the Who is responsible for Who is responsible for based on URS / HUDU items be delivered by? Infrastructure Infrastructure schemes and Rationale for inclusion / risk if not infrastructure item be delivery of the funding the model in brackets if Area # actions included Drivers (S, M, L, term) delivered? infrastructure items? infrastructure item? available) Notes

grade

Name Agency Policy up /replacement/ gap Existing for development demand Forecast Public T1 Mayor‟s 100 Public Spaces Improvements to public realm   L City wide WCC Westminster CC / TBC Realm Central Government

/business contributions T2 Legible London To improve accessibility   S City wide TfL/WCC TfL/Developer Not identified contributions Rail Stations T3 Station Access Marylebone To improve accessibility    S Marylebone Station Network Rail Network Rail TBC Station T4 Station Access Charing Cross To improve accessibility    S Charing Cross Station Network Rail Network Rail TBC Station T5 Station Access Victoria To improve accessibility    S Victoria Station Network Rail Network Rail £811,500 Station T6 Improvements to public realm To facilitate pedestrian movement   S City wide Network Rail/TfL/WCC Network Not identified at stations and connectivity Rail/TfL/WCC/Develo per contributions Bus T7 Bus Priority To improve bus journey times   S City wide TfL TfL TBC Cycling T8 Bus Stop Accessibility To improve accessibility   S City wide TfL TfL £434,000 T9 Bus service enhancement To provide additional capacity and   S-L City wide TfL TfL/Developer Not identified links contributions T10 Strategic review of bus To provide additional capacity   S-L City wide services (to compensate for Cross River Tram scheme not being progressed further) T11 Cycling LCN+ To improve cycle facilities   City wide £2,975,000 T12 Cycling Non LCN+ To improve cycle facilities   S-L City wide TfL/WCC TfL £320,000 T13 Cycle Parking To increase provision of cycle   S-L City wide WCC TfL Not identified parking Walking T14 Pedestrian environment To improve accessibility,   S-L City wide TfL TfL £2,700,000 improvements connectivity, capacity and safety

November 2009 Page 202

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

grade

Name Agency Policy up /replacement/ gap Existing for development demand Forecast Town T15 Town Centre Schemes –   S West End Leicester Square WCC Westminster CC / £16,010 Centres West End Leicester Square Central Government /business contributions T16 Town Centre Schemes – To improve accessibility   S West End Oxford Street WCC Westminster CC / TBC West End Oxford Street Central Government /business contributions T17 Town Centre Schemes – To improve accessibility   S Praed Street WCC Westminster CC / TBC Shopping Streets: Praed Central Government Street /business contributions T18 Town Centre Schemes – To improve accessibility   S Harrow Road WCC Westminster CC / TBC Shopping Streets: Harrow Central Government Road /business contributions T19 Town Centre Schemes – To improve accessibility   S Marylebone High Street WCC Westminster CC / TBC Shopping Streets: Marylebone Central Government High Street /business contributions Road T20 Improve taxi facilities To improve accessibility   M-L City wide TfL/WCC WCC/TfL/Developer Not identified Network contributions T21 Improve coach facilities To improve accessibility   M-L City wide TfL/WCC WCC/TfL/Developer Not identified contributions T22 Car Club Schemes To reduce the need for car   S-L City wide TfL/WCC WCC/TfL/Developer Not identified ownership contributions T23 Electric Car Charging Points Sustainable transport   S-L City wide TfL/WCC WCC/TfL/Developer Not identified contributions T24 Principal Road Renewal To improve road conditions   S-L City wide TfL/WCC WCC/TfL Not identified T25 Local Road Safety Schemes To improve safety   S-L City wide WCC WCC/TfL Not identified

November 2009 Page 203

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

grade

Name Agency Policy up /replacement/ gap Existing for development demand Forecast Rail T26 Integrated Kent Franchise Services are currently operating at,   S (by 2014) Victoria Network Rail Network Rail £56 million Committed Scheme will cover 12-car trains close to or above full capacity. to Charing Cross/8-car trains to Victoria. T27 Brighton and Sussex - 12-car Services are currently operating at,   S (by 2014) Charing Cross / Victoria Network Rail Network Rail £101 million Scheme will cover 12-car trains trains close to or above full capacity. Committed East Grinstead to Victoria/10-car suburban trains to Victoria . T28 Crossrail To alleviate pressure on the   M (By 2017) City wide TfL / Network Rail TfL / Network Rail / £17b Committed scheme underground system and provide a Businesses / faster east to west rail link Developers connecting Heathrow in the west with the Thames Gateway in the east. T29 Crossrail 2 To provide additional capacity   L (2026+) Tottenham Court Road / TfL / Network Rail TfL / Network Rail / Undetermined Line safeguarded/subject to Victoria Businesses / powers and funding Developers Under- T30 Major Stations – Victoria The station is currently operating,   Not known Victoria Network Rail Network Rail Unknown Committed and planned scheme. ground particularly during peak hours and Stations suffers from overcrowding resulting in platform closures. T31 Station Congestion Schemes Services are currently operating at,   S - M - L Victoria (2017), Paddington TfL TfL Unknown Committed scheme close to or above full capacity (2014), Tottenham Court particularly during peak hours Road (2016), Bond Street resulting in overcrowded platforms (2016) and station concourses. Under- T32 Jubilee Line   S (By 2009) City wide TfL TfL Unknown New signalling system to allow ground 30 trains per hour in peak (25% Lines increase in capacity) T33 Victoria Line Services are currently operating at,   S (By 2012) City wide TfL TfL Unknown Higher frequency and larger close to or above full capacity trains (19% increase in capacity) particularly during peak hours.

November 2009 Page 204

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

grade

Name Agency Policy up /replacement/ gap Existing for development demand Forecast T34 Northern Line Services are currently operating at,   S - M City wide TfL TfL Unknown Phase 1 signalling system to close to or above full capacity improve speeds and frequency (By 2012 for phase 1 particularly during peak hours. (20% increase in capacity) signalling and 2020 for Phase 2 separation of Bank and phase 2 separation of Bank Charing Cross lines at and Charing Cross Lines) Kennington T35 Piccadilly Line Services are currently operating at,   S (By 2014) City wide TfL TfL Unknown New signalling system and trains close to or above full capacity (25% increase in capacity) particularly during peak hours. T36 District Line Services are currently operating at,   M (By 2018) City wide TfL TfL Unknown New train stock with longer and close to or above full capacity more frequent trains (47% particularly during peak hours. increase in capacity) T37 Metropolitan Line Services are currently operating at,   M (By 2016) City wide TfL TfL Unknown New train stock and higher close to or above full capacity frequency services (49% particularly during peak hours increase in capacity) particularly during peak hours. T38 Circle and Hammersmith & Services are currently operating at,   M (By 2016) City wide TfL TfL Unknown New train stock, longer trains and City Lines close to or above full capacity higher frequency with merged T- particularly during peak hours. cup service (49% increase in capacity) T39 Bakerloo Line Services are currently operating at,   L (By 2022) City wide TfL TfL Unknown New trains, signalling and close to or above full capacity improved frequency (40% particularly during peak hours. increase in capacity)

November 2009 Page 205

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Table 6-3: Social Infrastructure

Costs Identified by When should the infrastructure providers (Estimate for items be delivered by? Where should the Who is responsible for Who is responsible for Westminster including Infrastructure Infrastructure schemes, and Rationale for inclusion / risk if not infrastructure item be delivery of the funding the infrastructure based on URS / HUDU Area # actions included Drivers (S, M, L, term) delivered? infrastructure items? item? model in brackets) Notes

Name Agency

isting gap /replacement/ upgrade /replacement/ gap isting Policy Ex for development demand Forecast Early Years S1 Expanded provision of Local provision required for the   S - M City wide, local to demand WCC and VCS (with WCC and VCS (with Unknown and Child Integrated children‟s services expanding residential and worker (though integrated centres private sector) private sector) Care (1,895 places, 74 new population may serve larger (Estimate for classes) catchments in the future) Westminster: £27M)

Primary S2 Expanded provision of Local provision required for the  S - M City wide, local to demand WCC WCC (DCSF) Unknown – Primary The Primary Capital Programme Education primary schools (1,857 expanding population. WCC have Capital Programme allocates £8.7M for a number of places, up to four 2FE identified capacity for next 5 years, 2009-2010 allocation is capital works across schools) over the plan period even given a net import of students. £8.7M Westminster, however it is Further work and ongoing unclear how much these will (This is a worst case scenario; monitoring is necessary in liaison (Estimate for contribute to expanding current various factors add complexity with neighbouring boroughs to Westminster: £20m) capacity to meet the estimated to forecasting demand – see clarify medium to longer term future demand. Section 5.2). assessment.

Secondary S3 Expanded provision of Provision for the expanding  M City wide (including plans WCC (with private WCC (with private £34m Pimlico Only part of the required funding Education secondary schools (915 residential population. Further work to expand existing schools) sector through BSF sector through BSF Academy rebuild is available, and only for Pimlico places, two 6FE schools) and ongoing monitoring is PFI) PFI) Academy (which is now excluded necessary in liaison with Costs for other from the maintained secondary (This is a worst case scenario; neighbouring boroughs to clarify schemes not available schools list) various factors add complexity medium to longer term assessment. to forecasting demand – see (Estimate for Section 5.3). Westminster: £21.5m)

Adult S4 Expansion in line with Provision for the expanding  M City wide (including plans FE Colleges, LSC (or successor Cost of three existing Proposed LSC funding totals Learning and demand, including population so local people can for new WAES centre at Westminster Adult organisation), FE schemes identified £103M, with a £21M funding gap Further redevelopment of City of benefit from jobs growth Marylebone and Education Services colleges £124M Education Westminster College, redevelopment of Westminster Adult Education Westminster College in Services Facilities and St Paddington) Charles Sixth Form

November 2009 Page 206

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Name Agency

isting gap /replacement/ upgrade /replacement/ gap isting Policy Ex for development demand Forecast Higher S5 Maintain and improve facilities Provision for expanding student   M - L City wide Universities HEFCE Unknown, although No Westminster / London- Education in Westminster‟s ten population and to maintain City‟s certain schemes specific forecasts available; universities academic / research offer costed national trends indicate a likely fall in students in the short term followed by an increase in the medium / long term.

Primary S6 Refurbishment, Facilities require renewal and    M City wide and especially in Westminster PCT Westminster PCT / Unknown health care redevelopment and expansion expansion but also reconfiguration areas of high deprivation NHS of provision, including so the preferred service delivery (Estimate for polysystems model model can be implemented Westminster: £13.9m)

Secondary S7 Expansion of acute, mental Requirement for needs of resident  M City wide Foundation Trusts / NHS Unknown Healthcare and intermediate care beds and working population Hospitals / other and spaces (estimated 1,335 commissioned (Estimate for sqm) providers Westminster: £33.4m)

Parks and S8 Parks and playable space for Key to high quality environment and    S - M City wide especially north WCC, quasi- WCC, quasi- Unknown open space residential and working offer for and health of population, and south of the City and in governmental governmental population and visitors, in line workers and visitors the opportunity areas of organisations e.g. organisations e.g. (Estimate for with WCC Open Space significant growth LDA, charities, private LDA, charities, private Westminster: £36.2m Strategy developers developers for parks; £14.6m for playspace)

Sports and S9 Provision of new sports Important aspect of health and well-  S - M City wide; need for WCC, PFI (BSF), WCC, PFI (BSF), £70m committed for 3 leisure facilities for residential and being and entertainment offer swimming pool in north- private providers private providers WCC community working population (estimated east of Westminster sports and leisure 55 ha outdoor, 6,776 sqm (participation is in general facilities; funds for 9 indoor) low here) community sport facilities within schools committed through BSF

Libraries S10 Consolidate and expand Statutory duty of provision   S / M City wide WCC (Westminster WCC (inc developer £4.48m; some of provision Library Provision Libraries) contributions) funding approved and expected via S106 however gap still likely.

November 2009 Page 207

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report

Name Agency

isting gap /replacement/ upgrade /replacement/ gap isting Policy Ex for development demand Forecast Job S11 Expansion of facilities in line Wider socio-economic significance  S / M City wide Job Centre Plus Dpt of Work and Unknown brokerage with workforce of provision Pensions [no specific details [No details available, (Estimate for available] probable expansion of Westminster £0.2m) existing two offices]

Cemeteries S12 Additional space requirement Public health issues, especially  M / L Provision on site outside WCC WCC Unknown (0.4 ha)/ intensification of use under emergency scenario the City of Westminster and expanded service (Estimate for [most likely through Westminster £0.13m) expansion of existing cemeteries]

Community S13 Additional requirement for Addressing current supply gap and   S / M North of Westminster, Unknown Unknown Unknown Facilities between 500 and 600 sqm of future needs in the North of including the wards of community space including Westminster Westbourne, Harrow Road 232 sq m of office space, 35 and Queens Park. sq m of meeting and or training space, 100 sq m of flexible use space and 192 sq m of activity space.

Police S14 Modernisation of estate Enable more effective policing and   S / M City wide Metropolitan Police Metropolitan Police Unknown including possible more efficient use of space Association Association redevelopment of Paddington Police Station, new holding cells at Selfridges and improved office space

Ambulance S15 Expansion of service to meet Population and employment growth   M City wide London Ambulance NHS Unknown growth in demand are likely to drive demand Service NHS Trust

Fire S16 Modernisation of existing Update facilities making them fit for   S - M City wide London Fire Planning London Fire Planning Unknown Unknown estate current delivery models Authority Authority

November 2009 Page 208

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Appendix 1 - Technical Input

November 2009 Page 209

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

November 2009 Page 210

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

As noted within Section 1, the Westminster Infrastructure Plan has involved a consultancy team headed by URS, but supported by sub-consultants including Integrated Services & Utilities Limited (utilities), Steer Davis Gleave (transportation) and Davis Langdon (costings).

Section 2.2 to 2.12 infrastructure inputs are covered as follows:

Infrastructure Area Consultant Power (electricity and gas) Integrated Services & Utilities Ltd

Transport Steer Davies Gleave

Water

Sewerage

Flood defences URS Corporation Ltd

Waste management

Social Infrastructure

Costs Davis Langdon Ltd

November 2009 Page 211

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

November 2009 Page 212

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Appendix 2 - Approach and Parameters

November 2009 Page 213

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

November 2009 Page 214

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Introduction This Appendix sets out additional information on the infrastructure study parameters and approach, including: The scope of the assessment and definition of key terms The key information sources which formed the evidence base for the analysis Key assumptions which informed the analysis Additional background material relating to the policy context, drivers of demand and supply, etc. We also outline the assumptions utilised within the URS Infrastructure Model, which constitutes a key element of assessing growth impacts on relevant strands of infrastructure, namely: Early years, primary and secondary education, futher education and adult learning Healthcare Parks and open space, sports and leisure Libraries, communitiy and faith facilities Job brokerage Cemeteries Electricity, gas, water and sewerage. The model is laid out in full in Appendix 3 including the assumptions utilised to estimate population growth, education, health and utilities demand; the growth rate in residential and non-residential uses; and the analysis of such projected growth including data sources and the method. The outputs of the model and a high level description of our workings are included in the body of the report. Below we set out additional details of our approach to quantifying the quantum and cost of required future provision for the various infrastructure areas considered.

Utilities Contact, via ISU, has been made with the „host‟ utility companies that cover each respective network. Within the study zone, there are two gas companies involved with a notional boundary between them, broadly split by the River Thames. The companies involved include EDF Energy, National Grid, British Telecommunications and Thames Water.

Other utility companies have been identified as influencing factors but, at this stage, have been excluded from the commentary as the infrastructure present is considered as less complex. This includes cables companies such as Virgin Media, Cable and Wireless,

November 2009 Page 215

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Kingston Communications, Global Crossing and Energis to name but a few possible alternatives.

Generally, the approach considers what the network is doing currently, what plans are in place to cover „organic‟ growth and what plans are in place to ensure that wider growth, based upon known development zones, can be catered for. These are all facets that regulator requires the incumbent provider to undertake as part of their operating licence.

There is a need however to clarify what impact the proposed growth to 2026, which is in excess of development schemes which are currently forth-coming, will subsequently have on each network in terms of funding and delivery in particular.

Electricity The assessment of the electricity network includes strategic assets owned and operated by the „host‟ electricity provider for the area, up to and including the 132kV (132,000 volts) network . The lower voltages of 400V and 11kV are not considered given that these reflect more local infrastructure associated with specific development proposals which are at present unknown and which are unlikely to be of consequence to the nature of the report.

URS modelled demand for electricity associated with residential and non-residential forecast growth for the City of Westminster.

Westminster is unique in that the relative mix of employment, residential, retail, and community uses, when compared to more provincial areas. Office space, for example, is likely to represent a greater proportion of future development than, say, commercial or industrial uses.

However, the utility system works according to „trigger points‟ at a strategic level, and utilises standard material / apparatus sizes. For this reason, the inconsistencies of load application becomes relatively insignificant and trying to establish an exact projected load is not necessarily required; the pertinence of the finer detail only becomes an issue if the trigger point is close to being reached. For this reason it is possible to use a linear assumption which places emphasis on varying load application to establish a starting point for projecting energy demand.

To secure a basic position, each type of additional requirement will need to have recognised energy consumption demand placed against it. This generally splits into two categories: firstly, a per unit approach and, secondly, a square metreage approach. The former is usually applied to residential although there is a secondary split between electrically heated and non electrically heated units (air conditioning or storage heaters attract greater energy demand figures than, say, a gas centrally heated unit). The latter approach of working against floor space is reflected better against employment and commercial uses, including leisure, although leisure, particularly when considering swimming pools, are somewhat disproportionate in demand to other types.

November 2009 Page 216

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

The resulting loads facilitate projections of energy demand against historical data so that shortfalls can be considered. The figures projected are extremely high, probably because the diversity assumed is not great enough for a strategic level analysis172. ISU uses these figures as a starting point for analysis, and draws upon applying industry experience to draw informed judgements as far as is possible. The utility industry use their own computations when assessing demand and the likely impact; there are no published figures available.

Regardless of the figures utilised, outturn figures only offer indicative engineering requirements until a formal design is completed against set network criteria. The electricity system, given its „dynamic‟ nature, is always subject to change and reconfiguration. Therefore, the assessments made will reflect reasonable judgements and / or scenarios so that the client team have an understanding of the requirements in order to deliver the greater growth.

Gas The assessment of the gas network covers strategic assets owned and operated by the „host‟ gas providers for the area. This includes up to intermediate or high pressure networks. Low pressure networks are not considered given that these reflect more local infrastructure which is unlikely to be of consequence for a strategic report.

Demand for gas to 2026 was modelled using the same principles described above for electricity.

Telecommunications The assessment of the telecommunications network covers strategic assets owned and operated by British Telecommunications (BT) as they remain a significant „host‟ provider for the area. The ability to consider protocols is limited as the telecommunications industry tends to be more reactive than proactive when considering new connections.

The scope of works therefore is to review whatever data BT can provide and assess this against delivery criteria, even if this subsequently ignores the cabling aspect and focuses on impact works such as highway excavation.

Water The assessment of the water network covers strategic assets owned and operated by the „host‟ water provider for the area. This includes strategic mains and supplies and does

172 The forecasts were presented to EDF as a means to initiate discussion on the approach and outputs. Detailed feedback was not forthcoming in time for incorporation in this report, though EDF did confirm that the findings of the assessment are in line with their expectations, suggesting that the results of the analysis are a good indication of the likely needs for Westminster over the 2006-2026 period.

November 2009 Page 217

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

not necessarily reflect upon more local infrastructure which is unlikely to be of consequence to the nature of the report.

Demand for potable water to 2026 was modelled using the same principles described above for electricity.

Sewerage

The elements of infrastructure covered in this section include physical assets associated with conveying and treating surface and foul water from the Westminster area and discharging the treated effluent to watercourses (mainly the River Thames). This infrastructure can be identified as follows:

Sewerage treatment works (Mogden, Beckton and Crossness)

Pumping stations

Sewers

Maintenance and control equipment

IT and buildings

The proposed Thames Tideway tunnel.

Private drainage networks within individual sites (i.e. non-adopted drainage) have been omitted because sewer records are generally not available from private owners. The study was undertaken based on Thames Water‟s data and predictions for the whole Thames Water region which comprises most of the Thames catchment area, from Warwickshire to Sussex and from Gloucestershire to Essex. It was not possible to extract precise details of plans relating to the Westminster area therefore approximate investment figures for Westminster are estimated where relevant, based on equivalent population.

The assessment has been carried out based on a review of the Thames Water 5-year173 and 25-year174 investment plans. Currently Thames Water is undertaking Asset Management Plan 4 or AMP 4, due to end in 2010. AMP 5 will run from 2010 to 2015, followed by AMP 6 in 2015-2020 and AMP 7 in 2020-2025. The scope of the report extends to 2026 which is one year into the AMP 8 period of 2025-2030.

The assessment is based on information provided by Thames Water, WCC and information available in the public domain and subsequent consultations with Thames Water and WCC Environmental Health Department.

173 “Five-Year Plan from 2010 to 2015”, Draft Report, Thames Water

174 “Taking Care of Water – The Next 25 Years (2010-2035)”, Thames Water

November 2009 Page 218

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Waste Management Only the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) stream has been considered in this study as this waste stream is collected by Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs) and treated/disposed of by Unitary Authorities. Some data and information relating to this waste stream is available in the documentation listed below.

This study covers waste treatment and disposal facilities such as landfill sites, thermal treatment (e.g. energy from waste, incineration), anaerobic digestion and composting. In accordance with the London Plan, 2008, Consolidated with Alterations since 2004, this study has not included the current or future capacity of waste transfer stations as they are not classified as “waste management” facilities.

This study is based on information and data obtained from the following documents:

Central London Forward, Infrastructure in Central London, Strategic Scoping Report: Capacity and Future Planning

Greater London Authority; Mayor‟s Municipal Waste Management Strategy (September 2003)

City of Westminster Municipal Waste Management Strategy Implementation Programme 2004-2016

Early Alterations to the London Plan, Greater London Authority, December 2006

City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan adopted 24 January 2007

City of Westminster Local Development Framework Core Strategy Issues and Options – May 2007

Environment and Planning Section (specifically relating to the Local Development Framework) of the WCC website (www.westminster.gov.uk).

URS has not undertaken a consistency check on the data contained within each of the above documents reviewed. All data in the assessment is as stated in the individual reports. It is highly likely that reported data is based upon limited available information and assumptions, making the reliability of the data questionable, and this is openly acknowledged in the Greater London Authority (GLA) report “Rethinking Rubbish in London, The Mayor‟s Municipal Waste Management Strategy” in relation to estimated capacities for waste management.

Detailed waste management data, specifically funding data for the City of Westminster, was unavailable.

The LDF for the City of Westminster is still being developed and currently the Unitary Development Plan, adopted on 24 January 2007, is valid. WCC has published some information in relation to the LDF on its website, and this indicates that an assessment of potential waste sites is currently under development, which will form an evidence based document for the LDF.

November 2009 Page 219

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Transport Transport infrastructure considered as part of this study includes rail and underground networks, bus routes, highways, interchanges, stations (bus and rail), pedestrian and cycle routes, riverboat piers and public realm. In the context of each mode, transport infrastructure relates to physical works and not strictly speaking to the vehicles or trains that operate on each network. However, in discussing transport capacity, this distinction is often arbitrary and where necessary reference is made to operations as well as infrastructure works.

Local planning policy documentation including Westminster‟s emerging Core Strategy, Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Local Implementation Plan (LIP) have informed this report. The emerging Core Strategy highlights the need for improvements to the public transport system, traffic management and improvements to the public realm and walking and cycling.

The City of Westminster has adopted a number of planning briefs which focus on key areas within the borough and outline strategic planning and transport advice. The following briefs have been consulted:

Victoria Area Planning Brief (March 2006)

Victoria Street, Buckingham Gate and Palace Street Draft Planning Brief (March 2007)

Paddington Station and Evirons Revisions to Draft Planning Brief (April 2008)

Crossrail: Bond Street Station Eastern Ticket Hall Draft Planning Brief (July 2008)

Crossrail: Bond Street Station Western Ticket Hall Draft Planning Brief (July 2008).

This report is also informed by key strategic documents such as the recent publication of Way to Go! (Mayor of London 2008) and the Transport for London Business Plan – 2009/10 – 2017/18 (November 2008). These documents reflect the priorities and policies of the incumbent Mayor but are also outputs of a wide-ranging review of infrastructure schemes in London in response to funding constraints.

These reports take a realistic view of schemes likely to be delivered over the course of the next ten years. Given the costs associated with Crossrail (now sponsored by Transport for London) and tube upgrades, and expected Government grant, several schemes have been omitted from the business plan. In some cases, this reflects an underlying lack of viability or absence of political support; in others, it reflects the lack of funding that is likely to be available.

Whilst the Business Plan looks ahead ten years, the planning horizon for London is dictated by the London Plan, which sets out policies to 2026. The most complete appraisal of transport in London over this period was contained in Transport 2025 –

November 2009 Page 220

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Transport vision for a growing world city (Transport for London, November 2006). T2025 identified a transport strategy for London that would match travel growth in London with transport infrastructure capacity improvements. The recent policy announcements potentially create a supply gap, as discussed below.

Additional documentation such as the Interchange Plan – improving interchange in London (Transport for London, August 2002) and the Central London Pedestrian Study (Intelligence Space/Atkins, December 2007) have also been consulted.

The aim of this report is to review the transport infrastructure requirements of the borough, regardless of ultimate provider, and to identify priorities for investment and funding that will enable Westminster to secure improvements consistent with its local plan objectives. This report, therefore, spans both infrastructure schemes that are national or regional in scope and more local measures that will be delivered primarily by the borough.

Early Years and Child Care We use take up rates from an average of day nurseries, independent schools, maintained nursery schools and classes and private/voluntary nurseries to estimate the number of 0- four year olds requiring additional places. The registered providers considered are day nurseries, independent schools, maintained nursery schools and classes and private/voluntary nurseries. The age group is 0-4 year olds.

The methodology to assess the demand for early years and child care places has been refined following consultation with the education department. Information was predominantly sourced from:

Consultation with Westminster Education Department

Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (i) Analysis of childcare supply in Westminster (WCC 2007-2008).

Westminster Children Services have advised that information is being updated. The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for early years places across the City up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost. Full details on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 2. The analysis is based on:

Identifying the potential demand up to 2026, arising from residential and non- residential population growth

Calculating an indicative spatial requirement per 1,000 population, based on Early Years Foundation Stage Statutory Practice Guidance (May 2008)

November 2009 Page 221

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Calculating the associated costs, based on information from Davis Langdon.

The model does not incorporate future trends expected to increase take up rates as no quantitative evidence was available at the time of writing.

Primary Education Primary school places are reception to year six. In our model we assume that all four year olds attend reception year at primary schools.

The methodology to assess the demand for primary school places has been refined following consultation with the education department. Information was predominantly sourced from:

Consultation with Westminster Education Department175

Supply of School Places 2008, (Department for Education and Skills, 2008)

Westminster Children Services have advised that information is being updated and will be published at the end of March, but was not available at the time of writing. The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for early years places across the City up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost. Full details on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 2. The analysis is based on:

Identifying the potential demand up to 2026, arising from residential population growth

Calculating an indicative spatial requirement per 1,000 population, national guidance

Calculating the associated costs, based on information from Davis Langdon.

Secondary Education Secondary education covers pupils year seven to year thirteen (i.e. who have already turned 11 and who have yet to turn 17).

The methodology to assess the demand for secondary school places has been refined following consultation with the education department. Information was predominantly sourced from:

Consultation with Westminster Education Department

175 Ibid.

November 2009 Page 222

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Supply of School Places 2008, (Department for Education and Skills, 2008) The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for secondary school places across Westminster up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost. Full details on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 2. Whilst we discuss the evolution of secondary education provision in Westminster, including the opening of two new academies, we have not incorporated this formally within the model. The model provides intermediate results in terms of number of places and forms of entry required, so that the results can then be compared with any additional provision, disregard of the organisational arrangements of the institution.

The analysis is based on:

Identifying the potential demand up to 2026, arising from residential population growth, in terms of total number of places, forms of entries, and schools

Calculating an indicative spatial requirement per 1,000 population, national guidance

Calculating the associated costs, based on information from Davis Langdon.

Further Education and Adult Learning Future demand for FE and adult education in Westminster was modelled for 16-18 year olds (FE) and for 19-65 year olds (adult education).

The methodology to assess the demand for secondary school places has been refined following consultation with the education department. Information was predominantly sourced from:

Consultation with Learning and Schools Council

LSC London Strategic Analysis 2007/2008 (LSC, 2007/2008)

LSC Statement of Priorities (LSC, 2009-10)

Future demand for FE and adult education in the Westminster was modelled for 16-18 year olds (FE) and for 19-65 year olds (adult education). Further details on how we have calculated demand and costs are provided in sheet A2 Education of the attached URS Westminster infrastructure model.

November 2009 Page 223

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Higher Education The methodology to assess the demand for Higher Education (HE) places has been refined following consultation with the higher education department176. Information was predominantly sourced from:

Consultation with HEPI, HEFCE, HESA, individual universities

Demand for Higher Education to 2029 (HEPI, 2008)

Savills Report to Unite The Student accommodation market in London (Savills Ltd, 2007)

The HEFCE Strategic Plan (HEFCE, 2006-2011).

Higher education demand is not geographically sensitive. Our baseline information shows that a significant component of students move into the higher education institution region to study, suggesting a high national and international component in HE demand. For this reason we did not model the impact that the projected Westminster growth may have on demand for HE.

Primary Healthcare URS have assessed both primary and secondary health requirements arising from projected population the City of Westminster based on the NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) model. Primary healthcare is accordingly considered to include all services that evolving policy aims at seeing provided at General Practices177.

The output of the assessment is therefore an understanding of the additional number of General Practitioners (GPs) required to satisfy the new demand arising from projected resident population growth. In addition the likely spatial requirements and building costs required to host such additional units will be provided.

URS have contacted the Westminster Primary Care Trust (PCT). Information was predominantly sourced from:

Consultation with Westminster PCT

HUDU Planning Contribution Model, Guidance Notes (EDAW/AECOM 2007)

Westminster PCT Estates Strategy (Westminster PCT, 2008)

176 HEPI, HESA and HEFCE

177 „HUDU Planning Contribution Model, Guidance Notes‟ (EDAW/AECOM, 2007)

November 2009 Page 224

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Westminster Strategic Service Development Plan 2008-2013 (Westminster PCT, 2008) NHS London is one of the ten Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) in England established in July 2006 to lead NHS across London, providing strategic leadership for NHS in London and operates a PCT Commissioning Regime to enable the commissioning of world class heath care. Strategic Health Authorities were created by the government in 2002 to manage the local NHS on behalf of the secretary of state, and were reduced to 10 from the original number of 28 on July 1 2006. SHAs are responsible for developing plans for improving health services in their local area, making sure local health services are of a high quality and are performing well, increasing the capacity of local health services (so they can provide more services), and making sure national priorities are integrated into local health service plans. SHAs manage the NHS locally and are a key link between the Department of Health and the NHS.

As discussed the HUDU model was used to quantify and cost potential primary and secondary healthcare requirements in the City of Westminster. The HUDU model does not however consider the impact of non-residential growth on healthcare demand. Also, it does not allow to account for any potential spare capacity in current provision and the baseline information made available to URS by consultees was inadequate to allow a full gap analysis; therefore a qualitative assessment of emerging key issues will be presented. The findings of this quantitative assessment should therefore be considered as indicative of the order of magnitude of the net additional needs likely to arise from residential growth.

The projected dwelling growth up to 2026 for the City of Westminster was the key input into the HUDU model. For primary care, the Westminster URS model occupancy rates by tenure and size were used and a net population gain factor of 100% was assumed. The high case scenario has been used for population projections based on GLA, DMAG, RLP (Review of the London Plan) forecasts. Finally all new build has been assumed to be flats, as the occupancy rates used already combines flat and houses population yields. HUDU model default assumptions have been used for all other variables, including build up rates and take up rates178.

The GP to patient ratio was set at 1 GP per 1,700179 has using the ODPM Reforming Planning Obligations which sets out the requirement as based on the standard levels of provision assumed by NHS and Department of Health planners.

178 This means that the housing trajectory assumed by the model is different from the one presented in the London Plan. The HUDU assumptions with this respect have been developed with the specific purpose of assessing health needs arising from new development, as opposed to the Westminster URS model assumptions which were intended to provide the base for the assessment of impacts on a wider range of infrastructure areas. As a result URS have considered appropriate to utilise the standard HUDU assumptions. It should be however noted that this approach implies that the resulting housing trajectory may be spread across a different time frame from the 2006-2026 London Plan timeline. The model attached in Appendix 4 presents detailed information.

179 As opposed the HUDU default of 1,800 patients per GP.

November 2009 Page 225

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

All other healthcare needs assumptions are the HUDU model default ones, and these include:

Spatial requirements, in the form of square metres per unit (e.g. per bed or day places)

Build costs and build costs inflation assumptions, as well as revenue funding allocations assumptions.

Secondary Healthcare With regard to Secondary Healthcare URS have assessed health requirements arising from projected population growth in the City of Westminster based on the NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) model. The HUDU model defines secondary healthcare as the combination of:

Acute healthcare provision, covering acute elective and non elective in patients and acute day case

Mental healthcare provision, covering mental health

Intermediate180 healthcare provision, covering intermediate beds and day spaces. Current Government health policy drives PCTs and secondary healthcare providers towards an integrated model of services provision, in order to achieve a shift of activity from the secondary into the primary sector181.

Information was predominantly sourced from:

Consultation with Westminster PCT and London Strategic Health Authority

HUDU Planning Contribution Model, Guidance Notes (EDAW/AECOM 2007)

NHS London Strategic Plan (NHS, 2008)

NHS London annual report and statement of accounts 2007/08 (NHS, 2008). Accordingly URS have consulted with both Westminster PCT and the London Strategic Health Authority. In addition they have reviewed the PCT Commissioning Strategies and

180 Intermediate care is generally considered to include those services that do not require the resources of an acute general hospital, but are beyond the scope of traditional primary care.

181 „HUDU Planning Contribution Model, Guidance Notes‟ (EDAW/AECOM, 2007). This is also evident from the Westminster PCT Strategic Service Delivery Plan 2008.

November 2009 Page 226

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

the NHS London Strategic Plan and Annual Report and Statement of Accounts 2007/2008182.

It should be noted that the HUDU model does however not consider the impact of non- residential activities on healthcare demand. Also, it does not allow for any potential spare capacity in current provision and the baseline information made available to URS by consultees was inadequate to allow a full gap analysis; therefore a qualitative assessment of emerging key issues will be presented. The findings of this quantitative assessment should therefore be considered as indicative of the order of magnitude of the net additional needs likely to arise from residential growth.

The output of the assessment is therefore an understanding of the additional number of secondary and intermediary care beds and places (for intermediate day care only) required to satisfy the new demand arising from projected resident population growth. In addition the likely spatial requirements and building costs required to host such additional units will be provided.

Parks and Open Space The methodology to assess the demand for parks and open space has been refined following consultation with WCC. Information was predominantly sourced from:

Consultation with Westminster Parks, Sports and Leisure

Open Space Strategy (WCC, 2007) The London Plan 2008183 provides guidance of the typologies of open space that should be accessible to residents:

Metropolitan District Park Local Park Small Open Pocket Park Park Space 60 hectares 20 hectares 2 hectares <2 hectares <0.4 hectares Within Within 1.2 Less than Less than Less than 0.4 km 3.2km km 0.4 km 0.4 km Source: London Plan 2008

URS modelled parks and open space provision and this also includes children‟s play space. It is important to note that given the land availability constraints in Westminster the analysis aims to provide an indication of the scale of future demand. It is expected that improvements in quality in existing space such as biodiversity and improved infrastructure

182NHS London Strategic Plan (NHS, 2008); NHS London annual report and statement of accounts 2007/08, (NHS, 2008).

183 London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (GLA, 2008)

November 2009 Page 227

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

and links to developments of existing open space will constitute the priority of WCC‟s work.

The Greater London Authority‟s „Supplementary Planning Guidance184 recommends that all new developments plan for 10 sqm of play and recreation space for all children and young people aged 0-18. The SPG also defines different recreational spaces that meet the range of needs arising from different age groups. Children between 0 and four years of age need specific engaging play features (for instance climbable objects or sand and water) as well as places for carers to sit and talk. Children between 6 and 11 years of age need additional facilities, including for instance kick about areas and basketball nets, whilst older children need a more broadly defined social space where they can meet and take part in a wider range of informal recreational activities.

Such differentiated needs can be satisfied by a variety of facilities, as long as they meet specific minimum size and accessibility requirements. Existing facilities can help meet some of this demand if they are within certain distances and have sufficient capacity to cater for additional children. The following are different types of play space:

Doorstep Playable Spaces are usually designed for children under 0-4 years old, contain small indicative items of play equipment, have a minimum activity zone of 100 sqm in size and are located within 100m of the housing units.

Local Areas of Playable Space are more flexible spaces designed for children aged 0-11, equipped with equipment allowing children to swing slide and climb together with for instance kick about areas and basketball nets. They have a minimum activity zone of 300 sqm and are located within 400m of the housing units.

Youth Space cater for children of 12 years of age and older, equipped with more teenage provision than Local Areas of Playable Space including opportunities for wheeled play (skateboards, BMXs, etc) and youth shelter. They have an activity zone of a minimum of 200 sqm in size and are to be located within 800m from the housing units. Informal play areas of Youth Spaces can also be considered Multi Use Games Areas (MUGAs) if sufficient informal sports space is designed.

Neighbourhood Areas of Playable Space cater for children of all ages, equipped with both activity and play features for children between 0 and 11 years of age, and a social space for children of 12 years of age or older. Their minimum activity zone is of 200 sqm and they are located within 800m from the housing units.

Sports and Leisure URS model will include indoor and outdoor sports facilities in Westminster, including: swimming pools, health stations and outdoor sports facilities (i.e. athletic tracks and synthetic turf pitches).

184 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Providing for Children and Young People‟s Play and Informal Recreation (GLA, 2008)

November 2009 Page 228

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

The provision of less conventional sports such as climbing, martial areas, dance etc will not be assessed in the URS model as we have analysed indoor and outdoor sports provision in line with the ActiveWestminster Strategy. There is a lack of quantitative evidence and as a result we are limited to assessing indoor and outdoor sports provision only.

The information was predominantly sourced from:

Consultation with Westminster‟s Sports and Leisure department

ActiveWestminster Sport and Physical Activity Strategy 2008-2013 (City of Westminster, 2008)

Active Westminster Delivery Plan, 2008-2009, (WCC, 2008).

Libraries Analysis of Library requirements covers library space across the City.

The methodology to assess the demand for job brokerage services has been refined following consultation WCC. Information was predominantly sourced from:

WCC Council

Better Public Libraries (CABE, 2003)

21st Century Libraries (Building Futures, 2004)

Public Libraries, Archives and New Development (MLA, 2008)

City of Westminster Libraries, Archives, Arts and Culture Business Plan 2008/09 (WCC, 2008) The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for library services across the City up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost. Full details on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 2. The analysis is based on:

Identifying the potential demand up to 2026, arising from both residential and non-residential population growth

Calculating an indicative spatial requirement per 1,000 population, based on consultation with WCC Library Operations

Calculating the associated costs, based on information from Davis Langdon.

November 2009 Page 229

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Job Brokerage The methodology to assess the demand for job brokerage services has been defined in consultation with the Job Centre Plus Central London Partnership. Information was predominantly sourced from:

Consultation with the Job Centre Plus Central London Partnership

The Job Centre Plus London website was used to identify services specific to London http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/Partners/RegionalBusinessCommunity/Lon don/index.html. The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for job brokerage services across the City up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost. Full details on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 3. The analysis is based on:

Calculating the percentage of benefit claimants in working age out of the total City population, equalling 7%, to identify the potential demand up to 2026

Calculating an indicative rate of staff per 1,000 claimants based on current staff numbers serving Westminster

Calculating the additional staff required to meet the estimated additional demand

Calculating the associated spatial requirements and costs, based on information from Davis Langdon.

Cemeteries Cemeteries are generally publicly provided, with each local authority deciding whether to respond discretionally to population growth by extending the existing cemeteries or developing new ones. For burials local authorities generally consider the current death rate to identify how many years‟ capacity the current facilities still have.

Westminster‟s cemeteries are managed by the City of Westminster Parks services. The cemeteries are opened also to people residing outside Westminster, and equally those living in Westminster may decide to be buried elsewhere.

The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for burials only across the City up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost. Full details on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 3. The analysis is based on:

Calculating the number of burials per capita up to 2026

Calculating the associated spatial requirements and costs, based on information from Roger Tym and Partners.

November 2009 Page 230

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Community and Faith Facilities Community facilities represent a very complex infrastructure area that has to meet a variety of competing demands reflecting the variety of community views and needs. We have consulted with WCC and Voluntary Action Westminster to identify the baseline, forecast demand and forecast costs and planned investment for community facilities in Westminster.

The Westminster Infrastructure Model estimates future demand for community facilities across the City up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost. Full details on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 3. We appreciate that a purely quantitative standard for community facilities in itself is of limited value. For this reason the analysis of the URS Westminster infrastructure model should be considered as the starting point for further qualitative research and as a base for any negotiations with private developers to ensure community needs are met. The analysis is based on:

Calculating an indicative spatial requirement per 1,000 population, based on a variety of sources and discussions with WCC and Voluntary Action Westminster

Calculating the total additional spatial requirements and costs, based on information from Davis Langdon.

With regards to faith facilities, consultation has confirmed that the information available on faith facilities in Westminster is exclusively qualitative and anecdotal. It is based on needs identified by engagement with faith communities through the Westminster Faith Exchange (Westminster's local interfaith body) and a Needs Mapping Survey of Muslim organisations completed in 2008. The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for faith facilities across the City up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost. Full details on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 3. The analysis is based on:

Calculating an indicative spatial requirement per 1,000 population, based on a variety of sources

Calculating the total additional spatial requirements and costs, based on information from Davis Langdon.

Emergency Services The report aims to investigate the current and future needs for emergency service provision, in terms of police, fire and ambulances, in Westminster.

URS‟ approach to understanding future emergency services requirements included consulting with the Metropolitan Police Service, the London Fire Brigade and the London Ambulance NHS Trust.

URS have reviewed the following documents:

November 2009 Page 231

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Metropolitan Police Estate, Asset Management Plan Westminster (Metropolitan Police, 2007)

Home Office Statistical Bulletin- Police Service Strength 2008 (Home Office, 2007)

Fire Asset Management Plan (London and Fire Emergency Planning, 2008)

London Safety Plan 2008-2011 (London Fire Brigade, 2008)

Fire Corporate Plan 2008-2011 (London Fire Brigade, 2008).

The impact of residential and non-residential growth on emergency infrastructure has not been assessed quantitatively within our model as consultation indicated that such an analysis would not be appropriate or robust. The information presented in the section is therefore predominantly qualitative, with quantitative evidence is presented wherever available.

For fire services for instance the key element is not only the extent of population growth, but also and more importantly its accessibility to existing fire stations in case of emergency. Furthermore increases in the number of commercial buildings increases the number of false alarms and therefore pressure on the fire service. This is likely to apply also to other emergency services.

The majority of services provided by police, fire stations and ambulance stations are provided across local authority boundaries. It is therefore hard to provide a meaningful assessment of the adequacy of provision and needs at the Westminster level.

November 2009 Page 232

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Appendix 3 - URS Westminster Infrastructure Model

November 2009 Page 233

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

November 2009 Page 234

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Below we present the model that has informed part of the analysis. The model is set out as follows:

Sheet Contents presents the table of contents

Sheet Results presents a summary of the model results

Sheet A1 Population presents the assumptions adopted to calculate population out of the housing trajectory

Sheet A2 Education presents the assumptions adopted to calculate demand and requirements for early years, primary and secondary education and further education and adult learning

Sheet A3 Health presents the assumptions inputted in the HUDU model to calculate primary and secondary healthcare demand and requirements in addition to the HUDU standard assumptions

Sheet A4 Other Social Infrastructure presents the assumptions adopted to calculate demand and requirements for sports and leisure facilities; parks and open spaces; libraries, community and faith facilities; job brokerage; cemeteries

Sheet A5 Utilities presents the assumptions used to calculate future load for electricity, gas, water and sewerage

Sheet I1 Growth Projections presents the growth projections used to inform the model and the assessment

Sheet I2 Growth Analysis presents an analysis of projected growth

Sheet R1 Population presents the resulting population growth based on the housing trajectory

Sheet R2 Education presents the resulting demand for early years, primary and secondary education and further education and adult learning, based on population growth and education assumptions

Sheet R3 Health presents the resulting primary and secondary healthcare requirements based on population growth and health assumptions

Sheet R4 Sports, Leisure and Recreation presents the resulting demand for sports and leisure facilities, and parks and open spaces, based on population growth and facilities provision assumptions

Sheet R5 Community and Other presents the resulting demand for libraries, community and faith facilities; job brokerage; cemeteries, based on population growth and facilities provision assumptions

November 2009 Page 235

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Sheet R6 Utilities presents the resulting electricity, gas, water and sewerage based on population growth and utilities assumptions.

November 2009 Page 236

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Appendix 4 - HUDU Model Approach

November 2009 Page 237

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

November 2009 Page 238

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

Introduction

The NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) developed the so called HUDU model in 2005 to help quantify the impact of new development on the local health services and estimate the associated capital and revenue costs associated with such impact185.

The model is intended for use by the 31 London Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and is currently being used by about a third of them. In addition, it is employed by private developers and local authorities and therefore constitutes a common tool to assess health impacts of new population. For all these reasons it is considered appropriate to use it to the purpose of this social infrastructure assessment as opposed to developing a new model.

The HUDU model assumes that the additional health requirements as a result of population growth attributable to residential developments will need to be met through capital development. Illustrative healthcare requirements and the costs of meeting requirements through new build solutions are calculated. The HUDU model does not incorporate baseline data on the existing or planned health service provision for the individual PCTs. Having been designed to assist in calculating developers‟ contributions in new individual developments the model assumed that the reconciliation of current capacity and future demand is undertaken at a subsequent stage.

The HUDU model was run for the City of Westminster to ascertain the likely quantum and cost of required future healthcare. It should be noted that the HUDU model, while used widely by PCTs both within and outside London, is a model providing indicative quantum and cost figures only. In particularly its use have been challenged in the past in occasions where PCTs did not have an adopted estates strategy in place that could justify the need for additional health premises.

Assumptions

The model estimates future service, spatial and cost requirements in three stages. They are illustrated below together with the assumptions used in each of them.

Stage 1: population and housing.

o The projected dwelling growth up to 2026 for the City of Westminster was used to estimate the impact on primary health services.

o The Westminster URS model occupancy rates by tenure and size were used.

o The age profile of new population has been assumed to follow the default HUDU age profile distribution. The HUDU assumption account for the dynamic evolution of population in the planning period as opposed to the

185 „HUDU Planning Contribution Model, Guidance Notes‟ (EDAW/AECOM, 2007).

November 2009 Page 239

Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Final Report

static approach of the URS model. As a result population estimates based on the same dwelling numbers are lower in the HUDU model.

o A net population gain factor, that is the percentage of new population which is assumed to move into the PCT catchment area for the first time, was assumed to be 100% so as to ensure the worst case scenario (the highest number of people) is considered.

o The high case scenario has been used for population projections based on GLA, DMAG, RLP (Review of the London Plan) forecasts.

o Finally all new build has been assumed to be flats, as the occupancy rates used already combines flat and houses population yields. HUDU model default assumptions have been used for all other variables, including build up rates and take up rates186.

Stage 2: Healthcare

o For primary healthcare the GP:patient ratio was set at 1 GP per 1,700 has using the ODPM Reforming Planning Obligations which sets out the requirement as based on the standard levels of provision assumed by NHS and Department of Health planners.

o For secondary and intermediate healthcare the default HUDU model assumptions have been used.

Stage 3: Spatial requirements and costs:

o The default HUDU model spatial requirements and cost requirements (considering building costs only) have been used

o The HUDU model calculated building costs for each of the analysed healthcare item, whereas revenue costs are estimated as a total to support all of the new facilities. It should be noted that given the strategic level of this study and the long time frame the figure is not considered to be robust.

186 This means that the housing trajectory assumed by the model is different from the one presented in the London Plan. The HUDU assumptions with this respect have been developed with the specific purpose of assessing health needs arising from new development, as opposed to the Westminster URS model assumptions which were intended to provide the base for the assessment of impacts on a wider range of infrastructure areas. As a result URS have considered appropriate to utilise the standard HUDU assumptions. It should be however noted that this approach implies that the resulting housing trajectory may be spread across a different time frame from the 2006-2026 London Plan timeline. The model attached in Appendix 3 presents detailed information.

November 2009 Page 240

WCC Infrastructure Model

November 2009

URS Corporation Ltd.

WCC Infrastructure Model 1 of 27 10/11/2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS

These cells are fixed - see explanation alongside These cells are assumptions and can be updated/amended with more relevant data when appropriate. They will adjust subsequent results These cells contain an inconsistent formula for a reason These cells contain the the formulas leading to the results of the model calculations

Worksheet name Description Summary Contents Table of Contents Results Summary of Results

Assumptions A1 Population A1 Household, Tenure and Child Yields Assumptions A2 Education A2 Education Assumptions A3 Health A3 Healthcare Assumptions A4 Other Social A4 Other Social Infrastructure Assumptions A5 Utilities A5 Utilities Assumptions

Model Input I1 Demand Projections I1 Demand Projections I2 Non-residential Analysis I2 Analysis of Non-residential Uses

Model Calculations and Results R1 Population R1 Population R2 Education R2 Education R3 Health R3 Health R4 Sports, Leisure and Recreation R4 Sports, Leisure and Recreation R5 Community Facilities and Other R5 Community Facilities and Other Social Infrastructure R6 Utilities R6 Utilities

PROTECT/UNPROTECT WORKSHEETS: All the sheets in this worksbook are now protected to avoid unintentional mistakes.

To unprotect the sheets (individually): Enter each sheet and Alternatively select CONTROL+SHIFT+U (Note that by using the shortcut you will not be required to enter the psw) select Tools>Protection>Unprotect Sheet.

To protect the sheets (individually): When finished updating the Alternatively select CONTROL+SHIFT+P (Note that by using the shortcut you will not be required to enter the psw) single sheet protect it again by selecting Tools>Protection>Protect Sheet

psw: WCC_SIP

WCC Infrastructure Model 2 of 27 10/11/2009 Summary of Model Results

Total Capital Infrastructure Theme Infrastructure Item Total Requirement Spatial Requirements Cost (£)* Education Early Years 74 Classes 6,601 Sqm 26,530,586 Primary Education 9 Forms of Entry 11,787 Sqm 26,002,859 Secondary Education 6 Forms of Entry 8,576 Sqm 21,509,483 Further Education and Adult Learning 2,243 Places 22,434 Sqm 56,084,757 Health GP and Primary Care Services 15 GP and Primary Care Services 2,525 Sqm 13,890,175 Acute and Mental Care 72 Acute and Mental Beds 3,478 Sqm 22,766,541 Intermediate Care 30 Intermediate Beds and Day Spaces 1,728 Sqm 10,628,496 Sports, Leisure and Health Stations 614 Health Stations 3,068 Sqm 21,476,606 Recreation Sports Halls N/a 2,039 Sqm 4,077,366 Swimming Pools N/a 1,669 Sqm 10,979,404 Outdoor Sports Facilities N/a 55 Ha 7,439,539 Playable Space - Doorstops (0-4) 350 Spaces 34,966 Sqm 6,974,990 Playable Space - Local (5-11) 68 Spaces 20,267 Sqm 4,042,841 Playable Space - Youth (12-17) 89 Spaces 17,726 Sqm 3,536,041 Parks N/a 78 Ha 36,209,539 Community and Other Libraries N/a 1,446 Sqm 4,338,838 Community Centres N/a - Sqm 0 Faith Facilities N/a - Sqm 0 Job Brokerage 7 Staff 127 Sqm 210,357 Burials N/a 0.4 Ha 134,148 Utilities Electricity 150,740 kVA N/a N/a Gas 12,498 m3/Hour N/a N/a Water 13,163,847 Litres/Day N/a N/a Sewerage 21,179,897 Litres/Day N/a N/a

Total 276,832,566 * This includes building costs only

WCC Infrastructure Model 3 of 27 10/11/2009 A1 Household, Tenure and Child Yields Assumptions

Notes

Population estimate from dwelling number Tenure mix (% of total housing Possible sources for the housing tenure split are: 1) 1 provision) Open Market Social Rented Intermediate London Plan 2008, suggesting 50% private housing and the remainder split in 70% social and 30% affordable. 50% 50% 50% 50% 35% 35% 35% 35% 15% 15% 15% 15% 2)London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 4 (2008), Here the first option is used. 2 Size mix (% by tenure) 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ 36% 51% 9% 4% 30% 46% 17% 8% 46% 46% 7% 1% The source for the housing size split by tenure is London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 4 (2008), using figures from 2006/2007 LDD; units (gross) by bedroom 3 Occupancy Rate size and tenure (table HPM10, p. 80) 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

Consultation with WCC suggests a flat 1.9 occupancy rate is used for population projections from dwelling numbers - WWC, email communication, 18/02/2009

Children population estimate from dwelling number Child Occupancy Rate by Tenure Private Housing tenure and size mix is from 1 and Size mix Open Market Social Rented Intermediate Wandsworth New Housing Survey (2007), both houses and flats. Social Housing tenure and size mix is from 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.2 1 2 3.3 0.12 0.57 1.25 2.16 the London and Sub-Regional Strategy Support Studies (SSSS) dataset (2004). Intermediate Housing is a non 2 Age Group Distribution 1 2 34+1234+1234weighted average between the two. 0-4 years 0.89 0.67 0.50 0.36 1.00 0.64 0.31 0.12 0.94 0.66 0.40 0.24 Private Housing age distribution is from Wandswarth 5-10 years 0.11 0.16 0.32 0.38 0.00 0.23 0.37 0.37 0.06 0.19 0.34 0.38 New Housing Survey 2007. Social Housing age 11-15 years 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.00 0.08 0.24 0.39 0.00 0.11 0.19 0.29 distribution is from the London and Sub-Regional 16-17 years 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.09 Strategy Support Studies (SSSS) dataset (2004) child yield by bedroom. 4 beds child yield are not an average of 4, 5 and 6 beds yields due to the unreliability of 5 and

3 Child Yields by Age Group 1 2 34+1234+1234 0-4 years 0.03 0.09 0.25 0.37 0.20 0.64 0.62 0.41 0.11 0.37 0.50 0.53 This was confirmed by Wesminster Children Services 5-10 years 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.39 0.00 0.23 0.74 1.22 0.01 0.11 0.43 0.82 (by email, 20/02/2009) 11-15 years 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.20 0.00 0.08 0.47 1.29 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.63 16-17 years 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.17 0.37 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.19 Total 0.03 0.14 0.50 1.02 0.20 1.00 2.00 3.30 0.12 0.57 1.25 2.16

18+ population estimate from dwelling number

1 % of 18 out of 18-65 population 0.01 Census 2001, WCC figures (see the table: Census 2001 2 % of 19+ out of 18 to 65 population 0.86 Age Distribution, 2001 in this spreadsheet).

WCC Infrastructure Model 4 of 27 10/11/2009 A1 Household, Tenure and Child Yields Assumptions

Data Sources and Notes

Wandsworth New Housing Survey (2007) 1 Population Yield per Dwelling (Private Developments) As the rate of response varied between developments, Number of Bedrooms the responses have been weighted to remove any bias All that may arise from this in line with standard statistical Age 1 2 3 4 5+ Households practice. 0-2 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.08 3-4 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.19 0.13 0.04 5-10 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.37 0.46 0.06 11-15 - 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.33 0.03 16-19 - 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.02 20-29 0.52 0.47 0.32 0.32 0.13 0.45 30-39 0.51 0.61 0.69 0.58 0.46 0.60 40-59 0.23 0.34 0.67 0.93 1.04 0.40 60-79 0.09 0.16 0.21 0.26 0.21 0.16 80+ 0.02 0.03 0.02 - - 0.02 Total 1.41 1.75 2.44 3.03 2.96 1.86 Respondents (weig 282.00 940.00 222.00 73.00 24.00 1,541.00

2 Population Yield per Dwelling (Private Developments) - 0 to 17 only (16 to 17 as % of 16 to 19 from Census) Number of Bedrooms Age 1 2 3 4 0-4 0.03 0.09 0.25 0.37 5-10 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.39 11-15 - 0.02 0.07 0.20 16-17 - 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.14 0.50 1.02

3 Age Distribution Number of Bedrooms Age 1 2 3 4 0-4 0.89 0.67 0.50 0.36 5-10 0.11 0.16 0.32 0.38 11-15 - 0.14 0.14 0.19 16-17 - 0.03 0.04 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Westminster Core Strategy Population information

WCC % of school age population 0- WCC count 19 Resident Populatio 231,874 ONS MYE 2006

Census population distribution (2001) 1 Census 2001 Age Distribution, 2001 WCC % of school age population 0- WCC count 19 0-4 9,452 0.19 5-10 8,722 0.18 Total 0-10 18,174.00 0.37 4 years old out of 0-10 0.09 11-15 6,300 0.13 16-17 2,844 0.06 18-19 4,096 0.08 Total 0-19 49,588.00 1.00 16-17 out of 16-19 0.41

WCC % out of WCC count 18+ population 18 1,690.00 0.02 19-65 83,564.00 0.98 Total 18+ 85,254.00

WCC Infrastructure Model 5 of 27 10/11/2009 A1 Household, Tenure and Child Yields Assumptions Census 2001 (ONS, 2008) Age (UV04), Apr01LastUpdated 18-Nov-04 Age (UV04), Apr01Source Office for National Statistics Age (UV04) National Statistics This material is Crown Copyright. Users are granted permission to reproduce Crown Copyright material provided that a Click-Use Licence has been obtained from HMSO. The Click-Use Licence can be obtained from http://www.clickanduse.hmso.gov.uk. When reproducing this material, the source should be acknowledged. Age (UV04) Age Type Description Year Westminster Age Type Description Year Westminster Aged under 1 year Count Persons Apr-01 2,228 Aged 41 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,604 Aged 1 year Count Persons Apr-01 1,957 Aged 42 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,371 Aged 2 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,771 Aged 43 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,219 Aged 3 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,802 Aged 44 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,260 Aged 4 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,694 Aged 45 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,005 Aged 5 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,642 Aged 46 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,953 Aged 6 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,419 Aged 47 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,841 Aged 7 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,507 Aged 48 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,902 Aged 8 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,421 Aged 49 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,913 Aged 9 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,447 Aged 50 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,075 Aged 10 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,286 Aged 51 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,037 Aged 11 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,358 Aged 52 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,172 Aged 12 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,266 Aged 53 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,306 Aged 13 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,330 Aged 54 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,366 Aged 14 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,237 Aged 55 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,024 Aged 15 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,109 Aged 56 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,894 Aged 16 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,386 Aged 57 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,785 Aged 17 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,458 Aged 58 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,721 Aged 18 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,690 Aged 59 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,522 Aged 19 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,406 Aged 60 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,488 Aged 20 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,782 Aged 61 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,506 Aged 21 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,988 Aged 62 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,467 Aged 22 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,392 Aged 63 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,425 Aged 23 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,839 Aged 64 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,447 Aged 24 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,368 Aged 65 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,424 Aged 25 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,350 Aged 66 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,308 Aged 26 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,708 Aged 67 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,240 Aged 27 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,881 Aged 68 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,263 Aged 28 years Count Persons Apr-01 5,092 Aged 69 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,153 Aged 29 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,997 Aged 70 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,206 Aged 30 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,545 Aged 71 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,213 Aged 31 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,280 Aged 72 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,162 Aged 32 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,191 Aged 73 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,088 Aged 33 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,936 Aged 74 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,019 Aged 34 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,960 Aged 75 to 79 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,542 Aged 35 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,723 Aged 80 to 84 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,060 Aged 36 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,319 Aged 85 to 89 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,851 Aged 37 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,339 Aged 90 to 94 years Count Persons Apr-01 715 Aged 38 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,964 Aged 95 to 99 years Count Persons Apr-01 144 Aged 39 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,758 Aged 100 years and over Count Persons Apr-01 23 Aged 40 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,746

WCC Infrastructure Model 6 of 27 10/11/2009 A2 Education Assumptions

Theme Area Notes

It is assumed that demand for Education only derives from new residential population. Pre-School Formal Education

0-4yr % is analysis of Census data, see A1 sheet. Take up rates are calculated as an average of take up rates for Day Nurseries, Private/Voluntary Nurseries, Maintained Sector Nurseries and Independent Schools, from WCC 2007-2008 1 Demand Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (see tables below in the Data Sources section of this spreadsheet). % of 0-4 yrs Take-up rate It is assumed that all 4 year olds will attend reception year at primary school. This was confirmed by by Wesminster Children 0 to 1 year olds 0.44 0.52 Services ( by email, 20/02/2009) 2 year olds 0.19 0.64 3 year olds 0.19 0.92 The model currently assumes that all 4 year olds attend reception year at primary school. It should be noted that this may not 4 year olds 0.18 0.00 entirely reflect the reality in Westminster, however no city specific statistics are available at this stage. % of 0-4 requiring 0-1 education 0.23 % of 0-4 requiring 2 year old education 0.12 % of 0-4 requiring 3 year old education 0.18 % of 0-4 requiring 4 year old education 0.00 Under the Children Act (2006) the LA has a duty to provide universal provision of nursery places for 3 to 4 years old. LAs have also a duty to secure sufficient childcare for working women. The lower census estimate of Westminster resident population indicates that 92% of children are already in a nursery place. 0.92 is therefore assumed to be the FTE demand.

Non Residential Factor 0.03 NB: At this stage the non-residential demand feeds into the total 0-4 age group demand only.

2 Space Requirements Children per Class 25 The class and nursery size has been agreed with WCC, 30/09/2009. Classes per Nursery School 2

Total net required floorspace for nursery is an average of the following based on legal space requirements Early Years Gross to Net Gross Foundation Stage Statutory Practice Guidance (May 2008): > Children under 2 years: 3.5m2 per child; > Two year olds: Net Floorspace Ratio Floorspace 2.5m2 per child; > Children aged three to five years: 2.3m2 per child. These requirements are for the minimum net or useable Total Required Floorspace 2.76 1.30 3.59 sqm per child indoor space. We expand this standard by 30% to account for areas not included. As the the Early Years Foundation Stage Statutory Practice Guidance (May 2008) is applicable to every Ofsted registered early years provider it is not anticipated that the space requirements for private nurseries will differ significantly from state nurseries.

Construction Cost per Full Time Pupil (£) 14,000.00 Davis Langdon, advise £14,000 would cover for construction costs only at 2008 prices

Primary Education

1 Demand WCC SPG on Planning Obligations (WCC, 2008). The 30% discount is understood to cover both leakage to the private Leakage 0.30 sector/other borough and existing residents. 4 year olds attending primary education 0.18 out of 0-4 year olds

Early Years Foundation Stage Statutory Practice Guidance (May 2008). There is a legal requirement for infant classes to be 2 Space Requirements no more than 30 pupils in size, and this is assumed to be maintained across the whole primary and secondary state Children per Class 30 maintained school provision. Number of years 7 It is assumed that all 25% of 4 to 5 years old attend reception year at primary schools. No. of Forms in a school 2 The net and gross internal floorspace required for primary schools is derived from: N = number of pupil places (or full-time equivalent where applicable) Source: Building Bulletin 98 (2nd Edition) Briefing Framework for Primary School Projects - Area Guidelines for Schools

WCC Infrastructure Model 7 of 27 10/11/2009 A2 Education Assumptions The net and gross external floorspace required for primary schools is derived from: N = number of pupil places (or full-time equivalent where applicable) Source: Building Bulletin 98 (2nd Edition) Briefing Framework for Primary School Projects - Area Guidelines for Schools. Guidelines for confined site areas are used as the education facilities are likely to be provided within confined sites.

Construction Cost per Pupil (£) 14,000.00 Davis Langdon advise £14,000 would cover for construction costs only at 2008 prices

Secondary Education

1 Demand

Leakage to the Private Sector 0.3 The Independent School Council Annual Census 2007 states 7% of children (aged12-17) are leakaged to private schools.

Early Years Foundation Stage Statutory Practice Guidance (May 2008). There is a legal requirement for infant classes to be 2 Space Requirements no more than 30 pupils in size, and this is assumed to be maintained across the whole primary and secondary state Children per Class 30 maintained school provision. Number of years 5 Secondary Schools are assumed to provide education to children in the 11 to 16 age group No. of Forms in a school 4 The net and gross internal floorspace required for primary schools is derived from: Source: Building Bulletin 99 Briefing Framework for Secondary School Projects - Area Guidelines for Schools N = number of pupil places (or full-time equivalent where applicable)

The net and gross external floorspace required for primary schools is derived from: N = number of pupil places (or full-time equivalent where applicable) Source: Building Bulletin 99 Briefing Framework for Secondary School Projects - Area Guidelines for Schools. Guidelines for confined site areas are used as the education facilities are likely to be provided within confined sites.

Construction Cost per Pupil (£) 23,500.00 Davis Langdon advise £23,500 would cover for construction costs only at 2008 prices

WCC Infrastructure Model 8 of 27 10/11/2009 A2 Education Assumptions Further and Adult Education The Education and Skills Act 2008 places on the LSC the duty to provide proper facilities for relevant education or training for 1 Demand persons over the age of 19.

% 18+ pop. Take-up rate 18 and 19-65 yr % is analysis of Census data, see A1 sheet. Take up rates are calculated from 'Government Investment 16-17 years old non relevant 0.90 Strategy 2009-10, LSC Grant Letters and LSC Statement of Priorities' (LSC, 2008) (see below). For 18 years old see Table 4. 18 years old 0.01 0.56 For 19-65 take up rates are calculated as a percentage of the total number or adult learner (2007) out of 16-60/65 England 18-65 years old 0.86 0.10 population (2007) see Table 8 in the Data Sources section of this spreadsheet and ONS (2008).

Non Residential Factor 0.01 It is assumed that the non-residential factor remains the same across the three age groups considered

2 Space Requirements Davis Langdon advise that typically FE and AL facilities provide 10 sqm per pupil. Sqm per Pupil 10 They also suggest that the typical range of costs can vary from £1,800 to £2,500/m2 gross internal floor area, excluding Construction Cost per Pupil (£) 25,000 Demolitions and Site Preparation; Abnormal ground conditions and remediation; External Works and Services; Loose Furniture, Fittings and operating equipment; Decant Costs; Professional fees and VAT.

WCC Infrastructure Model 9 of 27 10/11/2009 A2 Education Assumptions

Data Sources and Notes

Pre-School Formal Education

Figure 17: Places and Take-up for Day Nurseries in Westminster

No of Providers No of Full Time Gap analysis with places for Registered Equivalent Take- FTE Take-up (Places - Take Age-Range this age-range Places up of Places Rate up) WCC 2007-2008 Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (WCC, 2008) Birth-1 Year 12 124 73 0.59 51 The total consider the age range birth-4 (the 4+ age group is not considered) 1-2 Years 11 118 99.6 0.84 18 2-3 Years 19 291 164.7 0.57 126 3-4 Years 16 204 190.9 0.94 13 4+ Years 8 50 61.2 1.22 -11 Total 58 737 528.2 209

Figure 18: Private/Voluntary Nursery places and take-up

No of Providers No of Full Time Gap analysis with places for Registered Equivalent Take- FTE Take-up (Places - Take Age-Range this age-range Places up of Places Rate up) Birth-1 Year 3 32 11.7 0.37 20 1-2 Years 2 18 13.6 0.76 4 2-3 Years 18 351 163 0.46 188 3-4 Years 14 286 243.2 0.85 43 4+ Years 7 90 66 0.73 24 Total 37 687 431.5 256

Figure 19: Maintained sector places and take-up

No of Providers No of Full Time Gap analysis with places for Registered Equivalent Take- FTE Take-up (Places - Take Age-Range this age-range Places up of Places Rate up) Birth-1 Year 0 0 0 0.00 0 1-2 Years 0000.00 0 2-3 Years 4 94 53.5 0.57 41 3-4 Years 4 135 98.5 0.73 37 4+ Years 2 5 5 1.00 0 Total 8 229 152 77

Figure 20: Independent School places and take-up No of Providers No of Full Time Gap analysis with places for Registered Equivalent Take- FTE Take-up (Places - Take Age-Range this age-range Places up of Places Rate up) Birth-1 Year 1 9 7 0.78 2 1-2 Years 127230.85 4 2-3 Years 252490.94 3 3-4 Years 3 114 108 0.95 6 4+ Years 3 246 233 0.95 13 Total 7 202 187 15

Further and Adult Education Table 4: Projected participation in learning among 16- to18-year-olds in England between 2007/08 and 2009/10

2007/08 2008/2009 2009/2010 'Government Investment Strategy 2009-10, LSC Grant Letters and LSC Statement of Priorities' (LSC, 2008) Proportion participating at 16 88% 92% 95% Proportion participating at 17 79% 81% 84% Proportion participating at 18 56% 56% 56%

Table 8: Numbers of adult learners in England 2007/08 to 2009/10

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 Total learners , of which: 3,306,000 3,399,000 3,277,000 Adult learner-responsive 1,712,000 1,626,000 1,469,000 Adult employer-responsive 934,000 1,143,000 1,203,000 Adult Safeguarded Learning 660,000 630,000 605,000

Population in England, 2007 Mid-2007 UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: 21/08/08' (ONS, 2008)

All ages 51,092,000 16-44 20,615,600 45-64/59* 11,176,100

WCC Infrastructure Model 10 of 27 10/11/2009 A3 Healthcare Assumptions

Theme Area Notes

Health All assumptions are those set by default within the HUDU model - 'HDU Planning Contribution Model, Guidance Notes (EDAW/AECOM, 2007). Exceptions are specified 1 Occupancy Rates below.

Open Market Affordable In the population and housing section: The population scenario is assumed to be the High RPL. All new built is assumed to be flats, in absence of a % split between flats and houses provision. Net population gain is assumed to be 100%. All these 1234+1234assumptions should ensure the findings hold in a worst case scenario. 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 Occupancy Rates from Wandsworth New Housing Survey (2007) and from the London and Sub-Regional Strategy Support Studies (SSSS) dataset (2004) are used instead of the default Average Household Size figures. For affordable housing the occupancy rate is calculated as the number of people per flat in social and intermediate divided by the number of flats in social and intermediate tenure.

Patients per GP 1,700 Reforming Planning Obligations' ODPM, 2004.

The HUDU model as run on 27/04/2009 calculates a total of 26,014 new people in WCC based on the 13,600 dwellings

Data Sources and Notes

Calculation of Affordable Occupancy Rate

Westminster City Council Open Market

1234+

Number of dwellings 2,473 3,434 618 275

Population 4,698 6,525 1,175 522

Social Rented Intermediate Affordable

1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ Total 1 2 3 4+

Number of dwellings 1,414 2,168 801 377 938 # 143 20 13,600 2,352 3,106 944 397

Population 2,686 4,119 1,522 716 1,783 # 271 39 25,840 4,469 5,902 1,794 755 1 .90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Total (Open Market + Affordable)

1234+

4,825 4,825 6,541 1,562 672 13,600

WCC Infrastructure Model 11 of 27 10/11/2009 A4 Other Social Infrastructure Assumptions

Theme Area Notes

Sports, Leisure and Recreation

1 Sports Facilities

Health Stations per 1,000 Resident Population 17.99 Considering the current levels of health stations provision in WCC (17.99 per 1,000 population) it is suggested that local targets are set that allow to maintain Non-residential factor 0.32 the existing levels of provision - 'Active Westminster - Sports and Physical Activity Strategy 2008-2013' (WCC, 2008). Required Floorspace per Station 5 sqm Construction Cost per Sqm (£) 7,000 £ Davis Langdon, construction costs only at 2008 prices

Sqm of Sports Halls per 1,000 Resident Population 59.77 sqm Considering the current levels of sports provision in WCC (29.8 sqm per 1,000 population) it is suggested that local targets are set to align WCC to London Non-residential factor 0.32 wide levels - 'Active Westminster - Sports and Physical Activity Strategy 2008-2013' (WCC, 2008). Construction Cost per sqm (£) 2,000 Davis Langdon, construction costs only at 2008 prices

Sqm of Swimming Pool per 1,000 Resident Population 48.92 sqm Considering the current levels of swimming pools provision in WCC (48.92 sqm per 1,000 population) it is suggested that local targets are set that allow to Non-residential factor 0.32 maintain the existing levels of provision - 'Active Westminster - Sports and Physical Activity Strategy 2008-2013' (WCC, 2008). Construction Cost per Sqm (£) 6,580 £ Aitkins, LB Camden Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study Update (2008)

Ha of Outdoor Sports Facilities per 1,000 Resident Populatio 1.60 Ha Planning and Design for Outdoor and Sports Play (Fields in Trust - Formerly National Playing Fields Association, 2008) Non-residential factor 0.32 WCC, Personal communication, 06/02/2009 Construction Cost per ha (£) 136,320 The Cost and Funding of Growth in the South East England' (Roger Tym & Partners, 2005) (2005 prices), including two football pitches, two tennis courts, car parking. Confirmed by Davis Langdon, 2008

2 Open Space Child - Total Playable Space per 0 to 17 Resident Child 10.00 sqm Child - 0-4 Year Olds Playable Space Minimum Size 100.00 sqm Age groups are based on the GLA ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance: Providing for Children and Young Peoples Play and Informal Recreation’ (GLA, 2008). Demand is analysed by age group to allow for different solutions to provide the required open space. To the purpose of this model it is assumed that provision Child - 5-11 Year Olds Playable Space Minimum Size 300.00 sqm will be: 0-4 year olds, Doorsteps Playable Spaces; 5-11 , Local Playable Spaces; 12-17 Youth Spaces Child - 12-17 Year Olds Playable Space Minimum Size 200.00 sqm Child - 0 to 17 Year Olds Playable Space Minimum Size 500.00 sqm

Construction Cost per Sqm (£) 199.48 £ LB Camden Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study Update (Atkins, 2008)

Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play' (Fields In Trust – Formerly the National Playing Fields Association, 2008). NB: The WCC Open Space Strategy (WCC, 2007) states: "It is considered important to maintain the existing ratio of 1.86 ha per 1000, despite it being in excess of the normal 1.6 ha Hectares of Parks Required per 1,000 Resident Population 1.86 standard, because the majority of space in terms of area is shared with visitors and workers." However it is here suggested that the 'non residential factor' is Non-residential factor 0.63 Agreed with the Council Construction Cost per Sqm (£) 46 £ LB Camden Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study Update (Atkins, 2008), confirmed by Davis Langdon (2009)

WCC Infrastructure Model 12 of 27 10/11/2009 A4 Other Social Infrastructure Assumptions Community Facilities

1 Libraries Library space per 1,000 Resident Population 40.00 sqm GIA Personal Communication, Head of Library Operations 09/02/2009

Non-residential factor 0.40 http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/~/media/Files/pdf/2008/standard_charge2008, page 5, confirmed by Davis Langdon (2009). Westminster Library Operations advise that the architects working on a current libray project are using a cost per sqm of £5,000 - however the information from Davis Langdon Construction Cost per Sqm (£) 3,000 £ seems to suggest that the figure may include costs other than construction only. The additional library requirement is calculated separately from community space. However, in consideration of the current trend that sees libraries services expand from simple book lending, the final requirement is incorporate in the community space one.

Community Space Community Space per 1,000 Population sqm A Westminster specific figure is not currently available, therefore the model does not calculate requirements for community space. However, should the Council develop a standard the model is set up to run the calculations, so that the standard should be entered in this cell Size of a Multi-use Community Centre 500.00 sqm Construction Cost per Sqm (£) 1,746 £ The Cost and Funding of Growth in the South East England' (Roger Tym & Partners, 2005) (2005 prices), confirmed by Davis Langdon (2009). The cost refers to Community Halls and associated space/facilities only. Community and Library Combined Provision Cost per Sqm ( 2,375 £ Davis Langdon (2009). The cost refers to Community Halls and associated space/facilities only, it also assumes that the total space is equally divided between the two uses

Faith Facilities A Westminster specific figure is not currently available, therefore the model does not calculate requirements for community space. However, should the Council Faith Facilities Space per 1,000 Population sqm develop a standard the model is set up to run the calculations, so that the standard should be entered inthis cell Davis Langdon (2009). The cost refers to Community Halls and associated space/facilities only, it also assumes that the total space is equally divided between Construction Cost per Sqm (£) 1,746 £ the two uses

Other Social Infrastructure

1 Other Social Infrastructure This is the % of residents likely to demand additional job brokerage services. It is calculated out of Department for Work and Pension statistics on benefit Job Brokerage Demand Factor 0.07 claimants out of working age population, and then re-apportioned to the total WCC population. Staff required per 1,000 new customers 4.0 Spatial Requirement per staff worker 17.50 Davis Langdon, 2009 Construction Cost per Sqm 1,650.00 £ Davis Langdon, 2009

Burials per capita, 2006 to 2026 0.06 The Cost and Funding of Growth in the South East England' (Roger Tym & Partners, 2005), including ancillary space. 0.003 burials per capita per year, times Burials per Hectare 4,325.00 the 20 years between 2006 and 2026 Construction Cost per Ha (£) 378,000 £ The Cost and Funding of Growth in the South East England' (Roger Tym & Partners, 2005) (2005 prices), confirmed by Davis Langdon (2009) The figure would exclude any built facility (e.g. crematoria, chapels etc.)

WCC Infrastructure Model 13 of 27 10/11/2009 A4 Other Social Infrastructure Assumptions

Data Sources and Notes

Department for Work and Pensions

Benefit Claimants - Working Age Clients

Geographical area job seekers incapacity benefits lone parents total claimants Source: Job Centre Plus - Central London Partnership, Personal Communication, 16/12/2008. WCC Total 3,085.00 10,240.00 3,095.00 16,420.00

Proportion of February 2008 claimants out of 2007 total population

Total WCC population 02/08 Claimants as Geographical area 2007 Total Claimants % of WAP WCC Total 234,100 16,420 7%

Westminster Job Centre Plus Statistics

Staff per Thousand JCP Office Sqm Number of Staff Claimants Chadwick Street 1,243 59 3.6 Lisson Grove (also part of LBC) 1,100 73 4.4 Total 2,343 132 4.0

Westminster Library Services

Library Membership, 2008

Children Non Resident / Library Adult Residents Residents Adult Non Residents Total by Library Resident Members Source: Library property Strategy, 2008 Charing Cross 2,234 296 8,805 11,335 3.48 Church Street 2,096 1,251 198 3,545 0.06 Maida Vale 4,296 1,332 206 5,834 0.04 Marylebone 6,917 1,141 2,672 10,730 0.33 Mayfair 1,206 257 984 2,447 0.67 Paddington 8,867 1,739 1,258 11,864 0.12 Paddington Children 8,869 1,739 1,258 11,866 0.12 Pimlico 4,071 1,342 728 6,141 0.13 Queen's Park 2,068 1,437 387 3,892 0.11 Saint James 3,764 618 3,942 8,324 0.90 Saint John's Wood 4,673 1,389 716 6,778 0.12 Victoria 3,590 574 5,104 9,268 1.23 Total by Member 52,651 13,115 26,258 92,024 0.40

Library Facilities - Sqm

Planned Extension - Library Type of Library Current Sqm Total Sqm Source: Personal communication, Iona Cairns, Head of Library Operations, 09.02.2009 Charing Cross Main 1,202 Church Street Community 565 1,400 Maida Vale Community 1,021 Marylebone Main 1,772 3,000 Mayfair Community 547 Paddington Main 799 Paddington Children Community 140 Pimlico Community 514 800 Queen's Park Community 417 Saint James Community 148 Saint John's Wood Community 369 Victoria Main 1,830 1,500 Total 9,324 6,700 Curernt WCC population 231,874

WCC Infrastructure Model 14 of 27 10/11/2009 A5 Utilities Assumptions

Theme Area Notes

Electricity

Strategic Design Land use (kVA) All figures are typical utility company figures for both development design and strategic planning - please note that Residential Low (GCH) 1.60 the strategic planning figures change with volume and the information is not published as it is commercially sensitive. Residential Medium (GCH) 1.60 Consumption rate for residential use given per dwelling (GCH - gas central heating / NGCH - non gas central heating) Residential High (GCH) 1.60 Consumption rate for office / retail use given per m2. Residential High (NGCH) 3.60 pf power factor - ratio of kVA to kilowatts Office - Town Centre 0.08 DF Diversity Factor - applied to each building / use. Retail 0.12 kVA kilo Volts-Ampere Site Diversity Equates to the diversity of the whole site and assumes that no two users are identical in energy consumption. *NB* assessment of utility networks takes place at different levels and therefore what is pertinent for a local development is not necessarily the same assessment values utilised for strategic planning , given that masterplanning would assume wholly divcersity factors. As an example, an electricity cable for a site of say 50no. houses will assume a design function of 2kVA for a GCH dwelling. Strategically, this figure will decrease as the planning gets more high level - so, for strategic local infrastructure, this figure would reduce to 1.6kVA; for strategic regional infrastructure, this would reduce to say 1kVA.

Density of units does not generally materially affect the electricity network but type of heating does. The principle is based broadly on the fact that, for example, a dwelling will have a cooker regardless of size - so a 4 bedroom house has a cooker that is likely to be the same as a cooker in a 2 bedroom flat. Usage and energy type (gas or electricity may change) but the potential use does not.

The planning process may therefore have two elements to consider - what infrastructure is required to service a particular development and what infrastructure is required to service the wider population. This is wholly in the control of the utility industry whom will determine what requirements are needed at that specific moment in time given that all networks are dynamic.

Gas

Land use m3/hour All figures are typical utility company figures for both development design and strategic planning - please note that Residential Low (GCH) 1.13 the strategic planning figures change with volume and the information is not published as it is commercially sensitive. Residential Medium (GCH) 0.79 Consumption rate for residential use given per dwelling (GCH - gas central heating / NGCH - non gas central heating) Residential High (GCH) 0.51 Consumption rate for non residential uses is given per metre square floorspace Residential High (NGCH) 0.00 DF Equates to the Diversity Factor for the whole site; usually applied to a total area of diverse land-uses. Office - Town Centre 0.00 *NB* offices with air conditioning are unlikely to use gas unless catering is employed on site. Retail 0.01 *NB* please refer to the note contained in the electricity section when considering the assessment of utility networks.

WCC Infrastructure Model 15 of 27 10/11/2009 A5 Utilities Assumptions

Water and Sewerage

Water

Litres / Resident / Litres / Day / Land use Day Sqm For residential consumption figures are based on average strategic design figures. Residential 150.00 The non residential figure have been confirmed by Anglian Water. Office - Town Centre n/a 7.08 *NB* please refer to the note contained in the water section when considering the assessment of utility networks. Retail n/a 6.49

Sewarage

Litres / Day / Land use Litres / Person / Day Sqm

Residential 200.00 Both residential and non residential figures are from Sewers for Adoption 6th edition (Water Research Council, 2006). For non Office - Town Centre n/a 9.50 residential uses the figure for 'normal' (i.e. non wet) industry is used. Retail n/a 9.50 Figures are more conservative than in calculations for water

WCC Infrastructure Model 16 of 27 10/11/2009 I1 Demand Projections

All Floorspace is in square meters Residential is assumed to deliver a constant number of dwellings to 2026.

Net Additional Demand Notes (A3+ A4+ A5+ C1+ D2). (C2, both self and Figures exclude (C2, both self and non non self contained (B1) (A1 comparison only) domestic tourism. self contained units) units)

Total Non Residential, Business, Gross Retail, Gross Leisure, Gross Residential, Gross Gross Internal Internal Floorspace Internal Floorspace Internal Floorspace Floorspace Floorspace Requirements Requirements Requirements Requirements Requirements Number of Resident Boroughs (Sqm) (Sqm) (Sqm) (Sqm) (Sqm) Dwellings Population Westminster City Council 1,137,363 441,933 105,458 1,684,754 1,428,000 13,600 25,840 Business, Source: London Office Policy Review 2006 (Table 14), Volterra, GLA Economics, Roger Tym & Partners. Additional demand, gross floorspace. Projections give 5 years tranches for 2006-2026;

Retail, Source: GLA 2008 Experian's Consumer Expenditure and Comparison Goods Floorspace Need in London. Comparison goods floorspace requirements (2006-2026); productivity growth 2.20%. This indicates the comparison goods floorspace requirements at a town. Additional demand, gross

Leisure, Source: GLA 2008 Experian's Consumer Expenditure and Experian, Personal Communication, 08/12/2008. Leisure includes: Recreational and sporting services, Cultural services, Games of chance, Restaurants, cafes etc, Accommodation services, Hairdressing salons & personal grooming estbshmnts

Residential floorspace, average dwelling size is assumed to be 76 sqm, source European Union, Housing Statistics in the EU 2002. In the absence of accurate indication it is assumed that the 76 sqm is gross internal area, and therefore an increase by 20% is applied based on URS experience in Environmental Statements socioeconomic chapters.

Leisure spending to floorspace ratio (£/sft) 444 Sqft to Sqm conversion rate 0.09 Average WCC private residential dwelling size (Sqm) 140.00 Westminster Core Strategy, Draft for Publication (City of Westminster, February 2009) Average WCC social residential dwelling size (Sqm) 70.00

Data Sources and Notes

Leisure a(nd Other Services )(Annual expenditure projections in £m) Source GLA 2008 Experian's Consumer Assumptions Leisure includes: Recreational and sporting Leisure and Other Leisure and Other Leisure (Narrow Leisure (Narrow Services (£M) Services (£) Definition) (£M) Definition) (£) City of London 834 833,700,000 28 28,000,000 Camden 10,308 10,307,900,000 436 436,000,000 Resident Population Islington 9,282 9,282,000,000 383 383,000,000 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 9,182 9,181,700,000 389 389,000,000 Southwark 11,981 11,981,200,000 452 452,000,000 Westminster City Council 12,082 12,082,000,000 504 504,000,000 Hackney 8,560 8,559,800,000 350 350,000,000 Tower Hamlets 9,623 9,623,400,000 344 344,000,000 Lambeth 9,989 9,988,900,000 529 529,000,000

Number of Dwellings

- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

Westminster City Council

WCC Infrastructure Model 17 of 27 10/11/2009 I2 Analysis of Non-residential Uses

Non-residential Net Additional Demand Analysis Notes (A3+ A4+ A5+ C1+ D2). Figures exclude (B1) (A1 comparison only) domestic tourism. (C2, both self and non self contained units) Total Non-resi/ Boroughs Business Retail Leisure Residential Total Resi Westminster City Council 1,137 442 105 1,428 118% Camden 615 27 91 1,366 54% Islington 391 56 80 2,242 23% Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 118 115 81 638 49% NB: The Non-residential factor is Southwark 590 84 95 2,973 26% calculated as the average of Hackney 216 23 73 1,979 16% columns J to L times the average of Tower Hamlets 1,162 62 72 5,746 23% non-residential/residential Lambeth 222 29 111 2,006 18% floorspace. The average of non- City of London 1,018 67 6 164 665% residential/residential floorspace considered here includes only LBC, LBI, RBKC,LBS, and WCC. It excludes the CoL given its peculiar employment use pattern and LBH, LBTH, and LBL on the grounds that these are not part of Central London.

NB: the HUDU model does not allow incorporating non residential

Analysis of WCC libraries membership suggest that for every Westminster City Council resident partner there are on average (across all the borough Westminster City Council Westminster libraries) 0.41 non resident members. This figure will therefore 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 be used.

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Resident Population

Leisure Retail

WCC Infrastructure Model 18 of 27 10/11/2009 I2 Analysis of Non-residential Uses

Please note information may be superseeded by information received from WCC, see sheets A2 Likely resulting uplift on top of to A4. Non Residential Impact Likely chance of placing additional demand, by land use residential demand

Infrastructure Item Business Retail Leisure Non-residential factor

CLF Study Further and Adult Education 0.02 0.02 0.02 1% Higher Education 0.02 0.02 0.02 1% Primary Healthcare 0.1 0.1 0.1 5% Secondary Healthcare 0.25 0.25 0.25 14% Emergency Services 0.2 0.25 0.25 13%

WCC Study Childcare and Early Years 0.05 0.05 0.05 3% Primary Education 0 0 0 0% Secondary Education 0 0 0 0% Further and Adult Education 0.02 0.02 0.02 1% Higher Education 0.02 0.02 0.02 1% Primary Healthcare 0.1 0.1 0.1 5% Secondary Healthcare 0.25 0.25 0.25 14% Libraries 0.5 0.5 0.5 27% Health Stations 0.5 0.5 0.5 27% Sports Halls 0.5 0.5 0.5 27% Swimming Pools 0.5 0.5 0.5 27% Outdoor Sports Facilities 0 0 0 0% Child Play Space 0 0 0 0% Parks 1 1 1 63% Community Space 0 0 0 0% Faith Facilities 0 0 0 0% Emergency Services 0.2 0.3 0.5 18% Job Brokerage 0.1 0.1 0.1 5% Cemeteries 0 0 0 0%

Data Sources and Notes

Number of Dwellings Resident Population Westminster City Council 13.6 25.84

WCC Infrastructure Model 19 of 27 10/11/2009 R1 Population

Theme Area Notes

Projected Growth

Total Population 0-4 years 5-10 years 11-15 years 16-17 years 0-17 years Westminster City Council 25,840 3,497 2,027 1,308 465 7,296

Population Estimate from Dwelling Number

Westminster City Council Open Market Social Rented Intermediate

1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ Total Number of dwellings 2,473 3,434 618 275 1,414 2,168 801 377 938 938 143 20 13,600 Population 4,698 6,525 1,175 522 2,686 4,119 1,522 716 1,783 1,783 271 39 25,840

Children Population Estimate from Dwelling Number

Open Market Social Rented Intermediate

1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ Total

0-3 years 70 314 153 102 283 1,387 497 155 103 350 72 11 3,497 4-10 years 9 73 97 108 - 499 593 461 6 103 61 17 2,027 11-15 years - 66 45 54 - 173 377 488 - 59 34 13 1,308 16-17 years - 13 14 17 - 108 136 140 - 21 12 4 465 Total 0-17 79 467 309 280 283 2,168 1,602 1,244 109 533 178 44 7,296

WCC Infrastructure Model 20 of 27 10/11/2009 R2 Education

Theme Area Notes

Projected Growth

Open Market Social Rented Intermediate TOTAL From R1 Sheet

1234+123 4+1234+

0-4 years 70 314 153 102 283 1,387 497 155 103 350 72 11 3,497 5-10 years 9 73 97 108 - 499 593 461 6 103 61 17 2,027 11-15 years - 66 45 54 - 173 377 488 - 59 34 13 1,308 16-17 years - 13 14 17 - 108 136 140 - 21 12 4 465 Total 0-17 79 467 309 280 283 2,168 1,602 1,244 109 533 178 44 7,296 Total Population 4,698 6,525 1,175 522 2,686 4,119 1,522 716 1,783 1,783 271 39 25,840

Pre-School Formal Education

1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs 0 -2 years Requiring Education, FTE 810 Number of Classes Required for 0 -2 32 2 years Requiring Education, FTE 416 Number of Classes Required for 2 17 3 years Requiring Education, FTE 614 Number of Classes Required for 3-4 25 From Children 4 years Requiring Education, FTE - Population Estimate Total 0- 3 years Requiring Education, FTE 1,895 from Dwelling Number Total Number of Classes Required for 0-4 74 and A3 Sheet (both for Baseline provision 0 standards and Total Number of Nurseries 37 baseline) Net Additional Requirement 1,895 Total Required Floorspace 6,601 Sqm

Total Capital Cost 26,530,586 £

Primary Education

1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs 5-10 Requiring Public Primary Education 1,419 Number of Forms Required for 4-10 9 4 year olds Requiring Public Primary Education 439 Baseline provision Total Number of Primary Schools 4 From Children Population Estimate Net Additional Requirement 1,857 Total net internal area - building area 6,008 Sqm from Dwelling Number and A3 Sheet Total gross internal area - building area 8,698 Sqm

Total net external area - site area 9,229 Sqm Total gross external area - site area 11,787 Sqm

Total Capital Cost 26,002,859 £

WCC Infrastructure Model 21 of 27 10/11/2009 R2 Education Secondary Education

1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs 11-15 Requiring Public Primary Education 915 Number of Forms Required for 11-15 6

Baseline provision Total Number of Secondary Schools 2 From Children Population Estimate Net Additional Requirement 915 Total net internal area - building area 5,602 Sqm from Dwelling Number and A3 Sheet Total gross internal area - building area 7,982 Sqm

Total net external area - site area 6,461 Sqm Total gross external area - site area 8,576 Sqm

Total Capital Cost 21,509,483 £

Further and Adult Education

1. Demand 2. Space Requirements 16-17 years old Requiring Further Education 420 Total Number of Places Required 2,243 From Children Population Estimate Baseline provision Total gross internal area 22,434 Sqm from Dwelling Number Total Capital Cost 56,084,757 £ 18 years old Requiring Further Education 144 Baseline provision

19+ years old Requiring Adult Education 1,679 Baseline provision

WCC Infrastructure Model 22 of 27 10/11/2009 R3 Health

Theme Area Notes Primary Healthcare

Total Requirements (Number of GPs and Primary Care units)

GP and Primary Care Services Time frame Westminster City Council 15 2006/7-2022/23

Space Requirements (Sqm)

GP and Primary Care Services Time frame Westminster City Council 2,525 2006/7-2030/31

Capital Costs

GP and Primary Care Services, £ Time frame Westminster City Council 13,890,175 2006/7-2030/31

Secondary Healthcare

Total Requirements (Number of beds/spaces)

Acute Elective IP Acute Non Acute Day Case Mental Health Total Acute and Bed Elective IP Bed Bed Bed Mental Beds Time frame Westminster City Council 16 33 9 14 72 2006/7-2030/31

Total Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Beds and Beds Day Spaces Spaces Time frame Westminster City Council 15 15 30 2006/7-2030/31

Space Requirements Acute Non Total Acute and Acute Elective IP Elective IP Bed, Acute Day Case Mental Health Mental Beds, Bed, Sqm Sqm Bed, Sqm Bed, Sqm Sqm Time frame Westminster City Council 777 1,571 455 675 3,478 2006/7-2030/31 Total Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Day Spaces, Beds and Beds, Sqm Sqm Spaces, Sqm Time frame Westminster City Council 960 768 1,728 2006/7-2030/31

Capital Costs Acute Non Acute Elective IP Elective IP Bed, Acute Day Case Mental Health Total Acute and Bed, £ £ Bed, £ Bed, £ Mental Beds, £ Time frame Westminster City Council 5,479,999 10,679,951 3,449,366 3,157,225 22,766,541 2006/7-2030/31

Total Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Beds and Beds, £ Day Spaces, £ Spaces, £ Time frame Westminster City Council 6,227,079 4,401,417 10,628,496 2006/7-2030/31

Total Healthcare Revenue Cost

Revenue Costs

Primary and Secondary Healthcare, £ Time frame Westminster City Council 61,013,227 2006/7-2030/31

WCC Infrastructure Model 23 of 27 10/11/2009 R4 Sports, Leisure and Recreation

Theme Area Notes

Projected Growth

Total WestmNumber of dwellings 13,600 WestmPopulation 25,840

0-4 years 3,497 5-10 years 2,027 11-15 years 1,308 16-17 years 465

Health Stations

1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs Number of Health Stations Required 614 Total Gross Internal Area 3,068 Sqm From Population Estimate from Dwelling Number and A4 Baseline provision Total Capital Cost 21,476,606 £

Sports Halls

1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs Sports Halls Space Required 2,039 Sqm Total Capital Cost 4,077,366 £ From Population Estimate from Dwelling Number and A4 Net Additional Requirement 2,039 Sqm

Swimming Pools

1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs Swimming Pools Space Required 1,669 Sqm Total Capital Cost 10,979,404 £ From Population Estimate from Dwelling Number and A4 Net Additional Requirement 1,669 Sqm

Outdoor Sports Facilities

1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs Outdoor Sports Facilities 55 Ha Total Capital Cost 7,439,539 £ From Population Estimate from Dwelling Number and A4 Net Additional Requirement 55 Ha

WCC Infrastructure Model 24 of 27 10/11/2009 R4 Sports, Leisure and Recreation Playable Space

1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs Total 0-4 Play Space Required 34,966 Sqm Total Doorstops Playable Space Capital Cost 6,974,990 £ From Population Estimate from Total 5-11 Play Space Required 20,267 Sqm Total Local Playable Space Capital Cost 4,042,841 £ Dwelling Number and A4 Total 12-17 Play Space Required 17,726 Sqm Total Youth Space Capital Cost 3,536,041 £

Total Number Doorstops Playable Space Required (0-4) 350 From Population Estimate from Total Number Local Playable Space Required (5-11) 68 Dwelling Number and A4 Total Number Youth Space Required (12-17) 89

Parks

The Open Space Strategy highlights that two 1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs major factors need to be taken into account when Hectares of Parks Required 78 Ha Total Parks Capital Cost 36,209,539 £ applying a standard to Westminster: 1) Recognition that Westminster’s daytime Baseline provision 0 Ha population numbers approximately 1 million and therefore reduces the level of provision to well Net Additional Requirement 78 below the accepted standard - about 0.45 ha per 1,000 (compared to 1.6 ha per 1000 standard). 2) The majority of Westminster’s open space lies within the Royal Parks, which are generally distant from the main residential areas. Many areas of Westminster are therefore deficient in nearby accessible space. It is therefore considered appropriate to assume that current open space provision has no space capacity.

WCC Infrastructure Model 25 of 27 10/11/2009 R5 Community Facilities and Other Social Infrastructure

Theme Area Notes

Projected Growth

Total Westminster CNumber of dwellings 13,600 Westminster CPopulation 25,840 36157

Libraries & Community Facilities

1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs Library Space Required 1,446 Sqm Total Library Cost 4,338,838 £ From Population

Community Facilities Space Required - Sqm Total Community Facilities Cost 0£ From Population Combined Library and Community Space Required 0 Sqm Total Combined Capital Cost 4,338,838 £ Estimate from Dwelling Number and A4

Faith Facilities

1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs Faith Facilities Required - Sqm Total Capital Cost 0£ From Population

Net Additional Requirement - Sqm

Job Brokerage

1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs Additional Staff 7 Sqm Total Capital Cost 210,357 £ From Population Estimate from Dwelling Job Brokerage Facilities Required 127 Sqm Number and A4

Burials

1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs Number of Burials Required 1,535 Total Capital Cost 134,148 £ From Population Estimate from Dwelling Hectares of Burials Required 0.4 Ha

WCC Infrastructure Model 26 of 27 10/11/2009 R6 Utilities

Theme Area Notes

Projected Growth

Total Westminster CNumber of dwellings 13,600 Westminster CPopulation 25,840

Electricity All the non residential figures are calculated on the Net Internal Area, estimated as an 80% of the gross figures presented in sheet I1. This is based on URS experience in socio economic 1. Demand assessments. Residential Non Residential Total NB: Leisure uses the same standards as retail kVA kVA kVA Westminster City Council 21,760.00 128,980.28 150,740.28

Leisure uses the same standards as retail Gas

1. Demand Residential Non Residential Total m3/Hour m3/Hour m3/Hour Westminster City Council 7,245.19 5,253.17 12,498.35

Water and Sewage

1. Demand Residential Non Residential Total WATER Liters/Day Westminster City Council 3,876,000 9,287,847 13,163,847

SEWERAGE Residential Non Residential Total Liters/Day Liters/Day Westminster City Council 5,168,000 16,011,897 21,179,897

WCC Infrastructure Model 27 of 27 10/11/2009