Tendring District Council TENDRING INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY – PART ONE Final Report September 2009 ROGER TYM & PARTNERS Fairfax House 15 Fulwood Place London WC1V 6HU t (020) 7831 2711 f (020) 7831 7653 e [email protected] w www.tymconsult.com This document is formatted for double-sided printing. P1931 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 2 POLICY CONTEXT ...................................................................................................... 3 The evidence base that LDF Core Strategies need on infrastructure ............................. 3 3 OPTIONS FOR GROWTH ............................................................................................ 7 4 HEALTH ..................................................................................................................... 11 5 EMERGENCY SERVICES .......................................................................................... 23 Police ............................................................................................................................ 23 Fire Service .................................................................................................................. 25 Ambulance ................................................................................................................... 26 6 EDUCATION .............................................................................................................. 31 7 TRANSPORT ............................................................................................................. 41 8 UTILITIES ................................................................................................................... 59 Electricity ...................................................................................................................... 59 Gas ............................................................................................................................... 60 Telecommunications..................................................................................................... 62 Water – Potable Supply ................................................................................................. 64 Water – Wastewater ...................................................................................................... 65 9 WASTE ...................................................................................................................... 69 10 CEMETERIES ............................................................................................................ 73 11 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FUNDING ................................................................. 75 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 75 Our remit ...................................................................................................................... 75 Background .................................................................................................................. 75 Past contribution levels ................................................................................................. 76 Factors affecting future contribution levels ................................................................... 76 12 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................. 89 13 OPTIONS ................................................................................................................... 93 Harwich ........................................................................................................................ 93 Clacton-on-Sea/Walton-on-the-Naze ........................................................................... 95 Other Locations ............................................................................................................ 96 14 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 99 Consideration of Part One outputs ............................................................................... 99 Mechanisms for delivery ............................................................................................. 101 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – List of Consultees Appendix 2 – Further education information (from ECC) Appendix 3 – Transport modelling outputs Appendix 4 – Funding for transport infrastructure schemes Appendix 5 – Previous developer contribution levels Appendix 6 – Developer contribution analysis assumptions Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report is Part One of the Tendring Infrastructure Study. The report was written by Roger Tym & Partners with specialist transport input from Peter Brett Associates. 1.2 The Consultants’ brief was to prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan which will ensure that the delivery of any development required is not compromised by unrealistic expectations about the availability of infrastructure. The study will directly inform the Council and other service providers to identify and prioritise infrastructure provision as part of an integrated approach to planning and infrastructure development. 1.3 Essentially, the study will underpin the spatial development strategy of the Core Strategy in the face of testing. It seeks to show that the chosen development strategy is robust and ‘sound’ in planning terms. 1.4 Part One seeks to understand, in terms of infrastructure requirements, which of the possible development options that are being considered through the emerging Core Strategy have the greatest chance of being delivered. This considers existing infrastructure surpluses or deficits and the potential to secure mainstream public funding for particular types of development. This is coupled with an assessment of the issues affecting potential developer contribution funding for infrastructure. 1.5 The study brief requires only the following infrastructure items to be considered: . Education – pre-school, primary and secondary . Further Education . Health . Transport . Emergency Services – police, fire, ambulance . Utilities – electricity, gas, telecommunications . Water – potable water and wastewater . Cemeteries 1.6 A list of the consultees in the Part One study is given in Appendix 1. 1.7 Part Two of the study will consider in more depth the infrastructure needs of the Core Strategy Preferred Option. Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 1 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report 2 POLICY CONTEXT The evidence base that LDF Core Strategies need on infrastructure 2.1 There has been a growing recognition of the link between spatial plans and infrastructure provision in achieving timely and sustainable delivery of spatial growth. This has taken on a greater importance in recent years through planning documents. Local government is required to play an infrastructure co-ordinating role 2.2 The Local Government White Paper on Strong and Prosperous Communities published in October 2006 referred to local authorities playing a positive co-ordinating role in the delivery of infrastructure to ensure that the right infrastructure is provided at the right time. An increased emphasis on ‘place shaping’ was also made. The Planning White Paper, CSR 07 and PPS12 emphasise the need for an infrastructure planning evidence base 2.3 The Planning White Paper 2007 states that ‘local authorities should demonstrate how and when infrastructure that is required to facilitate development will be delivered’. This has also been a major theme in the H M Treasury’s CSR07 Policy Review on Supporting Housing Growth. 2.4 Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12) highlights the importance of ensuring that the core strategy of Local Development Frameworks is supported by a robust evidence base on infrastructure planning.1 PPS 12 states that: “The core strategy should be supported by evidence of what physical and social infrastructure is needed to enable the amount of development proposed for the area, taking account of its type and distribution. This evidence should cover who will provide the infrastructure and when it will be provided. The core strategy should draw on and in parallel influence any strategies and investment plans of the local authority and other organisations.” 2.5 The document also notes that: 'Good infrastructure planning considers the infrastructure required to support development, costs, sources of funding, timescales for delivery and gaps in funding. This allows for the identified infrastructure to be prioritised in discussions with key local partners.' 2.6 It states what should be considered as part of the infrastructure evidence base and emphasises the need for the alignment of investment plans of a range of key infrastructure providers. In particularly, PPS12 states that the planning process infrastructure evidence base should take account of: . The scale, type and distribution of development proposed for the area; 1 PPS12 June 2008, paragraphs 4.8 to 4.12 Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 3 Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report . The physical, social and green infrastructure needed to enable the development proposed; . The phasing of development; . The cost, sources of funding and gaps in funding (recognising that the budgeting processes of different agencies could