Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report Black Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report May 2010 This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third Ove Arup & Partners Ltd party Admiral House, Rose Wharf, 78 East Street, Leeds LS9 8EE Tel +44 (0)113 2428498 Fax +44 (0)113 2428573 www.arup.com Job number 209768 Document Verification Page 1 of 1 Job title Hull Infrastructure Study Job number 209768 Document title Final Report File reference Document ref Revision Date Filename Draft Final Report 25 11 09.doc Draft 1 25/11/09 Description First draft Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Team Tom Bridges Tom Bridges Signature Draft Final 22/12/09 Filename Draft Final Report_For Circulation.doc Report Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Team Paul Wheatley / Jon Tom Bridges Sawyer Signature Issue 10/05/10 Filename Hull Infrastructure Study_Final Report_Client_Issue.doc Description Final Report for KHCC comment Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Team Paul Wheatley / Jon Tom Bridges Sawyer Signature Filename Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Signature Issue Document Verification with Document \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE Ove Arup & Partners Ltd STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL Issue 10 May 2010 INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report Contents Page Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 22 2 Understanding the Infrastructure Planning Process 24 3 Context for Infrastructure Planning in Hull 30 4 Methodology 34 5 Transport 39 6 Utility Networks 44 7 Telecommunications 59 8 Flood Risk and Drainage 66 9 Waste 72 10 Green Infrastructure, Open Space, Sport and Recreation 75 11 Health Provision 86 12 Emergency Services 92 13 Education 97 14 Infrastructure Costs and Funding 109 15 Summary Matrix of Infrastructure Required and Costs 111 16 Prioritising Infrastructure Investment 119 17 Facilitating Infrastructure Delivery 120 18 Conclusions and Recommendations 133 Appendices Appendix A List of Consultees \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE Ove Arup & Partners Ltd STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL Issue 10 May 2010 INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report Executive Summary Introduction This Infrastructure study has been undertaken to inform the production of the Local Development Framework (LDF). It forms part of the evidence base and outlines the infrastructure required to deliver the aspirations of the Core Strategy. The study involves gaining an understanding of the infrastructure currently provided within Kingston-upon-Hull, whether this is fit for purpose and whether it will be able to meet the needs of the population in 2026. This involved an analysis of a wide range of types of infrastructure including transport, utilities, health, education and green infrastructure. Arup and Eye were commissioned to undertake this work by Kingston-upon-Hull City Council (KHCC). The Housing Green Paper (July 2008) and Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning (June 2008) put significant emphasis on developing the evidence base to ensure that the necessary infrastructure can be provided to support proposed levels of development (particularly housing and economic development). Establishing an infrastructure evidence base gives certainty to service providers, funders and developers, and informs the phasing of development as well as issues regarding funding. The challenge for KHCC and other local authorities is to plan positively for housing growth, whilst delivering sustainable communities; providing a commensurate level of economic development as well as the necessary physical, social and green infrastructure to support local communities. In Hull this challenge also includes delivering growth alongside housing market renewal, economic restructuring and regeneration - with specific challenges of remodelling existing communities as part of the Housing Market Renewal (HMR) Pathfinder programme. Whilst the recession has made the delivery of housing growth and renewal and economic growth a considerable challenge, the long term nature of infrastructure planning means that this will ultimately have less impact on this area with developments occurring over a longer time period than initially planned. Understanding the Infrastructure Planning Process Strategically important infrastructure considered to be of national importance will soon be decided upon by the recently formed and independent body the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). Taking account of National Policy Statements issued by Government, this will accept and decide upon planning applications submitted from the beginning of March 2010 that meet the criteria has been established for applications deemed to be of ‘national significance’. This respective criterion will be appropriate for transport, energy, water, waste water and waste applications. At a more local level, Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12 identifies the need for the LDF Core Strategy to incorporate strategic objectives, including a delivery plan identifying the quantum and location of development as well as the proposed timing or phasing of development. In order to robustly indentify the future pattern of development it is necessary to consider the impact of the development on the existing infrastructure and the potential additional infrastructure required over the plan period. Without this information the Core Strategy will not pass the ‘tests of soundness’ as part of its Independent Examination 1. Previously, the infrastructure planning process has faced significant structural problems, including over-centralisation, regulatory and financial fragmentation, poor coordination, and a lack of cross- sectoral understanding, and the relative autonomy of the infrastructure providers. The changing role of the planning system from land use planning to spatial planning provides an excellent medium around which partners can co-ordinate planning for growth and the delivery of infrastructure. A strategic spatial planning approach coupled with the changing statutory and policy framework for infrastructure planning allows for a more coordinated, multi-agency approach to 1 Test of Soundness for Core Strategy Development Plan Document and other Local Development Framework Development Plan Documents are set out in paragraphs 4.51 and 4.52 in Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning, DCLG, http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/pps12lsp.pdf \\GLOBAL\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\209000\209768 HULL INFRASTRUCTURE Ove Arup & Partners Ltd STUDY\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\FINAL REPORT\HULL Issue 10 May 2010 INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY_FINAL REPORT_CLIENT_ISSUE_MAY VERSION.DOC Kingston upon Hull City Council Hull Infrastructure Study Final Report assessing infrastructure need. This more joined-up approach to understanding strategic infrastructure issues in the context of local growth and change should ultimately deliver more efficient provision of services. As well as an appraisal of infrastructure need and a coordination of approach, an infrastructure study provides a means to facilitate discussion on infrastructure funding. This is particularly important in terms of the collection of developer contributions (when appropriate to do so) and development linked funding strategies. To enable the collection of these contributions it is particularly important to have a robust evidence base upon which assumptions can be made in relation to the amount of finance needing to be raised and that its use is maximised. Government legislation in the Planning Act 2008 sets out the introduction of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as a way of delivering greater transparency and certainty in the funding of infrastructure. This is as a response to the perception that current Section 106 obligations are not able to always provide the level of contribution required to deliver infrastructure due to a number of issues, including that contributions can be negotiated and so lack consistency and certainty, and the fact that contributions may be waivered due to development being sought to facilitate transformational change. Under the CIL Regulations 2010, CIL will come into effect as of April 2010. Section 106 obligations will remain, but only as a means to make acceptable development proposals which might otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms. The CIL Regulations do not currently require a local authority to determine a definitive list of projects or infrastructure to which CIL charges will be put against. However, the Planning Act 2008 does require local authorities to be able to demonstrate an evidence base which underpins the charging schedule, and any differential rates set for different areas or different intended uses. This study provides the evidence to underpin the development of a charging schedule; however, further work will be needed (if required) to translate the evidence into a definitive list of projects. It should be noted at this stage that it is not clear what effect the General Election will have on proposals for CIL. Irrespective of a change