South Gloucestershire
Infrastructure Delivery Plan
March 2014
Infrastructure Delivery Statement – Supporting Explanation
Planning for infrastructure to meet existing deficiencies and future growth is a high priority for the Council. It therefore continues to work closely with its
development partners, the West of England Partnership (4UAs) and other statutory and non-statutory organisations to identify and bring forward new and
improve existing infrastructure. The information shown in the following matrix reflects the current position at the time of writing [March 2014] based on
information available to the Council. The IDP is thus subject to continual update and review as new information becomes available. It is proposed therefore
that it is a 'living document'. The IDP matrix should be read in conjunction with the supporting Evidence Appendices.
The following tables give a broad indication of the planned provision, cost and need for infrastructure in South Gloucestershire (to 2027). It sets out planned
infrastructure to meet existing deficiencies where information is available, plus that required to meet growth as set out in the South Gloucestershire Local Plan
2006 & Core Strategy (Dec 2013). It thereby indicates requirements for additional infrastructure which would not have been necessary but for the
implementation of the proposed development.
Where available, items contained within existing S106 agreements for major development sites (or agreements in advanced states of negotiation) have been
reflected. For clarity these major sites are Emersons Green Science Park, Charlton Hayes, Harry Stoke, Emersons Green East, Park Farm –Thornbury, North
Yate New Neighbourhood & University of the West of England. These sites may from time to time, be subject to change due to negotiation and viability testing
instigated by the respective developers. For other sites (Land East of Coldharbour Lane and the New Neighbourhoods at East of Harry Stoke &Cribbs
Patchway) infrastructure requirements reflect current SGC requirements and negotiations that may be at a less advanced stage of agreement and therefore
are subject to change. These sites are subject to ongoing master planning and viability testing. There will therefore be updates to the infrastructure
requirements as discussions with respective development partners, statutory bodies and other service providers progress. Costs of infrastructure are
predominantly approximations in advance of detailed negotiations between the Council, developers and infrastructure providers.
The Council intends to bring forward a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Until such time as a CIL Charging Schedule is adopted by the Council, all sites
including ‘windfalls’ will thereby continue to be subject to planning obligations tests set out under Part 11 of the CIL Regulations 2010. It is generally not
possible to determine the split in terms of cost between S106 and CIL contributions in advance of the adoption of the CIL and agreement of S106 agreements
for the principal strategic development sites.
Lead Agencies are those organisations that are predominantly responsible for delivery of the item.
SGC - South Gloucestershire Council,
BCC - Bristol City Council,
WEP - West of England Partnership,
WoE – West of England
HCA - Housing & Communities Agency,
RSL - Registered Social Landlord,
PCT - Primary Care Trust,
EA - Environment Agency,
ESCO - Energy Supply Company,
UWE - University of the West of England.
LEP – Local Enterprise Partnership
Phasing is indicated in the expected year(s) as can best be anticipated from Asset Management & Capital Programmes and projected build rates / housing
completions.
Funding Sources are indicated where known. Unless otherwise indicated it is anticipated that Developer Funding will be the primary source of finance,
however in many instances this is yet to be confirmed and will be subject to negotiation and viability of schemes.
CSR – Comprehensive Spending Review
S106 - Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990,
CIL - Community Infrastructure Levy, ,
DfT - Department of Transport,
LTP - Local Transport Plan,
JLTP - Joint Local Transport Plan,
DCFS - Dept of Children & Family Services,
LSVT - Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (funding from the sale of Council houses to Merlin Housing Association),
BSF - Building Schools of the Future,
NAHP - National Affordable Housing Programme,
PFI - Private Finance Initiative,
DEFRA - Dept of Environment Food & Rural Affairs
AHPs – Affordable Housing Providers
DIIP – Delivery Infrastructure Investment Plan
OFWAT - The Water Services Regulation Authority
NHB – New Homes Bonus
CRD - City Region Deal (EDF)
SIF – Sustainable Infrastructure Fund
Where the primary source of funding does not become available or only partially available, the Council will work with its partners to continue to review need,
tailor schemes to the available funding and improve the efficiency of existing assets. In some circumstances it may however be decided that proposed
development should not go ahead without critical infrastructure.
Contents
District-Wide Strategic Infrastructure................................................................................................................................................... 1
Avonmouth/Severnside ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9
North Fringe Development Sites ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
Charlton Hayes .............................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood .......................................................................................................................................... 13
East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Harry Stoke.................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Land East of Coldharbour Lane ..................................................................................................................................................... 26
University of the West of England (UWE) Regeneration Project.................................................................................................... 28
East Fringe Development Sites ......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Emersons Green East New Neighbourhood .................................................................................................................................. 30
Emersons Green Science Park...................................................................................................................................................... 33
Frenchay Hospital Residential Development ................................................................................................................................. 34
Yate and Chipping Sodbury .............................................................................................................................................................. 36
North Yate New Neighbourhood .................................................................................................................................................... 36
Peg Hill Site (part of North Yate New Neighbourhood) .................................................................................................................. 43
North Thornbury ................................................................................................................................................................................ 45
Park Farm Housing Site................................................................................................................................................................. 45
District-Wide Strategic Infrastructure
Proposed form
of
Description
Infrastructure
North Fringe - MetroBus (Rapid Transit)
Hengrove
North Fringe - Hengrove,
Package
Inc spur to Emersons
Green & Stoke Gifford
Transport Link (grant
funding, and BCC
contribution)
Electrification of Electrification of the
the Great
Great Western Main Line,
Western Main Paddington – Bristol –
Line
Cardiff; re-instatement of
Filton Bank and Filton
Junction to remove
capacity constraints &
new depot at Stoke
Gifford.
Integrated
LTP Schemes (small and
Transport
medium sized transport
improvements to address
safety and sustainable
transport issues).
Local
Provision of infrastructure
Sustainable
to support sustainable
Transport Fund travel - such as signage
of walking and cycling
routes, lighting of cycle
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
£m / Reliability
(£m)
102
High 2012-2017 0
0
DfT £51.1m.
0
SGC local
contributions
BCC £20.2m
local
contribution.
SGC
Design
Network Rail
Delivery
5bn
Med
Completion
by 2016.
0
0
Department for
Transport,
Network Rail.
SGC
Delivery
2m pa
High
Annual
0
0
DfT grant 13/14 0
= £1.466m.
DfT grant 14/15
= £2.061m.
BCC
Delivery
25
High
Project
0
closes
March 2015
0
£25m between
4UAs. SGC
component
approx £9m.
0
0
Page 1
Proposed form
of
Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
routes, provision of cycle
parking at schools and
key employment sites.
Primary focus is around
the north fringe, but not
exclusively.
Highway
SGC
Highway backlog
Maintenance & maintenance & street
lighting
Streetcare
Scheme
Status
Delivery
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
3m pa
High
Annual
0
Business Case 55.3
Med
- Feasibility
(SGC
share
less than
5%)
2019
1
0
Unsec
ured
2021
0
2.3
CPNN
MetroWest
Phase 1
MetroWest Phase 1
Portishead,
Bath,
Severn Beach
MetroWest
Phase 2
MetroWest Phase 2 SGC
Including Henbury line
reopening, enhanced 1/2hourly service at Yate
Business Case 43.1
- Feasibility
(SGC
share
75%)
Med
South Gloucestershire
Trunk Cycle Route:
Cribbs Causeway to
Emersons Green
including Hatchet Road
Bridge
Feasibility
low
Cycle Trunk
Route Emersons
Green To
Cribbs
Causeway
NSC
SGC
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
8.4
0
Unse
cured
2013-2026
Contri Tbc
bution
s
includ
ed in
CPNN
SGC Revenue,
LSVT,
supported
borrowing, LTP
DfT Devolved
Local Major
Transport
Scheme funding
identified. S106
to be secured.
Devolved Local
Major Transport
Scheme
Funding
identified
£36.5m.
Contributions to
this from CPNN
and EoHS are
subject to
negotiations.
0
8.3
(WOE)
4.5
(WOE)
8.4
Page 2
Proposed form
of
Infrastructure
Ring Road
Scheme
Description
A4174 from M32 Jct 1 Dramway Roundabout
(Pucklechurch)
Public
P&R facility at Nibley
Transport (Park Road , Yate
& Ride)
Walking &
Cycle Path (Yate Cycling
Coalpit Heath Downend)
Strategic
Extension of the A38
Transportation Showcase bus corridor to
& Highway
Thornbury
Infrastructure
Public
Provision of Real Time
Transport (bus) Info at Strategic bus
stops & Revenue Support
for Community Transport,
Demand Responsive
Transport, Car Clubs and
other Sustainable
Transport.
Walking &
Extension of Cycling City
Cycling
route along A38 from
Aztec West to Thornbury.
Strategic
Extension of the A38
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
packa
ge.
tbc
tbc
tbc
35
SGC
Feasibility
35
Low
Beyond
2020.
SGC
Feasibility
1.5
Low
2022+
tbc
tbc
tbc
1.5
SGC
Feasibility
0.5
Low
2022+
tbc
tbc
tbc
0.5
SGC
Feasibility
3
Low
2022+
tbc
tbc
tbc
3
SGC /
Feasibility
Appointed Bus
Operators
tbc
low
2022+
tbc
tbc
tbc
tbc
SGC
Feasibility
1
Low
2022+
tbc
tbc
tbc
1
SGC
Feasibility
3
Low
2022+
tbc
tbc
tbc
3
Page 3
Proposed form
Lead
Description
of
Agencies
Infrastructure
Transportation Showcase bus corridor to
& Highway
Thornbury and Park &
Infrastructure
Share facilities at Aust,
Falfield and Tormarton.
Public
Provision of Real Time
SGC
Transport (bus) Info at Strategic bus
stops in the Rural Area &
Revenue Support for
Community Transport,
Demand Responsive
Transport, Car Clubs and
other Sustainable
Transport.
Public
Safeguard land for
SGC
Transport (rail) passenger rail station,
parking and bus
interchange facility at
Charfield Station.
Walking &
Cycle Ambition Fund
BCC
Cycling
(Hambrook phase of
cycle trunk route)
Utilities
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
Feasibility
0.2
Low
2022+
tbc
tbc
tbc
0.2
Feasibility
8
Low
2022+
tbc
tbc
tbc
8
Delivery
1.9
high
2013-2015
0.1
0
Secur
ed
Low
2017-2026
0
Frome Valley Relief
Wessex Water Wessex Water 27.5
Sewer (Phase 3) from
Business Plan
Cog Mill Farm to Bradley
2015-2020 tbc
Stoke
0
DfT CAF grant = 0
£1.64m
DfT LSTF grant
= £0.14m
£0.01m local
contribution
Connection
27.5
Charges /
OFWAT /
Developer
Page 4
Proposed form
of
Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
Superfast
Broadband
Provision of support for WoE Partners
new businesses to
connect to broadband in
Enterprise Areas
Community
Care
3 EMI Day Care Centres SGC
& modernisation to
Elderly Peoples Homes
plus disabled adaptations
to private sector and RSL
homes
Sites identified across
SGC
District in Core Strategy
and in Extra Care
Programme. Extra Care
programme identifies
funded schemes and bids
made. Provision on
specific sites identified
separately.
Extra Care
Housing
Police
Police - New Police
Station & Custody Suite
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Business Case 5.20
(Sustainable
Infrastructure
Fund (SIF)
funding bid)
Delivery
16
Low
2014- 2017
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
contribution from
North Yate New
Neighbourhood
0
0
tbc
5.2
Low
2010-2020
0
0
LSVT, Capital
16
receipts,
Revenue, grant.
2010-2016
(review for
period to
2026)
Yes(d 0
evelop
er
lead
schem
es)
10m Capital
tbc
programme
plus, HCA
NAHP 2011-15,
HCA, DoH
funding, RSLs,
developer and
other
investments.
2010-2015
0
Private Finance 0
Initiative (PFI),
Feasibility
Unknown n/a
(Extra Care
programme
identifies
funded
schemes and
bids made.
Various stages
feasibility/
planning
approval/devel
opment.)
Police & Crime Delivery
Unknown n/a
Commissioner
0
Page 5
Proposed form
of
Infrastructure
Description
at Patchway (access off
A38) (construction to be
complete April 2014).
Lead
Agencies
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
Police Authority
Funding
for Avon &
Somerset
Conversion of Staple Hill
Station into vulnerable
witness / victim suite and
neighbourhood policing
base
Cultural Centre Theatre & cultural centre Yate Town
at Yate Town centre Council
former Seastores site
Leisure Centres Leisure centres Gym
Facilities at Bradley
Stoke and Longwell
Green
Solar Farms
Ground mounted Solar
on a number of council
owned sites to both
reduce carbon emissions
and provided financial
return
Primary
Primary School
Schools
(refurbishment / rebuild)
Capital Programme.
Priorities:
Scheme
Status
Feasibility
2.5
Low
2015+
SGC / Leisure Design /
Trust
Delivery
9.6
Low
2010-2020
Yes(la 0
nd) to
be
secure
d
0
0
SGC
Funding
allocated in
capital
programme
4.30
Low
2014-16
0
SGC
Delivery
43
Med
2014-2017
Yes
Town Council
2.5
Prudential
Borrowing,
LSVT,
0
0
Prudential
Borrowing
4.3
0
Primary Capital 0
Programme
(DCFS),
unearmarked
Page 6
Proposed form
of
Infrastructure
Secondary
Schools
Energy
Energy
Description
Wick CE&VC, Filton,
Hambrook, Mangotsfield,
Christchurch, Barley
Close, Bradley Stoke,
Tynings, Beacon Rise,
Kingsoak, Stoke Lodge
Yate International
Academy rebuild.
Winterbourne
International Academy.
New 6FE Secondary
School at Emersons
Green East (EGE).
Building Schools of the
Future / refurbishment /
rebuild priorities:
Patchway, Kingsfield &
Chipping Sodbury.
Localised energy centres
with heat networks to
serve high density
development
Solar neighbourhood
project with potential for
local storage and
distribution networks(pilot
project agreed at
Charlton Hayes)
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
SGC
Delivery
SGC
Research and Tbc
Development
SGC/WOE
Pilot project
Solar/Develop included in
er
SEP
36.3
Pilot £400k
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
capital.
Low
Yate
EGE 0
International S106
Academy
start 2011.
Winterbourn
e IA start
2013. EGE
beyond
2016.
Yate &
Winterbourne
via central
government
funding. BSF
programme
(DCFS)
0
n/a
2014-2016
Tbc
Tbc
Tbc
tbc
high
2015-2017
Tbc
Tbc
SEP/EUSIF plus Tbc
new finance
model for locally
owned energy
Page 7
Proposed form
Description
of
Infrastructure
Energy
Local heat and energy
distribution network
linked with SITA energy
from waste plant
Energy
Increased grid capacity
required
Sewage
Strategic sewer
improvements required
with short term interim
solutions for the
SKANSKA and
Persimmon sites
Energy
Solar Noise Barrier
(enhancement of
proposed noise barrier
with use of solar arrays)
Lead
Agencies
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
£m / Reliability
(£m)
Research and Tbc
n/a
tbc
Tbc
Tbc
Tbc
Tbc
development
Scheme
Status
SGC /West
London
Waste/Low
Carbon SW
Western
Insert new text Tbc
Power
here
Wessex Water Options
Tbc
appraisal
SGC/Taylor
Wimpy/WOE
Solar
Viability
assessment
£200K
n/a
tbc
Tbc
Tbc
Tbc
Tbc
n/a
tbc
Tbc
Tbc
Tbc
Tbc
Tbc
Tbc
Community
share offer
Tbc
Mediu 2014-15
m
Page 8
Avonmouth/Severnside
Proposed
Description
form of
Infrastructure
Flood
Provision of both tidal
mitigation
and fluvial protection
Lead
Agencies
Master
Developer /
SGC / BCC
Ecology
Environmental mitigation Master
& protection
Developer /
SGC / BCC
M49 Junction
Intermediate junction on
HA
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
£m / Reliability
(£m)
60
Low 2014-2030
tbc
tbc
60
(option to
be
agreed)
Feasibility
(Stage 1
options
currently at
public
consultation
stage. Moving
to Stage 2
option
selection and
design).
Feasibility
5
(Currently
being worked
up as part of
the A/Sside
Enterprise
Area project.
Survey work
scope for
ecology to be
agreed for 6
mitigation
sites)
Feasibility
25
Low
2016 - 2030
tbc
Low
2016-18
tbc
tbc
5
HA as part of its 25
Page 9
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
M49 and approach roads
Local Highway A403 extension to
Developers
Improvements connect the spine road to
M49 Junction
Feasibility (In 3
part linked to
the above.
Some S106
commitment is
in place to
ensure
construction.)
Low
2015-18
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
Route Based
Strategy
Programme submitted in
March 2014
tbc
tbc
Developer
3
delivered on site
and RBS as
above
Page 10
North Fringe Development Sites
Charlton Hayes
(2,200 houses plus employment land and supporting infrastructure)
Under Construction
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost
£m / Reliability
3.89
High
NAHP
funding &
develope
r subsidy
calculate
d
annually
Programme
Potential Funding Sources
S106 / CIL / Other
(£m)
Yes
0
Kickstart (3.8m),
Secur
NAHP (3.89m).
ed
Subsidy
required for
delivery outside
developer
funded provision
- via Registered
Providers
detailed
separately
Yes
0
RPs, HCA,
Secur
SGC, other
ed
investment
Funding
Gap (£m)
Affordable
Housing
84.5:15.5% Social rent: Developer,
Shared Ownership. Total SGC, HCA,
25% (at nil public
RPs
subsidy) up to 33%
dependant on availability
of subsidy.
Delivery
(Funding
secureddeveloper
subsidy.
Masterplanned for
AH)
Affordable
Housing
(Subsidy for
Target Units)
Provision of affordable
housing Target units
outside of developer
subsidised delivery
SGC/
Developer/
HCA/RPs
2012-2022
Extra Care
Housing
54 ECH and 64 care
beds scheme currently
proposed
2015-2020
Yes
0
Secur
ed
0
0
Health,
Community Building
Master
Developer /
Private
Provider / RP
Master
Delivery
18
Low
(Current HCA
programmes
do not allow for
funding)
Feasibility
Unknown n/a
(Application
submitted)
Delivery
2012-2020
2.85
0
0
2.85
High
Committed
subsidy for
2010/11 &
11/12.
Developer
funded
2012-2022
0
0
18
Page 11
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
Community &
Culture
Public Open
Space
Schools
Description
Space in Patchway local
centre, Health facility,
public art financial
contribution for Library
Inc Offsite Contribution to
improve Local Parks
1 x 2FE Primary School
& Nursery Facility
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
Secur
ed
Developer /
PCT / SGC
(Funding
secured)
Master
Developer /
SGC /
Management
Company
Master
Developer or
SGC / Private
Provider
(nursery)
Delivery
(Funding
secured)
7.7
High
2013-2020
7.7
0
Secur
ed
0
0
Design
(Funding
secured)
4.3
High
2015-2020
4.3
0
Secur
ed
0
0
Page 12
Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood
(5,700 houses plus employment and supporting infrastructure)
Core Strategy Allocation
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
Affordable
Housing
35% requirement, mix
and tenure tbc
Developers,
RPs, SGC
Health,
Community &
Culture
1 x 8 GP Health Centre
Developer
Health,
Community &
Culture
Libraries
Developer
Health,
Community &
Culture
Dedicated Community
Centre (CDC) inc
additional space for
Youth Provision
1 x Sports & Activity
Developer
Health,
Developer
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
£m / Reliability
(£m)
Concept
Unknow n/a
2015-2026 tbc0
Developer
(On-going Pre- n
develo
app
per
Discussions
subsid
part
y
site/application
calcul
part site)
ated
on
compl
etion
Feasibility
2.5
Low by 2017/18 2.5
0
0
(Subject to
Not
Planning
secure
Applications)
d
Design
1.5
Low 2014-26
1.5
0
0
(Subject to
Not
Planning
Secur
Applications)
ed
Design
4.41
Low 2014-26
4.41 0
0
(Subject to
Not
Planning
Secur
Applications)
ed
Design
tbc
n/a
2014-26
Yes
0
0
Scheme
Status
Funding
Gap (£m)
0
0
0
0
0
Page 13
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
Community &
Culture
Centre
Health,
Community &
Culture
Public Art
Developer
Waste
Management
Waste transfer & SORT
IT facility
SGC / SITA /
Developer
Extra Care
Housing
Extra care housing
schemes
Developer
Emergency
Services
Emergency
Scheme
Status
(Subject to
Planning
Applications)
Feasibility
(Subject to
Planning
Applications)
Feasibility
(Subject to
Planning
Applications)
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
tbc
n/a
2014-26
5.5
Med
2014-26
Concept (On- Unknown n/a
going Pre-app
Discussions
part
site/application
part site)
Ambulance 'stand-byPolice & Crime Feasibility
0.5
Med
point' tbc.
Commissioner (Subject to
Police post(s), 2 funded for Avon &
Planning
PCSO pposts and PCSO Somerset
Applications)
vehicle. 6 ANPR cameras
around and in the
development
Station for Air Ambulance Great Western Feasibility
tbc
n/a
2014-2026
Potential Funding Sources
S106 / CIL / Other
(£m)
Not
secure
d
Yes
0
0
Not
Secur
ed
1.17 tbc
Waste
Not
Management
Secur
Client Budget
ed
(£1.78m)
SGC Capital
Receipts (tbc)
Yes
0
0
To be
secure
d
2014-26
Yes to 0
be
secure
d
2014-26
Tbc
0
Funding
Gap (£m)
0
2.55
0
0
0.5
tbc
tbc
Page 14
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
Services
Public Open
Space
Public Open
Space
Public Open
Space
Public Open
Space
Description
and Police Helicopter
Lead
Agencies
Ambulance
Authority.
Avon &
Somerset
Constabulary.
Developer
Informal recreational
space including payment
in kind (land) & financial
contribution for
maintenance
Natural & Semi-natural
Developer
recreational space
including payment in kind
(land) & financial
contribution for
maintenance
Formal recreational
Developer
space for sports including
payment in kind (land) &
financial contribution for
maintenance
Informal recreational
Developer
space for children (play
areas) including payment
in kind (land) & financial
contribution for
maintenance
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
(Subject to
Planning
Applications)
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
To be
secur
ed
Delivery
(Subject to
Planning
Applications)
8.02
Low
2014-26
8.02 0
To be
secure
d
0
0
Delivery
(Subject to
Planning
Applications)
4.84
Low
2014-26
4.84 0
To be
secure
d
0
0
Delivery
(Subject to
Planning
Applications)
3.13
Low
2014-26
3.13 0
To be
secure
d
0
0
Delivery
(Subject to
Planning
Applications)
5.7
Low
2014-26
5.7 To 0
be
secure
d
0
0
Page 15
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Public Open
Space
Allotments
Developer
Schools
1 x 7FE Secondary
School
SGC,
Developer
Schools
5 x 2FE Primary Schools SGC,
Developer
Schools
5 x Nursery Facilities (72 SGC,
place each) inc additional Developer
space for childrens
services provision
Financial contribution
SGC
towards North Fringe Hengrove MetroBus
(Rapid Transit).
New & improved strategic SGC
Feasibility
Developer on
foot & cycle links.
site
Extension of the Cycle
City network to key
destinations inc Filton
College & Southmead
Hospital plus Cribbs
North Fringe Hengrove
Package
Walking &
Cycling
Delivery
(Subject to
Planning
Applications)
Delivery
(Subject to
Planning
Applications)
Delivery
(Subject to
Planning
Applications)
Delivery
(Subject to
Planning
Applications)
Design
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
£m / Reliability
(£m)
0.31
Low 2014-26
0.31 0
0
To be
secure
d
19.5
Low 2014-2026 19.5 0
0
To be
secure
d
25.9
Low 2014-2026 25.9 0
0
To be
secure
d
2.1
Low 2014-2026 2.1
0
0
To be
secure
d
0.6
High 2012-2017 0.6
0
0
Not
secure
d
8.4
Med 2014-2026 8.4
0
0
To be
secure
d
Funding
Gap (£m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Page 16
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
M5 Jn 16
Improvements
M5 Jn 17
Improvements
PT Infrastructure
improvements North South Bus
Link
PT Infrastructure
improvements
Description
Lead
Agencies
Causeway to Emersons
Green Trunk Route.
Inc. subway.
Local and strategic
SGC
highway improvements at
M5 Junction 16
Local and strategic
SGC
highway improvements at
M5 Junction 17
North-South Bus Link
(San Andreas Rbt Charlton Rd)
Master
Developer
Bus priority A38 Corridor SGC
(undefined)
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
Design
2.4
High
2014-2016
Design
2
High
2014-2016
0.36 0
secure
d
0.3
0
secure
d
0
0
Feasibility
0
Med
2018-2026
Concept
1.25
Low
2014-2016
PT Infrastructure Bus priority A4018
improvements
Corridor (undefined)
BCC
Concept
1.25
Low
2014-2016
Local Highway
Improvements
Site access to A4018
Master
Developer
Design
0
Low
2016-2022
1.25 0
Not
secure
d
1.25 0
Not
secure
d
0
0
Local Highway
Improvements
East-West Spine Road
including PT priority,
Master
Developer
Design
0
Low
2021-2026
0
0
Pinch Point
Funding
0
Pinch Point
Funding
0
On-site build
cost
0
0
0
0
0
On-site build
cost
Not secured
On-site build
cost
0
0
Page 17
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
Description
SGC
Feasibility
0.3
Med
2015-2026
BCC
Feasibility
2
Low
2014-2016
SGC
Feasibility
2.3
Med
2015-2023
Potential Funding Sources
S106 / CIL / Other
(£m)
Not secured
0.3
0
0
Not
secure
d
2
0
0
Not
secure
d
tbc
0
0
2.4
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Local Highway
Improvements
cycle & Ped provision
Improvements to A4018
Cribbs
Causeway/Lysander Rd
Rbt
Improvements to Crow
Lane Rbt
Local Highway
Improvements
Local Highway
Improvements
Improvements to Aztec
West Rbt
Improvements to Filton
Rbt (A38/A4174)
SGC
Delivery
2.4
Med
2014-2015
Local Highway
Improvements
Widening of left-turn lane SGC
from Gipsy Patch Lane to
A38 south
Delivery
0.75
Med
2014-2015
Feasibility
35
Low
2021-2026
Local Highway
Improvements
Cribbs
Off-site section of
SGC
Causeway Metro MetroBus (Rapid Transit)
bus Extension
Extension from Cribbs
Causeway to Parkway
0
subjec
t to
S106
negoti
ations
0.75 0
subjec
t to
S106
negoti
ations
Yes
0
Not
subjec
secure t to
d
S106
Funding
Gap (£m)
0
0
2.3
RIF funded
needs to be
repaid from
s106/CIL/City
Deal
0
RIF funded
needs to be
repaid from
s106/CIL
0
tbc
tbc
Page 18
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
including bridge at Gipsy
Patch Lane.
General PT
Infrastructure
improvements
Local rail
improvements
Public transport
Infrastructure
improvements including
passenger information
systems
Enhancement of
Patchway station
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
negoti
ations
and
other
fundin
g
sourc
es
SGC
Feasibility
2.5
Low
2014-2026
2.5
0
Not
secure
d
SGC
Concept
0.2
Low
2014-2026
Feasibility /
Design
2.3
Med
2021-2026
0.2
0
To be
secure
d
2.3
0
To be
secure
d
MetroWest major Contribution to
SGC
transport scheme MetroWest Phase 2 plus
land for new stations at
North Filton and Henbury
(including access,
parking etc).
0
0
0
0
0
Page 19
East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood
(2,000 houses plus supporting infrastructure)
Core Strategy Allocation
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Affordable
Housing
35% requirement, mix
and tenure tbc
Developer /
RPs / SGC
Feasibility
Health,
Community &
Culture
youth provision (approx
150 teenagers x £79 x
10yr build out)
Developer
Feasibility
Health,
Community &
Culture
1 x 4 GP surgery & 1x 3 Developer/NH Feasibility
dentist surgery co located S England
Health,
Community &
Culture
Library Contribution Developer
either on site as part of
multi-purpose community
centre or off site
community centre on site Developer
provision
Health,
Community &
Culture
Health,
Community &
Community development Developer
worker
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
£m / Reliability
(£m)
tbc
0
2015-2026 Yes
0
Developer
To be
secure
d
0.12
Med 2015-2026 0.12 0
0
triggers to be To be
agreed
secure
within sec
d
106
2
Med 2015-2026 2
0
NHS England
To be
and GPs &
secure
Dentist
d
businesses
Feasibility
0.51
Low
Feasibility
1.5
Med
Feasibility
0.2
Low
2015-2026
0.51 0
To be
secure
d
2015 - 2026 1.5
0
To be
secure
d
2015 -2026 0.2
0
To be
Funding
Gap (£m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Page 20
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Funding
Gap (£m)
0
Culture
Health,
Community &
Culture
Public Art
Developer
Feasibility
0.1
low
Extra Care
housing
Onsite scheme required
as part of new
neighbourhood
Master
Feasibility
Developer /
Private
Provider/ SGC
tbc
n/a
Public Open
Space
Informal recreational
space including payment
in kind (land) & financial
contribution for
maintenance 5.52ha
Natural & Semi-natural
recreational space
including payment in kind
(land) & financial
contribution for
maintenance 7.2 ha
Outdoor sports including
payment in kind (land) &
financial contribution for
maintenance 7.62 ha
Informal recreational
Developer
Feasibility
tbc
n/a
Developer
Feasibility
tbc
n/a
Public Open
Space
Public Open
Space
Public Open
Potential Funding Sources
S106 / CIL / Other
(£m)
secure
d
2015 - 2026 0.1
0
0
To be
secure
d
unknown
Yes
0
Capital
To be
programme,
secure
HCA DoH, RP
d
and developer
investment.
2015-2026 Yes
0
0
To be
secure
d
2015-2026
Yes
tbc
0
0
0
0
2015 - 2026 Yes
0
To be
secure
d
2015 - 2026 Yes
0
0
0
0
0
To be
secure
d
Developer
Feasibility
tbc
n/a
Developer
Feasibility
tbc
n/a
Page 21
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
Space
Public Open
Space
Emergency
Services
Emergency
Services
Secondary
Schools
Description
Lead
Agencies
space for children (play
areas) including payment
in kind (land) & financial
contribution for
maintenance 1.2 ha
Allotments 0.96 ha
Developer
Police to require as a
minimum, one or both of
Automatic Number Plate
Recognition (ANPR) or
CCTV cameras located
on appropriate access
roads
New Police Post
incorporated within new
development, ideally in
local centre and 2 ANPR
cameras placed on the
Stoke Gifford link road.
PCSO post.
1 x 2.4FE (300-360
place) and 6th Form (72
place) Secondary School
with potential contribution
towards transport
Scheme
Status
Feasibility
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
tbc
n/a
Police & Crime Feasibility
Commissioner
for Avon &
Somerset
5k per
ANPR
Low
Police & Crime Feasibility
Commissioner
for Avon &
Somerset
0.15
Developer
7.1
Feasibility
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
To be
secure
d
2015 – 2026 Yes
0
To be
secure
d
2015-2026 Yes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
pooled
contributions
from several
S106
agreements
0
To be
secure
d
Med
2015-2026
Yes
0
To be
secure
d
Med
2015-2026
triggers to be
agreed
within sec
106
7.1
0
To be
secure
d
Page 22
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Primary Schools 1 x 3FE Primary School
possibly on two sites
Developer
Nursery
provision
Master
Feasibility
Developer
SGC / Private
Provider
(nursery)
SGC
Feasibility
North Fringe Hengrove
Package
1 x 30 place & 1 x 60
place full-day nursery
Financial contribution
towards North Fringe Hengrove MetroBus
(Rapid Transit).
Public Transport Provision of MetroBus
SGC
- EoHS
stops on SGTL plus
contributions to financial contribution
MetroBus stops towards local bus
on SGTL
services & revenue
support for community
transport, demand
responsive transport, car
clubs and other
sustainable transport.
Walking &
Provision of cycling and SGC
Cycling links
pedestrian links to
from EoHS to
strategic destinations
strategic
(UWE, Parkway and
Feasibility
Discussions
Feasibility
Feasibility
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
£m / Reliability
(£m)
8.1
Med 2015-2026 8.1 To 0
0
triggers to be be
agreed
secure
within sec
d
106
0.9
Low 2015-2026 0.9
0
0
triggers to be To be
agreed
secure
within sec
d
106
2.73
High 2012-2017 2.73 0
0
To be
secure
d
0
On-site build
on-site
Med 2015-2026 Yes
cost
To be
secure
d
on-site
Med
2015-2026
Yes
0
0
Funding
Gap (£m)
0
0
0
0
0
To be
secure
Page 23
Proposed form
of Infrastructure
Lead
Agencies
Description
destinations and Cycling City
Trunk Route
Infrastructure) and to
wider area (Hambrook &
Winterbourne) plus
Cribbs Causeway to
Emersons Green Trunk
Route.
Waste
Financial contribution
Management
towards waste transfer
and SORT IT centre in
the North Fringe (See
CPNN)
Undergrounding Undergrounding of
overhead pylon overhead pylon lines,
lines
including Harry Stoke 1
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
d
SGC
Feasibility
tbc
Developer
/Western
Power
Distribution
Feasibility
20
2016-2026
low
Yes
0
To be
secure
d
2015 - 2027 0
0
0
0
tbc. Homes and tbc
Communities
Agency (HCA).
Harry Stoke
(1,200 houses plus supporting infrastructure)
Under Construction
Proposed form
of
Infrastructure
Affordable
Housing
Description
Lead
Agencies
33.3% Affordable
Developer /
Housing of which 25%
RPs / SGC
developer-funded.
Remainder dependent on
Scheme
Status
Design
/Delivery
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
£m / Reliability
(£m)
Develope Med 2012-2020 Yes
0
Subsidy
r subsidy
Secur
required for
identified
ed
delivery outside
annually
developer
Page 24
Proposed form
of
Infrastructure
Affordable
Housing
(Subsidy for
Target Units)
Public Open
Space
Health,
Community &
Culture
Schools
Description
public subsidy.
77.25:22.75% Social
Rent: Shared Ownership.
Total 15% of 1st 400,
28% of 2nd 400, 33.3%
of 3rd 400 dwellings.
Provision of affordable
housing Target units
outside of developer
subsidised delivery
Cat 1 Open Space and
pavilion (Football and
cricket pitch) to be
provided offsite (Lot 4).
Cat 2 & 3 onsite.
On site community
centre. Financial
contribution towards
expansion of
Winterbourne and
Bradley Stoke libraries
and extension of Stoke
Gifford GP practice.
Onsite Public Art.
1 x 1.5FE Primary school
& Nursery Facility
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
funded provision
via RPs/HCA.
GBB allocation
from HCA
(shown
separately)
11
0
RPs, HCA,
Yes
SGC, other
Secur
investment
ed
SGC/
Developer
/RPs/HCA
Feasibility
11
Low
2012-2020
Developer /
Management
Company
Design /
Delivery
tbc
n/a
2011-2020
Yes
0
Secur
ed
0
0
SGC
Feasibility
0.58
High
2014-2020
0.58 0
Secur
ed
0
0
3.2
High
2012-2020
3.2
0
Secur
ed
0
Master
Design
Developer /
SGC / Private
Provider
Page 25
Proposed form
of
Infrastructure
Local Highway
Improvements
associated with
Harry Stoke
North Fringe Hengrove
Package
Lead
Agencies
Description
Financial contribution to
offsite highway works.
Financial contribution
towards North Fringe Hengrove MetroBus
(Rapid Transit).
Walking &
Financial contribution
Cycling - PROW towards PROW footpath
improvements improvements in local
and offsite
area and offsite
measures at
pedestrian & cyclist
Harry Stoke
facilities within 2km of
site.
Undergrounding Undergrounding of
overhead pylon overhead pylon lines,
lines
including East of Harry
Stoke New
Neighbourhood
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
(Nursery)
SGC
Feasibility
1.63
High
2012-2017
1.63 0
Secur
ed
0
0
SGC
Design
1.63
High
2012-2017
1.63 0
Secur
ed
0
0
SGC
Design
/Delivery
0.03
High
2012-2017
0.03 0
Secur
ed
0
0
10
low
2015-2027
0
tbc. Homes and tbc
Communities
Agency (HCA).
Not secured
Developer/We Feasibility
stern Power
(Under
Distribution
negotiation)
0
Land East of Coldharbour Lane
(up to 500 dwellings and extra care facility)
South Gloucestershire Local Plan Allocation
Page 26
Proposed
Description
form of
Infrastructure
Schools
Financial contribution for
180 primary places
towards extension of
local schools. Financial
contribution for 90
Secondary School Places
(may include
contributions towards
new EGE SS). Land for
private nursery facility
onsite.
tbc - assumed offsite
Health,
Community & financial contributions
towards Community
Culture
Meeting Space, GP
Practice, Library and
Youth & Children's
Facilities. Options under
consideration inc:
securing access to UWE
facilities for community
use and onsite provision
until permanent offsite
solutions become
available.
Public Open In Kind & Financial
Space
Contribution towards
Developer /
Feasibility
SGC / Private
Provider
(Nursery)
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
£m / Reliability
(£m)
2
Low 2012-2026 Yes to 0
0
0
be
secure
d
SGC / PCT
Feasibility
1.4
Low
2012-2017
Yes to 0
be
secure
d
0
0
Master
Developer /
Feasibility
tbc
n/a
2015-2020
Yes to 0
be
0
0
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Page 27
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Description
maintenance
Extra Care
Housing
Lead
Agencies
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
SGC
Mixed tenure Extra Care Master
village onsite – details tbc Developer /
SGC / Extra
Care
Charitable
Trust
North Fringe - Financial contribution
Hengrove
towards North Fringe Package
Hengrove Package
MetroBus (Rapid
Transit).
Walking &
Financial Contribution
Cycling off site towards offsite
at LECL
improvements of local
cycle and footpaths
Waste
Financial contribution
Management towards waste transfer
and SORT IT centre in
the North Fringe.
Scheme
Status
Potential Funding Sources
S106 / CIL / Other
(£m)
secure
d
Yes to 0
1.92 SGC
be
Capital
secure
programme,
d
HCA, DoH, BCC
and and
Developer
investment.
Yes
0
0
To be
secure
d
Funding
Gap (£m)
Feasibility
tbc
Low
2015-2020
SGC
Design
2012-2017
SGC
Feasibility
0.6
High
Subject
to
negotiatio
n
tbc
0
2012-2017
Yes to 0
be
scured
0
0
SGC
Feasibility
tbc
2012-2017
Yes to 0
be
secure
d
0
0
n/a
tbc
0
University of the West of England (UWE) Regeneration Project
(Including 1,080 student beds and new accommodation and open space)
Under Construction
Page 28
Proposed
Lead
Scheme
Description
form of
Agencies
Status
Infrastructure
North Fringe - In Kind contribution
SGC
Design
Hengrove
towards North Fringe Package
Hengrove MetroBus
(Rapid Transit) and route
through site (new
interchange) and link to
Cheswick Bus Link
Energy Centre Combined Heat & Power UWE / ESCO Feasibility
and Heat
Station (biomass tbc) and
Distribution
Heat Distribution Network
Network
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
£m / Reliability
(£m)
Unknown High 2012-2017 Yes
0
0
0
Not
secure
d
tbc
n/a
tbc
0
0
tbc
0
Page 29
East Fringe Development Sites
Emersons Green East New Neighbourhood
(2,350 houses plus employment land and supporting infrastructure)
Under Construction
Proposed
Description
form of
Infrastructure
Extra Care
50 Unit Scheme on site
Housing
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Master
Developer /
Private
Provider / RSL
Feasibility
(Outline
planning
approval.
Awaiting Rm
application and
scheme
proposals)
Feasibility
(Funding
secured developer
subsidy)
Affordable
Housing
80:20% Social rent:
Developer,
Shared Ownership. Total SGC, HCA,
25% (at nil public
RPs
subsidy) up to 33%
dependant on availability
of subsidy.
Affordable
Housing
(Subsidy for
Target Units)
Provision of affordable
housing Target units
outside of developer
subsidised delivery
SGC
/Developer
/HCA
Feasibility
(Outline
planning
approval. AH
master
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
£m / Reliability
(£m)
0
0
0
Unknow n/a
2015-2020 Yes
n
Secur
ed
develope Med
r subsidy
calculate
d
annually
Developer
funded
2012-2022
Yes
0
Secur
ed
18
2012-2026
Yes
0
Secur
ed
Low
Subsidy
0
required for
delivery outside
developer
funded provision
- via Registered
Providers
detailed
separately
RPs, HCA,
Approx
SGC, other
£18m
investment
Page 30
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Public Open
Space
Description
Developer
Primary
Schools
Cat 1 Open Space as
football pitches with
outdoor changing and
cricket pitch with pavilion,
plus dual use Cat 1 in
secondary school. Cat 2
& 3 and informal also
provided onsite.
Financial contribution for
maintenance
Site for secondary school
and contribution towards
secondary school places
2 x Primary Schools to
provide 4FE,
Nursery
60 place nursery facility
Secondary
school
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
planned)
Feasibility
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
6.8
Low
2012-2026
Yes
0
Secur
ed
0
0
5.48
High
TBC
0
0
TBC
Developer/SG Feasibility/Desi 7
C
gn
High
TBC
0
0
0
Developer
0.5
High
TBC
0
0
0
Design
3.3
High
2012-2017
Yes
Secur
ed
Yes
Secur
ed
Yes
Secur
ed
3.3
Secur
ed
0
0
0
Design
tbc
tbc
2012-2016
0
0
0
Developer/SG
C
North Fringe - Secured financial
SGC
Hengrove
contribution towards
Package
North Fringe - Hengrove
MetroBus (Rapid
Transit).
Strategic
Improvements
SGC
Yes
Page 31
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Transport &
Highway
Infrastructure
Motorway
network
Description
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
Secur
ed
0.75
Secur
ed
0.63
Secur
ed
0.3
Secur
ed
2.4
Secur
ed
construction of A4174
Rosary Roundabout
/Delivery
Improvements & diverge SGC
lane at J1 of M32.
Feasibility
0.75
Low
2012-2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
0
0
0
Local Highway Contribution for traffic
Improvements signals
SGC
Feasibility
0.63
Low
2012-2016
Local Highway Cost of Toucan
Improvements
SGC
Feasibility
0.9
Low
2012-2016
Public
Transport
SGC
Feasibility
2.4
Low
2012-2020
SGC
Feasibility
2.4m
low
2012-2020
0.95 0
Secur
ed
tbc
1.45
0.035
high
2018-19
0
0
0.25
high
0.035 0
Secur
ed
0.25 0
Secur
0
0
Revenue support for local
bus services, car club,
car share scheme &
Travel Plan, 240 space
Multi-Modal Interchange
(Onsite).
Walking &
Financial Contribution to
Cycling
footbridge (to link EGE
centre with EG West over
A4174).
Community
Financial Contribution
Forest
towards the Community
Forest
Emerson
Contribution to extend
Green Library existing library
SGC
SGC
Delivery
Page 32
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Description
Health,
Community hall, Health
Community & care space, contribution
Culture
towards Public Art
throughout the
development
Lead
Agencies
Developer /
SGC
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Feasibility/Desi 2.3
gn
high
2015 +
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
ed
Yes
0
0
0
Secur
ed
Emersons Green Science Park
Under Construction
Proposed
Description
form of
Infrastructure
Health,
Provision of Public Art
Community & throughout the
Culture
development and
contribution towards local
environmental /
countryside projects
Other
A range of measures to
measures to facilitate the delivery of
facilitate
Emersons Green
delivery
including M4 Acoustic
Fence, Land Drainage
Pond and Access Road
Public
Bus Shelters (inc RTI) in
Transport
SPark Square, temporary
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
£m / Reliability
(£m)
0.01
High 2010-2015 0.01 0
0
0
Secur
ed
Developer /
SGC
Feasibility
Master
Developer /
SGC
Feasibility
2.75
High
2017
2.75 0
Secur
ed
0
0
SGC
Delivery
0.5
High
2010-2015
0.5
0
Secur
0
0
Page 33
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Walking &
Cycling
Multi-modal
Interchange
Description
Lead
Agencies
shuttle bus to UWE
(Frenchay Campus) for 1
year, re-route of service
686 through the site,
provision of car club
vehicle onsite &
implementation of a
Travel plan &
appointment of Travel
Plan Co-ordinator
New Bridleway (onsite) to Developer
replace existing Public
Right of Way
Multi-modal interchange Master
(and green road access) Developer
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
ed
Feasibility
0.9
low
2016
Design
3
High
by 2016
0.9
0
Secur
ed
3
0
Secur
ed
Scheme
Status
0
0
0
0
Frenchay Hospital Residential Development
(Up to 490 houses and supporting infrastructure)
Planning Permission granted subject to S106
Proposed
Lead
Description
form of
Agencies
Infrastructure
Affordable
35% Affordable Housing Developer /
Housing
of which 25% developer- RPs / SGC
funded, remainder
dependent on public
Scheme
Status
Feasibility
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
£m / Reliability
(£m)
Unknow n/a
2015 – 2026 s106 0
RPs/Developer 0
n
to be
secure
d
Page 34
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Affordable
Housing
(Subsidy for
Target Units)
Description
subsidy (shown
separately). 80:20%
Social Rent: Shared
Ownership.
Provision of affordable
housing Target units
outside of developer
subsidised delivery
Health,
Library Contribution
Community & (offsite). New community
Culture
centre onsite to serve
development and wider
area or financial
contribution towards
Frenchay Village Hall.
(Includes Frenchay
Museum)
Extra Care
Scheme being
Housing
considered onsite in
addition to Health &
Social care provision
Highway
Junction and highway
Improvements improvements
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
SGC
/Developer
/HCA
Delivery
SGC
Feasibility
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
tbc
0
2012-2026
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
Yes
0
To be
secure
d
0.045
Low
2014-2020
0.045 0
RPs, HCA,
SGC, other
investment
0
tbc once
s106
negotiatio
ns
conclude
d
0
To be
secure
d
Master
Developer /
SGC
Concept
Unknow n/a
n
SGC
Concept
0.175
low
2014-2020
Yes
0
To be
secure
d
Yes
0
To be
secure
d
HCA DoH, RP
and developer
investment
0
BCC
0.175
contribution 0.05
to be secured
Page 35
Yate and Chipping Sodbury
North Yate New Neighbourhood
(3,000 houses, plus employment land and supporting infrastructure)
Planning Permission granted subject to S106
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Smarter
choices
measures
Affordable
Housing
Developer
Design
/Delivery
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
£m / Reliability
(£m)
375 per High 2013-2020 Yes
0
0
0
dwelling
Developer /
RPs
Feasibility
tbc
0
2016-2026
Subject to
106 trigger
Heads 0
of
Terms
(HOT)
agree
d
S106
to be
signed
Health,
Contribution to central
SGC
Community & library (including Peg Hill
Culture
and Taylor Wimpey land)
Feasibility
0.63
Low
2015-2026
Health,
Feasibility
1.12
Low
2015-2026
0.63 0
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
1.12 0
Description
£375 green travel
allocated to each
household.
35% affordable housing
to be delivered with
developer subsidy 80:20% social rent
shared ownership
4-5 GP Surgery
Lead
Agencies
Developer
Scheme
Status
0
0
0
0
0
Page 36
Proposed
Description
form of
Infrastructure
Community & (including Taylor Wimpey
Culture
land)
Health,
Community Centre
Community & (including (Peg Hill and
Culture
Taylor Wimpey land)
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
Developer/NH Feasibility
S England
2.2
Low
2015-2026
2.2
0
0
0
0
0.3
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
Yes
0
HOT
agree
d,
0
0
0
0
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
Waste
Management
Financial contribution
SGC
towards remodelling of
Yate Transfer & Sort IT
facility and / or new north
fringe facility (including
Taylor Wimpey land)
Feasibility
0.3
Med
2016-2026
Extra Care
housing
ECH scheme required on Master
site
Developer /
Private
Provider
Feasibility
tbc
n/a
2016-2026
Page 37
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
Public Open
Space
Financial Contribution to Master
off-site facilities (capital Developer /
and maintenance)
SGC
Emergency
Services
New Police Post
incorporated within new
development, ideally in
local centre and 3 ANPR
cameras placed on the 3
new access roads.
Schools
2 x Primary Schools to
Contract to
provide 5FE, one nursery commission
facility (cost inclusive of led contract.
1st contribution only)
Local Highway Improvement to
Improvements roundabouts:
Scheme
Status
Feasibility
2.4
Med
2016-2026
ANPR
£12,000
Police
Point
£47,000
Med
2016-2026
Feasibility
5.4
Low
2015-2026
Feasibility
5.5
Med
by 2016
Police & Crime Feasibility
Commissioner
for Avon &
Somerset
SGC
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
s106
to be
signed
2.4
0
0
0
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
0.06 0
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
5.4
0
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
0
0
0
0
5.5
HOT
0
0
0
Page 38
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
2.9
0
2.9
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
Ͳ Randolph Ave/Green
Goose Way
Ͳ Stover rd/Yate Rd/
Iron Acton Way
Ͳ Station Rd/Goose
Green Way
Signals at:
Broad Lane/Greenways
Rd/Goose Green Way
North Road/Goose
Green Way
Wotton Rd/ Yate Rd
Latteridge Rd/Yate Rd
Traffic calming on
Leechpool Way and
Randolph Avenue
Ͳ
Public
Transport
Inc: revenue support and SGC /
bus stop improvements Appointed
(inc RTI) for half hourly
Operator
service from Yate North
Yate-WinterbourneBristol City Centre, a
Yate Town bus service
and revenue Support for
Community Transport,
Demand Responsive
Transport, Car Clubs and
other Sustainable
Feasibility
Med
2016-2026
Subject to
106 trigger
0
0
Page 39
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Rail
Infrastructure
Description
Transport.
Improvements to Yate
Station
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
SGC /
Appointed
Operator
Feasibility
0.25
Med
2016-2026
Subject to
106 trigger
0.25 0
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
0
0
Feasibility
0.9
Med
2016-2026
Subject to
106 trigger
0
0
0.08
Med
2016-2026
Subject to
106 trigger
0
0
Low
2016-2020
0.9
0
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
0.08 0
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
4.5
0
0
0
Walking &
Cycling
Linkages to strategic
destinations in Yate &
Chipping Sodbury, and
signage.
SGC
Smarter
choices
measures
Providing a package of
smarter choices to
support development.
SGC / Master Feasibility
Developer
Utilities
Financial contribution
Master
Feasibility
4.5
towards Frome Valley
Developer /
(Wessex Water
Relief Sewer or provision Wessex Water Business Plan
Page 40
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Offsite Public
Open Space
Description
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
of strategic sewer from
/ Yate Town
the site to Phase II of
Council (WiFi)
FVRS at Bradley Stoke.
Provision of WiFi network
to provide free
connection to support
domestic & business use.
2015-2020
awaiting
OFWAT
approval)
In Kind & Financial
Contribution for
Maintenance
Delivery
SGC
Health,
Contributions to public art Developer
Community &
Culture
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
0.6
0.6
High
2102-2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
Feasibility
0.1
High
2102-2016
0.1
HOT
agree
d,
s106
to be
signed
Page 41
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Description
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
Estimated total
capital cost Programme
£m / Reliability
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
(£m)
Page 42
Peg Hill Site (part of North Yate New Neighbourhood)
(250 houses)
Planning Permission granted
Proposed
Description
form of
Infrastructure
Affordable
35% affordable housing
Housing
to be delivered with
developer subsidy,
80:20% social rent:
shared ownership
Public Open
Space
Schools
Walking &
Cycling
In kind and financial
contribution for
maintenance
Lead
Agencies
Developer /
RPs
Scheme
Status
Feasibility
Master
Feasibility
Developer /
SGC / Parish
& Town
Councils
Financial contribution to Developer /
Feasibility
provide 210 primary
SGC / Private
school places and 1.2ha Provider
of land . Nursery facility (Nursery)
on site
New & improved strategic SGC / BCC
Feasibility
foot & cycle links.
Extension of the Cycle
City network to key
destinations inc Filton
College & Southmead
Hospital
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
£m / Reliability
(£m)
Develope Med 2014-2026 Yes
0
0
r subsidy
Secur
will be
ed
calculate
d
annually
0.01
Low 2014-2020 0.01 0
0
0
Secur
ed
2.38
Low
2015 - 2026 2.38 0
subject to
Secur
106 triggers ed
0
1.38
Med
2015 - 2026 1.38 0
subject to
Secur
106 triggers ed
0
0
Page 43
Proposed
Description
form of
Infrastructure
Local Highway Local highway
Improvements improvements
Lead
Agencies
Scheme
Status
SGC
Feasibility
Financial contribution
towards waste transfer
and SORT IT facilities.
SGC
Feasibility
Walking &
Cycling
Pedestrians signage
SGC
Funding
Secured
Local Highway
Improvements
Off-site highway
Improvements - this is
linked with lines 185 - 191
SGC
Funding
Secured
Waste
Management
Local Highway
Improvements
Off-site signals??
Developer/SGC
Contributions to public
Public Transport transport infrastructure and SGC
services
Providing a package of
Smarter choices
smarter choices to support SGC
measures
development.
Estimated total
Potential Funding Sources
Funding
capital cost Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
Gap (£m)
£m / Reliability
(£m)
1.5
Med 2015 - 2026 1.5
0
0
0
subject to
Secur
106 triggers ed
0.03
Med 2012-2017 0.03 0
0
0
Secur
ed
10
0
0.01
High
2102-2016
0.21
High
2102-2016
Funding
Secured
0.65
High
2102-2016
Funding
Secured
0.27
High
2102-2016
Funding
Secured
0.12
High
2102-2016
secure
d
0.21
secure
d
Develo
per to
fund
and
constru
ct
secure
d
0.27
secure
d
0.12
secure
d
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
0
Page 44
North Thornbury
Park Farm Housing Site
(500 houses)
Planning Permission granted
Estimated
Potential Funding
total capital
Scheme
Sources
Description
Lead Agencies
cost
Programme
S106 / CIL / Other
Status
£m /
(£m)
Reliability
Affordable
35% affordable
Developer/RSL/SGC Design/Delivery tbc
n/a 2013-2020 Yes
0 Developer
Housing
housing delivered with
Secured
developer subsidy,
80% social rent: 20%
shared ownership
Health,
Financial contribution SGC / PCT /
Design/Delivery 0.2
High 2013-2020 0.2
0 0
Community & towards Meeting
Thornbury Town
Secured
Culture
Space/cultural facility. Council
Health,
Contribution to public Developer to
Design/Delivery 0.02
High 2013-2020 0.02
0 0
Community & art
commission
Secured
Culture
Health,
Contribution towards SGC
Design/Delivery 0.1
High 2013-2020 0.1
0 0
Community & extension of library
Secured
Culture
services.
Public Open Provision of 1 x
Developer
Design/Delivery 0.05
High 2013-2020 0.05
0 0
Space
common sports pitch
Secured
Public Open Provision of equipped Developer
Design/Delivery Unknown n/a 2013-2020 Yes
0 0
Space
play areas, natural
Secured
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Funding
Gap
(£m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Page 45
Proposed
form of
Infrastructure
Public Open
Space
Public Open
Space
Description
open space and
informal play areas
Provision of allotments Developer
Creation of community
trust to manage on-site
facilities.
Schools
Contribution to
additional secondary
school places.
Local Highway Improvements to:
Improvements Ͳ Butt Lane /
Gloucester Road
Ͳ Oldbury Lane /
Morton Street ;
and
Ͳ Grovesend Road
/A38 junctions
Public
Transport
support
Lead Agencies
And provision of site
access.
Revenue Support for
bus services (the 309
and 310)
Scheme
Status
Estimated
total capital
Programme
cost
£m /
Reliability
Design/Delivery tbc
n/a 2013-2020
Master Developer /
SGC / Thornbury
Town Council
SGC
Design/Delivery tbc
n/a 2013-2020
Design/Delivery 1
High 2013-2020
Developer
constructing
Delivery
SGC
Design/Delivery 0.49
On site
Potential Funding
Sources
S106 / CIL / Other
(£m)
Yes
0
Secured
Yes
0
Secured
Funding
Gap
(£m)
0
0
0
0
1
0
Secured
0
0
n/a 2013-2020
Yes
0
Secured
0
0
High 2013-2020
0.49
0
Secured
0
0
Page 46
South Gloucestershire
Local Development Framework
Infrastructure Delivery Plan
Part II
Supporting Appendices
March 2014
Introduction
‘Local Plans should plan positively for the development and infrastructure
required in the area to meet the objectives, principles & policies of this
framework’ (National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012, para 157).
The following text therefore comprises a series of documents that explain how
provisions within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan have been arrived at. Using
available information, they explain the statutory and policy basis for why and
how infrastructure is funded and delivered, the current position within South
Gloucestershire (at the time of writing) and requirements to support growth as
proposed in the Core Strategy (Dec 13). In order the documents cover:
1. Transport Infrastructure
2. Children & Young Peoples Services
3. Health Services
4. Library Services
5. Community Centres & Village Halls
6. Waste Management
7. Extra Care Housing
8. Public Open Space, Outdoor Sport & Recreation
9. Police Services
10.Utilities (Electricity, Gas, Water, Sewerage)
The Council continues to work with its partners to identify infrastructure needs
and welcomes information from external organisations to add to the above
information where appropriate.
IDP Transport Evidence Base
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
EVIDENCE BASE
Transport Infrastructure
(South Gloucestershire Transport Policy Team)
February 2014
Page 1 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
1.
Introduction
1.1.
The shared vision for South Gloucestershire is set out in the Sustainable
Communities Strategy and the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core
Strategy 2006-2027, which was adopted in December 2013 ,sets out how
this vision will be delivered. These documents have managing future
development, promoting safer and stronger communities and modernising
health and community care services as priorities.
1.2.
The Core Strategy sets out the spatial expression of these priorities and is
key to the creation of sustainable communities that are well designed and
planned, provide access to a full range of community facilities, formal and
informal open spaces and which are well integrated with existing
communities.
1.3.
The Joint Local Transport Plan 2011-26 [JLTP3] sets out the transport
strategy for South Gloucestershire and its neighbouring authorities in the
West of England.
1.4.
This paper describes the transport infrastructure requirements to support
the future growth proposed in the Adopted Core Strategy. Any variation in
the overall scale or location of the future growth will clearly alter these
requirements. The document also aims to set out the principles upon
which the requirements are based.
2.
Transport Provision
2.1.
At present, responsibility for the provision of transport in England is
fragmented; the division of these responsibilities is as follows:
x
x
x
x
The Strategic Road Network [SRN] (motorways and trunk roads) is
managed and maintained by the Highways Agency. This is an
executive agency of the Department for Transport [DfT], which funds
the Highways Agency; in South Gloucestershire, the SRN consists of
the M4, M5, M32, M48, M49 and the A46 south of the M4;
All other public highways are managed and maintained by South
Gloucestershire Council, using capital funding provided by the DfT
(namely, annual ‘Integrated Transport’ and ‘Maintenance’ block grant,
bespoke major transport scheme bid funding and project specific
grants), the Council’s own resources and third party funding such as
developer contributions;
Railway infrastructure is managed and maintained by Network Rail, a
‘not for profit’ company funded by income received from Train
Operating Companies [TOCs] and from the DfT;
Train services are run by TOCs. Passenger services are run on a
franchise basis, with the DfT specifying the terms of the franchise
(including minimum service levels); in South Gloucestershire, local
Page 2 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
x
x
x
x
x
services and those to/from London and South Wales are currently run
by First Great Western, whilst north-south cross-country services are
run by Cross Country Trains;
Local bus services are provided on a commercial and non-commercial
basis. The main commercial operator is First Somerset & Avon, with a
number of smaller companies also operating services within South
Gloucestershire; non-commercial services are operated under tender
to South Gloucestershire Council and typically consist of routes
between smaller, often rural, communities and during evenings and
Sundays;
Express inter-city coach services are run mostly by National Express;
Community transport services are widely provided on a voluntary basis
and often with financial support from South Gloucestershire Council;
Air transport is regulated by the government and run by commercial
organisations. The nearest commercial airport to South
Gloucestershire is Bristol Airport.
Avonmouth is the nearest port serving the South Gloucestershire area,
and is owned and operated by the Port of Bristol.
2.2.
The status of the Highways Agency and Central Government’s funding
procedures are currently under review and may be subject to change in
the near future.
3.
Policy Framework
3.1.
The JLTP provides the statutory basis for South Gloucestershire Council’s
transport policies. The currently approved JLTP [JLTP3] runs from 2011
to 2026. The JLTP3 can be found in full at:
http://travelplus.org.uk/our-vision/joint-local-transport-plan-3
3.2.
The JLTP3 Vision is for a transport system that strengthens the local
economy, improves access, ensures alternatives to the car are a realistic
first choice being affordable, safe, secure, reliable, simple to use and
available to all. There are five goals in the JLTP3:
x
x
x
x
x
Reduce carbon emissions;
Support economic growth;
Promote accessibility;
Contribute to better safety, security and health;
Improve quality of life and a healthy natural environment.
4.
Targets and Links with National and Local Targets
4.1.
Targets and indicators play a key role in the JLTP3; they are designed to
measure and monitor progress towards meeting the JLTP3’s objectives.
They are also important for delivering wider policy objectives identified in
Page 3 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
the Adopted Core Strategy, the Sustainable Community Strategies and
Corporate Plans.
4.2
The Government has replaced the National Indicators introduced in 2008 and
the previous mandatory LTP indicators with a ‘Single List’ of local government
data requirements as from April 2011. In view of the changed requirements
for monitoring, the JLTP3 will now measure our top 5 targets and 4
supporting indicators. These are:
x
Road Safety
x
CO2 Emissions
x
Cycling
x
Bus Passengers
x
Rail
And supporting indicators, which will not have targets, are:
x
4.2.
Maintenance – principal and non principal roads; Congestion, Air
Quality; and Bus Punctuality.
In addition to the JLTP3 targets and indicators, there are also local targets
used in the Council Plan (Implementation Annex) to monitor progress
towards the Council’s transport aims, namely:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Increase in community transport patronage;
Number of extended community transport schemes;
% take up of Diamond Travel card usage;
Completion of approved (capital) programme;
% increase in cycle training for elderly people (over 65);
% GBBN project elements implemented;
RFA2 programme established and milestones achieved on time;
Employer satisfaction with transport;
Number of employer travel plans introduced;
% existing schools with operational travel plans;
% of service changes (timetables and routes) notified to SGC by bus
operators for consultation at least three months in advance of changes
taking effect;
Public satisfaction with bus services (all residents);
Achieve milestones in (bus) Performance Improvement Plan;
Increase bus patronage from young people;
Parkway station action plan - achieve milestones.
Page 4 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
4.3.
JLTP3 targets will usually be for 5-years, with interim trajectories and
milestones and provision for full mid-term reviews after 3 years; this
reflects the current uncertainty in funding for transport and other factors
that influence their performance, such as the state of the economy and the
pace of development and regeneration. Council Plan targets are for 3
years.
4.4.
There is an evidence base for our approach, which includes:
x
x
x
x
x
x
The transport studies undertaken to support the development of Core
Strategy and its transport polices;
The CPNN SPD and its supporting transport studies including those
described in the Transport Study Report (December 2013);
The JLTP and background documents, including:
x Technical studies such as the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport
Study (Atkins, 2006), West of England (Delivering a Sustainable
Transport System) Network Performance Assessment (Atkins,
2010);
x JLTP Progress Reports;
x JLTP Congestion Delivery Plan;
x Major scheme transport bids to the DfT (e.g. for the North Fringe
Hengrove Package) and their supporting analyses;
x See http://www.travelplus.org for the above;
Transport statistics (e.g. traffic counts, public transport patronage
surveys, road condition surveys, road accident records)
x National (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/);
x Local (http://www.southglos.gov.uk/TransportAndRoads);
Census (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/access_results.asp);
Local authority air quality monitoring
(http://www.southglos.gov.uk/NR/exeres/296f13d9-b743-410c-a9d2c317f1a92def).
5.
Spatial Issues and Requirements
5.1.
South Gloucestershire has seen significant development, particularly in
the Bristol North and East Fringes; however, the supporting transport
infrastructure has not kept pace with the demands put on it by this and by
an increase in car use in the population as a whole. Particular problems
include:
x
x
The Adopted Core Strategy contains significant proposals of additional
development in the North Fringe, Yate and Thornbury, which must be
supported by additional transport provision if it is not to have an
unacceptable impact on existing local communities;
Significant traffic congestion exists, in particular in much of the North
and East Fringes (see Figure 1 below);
Page 5 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
x
x
x
x
The adverse impact of traffic congestion on the local economy, bus
service reliability, community severance and people’s health (e.g. poor
air quality);
Limited access to major employment areas in the North and East
Fringes by public transport, cycling and walking;
Poor access to facilities and services by public transport, cycling and
walking;
Lack of satisfactory public transport services linking rural communities
with jobs, services and facilities, which leads to increased reliance on
the private car.
Page 6 of 28
1km
1 mile
Avon Ring Road Cycle Track
Bus-only link
Core Strategy Areas of Search
Allocated development sites
The Venue
Ma
ll
Eastfield Road
ven
ue
Don
cast
er
Rd
Southmead
Hospital
Southmead
A
ke
ysto
Gre
Westbury-on-Trym
Brentry
Knole Lane
6
05
So
m
uth
ea
d
Do
ria
n
Rd
Royal
Mail
St ati
Retail
Park
n
oad
15
ay
Bradley Stoke
District Centre
Bro
ok
W
Patchway
Station
Av
en
ue
B&Q
Hewlett
Packard
Sainsbury’s
AXA
Lockleaze
School
32
M
Lockleaze
B 40
58
Win B405
terb
7
ourn
e
Roa
d
er
Tre
nc
h
La
ne
oad
Bristol
Business Park
Broomhill
1
Ha
mb
roo
kL
a
West of M32
Area of Search
Hotel
A4174
Harry
Stoke
Filto
nR
Harry
Stoke
me
Fro
oad
tol R
Riv
Bris
Stoke
Park
t’s
Ea
rt
Stoke Gifford congestion between
Bradley Stoke and the Ring Road
A4174 Ring Road congestion between
Housing
Cheswick
Abbey Wood
and The Rosary
Roundabouts
UWE
development
and side roads
MOD
Retail
Park
A4174
Filton High
School
Ga
un
hc
ott
La
n
e
Sw
an
A417
4
nend
ow
2D
A43
Frenchay
Hospital
La
8
05
B4
oa
d
Watley’s
End
A4
ive
e
R
oad
Staple Hill
Ch
urc
h
32
dm
Ba
into
n
Rd
te
es
rl
B4
465
Mangotsfield
W
Emerald
Park
Kendleshire
R
Winterbourne
rat running to avoid
congestion on the Ring Road
m
ro
rF
9
Emerson’s Green
District Centre
phre
yH
ill
4
17
A4
Shortwood
Area of Search
Emerson’s
Green
Po
m
d
oa
Ro
ad
lR
sto
Bri
B4
05
8
05
B4
Latteridge
Frampton
Cotterell
Winterbourne congestion
Bromley
Heath
ne
Pe
rrin
pit
R
A4174 Ring Road congestion between
Blackhorse
Abbey Wood and The Rosary
Roundabouts
d
oa
hR
and side roads
Downend
eig
Hambrook
19
Winterbourne
Frenchay
Hambrook Lane rat running to avoid
congestion on the Ring Road
Stoke
Gifford
5
M
Rat running on country lanes
between Yate, Aztec West and the
North Fringe
Bradley
Stoke
Bristol Parkway
Little
Stoke
20
Housing
development
Bowslan
d Way
Almondsbury
Business Park
oad
rR
ste
uce
Combination
Ground
on Rd
Filton
College
Fil
to
Glo
B4057 Gypsy Patch Lane
Rolls
Royce
Filton Abbey
Wood Station
Lock
leaz
eR
Horfield
Toro
nto Rd
Employment
development
BAE Systems /
Airbus
ad
Ro
Filton
ire
d
Roa
Charlton
Hayes
d
hwoo
Hig
Mon
k’s Pa
rk Av
e
B4
l City
rsh
uceste
Bristo
Glo
South
Aztec West
16
A38 congestion between
Filton and Aztec West
Patchway
Cribbs Causeway
Filton Airfield
The
3km
2 miles
Aztec West, M5 J16 and
Bradley Stoke North congestion
Crow Lane Roundabout congestion
Cribbs Causeway
Area of Search
Lysander Road
17
The Mall congestion at weekends
and over the Christmas period
M5
2km
1½ miles
Landmark development or employment area
½ mile
A38
B4
05
9
Iron Acton
Shortwood
Emerson’s Green
East
M4
B446
5
Shor
twoo
d Ro
Parkfield
ad
Yate Outdoor
Sports Centre
Yate
Area of Search
e
se Lan
Tanhou
Westerleigh
Common
A432 Station
Road
Yate
Station
Westerleigh
nn
ed
yW
ay
Hill
CHIPPING
SODBURY
46
5
W
ap
ley
Ro
ad
Feltham
Road
Rat running on country lanes
to and from M4 J18 at Tormarton
B4
A432
Chipping Sodbury
Area of Search
Rat running on country lanes
to and from M4 J18 at Tormarton
Ke
Bow
ling
B4060
B40
60
A4
32
Brimsham
Park
N
Copyright South Gloucestershire Council 2008. All rights reserved.
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey with the permission
of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office. Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction
infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil
proceedings 100023410,2008.
All alignments are INDICATIVE and DO NOT represent
endorsement of any route, alignment or scheme.
This is an INTERNAL DOCUMENT only. It MUST NOT be given to
Members of the Public.
ay
Way
W
ire
Sh
ord
Rodf
YATE
Yate Shopping
Centre
Goose
Yate localised congestion
Green
y
on Wa
Iron Act
B4059
Industrial Estates
and Business Parks
Engine
Common
Pucklechurch
Oil Terminal
Rail Head
Westerleigh Road
Rat running on country lanes
between Yate and Emersons Green
Coalpit
Heath
Ro
ad
Wo
tton
B4
058
Almondsbury
Road
A38 Gloucester
0km
Cro B4
w 057
La
ne
A4
01
8C
rib
bs
Ca
us
ew
ay
Road
tbury
8 W es
B
Glo
ld
44
27
O
uc
es
ter
Ro
ad
h Gl
Brist
A401
ad
e Ro
nleaz
6 He
B405
Ba
dm
in
to
n
A4
32
ad
Ro
0 miles
B4
4
e
en
u
Av
5 ad
05 Ro
B4 ury
nb
He
aw
ay
ad
Ke
ll
age Ro
68
8 Pass
rR
oad
A401
e
ad
Ro
Av
en
u
rk
Pa
ne
y
Page 7 of 28
n
Pe
este
ne
La
Glo
uc
e
tok
Sout
A38
eS
oad
Filto
n Av
enue
e
Av
ay
427
B4 ster R
uce
Glo
om
on
W
Old
4
17
A4
R
tl
Lit
ke
Road
yd
Bra
to
yS
d
ad
Ro
A4017
Bromle
y Heath
dle
Park Lan
e
M4
a
Ro
A4
32
Bra
r
oo
sm
B4
e
Be
eld
nfi
He
Stre
et
Scott Way
A401
7N
orth
W ay
Siston Lane
d
Ro
a
h
rle
ig
es
te
9
a
Ro
W
M4
05
r
ve
ad
r Road
Wickwa
B4060
gh Ro
B4
Sto
s
John
terlei
North Road
St
465
W es
South Gloucestershire Council Core Strategy
Existing Traffic Issues
IDP Transport Evidence Base
d
Abson Roa
d
Westerleigh Road
hir
sters
ouce
ty
ol Ci
e
IDP Transport Evidence Base
5.2.
Issues associated with the individual areas are described in more detail
below.
Communities of the North Fringe
5.3.
The North Fringe comprises Cribbs Causeway, Filton, Patchway, Bradley
Stoke, Stoke Gifford, Frenchay and Harry Stoke. It has seen large scale
residential, employment, retail and education development, which results
in large volumes of generated trips, much of which is by the private car.
5.4.
The North Fringe is bounded on three sides by the M5, M4 and M32
motorways; on its southern boundary, by the A4174 Ring Road and the
freight railway to Avonmouth. These are significant barriers to movement
to/from the North Fringe, both in terms of the number of crossing points
and the congestion at these crossings and junctions.
5.5.
The Great Western Mainline railway line bisects the area and is a very
significant barrier to north-south and east-west movements; there are few
local roads that cross the railway and these are very congested during
weekday peak periods.
5.6.
All of the motorway junctions suffer from regular peak period congestion:
x
M5 Junction 17 (A4018) is particularly congested during peak shopping
periods at weekends and around Christmas; continuing intensification
of retail development at Cribbs Causeway would increase traffic levels
and congestion. This a particular concern as an Air Quality
Management Area has been declared at Junction 17;
x
M5 Junction 16 (A38) is very congested with commuter traffic,
particularly that generated by nearby business parks at Aztec West
and Woodlands Lane and by trips to/from aerospace industries in
Filton;
x
M5 Junction 15 / M4 Junction 20 (Almondsbury Interchange) does not
have a junction with local roads, but queues generated at M5 Junction
16 can block-back to this junction in the AM peak; when commuter
traffic combines with holiday traffic on Friday afternoons, congested
conditions are the norm;
x
M4 Junction 19 (M32) is congested during commuter peak periods,
queues that form on the off-slips often block-back onto the M4 running
lanes;
x
M32 Junction 1 (A4174 Ring Road) is also congested during commuter
peak periods, queuing traffic blocks-back along the Ring Road to
Coldharbour Lane (UWE) and B4058 at Hambrook.
Page 8 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
5.7.
The Highways Agency, which operates these motorways, is concerned
about the adverse impact of local traffic generation. To mitigate this,
several capacity improvement schemes have been implemented in the
last decade; however, the scope for further improvement is now limited by
physical constraints (and consequent cost). Therefore, the Agency has
developed and implemented a scheme to manage the M4/M5 around
Bristol; the Smart Motorway scheme uses variable speed controls and
hard-shoulder running to smooth traffic flow and increase throughput.
5.8.
The main local roads are the A4018, A38, A4174 Ring Road, B4057 and
B4427, linked by various distributor roads. The main junctions include:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
A38/Bradley Stoke Way/Aztec West;
A38/B4057 Gipsy Patch Lane;
A38/A4174/B4056 (Air Balloon or Filton Roundabout);
A4174/Filton Avenue;
A4174/Great Stoke Way/MoD (Abbey Wood Roundabout);
A4174/Coldharbour Lane;
A4174/B4058 at Hambrook;
B4057/B4427 at Stoke Gifford;
Lysander Rd/Merlin Rd (Cribbs Causeway).
All these main roads and their junctions are congested to varying degrees
and have little spare capacity to cope with recurrent or exceptional traffic
conditions in extended AM and PM peak periods.
5.9.
The North Fringe is well-served by rail, as illustrated by the following table.
Availability of Hourly (or better) Direct Day-time Services from:Station:
Filton
Parkway
Abbey
Patchway
Services to/from:
Wood
London Paddington
Yes
Exeter & South West
Yes
Cardiff & Newport
Yes
Yes
Swansea (& main stations)
Yes
Severn Tunnel Junction
Yes
Yes
Midlands & North
Yes
Bristol TM
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bath & Westbury
Yes
Yes
Southampton & Portsmouth
Yes
Taunton, W-s-M
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yate, Gloucester
Yes
Yes
Page 9 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
5.10. Bristol Parkway is the main railway station serving the North Fringe and
features: a new 700 space multi-story car park (open in April 2014);
numerous inter-city and local services, giving direct access to a wide
range of destinations; and a network of local bus services (with MetroBus
to come). Filton Abbey Wood station is relatively new and is well-served
by regional and local train services. Patchway station is somewhat
isolated and is served by an hourly train service; its facilities and access
are in need of enhancement.
5.11. The Great Western Main Line will be electrified by 2017, with new intercity trains giving reduced journey times and a new timetable increasing the
frequency of services. As part of this project, a 4th platform will be opened
at Bristol Parkway and the reinstatement of four tracks on Filton Bank is
expected to be confirmed.
5.12. Bus services in the North Fringe are predominantly radial urban services
to/from the city centre, supplemented by orbital services and ‘country’ bus
services (e.g. to Thornbury); there is also a network of bus services aimed
primarily at UWE students (Wessex Red). There are bus interchanges at
UWE, Bristol Parkway and The Mall, Cribbs Causeway.
5.13. Historically bus services are adversely affected by the traffic congestion
described above, this has been somewhat mitigated in some areas by bus
priority measures recently implemented through the Greater Bristol Bus
Network [GBBN] major transport scheme, namely:
x
x
x
x
Corridor 1 (Bradley Stoke – Bristol via M32);
Corridor 2 (Cribbs Causeway – Bristol via A4018);
Corridor 4 (Cribbs Causeway - Bradley Stoke – Stoke Gifford - Bristol
via A38);
Corridor 5 (Cribbs Causeway – Filton - UWE – Emersons Green via
A4174 Ring Road).
5.14. The cycle and pedestrian networks generally follow the highways, but
there are also bespoke cyclepaths throughout the area providing trafficfree links. The cycle routes have been improved by the Cycle City project,
a Government-funded scheme with match-funding from Bristol and South
Gloucestershire Councils that totalled £22.8m. This project and
associated investment in improved cycling facilities has contributed to a
17% increase in cycling journeys in South Gloucestershire between 2008
and 2013. There are 13 schemes in the North Fringe that were completed
in 2011, as shown on Figure 2. The project involved not only
infrastructure improvements, but also cycle training, promotion and
smarter choices.
Page 10 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
Figure 2 Cycle City
5.15. Recent development at several sites (allocated in the South
Gloucestershire Local Plan) in the North Fringe, have provided additional
transport infrastructure including:
x
x
x
Charlton Hayes (formerly Filton Northfield), has provided a new link
road between The Mall (San Andreas Roundabout) and the A38
Gloucester Road (Hayes Way which opened in 2010);
Cheswick Village provided a bus link between the MoD campus and
UWE and a bus link to Lockleaze;
Harry Stoke will provide a local route to the A4174 between
Coldharbour Lane and the M32.
5.16. The GBBN project, which was completed in Spring 2012, delivered
several schemes aimed at improving bus journey reliability in the North
Fringe, including at the A38/Bradley Stoke Way/Aztec West junction,
A4174/Great Stoke Way/MoD junction, along the A4174 between
Coldharbour Lane and the M32, and at M32 Junction 1.
Communities of the East Fringe
Page 11 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
5.17. The communities of the East Fringe comprise Downend, Emersons
Green, Mangotsfield, Staple Hill, Soundwell, Kingswood, Warmley,
Cadbury Heath, Oldland Common, Longwell Green and Hanham.
5.18. The primary highway access route is the A4174 Ring Road and a number
of radial routes including the A432, B4465, A420, A4175 and A431.
These main routes all suffer from significant traffic congestion in the peak
periods, especially at junctions between the Ring Road and radial routes.
There are traffic-induced Air Quality Management Areas in Staple Hill and
Kingswood High Street.
5.19. Public transport provision is provided by urban and country bus services,
most of which are on radial routes to/from the city centre; there are a few
services on orbital routes to/from the North Fringe, but these require
financial support from the Council. As in the North Fringe, services get
caught in traffic congestion, so priority measures have been implemented,
including:
x
x
x
‘Priority Lanes’ (or High Occupancy Lanes) for use by buses and
vehicles with more than 2 occupants on the Ring Road approach to
M32 Junction 1;
The JLTP-funded A420 bus showcase corridor;
GBBN schemes on Corridors 1 (Yate, Chipping Sodbury – Bristol via
Ring Road and M32) and 5 (Yate, Chipping Sodbury – Bristol via
A432).
5.20. The cycle and pedestrian networks generally follow the highways, but with
sections of traffic-free routes, including the well-known Bristol-Bath cycle
path that follows a disused railway. The development at Emersons Green
has and will incorporate cycle and foot paths. Some of the cycle routes
were improved by the aforementioned Cycle City project. Figure 2 shows
the schemes, two of which link Emersons Green with the Bristol-Bath
cycle path, while one provides a network in Warmley/Cadbury Heath.
5.21. The main ongoing development areas in the East Fringe comprise sites
already allocated in the South Gloucestershire Local Plan at Emersons
Green (i.e. Emerald Park, the Science Park and Emersons Green East).
The development will add traffic onto already congested routes and,
hence, is funding junction improvements along the Emersons Green
section of the Ring Road and a Park and Ride at Emersons Green East.
To encourage local journeys to be made by foot, on bike and by bus,
improvements to such infrastructure will also include a new foot / cycle
bridge across the A4174 serving Emersons Green East, and a Park and
Ride site at Emersons Green East that will be served by the planned
MetroBus network.
Yate and Chipping Sodbury
Page 12 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
5.22. Yate and Chipping Sodbury are adjoining settlements north-east of Bristol.
Although they do have several employment areas, there is net outcommuting traffic to Bristol city centre, the North Fringe and beyond. This
results in heavy traffic flows out of Yate in the morning towards the Ring
Road and North Fringe via the A432, the B4058, B4059, B4427 and rural
roads through Westerleigh, with similar flows returning in the evening.
Traffic making these movements is likely to continue to increase with
further employment development at the Science Park and Emersons
Green East.
5.23. The main bus service in Yate provides four buses per hour between
Bristol city centre and Yate; of these, two extend to Chipping Sodbury and
these buses also provide part of the Yate town service. The net effect is
to provide only an hourly service around the north of Yate, whilst south
Yate has four buses per hour. Passengers boarding or alighting in
Chipping Sodbury have to travel around Yate, which adds up to 20
minutes to a journey when compared with a more direct route
5.24. The reliability of Bristol bus services is often affected by congestion,
especially in the East Fringe of Bristol; however, the JLTP and GBBN
improvements on Corridors 1 and 5 described in the previous section have
mitigated some of these problems.
5.25. There is an hourly rail service from Yate railway station to Bristol and north
to Gloucester. Yate station has limited passenger facilities, comprising
small bus-stop style shelters, information boards, cycle stands/lockers and
a car park.
5.26. The cycle and pedestrian networks generally follow the highways, but
there are bespoke links incorporated into recent developments, especially
in Brimsham Park, north Yate.
5.27. There has also been development in Yate and Chipping Sodbury area.
The Tesco store in Yate Shopping Centre has recently expanded its store.
Other developments include redevelopment of the Highways Agency ‘Sea
Stores’ depot (under construction) on Kennedy Way close to Yate
Shopping Centre to provide 228 dwellings, and the Barnhill Quarry
development in Chipping Sodbury that includes a Waitrose food store and
170 dwellings.
Thornbury
5.28. Thornbury is a market town north of Bristol, which saw substantial
residential development up until the 1980’s. Hence, Thornbury has net
out-commuting to Bristol city centre, the North Fringe and beyond. This
results in heavy traffic flows out of the town in the morning towards Bristol
via the A38 and B4427, with similar flows returning in the evening. There
Page 13 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
is congestion at the main junctions along the A38, especially on the
approach to M5 Junction 16.
5.29. Highway access to Oldbury nuclear power station from the A38 passes
along the northern fringe of the town. There are proposals to build
another nuclear power station at Oldbury.
5.30. The main bus service in Thornbury provides two buses per hour to/from
Bristol city centre via the A38 and Cribbs Causeway; these also provide
intra-town services. There are also less frequent services to Yate, the
North Fringe/Fishponds, surrounding villages and an intra-town service.
5.31. The cycle and pedestrian networks generally follow the highways, but
there are traffic-free links in the south of town. Regional Cycle Network
route 10 passes through the town.
Rural Areas
5.32. The Rural Areas cover the small settlements and countryside outside
Bristol, Yate, Chipping Sodbury, Thornbury and Severnside. The main
motorway network bisects the area, with local access junctions at M5
Junction 14 (A38, B4509, Falfield), M4 Junction 19 (A46, Tormarton) and
M48 (A403, B4461, Aust).
5.33. The A46/A433 also runs from north to south across the eastern part of
South Gloucestershire. A short section of the A46 between M4 Junction
18 and the Bath and North East Somerset boundary is part of the
Strategic Road Network (SRN) and is under the jurisdiction of the
Highways Agency.
5.34. The main local highways are the A38, A432, A420, A431 and several Bclass roads. Traffic flows on the roads are generally tidal towards Bristol
in the AM peak period, returning in the PM peak period. There is peak
period congestion at some junctions, for example:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
A38/B4061 at Alveston;
A38/B4427 at Rudgeway;
A38/Fernhill, Woodhouse Down;
A38/Hortham Lane, Woodhouse Down;
B4058/B4057, Winterbourne;
B4058/Church Road, Frampton Cotterell;
B4058/B4059, Iron Acton.
5.35. There is a network of rural bus services, with the best level of service on
the radial routes between Bristol and Thornbury, Yate and Chipping
Sodbury. Most of the other rural bus services are provided with financial
support from the Council, providing vital links for people without access to
a car.
Page 14 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
5.36. The cycle and pedestrian networks generally follow the highways.
National Cycle Network route 41 runs north-south through Severn Vale;
route 4 follows the Bristol-Bath cycle path and then passes through Bristol
city centre heading North to Cribbs Causeway before crossing to South
Wales via the old Severn Bridge. Regional Cycle Network routes 10 and
17 also serve the area.
Severnside
5.37. Severnside is the area between the Avonmouth and Severn Beach and
consists of a coastal plain already partially developed for employment and
with a historic consent for more.
5.38. It is bisected by the M49, but at present there is no junction in this area
and so strategic road access to/from the area is via the M48 Junction 1
(A403, B4461) at Aust or via the M5 Junction 18 (A403) at Avonmouth.
The main local highways are the A403 and B4055; however, the latter is
not suitable for HGVs or commuter traffic and the A403 could not cope
with traffic flows that would result if the whole site were to be developed
without a new access onto the M49.
5.39. The Severn Beach branch line railway serves the area, with a relatively
infrequent (every two hours) service into Bristol via Avonmouth. There is a
local railway station at Pilning on the Great Western mainline, but this is
served by a minimal service and is essentially maintained in case of
problems at the Severn Tunnel. Rail freight access to Avonmouth is
provided via the Hallen branch from the Great Western mainline at
Parkway.
5.40. There are some bus services to Severn Beach and Easter Compton,
provided with financial support from the Council, providing vital links for
people without access to a car. The Council also funds a number of
schools services.
5.41. The cycle and pedestrian networks generally follow the highways.
National Cycle Network route 4 and 41 run through Severnside and
Regional Cycle Network route 10 also serves the area.
6.
Principles of Provision
6.1.
The developments promoted by the Adopted South Gloucestershire Core
Strategy (December 2013) provide opportunities to meet the JLTP3
challenges, not only within development sites, but also in their environs.
The key to this will be to minimise dependence on the private car, such
that car trip generation (from a site) is substantially less than has been the
case in past decades.
Page 15 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
6.2.
Integrated, mixed use development is one means of reducing the need to
use the car, providing people with the opportunity to live, work and access
services in close proximity. Providing public transport, walking and cycling
services and facilities that are an alternative to the private car are
essential. Notwithstanding this, new highway will also be required, both
on- and off-site, to cater for residual car trips, as well as bus and
emergency service access.
6.3.
Ensuring the timely implementation of transport infrastructure
improvements and additions to serve new developments and mitigate their
impact is essential, such that new residents and businesses have
appropriate access facilities when they move-in and existing communities
are not overly penalised by increased demand on infrastructure and
services.
7.
Infrastructure Delivery Plan
7.1.
This section provides rationale for the provisions set out in the
Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
Asset Management and Capital Programmes - District Wide
7.2.
Funding for transport is central to securing the outcomes identified in the
Council’s policy documents. Funding received by the Council from the
Government is currently as follows:
x
x
x
LTP Integrated Transport – grant funding from the DfT that is worth
£2.061 million in 2014/15. This funding is intended to support
improvements to the local transport network covering walking and
cycling, public transport, road safety and network management
schemes. From 2015/16, half of this funding stream will be distributed
through the Local growth Fund managed by the Local Enterprise
Partnership rather than by direct grant to local transport authorities.;
LTP Highway Maintenance – grant funding from the DfT that is worth
£4.125 million in 2014/15. This funding is intended to support
structural maintenance works on the local road and footpath network,
including structures (bridges and culverts), streetlighting and highway
drainage schemes. r;
Major Transport Scheme funding – the method of funding major local
transport schemes (historically, these are schemes costing £5 million
of more) is in a period of transition, with the management of such
funding being devolved from the DfT to the Local Transport Body
Board (locally, this is the West of England Partnership). Within South
Gloucestershire, this provides the funding stream for the North Fringe
to Hengrove Package, which is to be delivered by 2017 subject to the
final funding approvals being secured and statutory processes
completed, and for the MetroWest rail projects, which have been
Page 16 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
x
x
x
x
x
identified as priorities for delivery by 2022. These schemes are
described in greater detail below;
Revolving Infrastructure Fund – a fund has been established by the
West of England Partnership that provides resource to advance fund
infrastructure schemes, with the investment being re-paid in future
years from developer contributions. This funding stream may be used
to deliver junction improvements required to facilitate development
such as the CPNN;
City Region Deal – this arrangement between central government and
the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership will provide funding
to facilitate investment in strategic projects that will enable the delivery
of growth. In this case, the LEP partners would advance fund
infrastructure, through prudential borrowing, but the local authorities
would be granted the powers to retain business rate income at a local
level, thereby providing the revenue stream to enable the borrowing to
be re-paid. This provides a mechanism to potentially fund major
transport projects and advance delivery ahead of what could otherwise
be achieved from other funding sources.
Grant Funding – several projects are currently being funded through
bespoke grant funding from various Government departments. Such
grants are generally related to a specific policy directive, and are only
secured through successful bidding to the relevant department.
Current projects being grant funded are the Local Sustainable
Transport Fund project to promote sustainable travel (this runs to
March 2015, with possible extension to March 2015 subject to a
successful further bid), the Cycle Ambition Fund project to improve
cycle facilities at key junctions within the North Fringe (2014/15
delivery), the Local Pinch Point project (delivering improvements at
Junctions 16 and 17 on the M5 IN 2014/15), Better Bus Area funding
for public transport infrastructure (2014-18), and the Rapid Charging
Point project for the installation of electric vehicle charging points (also
2014/15). Collectively, these are worth over £6 million in 2014/15,
representing a significant funding stream for transport investment;
Council Resources – the Council also, of course, can provide
additional funding for transport schemes and initiatives from its own
resources, covering routine and cyclical maintenance, the support of
community and public transport services including concessionary
travel, investment in improved and more sustainable streetlighting
equipment, and funding for specific projects.
CIL / S106 Funding – local and central government sources of funding
for transport will, where appropriate, be supplemented through the
Community Infrastructure Levy (once an adopted scheme is in place)
and through developer contributions and works delivered through
Section 106 Agreements in relation to specific works and services
necessary to mitigate the impact of a new development.
Page 17 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
7.3.
From 2015/16, an increasing proportion of central government funding for
local transport schemes will be devolved to Local Enterprise Partnerships
in the form of the Local Growth Fund. The Strategic Economic Plan for
each LEP area will set out the priorities for transport investment including
a programme for delivering transport schemes. Funding levels for
2015/16 are currently unknown, pending Government decisions regarding
the next Comprehensive Spending Review period. .
Major Transport Schemes
7.4.
As well as the GBBN, the JLTP3 details three major schemes in South
Gloucestershire, namely:
x
x
x
7.5.
The MetroBus Project including the North Fringe to Hengrove Package
[NFHP], a £102m scheme (DfT grant of £51m) with Programme Entry
(DfT approval in principle, subject to securing all requisite statutory
powers and permissions) will be constructed 2015-2017, comprising:
o Bus-based Rapid Transit [BRT] between Cribbs Causeway and
South Bristol (Hengrove Park) via Patchway, Bradley Stoke, Stoke
Gifford, Harry Stoke via the Stoke Gifford Transport Link [SGTL],
UWE and Bristol city centre;
o BRT between Emersons Green and South Bristol (Hengrove Park)
via the Ring Road, UWE, Bristol city centre and South Bristol;
The Bristol Temple Meads to Emersons Green BRT via Fishponds and
Mangotsfield, a bid for £74m towards a scheme constructed 20182021;
The MetroWest project that seeks the introduction of a half-hourly or
better rail services at local stations and the re-opening of the Henbury
Line with two new stations. MetroWest Phase 1 and Phase 2 are the
LTBB’s top priorities for devolved major scheme funding; Phase 2
includes the Henbury Line and Yate.
The South Gloucestershire local contribution to the NFHP is £31m (the
other £21m is from Bristol City Council). The local contribution that would
be required by DfT for the other two schemes is not known; however, it is
likely to be significant, perhaps in the range of 20-40% of the scheme
totals.
The Pinchpoint Initiatives
7.6.
Successful bids to the various Pinchpoint Initiatives which have allowed
the Highways Agency and the Council to fund enhancements at the A46
Cold Aston Roundabout and M5 Junctions 16 and 17.
RIF and City Region Deal Funding
7.7.
A number of new funding sources have recently become available via the
Local Enterprise Partnership [LEP]. They include the RIF and City Region
Deal funds. South Gloucestershire Council have been successful in
Page 18 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
obtaining RIF funding to delivery highway enhancements at the A38 Filton
Roundabout and Gipsy Patch Lane junctions. The total funding of £3.5m
has been awarded to deliver these two junctions. This will need to be paid
back by contributions form local developments.
7.8.
The Council is also pursuing City Region Deal funding for an extension of
the MetroBus route from The Mall to Bristol Parkway Station via the CPNN
and to provide an intermediate junction on the M49 to provide direct
access to the Severnside area.
The Local Sustainable Transport Fund
7.9.
The Local Sustainable Transport Fund [LSTF] provides an opportunity for
local transport authorities to bid for funds to bring forward packages of
sustainable travel measures, with a primary focus of supporting economic
growth and reducing carbon. Funding is broadly split 40:60 between
capital and revenue.
7.10. The West of England authorities have been granted £5m for its Key
Component bid, which focuses on key commuter routes; South
Gloucestershire’s share is £1.75m. In June 2012 the DfT awarded a
further grant of £24.035m to the West of England Authorities for a larger
bid. South Gloucestershire’s share is £8.933m; known as ‘WEST’ (West of
England Sustainable Travel), the larger programme includes 9 projects as
set out below:
Active and
Sustainable
Communities
Low Carbon Commuting
LSTF
Theme Project
Area Travel
Plans
Business
Travel
Key
Commuter
Routes
Vibrant
Streets
Key Centres
Summary
Focusing in the North fringe and Severnside working
with employers to promote sustainable travel to work.
This includes addressing barriers to sustainable
travel as well as the provision of information to
facilitate informed choices.
This is a sub-regional project focusing on the
provision of electric vehicle charging points and
exploring the potential roll out the GO-LOW project.
Focusing on public transport through the pumppriming of developer funded services, addressing
punctuality hot spots, and building on the
achievements of promoting the x27 by undertaking
large scale promotion of public transport.
Seek to work with the 6 priority neighbourhoods to
identify barriers to sustainable travel and to address
these.
For South Gloucestershire a small amount of funding
has been identified to improve wayfinding in the key
urban centres.
Page 19 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
Transitions to a Low Carbon Lifestyle
Universities
Move to
Secondary
Schools
Working with UWE to promote sustainable travel to
students and to get the best possible use of the ULink services.
To work with schools to promote sustainable travel
choices with a particular focus on the move to
secondary school.
Preparing for
To work with FE colleges and job centres to promote
Work, Training sustainable travel and to identify barriers to
& Education
sustainable travel choices for 16 to 19 year olds.
New
Developments
To work with developers to ensure that sustainable
travel is a consideration for individuals buying new
houses at the point of making the decision to buy
through the provision of information and promotion of
the benefits of sustainable travel.
7.11.
7.12. In addition to these major schemes, this paper sets out the rationale
behind the transport infrastructure packages set out in Policy CS7 of the
Adopted Core Strategy (Dec 2013). These packages are considered
necessary to provide travel choice to the residents of the new
development and assist reduce congestion in their respective areas. They
comprise:
x
x
x
x
x
The Cribbs/Patchway New Neighbourhoods Package;
The East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood Package;
The Yate/Chipping Sodbury Package;
The Rural Package;
The Ring Road Package.
The totality of the packages and funding priorities between individual
elements is subject to: ongoing review, the availability of public
funding and negotiations with respective development partners. The
totality of the packages are not prerequisites to development
proceeding. The relationship of these to the various spatial areas is
described below; associated costs, funding sources and risks are shown
in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The rationale and breakdown of costs
is set out in Appendix A and B.
Communities of the North Fringe
South Gloucestershire Local Plan Sites
7.13. There are several South Gloucestershire Local Plan [SGLP] sites where
there is ongoing or committed development; these were described in
Section 5. Given the generally congested nature of the North Fringe, high
Page 20 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
priority will be given to securing improvements in transportation
infrastructure.
7.14. Therefore, SGLP Site 10 (Land East of Coldharbour Lane – 500 dwellings)
would provide contributions towards the MetroBus project, as its route
passes down Coldharbour Lane and would directly benefit the site. It
would also contribute to the local walking & cycling network and other
alternative travel initiatives, such as community transport and car clubs.
Given the number of local bus services that serve Coldharbour Lane and
the UWE interchange, no substantive contribution would be sought
towards local bus services.
7.15. On the same basis, a contribution towards MetroBus would be sought
from UWE as part of the transport package to support its proposed
expansion. The Cheswick Village bus link was completed in 2012.
East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood
7.16. This development would need to fund the East of Harry Stoke New
Neighbourhood Package, the key part of which is the NFHP MetroBus
route, which would include the SGTL through the site between the Ring
Road, Great Stoke Way and Parkway North Park & Ride in Stoke Gifford.
The SGTL carries the MetroBus route between Bristol and the North
Fringe, which is the essential public transport element of the Package.
The SGTL is the prerequisite for the delivery of this new neighbourhood;
hence, the development would have to provide a signification financial
contribution and the land required to support the major transport scheme
bid.
7.17. The new neighbourhood will need to provide pedestrian and cycle routes,
including a section of the Cycle Trunk Route linking Emersons Green with
Cribbs Causeway, to link it with adjacent communities and to Bristol
Parkway station and UWE.
7.18. Notwithstanding these transport improvements, the new neighbourhood
would still result in the generation of trips onto networks that are very
congested; in consequence, financial contributions to other transport
major schemes and packages would be appropriate, especially the
MetroWest rail and the MetroBus major transport schemes..
Frenchay
7.19. There are two key sites in this area, UWE and the Hospital. UWE is
master-planning the consolidation of its activities onto its Frenchay site,
adjacent to Coldharbour Lane; there is also a proposal for a new sports
stadium. The MetroBus would serve UWE from stops on Coldharbour
Lane, whilst the SGTL would provide a direct link north to Bristol Parkway,
Bradley Stoke and Aztec West. The master-planning should include the
Page 21 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
provision of a multi-modal interchange and bus services, plus
improvements to foot and cycle networks
7.20. The redevelopment of the Frenchay Hospital site for residential and
ancillary infrastructure and services, including new health facilities, will
change the nature of the site’s transport impact but is likely to have a
comparable impact. The net effect has been considered as part of the
master-planning process..
Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood and the Filton Enterprise Area
7.21. The Adopted Core Strategy promotes the development of two new
neighbourhoods in the North Fringe, the East Of Harry Stoke New
Neighbourhood (EHSNN) located immediately north of the A4174 and
east of the M32 and the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN) on
the site of the former Filton Airfield further west.
7.22. All significant developments in this area would need to contribute to their
site-specific transport infrastructure requirements (e.g. cross-site
connections) and to the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Package.
The CPNN Supplementary Planning Document [SPD] will set out the
overarching principles against which development proposals will be
assessed. The SPD is in preparation, whilst there are on-going
discussions with the CPNN developers on the detailed site requirements.
7.23. The release of the airfield for development presents a major opportunity to
improve north-south connections between Patchway and The Mall areas
and land south of the airfield and Bristol City. The key strategic
infrastructure requirement includes:
x
x
x
x
x
The MetroBus NFHP and its extension between The Mall bus station
and Parkway via the new neighbourhood (providing sufficient bus
priority such that MetroBus services are not delayed by general traffic
congestion);
Increased local bus service frequencies to key destinations and
existing communities in Bristol and the North Fringe, such as The Mall,
Southmead Hospital, UWE, Emersons Green;
New and improved strategic pedestrian and cycle routes, including the
Cycle Trunk Route from Cribbs Causeway to Emersons Green, to
ensure high quality links extending the Cycling City network to key
destinations, including Airbus, Filton College and south to Southmead;
Contributions towards increased rail service frequency in the wider
area (subject to a satisfactory business case being established at a
point in the future);
Contributions towards the MetroWest major transport scheme including
stations on the Henbury Line and improvements to the rail stations at
Parkway and Patchway;
Page 22 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
x
x
Improvements to the A38, A4018, M5 Junctions 16 and 17 and other
local roads as appropriate.
Contributions towards traffic management measures on the local road
network to mitigate the impact of development traffic upon local
communities.
Communities of the East Fringe
7.24. There are several South Gloucestershire Local Plan [SGLP] sites where
there is ongoing or committed development; these were described in
Section 5.
7.25. Any further development at windfall sites would need to contribute towards
their site-specific transport infrastructure requirements and to strategic
transport infrastructure projects including the MetroBus project which
includes a spur to Emersons Green. Information with regards the Ring
Road Scheme is provided in Appendix A.
Yate and Chipping Sodbury
7.26. The main proposed development in this area is the North Yate New
Neighbourhood; there could also be some dwellings in unspecified
‘windfall’ sites. These developments would need to contribute to their sitespecific transport infrastructure requirements and to the Yate and
Chipping Sodbury Package.
7.27. The Yate and Chipping Sodbury Package is designed to improve
accessibility and cater for additional development in the area. Existing
bus services in north Yate are limited; hence, bus services must be
significantly improved to provide a public transport network that would be
a viable alternative to the car.
7.28. Rather than ‘bolt-on’ new/revised services to the existing network, the
scale of a proposed new neighbourhood to the north of Yate is such that a
more fundamental review of bus services in the Yate and Chipping
Sodbury area should be undertaken jointly with commercial operators, the
Council and developers. The outcome should be a revised network that
would be fit-for-purpose for the towns in the plan period. The network will
provide:
x
x
x
x
An intra-town network linking residential areas, employment areas, the
town centres and transport interchanges;
A country bus network comprising routes to surrounding towns and
villages;
Services to the Bristol North and East Fringe;
Limited-stop services to/from Bristol city centre.
Page 23 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
7.29. It is an aim of the Rural Package to improve bus services and
infrastructure in respect of country bus services; therefore, developer
contributions to this Package are also appropriate.
7.30. The limited stop services will utilise part of the network that would be
delivered by the NFHP; that is, along the Ring Road and the M32. In
consequence, development in Yate and Chipping Sodbury should make a
contribution to the local funding requirement of the scheme.
7.31. To further increase the attractiveness of the bus services, a Park and Ride
facility is proposed at Nibley; this would provide access to services for
people who are beyond reasonable walking distance from bus stops.
7.32. The footfall at Yate Station would be increased by the proposed
developments and, hence, contributions to its improvements would be
required. The current hourly service frequency would need to double,
which is the aim of the MetroWest major transport scheme; so, a financial
contribution from development would be required towards this project and
to any associated improvements of the station infrastructure.
7.33. The new neighbourhood would need pedestrian and cycle routes to link it
with adjacent communities and to the station, the town centres and other
services and the surrounding settlements such as Iron Acton. This
includes the completion of the Yate Spur cycle route linking the town to
Emersons Green and thence to Bristol.
7.34. Notwithstanding these transport improvements, development would still
result in the generation of trips onto highway networks that are very
congested in places, especially the Ring Road; in consequence, financial
contributions to local highway improvements would be required and also
to the Ring Road Package.
Thornbury
7.35. The main development in this area will be located on two Housing
Opportunity sites located north of Castle School and adjacent to Morton
Way on the northern side of the town. There could also be some
dwellings in unspecified ‘windfall’ sites. These developments would need
to contribute to their site-specific transport infrastructure requirements and
to the Rural Package.
7.36. The Rural Package is designed to improve accessibility and cater for
additional development in rural areas and small towns such as Thornbury;
as such, development should make a financial contribution in respect of
public transport infrastructure and services to/from the town.
Page 24 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
7.37. A particular aspiration is the extension of the A38 Showcase Bus Corridor
from Bristol to Thornbury; whilst improvements may be tailored to
available funding, developer contributions will be sought to provide:
x
x
x
Bus priority measures at key locations (e.g. approach to M5 Junction
16);
Bus stop improvements (e.g. Real Time Information);
Service enhancements (e.g. improved frequencies and vehicles).
7.38. New development will need pedestrian and cycle routes to link it with
adjacent communities, the town centre and other services. Particular
importance is attached to extending the Cycle City route from Bristol to
Thornbury.
7.39. Notwithstanding these transport improvements, development would still
result in the generation of trips onto networks that are congested in
places; in consequence, financial contributions to local highway
improvements would be required.
7.40. To the North West of Thornbury, a new nuclear power station is proposed
at Oldbury-upon-Severn, on a site next to the de-commissioned Oldbury
Power Station. The new facility will generate significant travel demand,
especially through the construction phase. This will require significant offsite facilities such as wharf / jetty provision to facilitate water-borne
movement of materials and waste, highway improvements on the local
road network, improvements at motorway junctions, and the provision of
park and ride and freight-handling facilities at appropriate locations to
minimise the impact of the movement of workers and materials upon local
communities including Thornbury.
Rural Areas
7.41. The main proposed development in this area will primarily arise from
unspecified ‘windfall’ sites. These developments would need to contribute
to their site-specific transport infrastructure requirements and to the Rural
Package.
7.42. The Rural Package is designed to improve accessibility and cater for
additional development in rural areas; as such, development should make
a financial contribution in respect of public transport infrastructure and
services to/from the nearest town providing improved access to facilities
such as education, employment, health and shopping / leisure.
7.43. New development will also need pedestrian and cycle routes to link it with
adjacent settlements, services and to the strategic cycle network.
7.44. Notwithstanding these transport improvements, development would still
result in the generation of trips onto networks that are congested in
Page 25 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
places; in consequence, financial contributions to local highway
improvements would be required.
Severnside
7.45. Employment is a key economic driver for the West of England sub-region.
Hence, the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has
recently designated the area as the Avonmouth Severnside Enterprise
Area (ASEA), one of the six Enterprise Zones/Areas across the region.
7.46. To realise the full potential of the Enterprise Area it is necessary to
improve access to the Avonmouth Severnside area.
7.47. The most significant proposal for the Severnside area will be the delivery
of an intermediate junction on the M49 to give the area direct access to
the Motorway network. This will connect to a ‘spine road’ through the site
to be provided by its developers. Delivery of this junction is being
progressed in partnership with the Highways Agency who are responsible
for the management of the M49.
7.48. The ASEA will also benefit from other transport improvements such as
those delivered by the MetroWest project., which will deliver improved rail
services to Avonmouth and Severn Beach
Page 26 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
APPENDIX A – Cost and funding assumptions
Cost estimates
The following assumptions have been made about the costs during the foregoing notes:
Item
Unit
cost
Units
Notes
Source
£2.5m
Per km
Predominately onstreet running
EiP transport
studies quoting
RFA bid.
MetroWest
High-quality priority
measures
Pedestrian and cycle facilities
Dedicated foot or
£150,000 cost per km
cycleway Llnk
Pedestrian and/or
£100,000 cost per crossing
cycle crossing
cost per set of
Provision of
£500
dropped kerbs
dropped kerbs
Improved signage
£100
cost per sign
SPD/EiP
transport studies
SPD/EiP
transport studies
SPD/EiP
transport studies
SPD/EiP
transport studies
Public transport facilities
RT Bus Stops
Bus priority
measures
Bus priority
measures
Park & Ride
GBBN cost
estimates
£20k
Per stop
£1.0m
Per km
On-street running
£2.5m
Per km
Requiring new
carriageway
£9k
Per space
Bus services enhancements
Bus Operating
Per service per
£200k
annum
costs
SPD/EiP
transport studies
SPD/EiP
transport studies
Cost of Worle
Parkway
SPD/EiP
transport studies
Highway works
Road widening
£2.5m
Per km
Traffic
management
measures
£0.5m
Per set
SPD/EiP
transport studies
Combined measures
including signs,
lining, islands etc.
SPD/EiP
transport studies
Rail facilities
New stations
£7m
Per station
Additional local
services
£1m
Per service per
annum
Subsidy required
SPD/EiP
transport studies
SPD/EiP
transport studies
All costs should be viewed as a guide only and each proposal would need to be subject to
bespoke detailed design and costing.
Page 27 of 28
IDP Transport Evidence Base
S106 Assumptions
To provide an indication of possible contributions towards transport which may be accrued from
new residential developments in South Gloucestershire an assumption about the likely S106
income has been made. The income which could be expected from these developments is
dependent upon developers’ view of the viability of each site at the time they apply for planning
permission and so could vary. Thus in order, to make an estimate of the likely S106
contributions, the income per dwelling from earlier agreements for development at Harry Stoke
and Filton Northfield has been used.
In the case of the 1,200 household Harry Stoke development had previously agreed S106
payments totalling £3.43m. This equates to £2,861 per house. Whereas, the Filton Northfield
development’s S106 contributions averaged £3,955 per house giving a total contribution of
£8.70m from 2,200 houses. Therefore, to provide an indication of what contributions could be
anticipated from new dwellings during the development if the IDP, a contribution of £3,500 per
dwelling house has been assumed.
Notwithstanding this assumption, the actual S106 contributions will need to be agreed for each
specific development at the time a planning application is submitted for its development and each
development will be agreed on its on merits.
Page 28 of 28
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
EVIDENCE BASE
DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, ADULTS AND HEALTH
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
MARCH 2014
Provision of Childcare and School Places for the 0-19
age range
1. Introduction
1.1
The shared vision for South Gloucestershire is set out in the Sustainable
Communities Strategy and the Council Plan sets out how this vision will be
delivered. Both of these have managing future development, promoting
safer and stronger communities and modernising health and community
care services as priorities.
1.2
The Local Development Framework will set out the spatial expression of
these priorities and is key to the creation of sustainable communities that
are well designed and planned, provide access to a full range of
community facilities, formal and informal open spaces and which are well
integrated with existing communities.
1.3
This paper sets out an initial assessment of requirements for future growth
for the provision of [education] services and facilities for the 0-19 age
range taking account of growth proposed in the South Gloucestershire
Core Strategy. Any variation in the overall scale or location of growth will
clearly alter the requirements. The document also aims to set out the
principles upon which the requirements are based.
2. Department
Framework
for
Children
and
Young
People
-
Policy
2.1
The Local Authority (LA) has a policy of delivering high quality, accessible
education and childcare services through an appropriate and diverse
infrastructure. The policy is well documented, and key plans and strategies
that exist within the department provide an overarching framework for the
delivery and provision of services. A summary description of relevant key
documents, strategies and plans is provided in Appendix 1.
2.2
The policy framework reflects the changing national policy context which
sets out new duties for Local Authorities (LAs). A summary of relevant
education legislation underpinning these duties is provided in Appendix 2.
The new duties go beyond the existing planning of school places function
and incorporates the planning and commissioning of pre-school, school
and 14-19 places. In this, increasingly, the LA is seen as commissioner of
places for children and young people, new schools, early years and
childcare places, youth provision, child and adolescent mental health
services or support for children and young people and families from the
voluntary sector. A significant amount of commissioning is undertaken
jointly with Health and with our neighbouring Local Authorities.
2.3
The LA’s role as strategic leader in the planning of services for the 0-19
age range is summarised as follows:
x
x
x
x
x
x
Analyse latest demographic trends to balance supply of provision with
demand;
Provide sufficient diverse, accessible and inclusive learning
environments to meet the needs of local children aged 0-19 (ensuring
fair access and supporting increasing achievement of parental
preference where possible). This includes, full day nurseries, sessional
pre-schools, Children’s Centres, helping to develop the core offer of
extended school facilities, youth centres and high quality play areas in
partnership with the private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sector;
Encourage new providers and stimulate greater community
engagement (this will require the LA to develop systems to hold
competitions in respect of new and reorganised school provision);
Continue to work with schools and groups of schools to explore options
for re-organisation and broker sensible solutions for shared use of
accommodation (thus supporting multi-agency delivery of services and
extended use, increasing participation and encouraging community
cohesion);
Respond to the Growth Agenda by seeking Section 106
contributions/CIL from developers, as appropriate, to provide the
educational infrastructure necessary to serve growing communities;
As commissioner of services:
- Decide where schools, pre-school provision and provision for 1419 are needed
- Decide the site/area to be served
- Draw up detailed specification (size, admission number, age range)
- Identify the capital provision
3.
Strategic Issues/Principles
3.1
The LA’s Commissioning School Places Strategy will identify the principles
by which provision of school places will be planned and delivered. As a
strategic leader, the Local Authority is seen as the commissioner of places
rather than necessarily being the direct provider. The role of the LA is set
within a legal framework of statutory duties to ensure that there are
sufficient school places in its area. Working in partnership with other
stakeholders, the Local Authority will ensure all factors are brought to bear
in considering educational viability, efficiency and effectiveness of
provision in preparation for the future planning context.
3.2
In considering the impact of new development on local school provision at
primary level, the Council considers the capacity and numbers on roll/pupil
projections in all primary schools with the statutory walking distance of 2
miles. At secondary level, the Council considers the capacity and numbers
on roll/pupil projections in the school that serves the local area - defined by
an Area of Prime Responsibility (APR). Where there is no Area of Prime
Responsibility the Council considers the capacity and numbers on
roll/projections at all secondary schools with the statutory walking distance
of 3 miles. Further information on Statutory Walking Distances and APRs
are set out at Appendix 1.
3.3
Both the APR and distance considerations are important in order that the
Council:
x
x
x
continues to adhere to the principle of providing local schools for
local children (South Gloucestershire Commissioning of Places
Strategy 2012-2017). Local schools must be accessible and meet
local needs given that schools have an important role in promoting
social and community cohesion through the use of their facilities and
through wider educational and community initiatives.
reduces the need for lengthy journeys to school and avoids further
use of cars and increased traffic congestion (adhering the
Sustainable Travel and Transport Policy). The Council considers the
location and the effect on home to school journeys in school
organisation planning. Schools must be within reasonable distance of
the communities they serve and for all children there should be safe
routes to school.
continues to meet the statutory duties of the Council in making
transport provision and safeguard the use of limited public funds to
ensure that in the vast majority of cases eligible pupils receive
assistance (save for those offered assistance under the Council’s
discretionary transport policies). The provision of places must take
into account the future and ongoing transport implications and the
associated resources necessary to secure provision in the long term.
3.4
New education provision commissioned by South Gloucestershire Council
will take account of the following principles:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Schools should wherever possible be sited in the community they
serve, within walking distance of home and giving maximum
opportunity for strong home school relationships. Children living in
geographically isolated areas and those wishing to access only a faith
or community school may have to travel further to school.
Schools will be designed and maintained to be at the heart of their
communities and support economic and community regeneration.
Community needs will determine which services will ideally be colocated with schools.
Any re-organisations will take into careful consideration the distances
to be travelled by pupils accessing the schools, together with safe
travel routes along footpaths and cycle routes.
In its role as commissioner of school places, the LA will seek to make
capital investment decisions that increase parental access to popular
and successful schools.
Wherever possible, existing primary schools should be based on totals
of 210 (30 entrants per year), or 420 places (60 entrants per year), with
the optimum size for a new primary school being 420 places. Land size
requirements are set out in out in Appendix 3.
Where appropriate, seek opportunities for reorganisation to provide
primary education on a 4-11 all through basis.
Continue to support the provision of denominational schools as part of
the overall provision of school places.
Continue to consult the local community about new or changed school
provision.
Continue to seek developer contributions for the provision of places as
appropriate to the size and type of dwellings and in accordance with
well versed procedures and practices which incorporate the use of
agreed pupil yield model and DFE cost calculators (see Appendix 3
for details of cost calculators and pupil yield model). Any contribution
requested is directly related to the proposed development and is
reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development. A
contribution is not requested where there is already surplus capacity at
schools which are local to the proposed development. All contributions
requested are supported by South Gloucestershire planning
documents summarised as at Appendix 4.
Existing and new local centres need to provide childcare and youth
facilities. New local centres which will serve a population of 1000 or
more teenagers will need to incorporate a Youth Centre. Smaller local
centres will need a dedicated Youth Space which may be co-located in
a public building. Offsite contributions towards Children’s Centres in
priority neighbourhoods (see Note 1 below) may also be sought where
developments fall below these thresholds. The childcare facilities
should offer a flexible range of services for different age groups; for
different time periods; and for any additional needs of parents, carers
and young people with a disability.
Note 1: There are 6 Priority Neighbourhoods in South Gloucestershire.
These areas indicate a high level of need for services and help support
vulnerable families.
3.5
Commissioning New School Provision: Working in partnership with
other stakeholders, the Local Authority will ensure all factors are brought
to bear in considering educational viability, efficiency and effectiveness of
new education infrastructure in preparation for the future planning context.
The requirements of new school infrastructure will also be informed by the
Commissioning of Places Strategy and other strategic documents as
appropriate. It is the responsibility of the Council to determine:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
3.6
the requirements in relation to the size of school;
the preferred type of school;
the location, land and finances available
proposed opening date
any need for associated community/nursery facilities
the factors that will be taken into account when choosing a preferred
(common factors to be considered are likely to include: ability to deliver
the stated requirements specifically in relation to size and type of
school; strength of educational vision; track record of success;
inclusive practices and provision for pupils with differing abilities;
commitment to community provision; and educational and financial
capability).
The Council will seek new/existing providers to establish new schools and
the land and funding for the provision of new places will be transferred to
the approved provider. In line with guidance issued by the Department for
Education, the Council will first invite proposals for the establishment of a
new school and this will involve early discussion with potential providers.
The Council continues to adopt a pragmatic approach to issues of legal
school status including Academies, Trust Schools and Free Schools and
continues to support the provision of denominational schools as part of the
overall provision of school places. Following informal discussion, the
Council will:
x
x
invite expressions of interest and proposers will be given a
minimum of six weeks to respond;
convene a stakeholder group to consider responses (including
Member involvement).
3.7
The preferred proposal would then be put forward to the Department for
Education for final approval. Note: this is a summary guide and not
exhaustive of all steps involved in commissioning new school provision.
3.8
Commissioning New Childcare/Nursery Provision: With the exception
of one or two nurseries, the Council is no longer a direct provider of
childcare in South Gloucestershire. Developers are encouraged to enter
into negotiations with a private, voluntary or independent provider in order
to provide a nursery facility within the development site. The location
should be identified in consultation with the Council and the provision
facility should be agreed with the Council prior to the commencement of
development. If commercially run facilities are not to be provided as part
of the development, the Council will seek a contribution to provide
additional land and funds to provide extra space and facilities at one of the
new school sites.
3.9
Location of School and Childcare Provision: Schools and childcare
places/nursery provision should be located in the most accessible
locations, designed to offer flexible facilities and designed as landmark
buildings to help create a sense of place and identity. All school and
nursery provision should:
x
x
x
x
x
3.10
be co-located and close to other community facilities;
be sited at the heart of their communities within walking distance of
home and promote strong home school relationships;
support economic and community regeneration and will provide a
focus for interaction with the local community. Flexible design should
maximise use of facilities as multi-use spaces and community needs
will determine which services will ideally be co-located with schools;
be well served by safe travel routes including footpaths, cycle ways
and public transport. This will help encourage children and staff to walk
to school thereby promoting a safe and healthy environment for
children, young people and adults. In relation to schools there should
be multiple access routes to the school grounds and safe spaces
should be created both within the school grounds and on the edge;
be welcoming to all potential users and relate well to surrounding
buildings and uses.
Youth Provision: In line with the requirements set out in the
Developer’s Guide and in order that the Council meets national and South
Gloucestershire Youth Work targets, the Council requires the developer to
contribute to the provision of local youth service facilities. This will help to:
x
extend the reach of youth services to children aged 13-19
generated by new development;
x
Increase participation of children in youth work aged 13-19
generated by new development.
3.11
Youth service provision combines elements of targeted youth work
provision; information, advice and guidance; young people’s voice and
influence programmes; young carers; positive activities for young people
to access youth work and personal and social development programmes
and volunteering and community involvement.. This creates a coherent
youth development and support service with a comprehensive “offer”,
working in partnership with colleagues in the voluntary sector.
3.12
Services are delivered by multiple providers and agencies and across a
range of youth centres, outdoor centres, mobile units and information
points. Existing services are already stretched and additional housing
development will generate additional young children who will benefit from
the various elements of targeted youth work provision/additional support.
3.13
The LA currently uses a figure of 25 children per 100 dwellings to
determine the number of additional teenagers requiring access to Youth
Service provision arising from new housing development. The uptake of
Youth Services in South Gloucestershire is 30%.
3.14
Timing of new provision: The timely provision of appropriate nursery
and school facilities is a major part of creating new sustainable
communities across the north fringe and will be planned in line with the
Chelmer model. The Chelmer model phasing is used to apply the pupil
yield from the development to the pupil projections. In summary, the
Chelmer model provides that:
x
x
3.15
the first 70% of the pupil yield from each set of 300 units will require
a place within the first year of that set of units being completed;
the next 30% of the pupil yield will require a place 5 years later
(Year 6 of that set of units being completed).
For example, assuming a build out rate of 300 units per year, the phasing
of the pupil yield would require the provision of additional places in Year 1
of the build (providing for 70% of 108 primary school age children yielded–
76 children). Numbers thereafter generate a requirement for the
equivalent of one form of entry by Year 3 of the build i.e. 210 places, 2
forms of entry in Year 5 of the build (420 places), 3 forms of entry by Year
7 of the build (630 places) and so on. The triggers for the provision of
new primary school places will need to be determined in line with actual
build-out rates. The yield figures will also added to the local projections
and compared again with the admission number capacity to arrive at a
surplus/deficit for each year. This may determine a timescale that differs
from the Chelmer Model.
4. Targets and Links with National Targets and datasets
4.1
The Partnership Strategy for Children and Young People 2012-2016 sets
out what the Children’s Trust Board will do to improve the lives of children
and young people in South Gloucestershire. It describes how the Council
will work with children and young people from 0 to 19, and with young
people with learning difficulties and disabilities up to 25 years of age, to
help them to take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing. It also
shows how the Council will work with their parents, carers and families
and how we will provide targeted and specialist help to those children and
young people, and their families, who need particular support or who are
at risk of harm.
4.2
The Commissioning School Places Strategy 2012 – 2017 sets out how the
LA plans to meet its statutory responsibility to secure sufficient education
provision within its area in order to promote higher standards of attainment
for pupils of primary and secondary school age. It provides a policy
context for opening, closing and defining the size of schools, a summary
analysis of how the LA intends to address gaps in provision/relevant
policies for the commissioning of provision and the parameters for
considering places for the statutory school age range. The Strategy also
sets out the LA’s response to legislative change, in particular those which
relate to new school competition arrangements, free schools, foundation
and trust school models, academies and all though primary and secondary
schools age 3-19. The Strategy explains what places are needed at
present and in the future and how and where they will be provided. It
provides details of over and under-subscribed schools, admission levels
and an analysis of the impact of new housing developments. This is
particular important in an area such as South Gloucestershire where
demographic changes are significant.
4.3
The LA regularly updates its pupil projections in line with new data
obtained from the Area Health Authority, data on school admissions, data
obtained from the pupil level annual schools census, proposed new house
building, in/out authority pupil movement and other data sources which
have a bearing on pupil numbers. It is important that any assessment of
the impact of new development is based on the most up-to-date data
particularly given that pupil yields and financial contributions are
determined by existing patterns of demand, development timing, mix and
build-out rates. Any assessment of the impact of new development on the
provision of school places (in response to new planning applications) is
normally valid for a three month period only. The summary analysis set
out in this document should be, therefore, viewed with caution and does
not constitute the final position of the Council.
4.4
The Childcare Sufficiency Assessment provides a basis from which to
manage the local childcare market in partnership with private, voluntary
and independent providers. It is a statutory requirement to undertake an
assessment and it is the Council’s statutory duty to ensure there are
sufficient, flexible childcare places to meet the demands generated within
the area. The assessment indentifies areas of need and enables the
Council to commission places of the right type in the right locations.
5. Spatial Requirements
5.1
South Gloucestershire Wide: Pupil projections are produced across
seven planning areas within South Gloucestershire for primary school
provision and across five planning areas for secondary school provision.
In each of the planning areas and indeed between the two phases there is
variable demand for school places. Primary phase pupil numbers are
increasingly significantly and secondary school numbers are decreasing in
the short to medium term.
There are very few surplus places in the Reception Year Group in primary
phase schools south of Filton and pressure for places is significant in
schools across all areas except for schools in Thornbury and Yate and
some schools in outlying rural villages/rural locations. Demand for places
is projected to increase year on year from 2009 onwards in the primary
phase and from 2015 onwards in the secondary phase. The Growth
Agenda will also prompt a shift change in demand for places over the next
20 years where the primary school population is expected to increase by
some 8,000 pupils generating an additional need for additional primary
schools. The secondary school population is expected to increase by
around 4,000 pupils generating additional need for secondary school and
extended school places. The longer term projections in the secondary
phase indicate that additional school provision will be required post 2020
to meet demand generated from new house building.
5.2
Spatial Areas: The pupil yield generated by housing development is
heavily dependent upon the size and type of dwellings to be developed,
which is not yet known. A summary of estimated requirements for each of
the spatial areas (including associated options) is provided below and is
based upon a typical mix of dwellings. These estimates should not be
viewed as minimum or maximum requirements and should not be taken as
the final position of the Council. The provisional costs of providing for
these requirements are set out in Appendix 5.
Main Sites - South Gloucestershire Core Strategy
New Neighbourhoods
No. Dwellings
Phasing
East of Harry Stoke
2,000
2015/16 – 2025/26
Cribbs / Patchway
5,700
2013/14 – 2023/24
Land North of Yate
3,000
2015/16 – 2025/26
Thornbury
500
2012/13 – 2017/18
Land East of Coldharbour Lane
500
2011/12 – 2017/18
Frenchay Hospital
450
2013/14 - 2018/19
5.3
East of Harry Stoke: The scenario of 2,000 new dwellings may generate
three and a half forms of entry at primary level. These primary pupils may
be accommodated at two primary schools located within the development.
5.4
The development may also generate two and a half forms of entry at
secondary level. Based on current pupil numbers and depending on the
mix, timing and build-out rates, it is anticipated that secondary school age
children yielded from the proposed development on the land East of Harry
Stoke will be accommodated at existing secondary schools within a 3
miles radius. The Council however, will need to review the sufficiency and
subsequent provision of secondary schools places as new and updated
information/data becomes available and during the planning application
process. This will be particularly important given that high numbers on roll
currently in the primary phase will roll forward into the secondary phase
and longer term projections indicate demand for secondary school places
will increase and surplus places will decrease. Any additional demand for
places necessitated by new housing development will require additional
secondary school provision and the Council will seek developer
contributions as appropriate. The Council will regularly review its position
in the context of CIL offsite contributions.
5.5
It will also generate the need for a new full-day nursery with 60 places,
and new Children’s and Youth Facilities to be located within the
development and / or contributions towards Children’s Centres offsite.
5.6
Cribbs / Patchway New Neighbourhood: The Core Strategy contains a
provision for 5,700 new dwellings in Cribbs Causeway and Patchway
area. The phasing of the development is set out in the table below.
Number of Dwellings and Phasing of Development at Cribbs/Patchway
Cribbs/Patchway
No. of
Phasing
New Neighbourhood
Dwellings
A – Land West of the A4018
1,000
2015 – 2021
B – Land South of Filton Airfield
1,200
2014 – 2020
C – Filton Airfield
2,500
2015 – 2026
D – Rest of Cribbs/Patchway Area
1,000
2021 – 2026
Total for Cribbs / Patchway
5,700
2014 – 2026
5.7
Summary requirements for the provision of education are as follows:
x
x
x
a total of 5,700 new dwellings may generate 10 forms of entry at
primary level. These primary pupils may be accommodated at 5 new
primary schools located within the development.
at secondary level the new neighbourhood at Cribbs/Patchway will
generate 7 forms of entry. These secondary pupils may be
accommodated at a new local secondary school located within the
development.
it will also generate the need for 4 new full-day nurseries each
providing 60 places. New nursery provision must be located within
the development.
Indicative financial and land contributions for new school and nursery
provision
New
Children and Young People
Indicative
Indicative
Neighbourhoods Requirements
Contribution
Land
Amount (£M)
Contribution
as at 2010 Q4
(ha)
Cribbs / Patchway Primary – 10 FE on 5 sites
25.9
10.0
Secondary – 7 FE
19.5
8.2
Nursery – 4 x 60 place
2.1
1.6
Children’s Centre
0.5
0.2
Youth Provision
0.3
0.2
5,700 dwellings
Total
£48.3M
20.2 ha
5.8
Requirements for each parcel of land comprising Cribbs/Patchway
New Neighbourhood: The four new neighbourhoods are likely to be
developed separately, and it is not yet certain in which order they will be
completed. It is possible that development of one or more of the areas
may be delayed for a significant period of time.
5.9
In the long-term, Children’s Services will be provided seamlessly across
the four new neighbourhoods; parents and children should not need to be
aware of boundaries between the four areas. The detail provide at
Appendix 7 is an outline plan for how the service requirements may be
provided to allow for variations in development schedules.
Land Parcels Comprising Cribbs/Patchway: Requirements
New
No.
Projected
Pro rata
Children’s Services
Neighbourhoods Dwellings
No.
Calculation to be provided on site
Secondary
of Land
Pupils
A – Land West of
1,000
1.2 FE
1.4 ha
Primary School
the A4018
1.5 FE
Nursery
60
place
B – Land South
1,200
1.4 FE
1.8 ha
Primary School
2
of Filton Airfield
FE
Nursery
60
place
C – Filton Airfield
2,500
3.0 FE
3.6 ha
Primary Schools
1
x 3 FE
1
x 2 FE
Nursery /
2
x 60 place
Secondary School1 7
FE
Youth Provision
D – Rest of
1,000
1.2 FE
1.4 ha
Primary School
Cribbs/Patchway
1
Area
.5FE
Nursery
60
place
Total for Cribbs /
5,700
6.8 FE
8.2 ha
Patchway
5.10
Land North of Yate: The scenario of 3,000 new dwellings may generate
five forms of entry at primary level. These primary pupils may be
accommodated at two primary schools located within the development.
5.11
This preferred scenario may also generate four forms of entry at
secondary level. These secondary pupils may be accommodated at
existing local secondary schools, which may need to be extended.
5.12
It will also generate the need for a new full-day nursery with 60 places,
and new Children’s and Youth facilities to be located within the
1 Ideally, the secondary school would be sited so that it crosses the border between
neighbourhoods B and C. This would avoid the need for a land swap. Pro rata contributions
would be required of approximately 1.8 ha of land in neighbourhood B, and 6.4 ha in
neighbourhood C.
development and / or contributions towards Children’s Centres offsite.
5.13
Thornbury: The Department for Children and Young People projects
falling numbers of primary pupils in and around Thornbury in the coming
years. Additional housing in the Thornbury area would assist the ongoing
sustainability of existing schools in the area. The Castle School is
considering options for the modernisation / redevelopment of its Sixth
Form Centre and potential consolidation onto a single site. Development
in Thornbury will generate additional demand for secondary school places
and existing provision will need to be extended to meet the needs of local
children.
5.14
Land East of Coldharbour Lane: The scenario of 500 new dwellings
may generate up to one form of entry at primary level, and half of one form
of entry at secondary level. There are very few surplus places at existing
primary schools. The Council will need to consider options to extend the
provision/increase the supply of places at existing primary and secondary
schools. The Council will regularly review its position in the context of CIL
offsite contributions.
5.15
Frenchay Hospital: The development of the Frenchay hospital site will
generate the need for an equivalent of a one form of entry primary school.
The Council will seek land and a financial contribution for new primary
provision on the development site, though it will need to consider its
options for the provision of places given the proximity of other local
primary school provision.
5.16
Unidentified windfalls: Regeneration of existing urban areas will
continue to generate a substantial number of additional dwellings on small
and medium sized sites yet to be identified over the Core Strategy plan
period. These developments will continue to place localised pressure on
those schools / planning areas showing current high levels of demand.
Previously the Council has applied a threshold, above which x number of
dwellings it would seek to negotiate S106 agreements / contributions for
Educational Services. The Council does not consider this approach
equitable any longer and now advocates a roof tax / tariff approach either
through CIL (subject to legislation being introduced) or existing circular
05/05 guidance. Until this approach is possible through the development
of SPD or DPD the Council will consider applications on their merits in
terms of impact on local schools on a case by case basis.
5.17
Land has been identified for a new secondary school at Emerson’s Green
East through the master plan and Section 106 agreement for planning
permission PK04/1965/0. Delivery would be expected towards the end of
the plan period. The identified secondary school site has potential to
provide capacity well beyond the requirements of the EGE development. It
therefore would provide benefits to a much wider area. The Council will
therefore continue to monitor the potential sources of funding and
providers, but intends to investigate the potential to pool developer
contributions from a wider area through a CIL.
APPENDIX 1
Department for Children and Young People Documents - Key
Strategies and Plans
The Partnership Strategy for Children and Young People 2016-2016
Sets out what the Children’s Trust Board will do to improve the lives of children
and young people in South Gloucestershire. It describes how we work with
children and young people from 0 to 19, and with young people with learning
difficulties and disabilities up to 25 years of age, to help them to take
responsibility for their own health and wellbeing. It also shows how we will work
with their parents, carers and families and how we will provide targeted and
specialist help to those children and young people, and their families, who need
particular support or who are at risk of harm.
Commissioning of School Places Strategy
The Commissioning School Places Strategy 2012 – 2017 sets out how the LA
plans to meet its statutory responsibility to secure sufficient education provision
within its area in order to promote higher standards of attainment for pupils of
primary and secondary school age. It provides a policy context for opening,
closing and defining the size of schools, a summary analysis of how the LA
intends to address gaps in provision/relevant policies for the commissioning of
provision and the parameters for considering places for the statutory school age
range. The Strategy explains what places are needed at present and in the
future and how and where they will be provided. It provides details of over and
under-subscribed schools, admission levels and an analysis of the impact of new
housing developments. This is particular important in an area such as South
Gloucestershire where demographic changes are significant.
South Gloucestershire’s Developers’ Guide
South Gloucestershire’s Developers’ Guide states in the section entitled Children
and Young People: “Where demand exceeds local capacity, developers will be
expected to meet the full cost of providing a site and additional school
accommodation for pupils living in new development.” (Page 14, para.3)
Accordingly, the appropriate level of education provision to meet the needs
arising from the whole of the proposed development is considered for nursery
and primary provision below.
Admission to School Booklets: Primary and Secondary
The Primary and secondary school admission booklets incorporate the admission
policies to cover all schools in South Gloucestershire. School places are
allocated according to Admission to School Policies. It will be for the Admission
Authority of the school to determine the criteria by which places will be allocated.
Where the LA is the Admission Authority, the LA’s oversubscription criteria will
APPENDIX 1
apply. South Gloucestershire Council is the Admission Authority for Community
and Controlled schools.
Individual Governing Bodies are the Admission
Authorities for Voluntary Aided schools. The LA’s oversubscription criteria
allocate places according to, among other criterion, geographical considerations
as follows:
x
x
geographical considerations (those living with a School’s Area of
Prime Responsibility);
geographical considerations (those living outside a School’s Area of
Prime Responsibility).
In either criterion the intention is that priority will be given to children who live
closest to the school. Where an Area of Prime Responsibility exists, the area
indicates to parents/carers the schools which normally serve the home address.
The APR is particularly helpful in densely populated areas.
Home to School Transport Policy
South Gloucestershire Council policy is to provide schools that are accessible,
meet local needs and are within reasonable distance of the communities they
serve. Schools have an important role in promoting social and community
cohesion through the use of their facilities and through wider educational and
community initiatives. Local provision is also important in reducing the need for
lengthy journeys to school and avoiding further use of cars and increased traffic
congestion. The LA considers the location and the effect on home to school
journeys in school organisation planning. For all children there should be safe
routes to school. The provision of places therefore needs consideration of the
transport implications.
Statutory Walking Distance: The statutory distances from home to school
beyond which transport must be provided are defined by Section 444 of the
Education Act 1996:
(a)
(b)
in relation to a child who is under the age of eight, 3.218688
kilometres (2 miles), and
in relation to a child who has attained the age of eight, 4.828032
kilometres (3 miles), in each case measured by the nearest
available route.
In law, the ‘nearest appropriate school’ is defined by the Local Authority and will
generally be the school geographically closest to home unless a special
arrangement is made. The Local Authority has also to consider whether the
walking route to the nearest appropriate school is unusually hazardous. If it
decides the route is hazardous, transport can be arranged even though the
distance requirements are not met.
APPENDIX 1
Note: The statutory requirements on admissions and transport are separate. On
school admissions, parents are entitled to express a preference for any school
they wish and to obtain a place if one is available within the admission
arrangements for that school. Parental preferences are not constrained by such
matters as the nearest school, the previous history of admission patterns or
community views.
The two important points follow from these statutory requirements.
will not necessarily be entitled to have transport just because the
the preferred school. Secondly, if the route to any school from
hazardous it does not mean that transport will be automatically
preferred school.
First, a child
child attends
a location is
given to any
Area of Prime Responsibility (APR): The Area of Prime Responsibility is a
defined geographical area. It indicates to parents the school which serves the
home address and is of prime importance in helping parents/carers to assess
their chances of being offered a place at their local school. Further weight to the
relevance of APRs is given in the statutory requirements set out in the School
Admissions Code published February 2012. The Code requires that “catchment
areas should be designed so that they are reasonable and clearly defined” and
“parents should be able to look at a set of admission arrangements and
understand, easily, how a place will be allocated.”
Furthermore, South
Gloucestershire Council’s Admission to School booklet on Secondary transfer
states that “The Council strongly recommends that parents/carers indicate a
preference for the school that serves their home address.” The Area of Prime
Responsibility also forms part of the Oversubscription Criteria which is used to
determine the allocation of places when applications exceed the number of
places available.
Childcare Sufficiency Assessment
The assessment provides a basis from which to manage the local childcare
market in partnership with private, voluntary and independent providers. The LA
already holds information on the supply of registered childcare in South
Gloucestershire and has some valuable knowledge of the demand for childcare
obtain as part of the Sure Start Children’s centre developments, from the work of
the CYPIS and through asking local providers about current vacancies. The LA’s
Childcare Sufficiency Assessment takes the LA’s knowledge a stage further and
has provided an evidence base for some of the more anecdotal information
gathered as part of the day to day experience of working with the sector. The
assessment enables the LA better to target its work and resources to meet
specific needs in relation to type, location and sufficiency of provision and also
focus support, advice and training in areas of need.
APPENDIX 1
Standards for School Premises - Space Requirements for Primary and
Secondary School Accommodation
The Government’s advice note Standards for School Premises is non-statutory,
and has been produced to help recipients understand their obligations and duties
in relation to the School Premises Regulations 2012. The note provides area
guidelines for primary and secondary school buildings and is used by South
Gloucestershire Council to inform school space requirements.
APPENDIX 2
Relevant Education Legislation
School Standards and Framework Act 1998: Section 118 of the School
Standards and Framework Act 1998 places a duty on local authorities to ensure
sufficient nursery education provision for children of the prescribed age (3 and y
year olds). It requires local authorities, in pursuance of this duty, to have regard
to any guidance given by the Secretary of State.
Infant Class Size Legislation: The Infant Class Size Legislation was introduced
as part of The School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The Act placed a duty
on LAs and the governing bodies of maintained schools to limit the size of infant
classes to 30 pupils per 'qualified teacher' (the Education (Infant Class Sizes)
Regulations 1998). The Education Act 2002 subsequently amended the School
Standards and Framework Act to limit the size of infant classes to 30 pupils to a
single 'school teacher' (as opposed to a single 'qualified teacher'). South
Gloucestershire Council helped schools meet the requirements by ensuring that
primary school admission numbers were based on multiples of 30 and in
exceptional circumstances 15.
Education Act 1996: Part 1, Chapter 111, section 14 places a duty on LAs to
provide sufficient school places for children living in their area.
Section 444 of the Education Act 1996: Statutory duties on the provision of
home to school transport.
Childcare Act 2006: Through the Childcare Act 2006 and the accompanying
National Ten Year Childcare Strategy, the Government have sought to achieve
their aim of high quality, flexible, affordable and accessible childcare under the
banner of “sufficiency”. There are two duties, which the LA must have regard, the
duty to assess sufficiency and the linked duty to secure sufficient childcare.
Section 11 of the Childcare Act 2006 gives LA’s the duty to undertake childcare
sufficiency assessments, the first of which must be completed by April 2008
Section 6 of the Childcare Act 2006 gives LA’s a new duty of securing, so far as
is reasonably practicable, that the provision of childcare is sufficient to meet the
requirements of parents in their area in order to enable them to work, or
undertake education or training leading to work.
Sufficient childcare in Section 6 of the Childcare Act 2006 is defined as ‘sufficient
to meet the requirements of parents in the [local authority’s] area who require
childcare in order for them to take up, or remain in, work, or training. Local
Authorities need to satisfy themselves that, so far as is reasonably practicable:
x
There are sufficient places overall in each sub-local authority area, having
regard to demographic trends and to patterns of employment and of
travelling to work.
APPENDIX 2
x
x
x
x
There is sufficient flexibility, with places being available at the right times
(for example, in the early morning, late evening, at weekends or during
school holidays), to fit in with working patterns.
Places are sufficiently accessible, so that parents do not have to travel too
far out of their way to access childcare.
Childcare places are high quality, in terms of judgements made by Ofsted.
Sufficiency will be met when parents in the local area are able to access the
childcare they need to be able to work or train.
See also Education Act 2011 for a reference to the Council’s statutory duty to
provide free nursery places for entitled 2 Year Olds.
Education and Inspections Act 2006: Under the Education and Inspections Act
2006, the Government has laid down a framework for the future organisation of
school provision, proposals for new and reorganised provision, and the legal
status of schools and the development of academies.
The EIA Act 2006 inserted new sections 508B and 508C into the Act. These
sections place a duty on local authorities to ensure that suitable travel
arrangements are made, where necessary to facilitate a child’s attendance at
school. Details of eligible children and statutory distances are also set out as part
of the duty applying to the provision of home to school transport. The LA’s home
to school transport policies are published annually in the Admission to School
booklets for primary and secondary schools.
Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (Section 198) places
a duty on Local Authorities to establish sufficient numbers of Children’s Centres
in their area to meet local needs.
Education and Skills Act 2008: The Education and Skills Act 2008 increases
participation in learning for young people by legislating to raise the education
leaving age to 18. Raising the participation age gives every young person the
best chance to achieve and succeed. Young people are required to participate in
education or training until their 18th birthday through either:
x
x
x
full-time education or training, including school, college and home
education;
work-based learning, such as an Apprenticeship, including traditional
contracts of apprenticeship;
or
part-time education or training, if they are employed, self-employed or
volunteering more than 20 hours a week.
In doing this, young people have new rights to take up opportunities for education
and training, and the support they need to engage in learning. The
APPENDIX 2
Commissioning of Places Strategy 0-19 will set out the mechanisms by which
South Gloucestershire Council will support raising the participation age.
Academies Act 2010: Makes it possible for all publicly funded schools in
England to become academies, still publicly funded but with a vastly increased
degree of autonomy in issues such as setting teachers' wages and diverging
from the National Curriculum.
Education Act 2011 Section 1 of the Education Act 2011 enables the
Government to extend the early education entitlement to two-year-olds who meet
eligibility criteria set out in regulations.
Section 37 enacts Schedule 11 of the Act which makes provision about the
creation of new schools. It requires that when a local authority is of the opinion
that a new school is required, it must seek proposals for such a school to be
created through the creation of a new academy school, and that no competition
for the creation of a new school may begin without the local authority obtaining
the consent of the Secretary of State. The Schedule sets out the various
bureaucratic processes that must be conducted by both the local authority and
Secretary of State when the local authority decides that a new school is needed.
APPENDIX 3
Cost Calculators and Yield Model
Pupil Cost Calculators: Department for Education and Skills (DFE) current cost
calculators for school provision.
DFE cost calculator published in 2008 for South Glos April 2008 - March 2010 based on
projected pricing levels (RICS Building Cost Index) at Q4 2008
Cost per place
Primary
Secondary
New
12,651
19,000
All figures have been reduced by
the
South Glos Location Factor = 0.97
Extension
10,747
16,287
Multiplier
11,890
17,915
New 1fe primary
New 2fe primary
2,656,763
5,313,526
New 6fe secondary
17,100,230
Yield Formula
x
x
x
x
x
The Department for Children and Young People calculates that new
developments will generate 36 primary pupils per 100 dwellings and 18
secondary pupils per 100 dwellings on average.
The actual number of pupils generated at a particular development depends
upon the size and type of dwellings in the development. A more refined
calculator is applied to proposed developments once the mix of dwelling
types is known.
The number of under-5 year-olds generated is calculated on a pro-rata
basis, using the expected number of primary pupils. It is used when
calculating requirements for Children’s Centres.
The number of teenagers generated is calculated on a pro-rata basis, using
the expected number of secondary pupils. It is used when calculating
requirements for Youth Centres.
A Children’s Centre is required to serve each population of 800 under-5
year-olds. A Youth Centre is required to serve each population of 1000
teenagers.
South Gloucestershire’s figures are based on research undertaken in April 2001
on behalf of six Unitary Authorities in Berkshire experiencing significant new
housing development (set out in the Developer’s Guide pages 12-13). Since that
time a more recent and specific survey of new developments in South
Gloucestershire has been undertaken in order to ascertain the number of children
and young people per household. The survey was completed in June 2006 and
confirmed that the existing yield per 100 dwellings is appropriate as a starting
point for considering required developer contributions where the mix is not
known. Where the proposed mix of dwellings is known, then a more detailed
formula based on the type and size of dwellings is applied. A report to the
APPENDIX 3
Council’s Executive Councillor for Children and Young People in January 2007
recommended that these yield formulas be adopted. The yield formulas were
agreed as recommended on 5 February 2007 (see below).
Executive Member Decision January 2007: Children and Young People
Population Assessments. The decision was agreed on 5 February 2007 and is as
follows:
1.
To agree that the current starting point for calculating the level of
developer contributions requested for the provision of services for children and
young people, i.e.
x
x
36 places per 100 dwellings of two bedrooms and above for primary
pupils
18 places per 100 dwellings of two bedrooms and above for secondary
pupils remains appropriate, where the proposed housing mix is not
known.
2.
To agree that where the proposed housing mix is known the basis of
calculating the level of developer contributions requested for the provision of
services for children and young people will be on a formula basis per type and
size of dwelling, according to the profile of house occupation across new housing
developments in South Gloucestershire obtained from the house-to-house survey
carried out in June 2006, as set out below:
Pre school children per 100 dwellings
Primary pupils per 100 dwellings
Secondary pupils per 100 dwellings
Post 16 pupils per 100 dwellings
Number of bedrooms
Flats
Houses
1 or 2 3+
1
2
3
4
12
18
0 24 36 39
4
30
4
9 30 46
0
0
3
3 14 27
0
0
0
1 3
10
Land Size Requirements
Land will be requested in Section 106 Agreements for each of the proposed new
schools and centres. The following minimum areas of land are required for each
type of building:
Primary Schools
Secondary Schools
Nursery
Children’s Centre
Youth Centre
–
–
–
–
–
1.2 ha for 1FE, 2.0 ha for 2FE
7.7 ha for 6FE
0.2 ha for 30 places, 0.4 ha for 60 places
0.1 ha
0.1 ha
5+
32
65
46
8
APPENDIX 4
Key South Gloucestershire Planning Documents
South Gloucestershire Local Plan (SGLP): Policy LC2 of the SGLP relates to the provision for
education facilities. It states that “…where local education provision is inadequate to meet the
projected need for places (pre-school, primary and secondary) arising from the future occupiers of
proposals for new residential development, the Council will negotiate with developers to secure
provision in scale and kind to meet these needs. This may include provision on-site by the
developer and/or contributions to provision or enhancements of existing provision within the
vicinity…” (page 292, para 1).
Appropriate level of provision: South Gloucestershire’s Local Plan (adopted January 2006)
states in Chapter 2 (Sustainability): “An important element of the Local Plan strategy will be to …
ensure that it … (new development)… makes an appropriate contribution to the provision of new or
improved essential facilities and services which will be needed in the development in question.”
(Page 12, para.2.6)
Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10): Annex A, p.131, identifies that
residential development should be proposed within walking distance of a food shop and a primary
school.
South Gloucestershire Core Strategy incorporating Post-Submission Changes December
2011 and reflecting the Inspector’s Preliminary Findings and draft Main Modifications
(September 2012): Policy CS6 – Infrastructure & Developer Contributions, states that ‘all new
development of a sufficient scale that would add to the overall demand and impact on
infrastructure will be required to provide: Site specific measures…financial contributions etc’.
Education Facilities are included in the definition of ‘Infrastructure’.
Department of the Environment Circular 05/05 Planning Obligations: A key principle of the
guidance, as set out in paragraph B12, is that an obligation should “…be fairly and reasonably
related in scale and kind to the proposed development and reasonable in all other respects.”
Paragraph B9 gives specific examples where a Planning Obligation may be appropriate. One such
example is the provision of community facilities within new development. The guidance states that
“…if a proposed development would give rise to the need for additional or expanded community
infrastructure, for example, a new school classroom, which is necessary in planning terms and not
provided for in an application, it might be acceptable for contributions to be sought towards this
additional provision through a planning obligation.”
Page: 25
APPENDIX 5
Overview – Indicative Costs of Education Infrastructure
The purpose of this document is to give indicative ballpark figures for the amount of any education
contribution that may be requested for each development scenario based on the DFE Cost
Calculator for Basic Needs Allocation. Total build costs may be significantly higher. They are not
maximum or minimum figures, and are subject to variation due to a number of variables including:
x
x
the proposed dwelling numbers and mix at the time of a planning application;
impact of any projected future surplus capacity in nearby existing schools at the time of a
planning application.
Figures are indexed at the Financial Year 2008/9 Quarter 4 level of the RICS Building Cost Index.
Figures are not indicative of actual build costs which are considerably higher. Figures provide an
early indication of the level of contribution required for development scenarios presented in the
pre-submission document and will inevitably vary between 2010 -2026. Actual contributions are
likely to be required between 2010 – 2041 to take account of the number pupils yielded from all
developments (there is up to a 15 year lag between housing development and pupil yield). Early
indications are that the values may have increased from these values by approximately 7% (as at
March 2010), though official figures for this year have not yet been published. All figures are
indicative only and should be viewed in that way and read in conjunction with the
respective statements in section 5. Note: Early Years (EY) provision in South Gloucestershire
is provided by private, voluntary and independent providers. South Gloucestershire Council
requires developers to identify suitable provision to meet the needs of pre-school children.
Page: 26
APPENDIX 5
South Gloucestershire Council Core Strategy (costs calculated April 2013 –refer to footnotes)
New Neighbourhoods
No.
Children and Young People
Indicative
Indicative
Dwellings Requirements
Contribution
Contribution
Note: Requirements will vary in line
Amount (£M)
Amount (£M)
with development housing mix
as at Q4 2008
as at Q4 2011 2
proposals, build-out timescales and
the Council’s strategy for school
place planning.
East of Harry Stoke
New Neighbourhood
2,000
Cribbs / Patchway New
Neighbourhood(s)
5,700
Primary – New – 3½ FE on 2
Sites
Secondary – New – 2½ FE on 1
Site
Nursery (EY/Pre-school provision)
Children’s Centre (EY/Pre-school)
Youth Provision
Sub-Total
Primary – New – 10 FE on 5 Sites
Secondary –New – 7 FE
Nursery (EY/Pre-school provision)
Children’s Centre (EY/Pre-school)
Youth Provision
Sub-Total
2
Note: Actual amounts
will vary. Costs are
not indicative of
actual build costs.
Build costs will be
significantly higher)
Note: Actual amounts
will vary. Costs are
not indicative of
actual build costs.
Build costs will be
significantly higher)
9.1
6.8
0.5
0.5
0.2
17.1
9.2
6.9
0.5
0.5
0.2
17.3
25.9
19.5
2.1
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
48.8
26.3
19.8
2.1
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
49.5
Between Q4 2008 and Q4 2011, the RICS BCI decreased from 240 to 227, and the SG location factor increased from 0.97 to 1.04.
Indicative contributions have been converted by multiplying by (227 / 240) x (1.04 / 0.97) = 1.014 (i.e. +1.4%) and then rounded to 1 decimal
place.
The projected value of the RICS BCI for Q4 2012 shows no change from Q4 2011, this may change when DfE or RICS publish actual indices
for 2012.
Page: 27
New Neighbourhoods
No.
Children and Young People
Dwellings Requirements
Note: Requirements will vary in line
with development housing mix
proposals, build-out timescales and
the Council’s strategy for school
place planning.
Land North of Yate
Indicative
Contribution
Amount (£M)
as at Q4 2008
APPENDIX 5
Indicative
Contribution
Amount (£M)
as at Q4 2011 2
Note: Actual amounts
will vary. Costs are
not indicative of
actual build costs.
Build costs will be
significantly higher)
Note: Actual amounts
will vary. Costs are
not indicative of
actual build costs.
Build costs will be
significantly higher)
2,800
Primary – New – 5 FE on 2 Sites
Secondary – Ext – 4 FE
Nursery (EY/Pre-school provision)
Children’s Centre (EY/Pre-school)
Youth Provision
Sub-Total
12.8
8.2
0.5
0.5
0.3
22.3
13.0
8.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
22.6
Thornbury
500
Primary – New – 1 FE on 1 Site
Secondary – Ext – 1 FE
Nursery (EY/Pre-school
provision)
Children’s Centre (EY/Pre-school)
Youth Provision
Sub-Total
0.0 to 2.3
0.0 to 1.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.5 to 4.3
0.0 to 2.3
0.0 to 1.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.5 to 4.3
Land East of
Coldharbour Lane
500
2.3
0.0 to 1.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
2.8 to 4.3
2.3
0.0 to 1.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
2.8 to 4.3
Frenchay Hospital
450
Primary – New Ext – 1 FE on 1
Site
Secondary – Ext – 1 FE
Nursery (EY/Pre-school provision)
Children’s Centre (EY/Pre-school)
Youth Provision
Sub-Total
TBC
TBC
TBC
Figures indicate the level of contribution required for development scenarios presented in the post-submission document as at
2008/09 prices. Actual contributions will vary significantly. Figures are not representative of build costs. Build costs will be
significantly higher. All figures are indicative only and should be viewed in that way.
Page: 28
APPENDIX 6
Summary of Evidence
South Gloucestershire Documents
Planning Documents
x South Gloucestershire Local Plan (SGLP) Adopted 2006
x Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10)
x Department for the Environment Circular 05/05: Planning Obligations (July 2005)
Department for Children and Young People Documents
x The Partnership Strategy for Children and Young People
x Commissioning of Places Strategy 0-19
x South Gloucestershire Developer Guide
x Youth Services Future Strategy
x Admission to School Booklets – Primary and Secondary
x Home to School Transport Policy
x Building Bulletin 98: Briefing Framework for Primary School Accommodation
x Building Bulletin 98: Briefing Framework for Secondary School Accommodation
x BB102 Inclusion and Special School/Unit Accommodation
Relevant Education legislation
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
School Standards and Framework Act 1998
Infant Class Size Legislation
The Education Act 1996
Children Act 2004
Education Act 2002
Education and Inspections Act 2006
Childcare Act 2006
Education and Skills Act 2008
Academies Act 2010
Education Act 2011
Other Material Considerations: Pupil Yield Model/Cost Calculators
x
x
Department for Education (DFE) current cost calculators for school provision
Executive Member Decision January 2007
Page: 29
APPENDIX 7
Cribbs/Patchway New Neighbourhood – Land Parcels and Impact
A - Land West of the A4018 (1,000 dwellings)
This development is projected to generate up to 1.7 FE primary pupils. Pupils will be
accommodated in a new 1.5 FE primary school on site, with additional places provided in Area B.
Early years education will be provided in a 60 place nursery on site.
B - Land South of Filton Airfield (1,200 dwellings)
This development is projected to generate up to 2.1 FE primary pupils, and there may be an inflow
of up to 0.2 FE from Area A. Pupils will be accommodated in a new 2FE primary school on site.
Additional places will be provided in Area C for children resident in the eastern part of the
neighbourhood.
Early years education will be provided in a 60 place nursery on site.
C – Filton Airfield (2,500 dwellings)
This development is projected to generate up to 4.3 FE primary pupils, and there may be an inflow
of up to 0.3 FE from Area B. Pupils will be accommodated in two new primary schools on site one
at 2FE and one at 3FE.
The most flexible solution would be for the 3FE school site to be next to the secondary school site.
Early years education will be provided in a 60 place nursery on site. Consideration will be given to
providing a further 60 places at a Children’s Centre on site, depending upon future legislation and
statutory guidance regarding nursery education for two-year-olds.
Youth provision will be provided on site to meet the requirements of all four new neighbourhoods
D – Rest of Cribbs/Patchway Area (1,000 dwellings)
This development is projected to generate up to 1.7 FE primary pupils. If this development
comprises a significant proportion of flats and smaller houses, then fewer pupils may be
generated. Pupils will be accommodated in a new 1.5FE primary school on site with any additional
places provided at existing primary schools in the area.
Early years education will be provided in a 60 place nursery on site.
Provision of Secondary School Places
The four neighbourhoods are projected to generate between 7 forms of entry at secondary level (c.
1050 places). These secondary pupils may be accommodated at a new secondary school located
within the development.
The best location for a new secondary school site of 8.2 ha would be towards the western end of
Area C. The site could possibly be situated so that it crosses the border with Area B which would
contribute approximately 1.8 ha on a pro rata basis, with the remaining 6.4 ha in Area C.
Page: 30
APPENDIX 7
A mechanism would need to be found for Areas A and D to make a financial or land contribution in
lieu of provision of their share of the secondary school site.
The table below shows the projected numbers of secondary pupils that would be generated by a
typical mix of family housing. The actual numbers are likely to be slightly lower, depending upon
the type and mix of dwelling constructed.
These figures are approximate, and depend upon the final type and mix of dwelling in each
neighbourhood.
If Areas A or B are developed several years in advance of provision of a new secondary school in
Area C, then it may be necessary to provide additional accommodation at either Patchway
Community College or Abbeywood Community School. This may entail additional costs for the
provision of temporary buildings at those sites, and pupils would be entitled to funding for transport
to school.
Page: 31
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
EVIDENCE BASE
HEALTH SERVICES
(NHS South Gloucestershire)
December 2011
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
1.
Introduction
1.1.
The shared vision for South Gloucestershire is set out in the Sustainable
Communities Strategy and the Council Plan sets out how this vision will be
delivered. Both of these have managing future development, promoting safer
and stronger communities and modernising health and community care
services as priorities.
1.2.
The Local Development Framework will set out the spatial expression of
these priorities and is key to the creation of sustainable communities that are
well designed and planned, provide access to a full range of community
facilities, formal and informal open spaces and which are well integrated with
existing communities.
1.3.
This paper sets out an assessment of requirements for future growth for NHS
health service provision taking account of dwelling growth proposed in the
South Gloucestershire Core Strategy Proposed Changes Version (Dec
2010). Any variation in the overall scale or location will clearly alter the
requirements. The document also aims to set out the principles upon which
the requirements are based.
2.
NHS Health Service Provision
2.1.
NHS services and facilities are crucial to the health and well-being of the
local population.
2.2.
Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) were created in 1999. They are corporate bodies
established by statute – most recently the National Health Service Act 2006.
As a statutory body, a PCT’s functions, powers and duties are set out in
legislation.
2.3.
PCTs have a duty to ensure access and choice to a range of high quality
health services and ensure that the Government’s commitments to health,
reducing health inequalities and health services are delivered for local people
(Commissioning a patient-led NHS, 2005).
2.4.
In support of these duties the PCT commissions services for:
x
GP primary care services,
x
Primary dental services,
x
a range of other health care provision including emergency and
planned outpatient and inpatient services
x
Midwifery, health visiting and other community services including
services such as District Nurses, Community Matrons and Intermediate
Care.
2.5.
NHS South Gloucestershire has a duty to ensure that there are sufficient
services for people within its area and that these services are accessible. It
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
must also make sure that all health services are provided, including hospitals,
dentists, opticians, mental health services, NHS walk-in centres, NHS Direct,
patient transport (including accident and emergency), population screening,
and pharmacies.
2.6.
The vision of NHS South Gloucestershire set out in Strategic Plan 2009/10 –
2013/14 (June 2009) is to “maximise the health and well being of people in
South Gloucestershire”.
2.7.
NHS South Gloucestershire has four strategic priorities, these are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Improve the health of people living in South Gloucestershire through
effective partnerships with other organisations and with local people;
Reduce differences in health between people and places in South
Gloucestershire;
Bring more health services closer to local people by delivering more
primary and community-based services; and
Improve the experience of local patients when they use health by
making sure that health services are provided promptly, safely and
effectively.
2.8.
NHS South Gloucestershire’s strategy requires appropriate outpatient clinics
to operate in settings other than major hospitals, including community health
facilities, and that, where appropriate, diagnostic services such as X-ray
should be available.
2.9.
The Department of Health allocates funding directly to PCTs primarily on the
basis of the relative needs of their populations A weighted capitation formula
determines each PCT’s target share of available resources, to enable them to
commission similar levels of health services for populations in similar need,
and to reduce avoidable health inequalities.
2.10.
The weighted capitation formula calculates PCTs' target shares of available
resources based on PCT populations adjusted for their age distribution,
additional need above that accounted for by age, and unavoidable
geographical variations in the cost of providing services. This is set out in
Resource Allocation: Weighted Capitation Formula Sixth Edition (published
by Department of Health: December 2008).The starting point and primary
determinant of weighted capitation targets is the size of the populations for
which PCTs are responsible.
2.11.
The Health White Paper, 'Equity and Excellence: liberating the NHS' was
published in July 2010 and set out a restructuring of the NHS that will change
the way health care is commissioned in the future. Following consultation, the
government published ‘Liberating the NHS: Legislative framework and next
steps’ in December 2010.
2.12.
The Health and Social Care Bill, which was introduced into Parliament on 19
January 2011, takes forward the areas of Equity and Excellence: Liberating
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
2.13.
Subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill, the NHS
Commissioning Board will from April 2013 be responsible for commissioning
primary medical care services. Until that time, NHS South Gloucestershire
will continue to be responsible for commissioning primary medical care
services
3.
Strategic Issues Principles
3.1.
Health Services and Facilities need to be accessible to the local populations
who need to use them. As outlined above, this is a key principle in national
and local health policy.
3.2.
Health Services and Facilities also need to be of high quality and meeting all
the necessary Care Quality Commission’s standards. The standards at the
new Yate West Gate Centre and at Emersons Green Medical Centre are
appropriate benchmarks.
3.3.
The Care Quality Commission is the independent regulator of health and
adult social care in England. It regulates health and adult social care services
in England, whether they are provided by the NHS, local authorities, private
companies or voluntary organisations. From April 2010, health and adult
social care providers will be required to register with the PCT in order to be
able to operate. To do so, they must show that they are meeting a wide range
of essential standards of safety and quality set out under the Health and
Social Care Act 2008 (Registration Requirements) Regulations 2009.
3.4.
Health Services and Facilities need to be planned for the long term and
therefore designed to be flexible and adaptable.
3.5.
They need to be designed to achieve high energy efficiency standards as set
out in Saving Carbon, Improving Health: NHS Carbon Reduction Strategy for
England (January 2009). Taking sustainability and carbon emissions
seriously is an integral part of a high quality health service. The new Yate
West Gate Health Centre is of a good standard and would represent an
appropriate standard for future developments. NHS South Gloucestershire is
required to demonstrate that its buildings are designed to encourage
sustainable development and low carbon usage in every aspect of its
operation.
4.
Targets and links with national and local targets
4.1.
All health facilities and services must be planned with local communities.
Engagement and consultation processes must form the basis of the plans
and the local involvement networks will be key to assisting the PCT in
organising this work.
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
4.2.
The NHS Act 2006 sets out a legal requirement for PCTs to involve users
(including carers) of health services in the planning, development, and
decision making about local health services. Section 242 (1B) states that
users may be involved by being consulted, or by being given information, or
in other ways. A number of activities can constitute involvement.
Engagement, consultation and participation are all possible approaches to
involving people.
4.3.
NHS South Gloucestershire aims to ensure that all those who have a stake,
interest or say in the work of the PCT have the opportunity to make their
voices heard and have their views taken seriously and treated with respect.
4.4.
Health service targets include the need to have timely and immediate access
to primary care and health care services, minimum waiting times to
diagnostic and outpatient clinics and to surgical services if necessary. The
services and facilities planned for the new communities would need to
address these targets. The Care Quality Commission publishes the list of
indicators that it uses to assess the performance of PCTs against existing
national commitments and priorities. These include a maximum 18 weeks
from referral by a GP to treatment; fast access to GPs, ability to book GP
appointment ahead and satisfaction with GP surgery opening hours; access
to primary dental services; speed of response of ambulances and an overall
assessment of the experience of patients. The full list is available from
www.CQC.org.uk. In order to continue to meet these targets as the
population increases it is necessary to provide additional capacity for the
population of South Gloucestershire.
4.5.
Health and Wellbeing can be planned into the design of the new communities
and NHS South Gloucestershire would be keen to contribute to this process.
South Gloucestershire’s Local Area Agreement (revised 2009) recognises the
need to ensure that new communities have the services and facilities they
need to make them healthy and sustainable and includes commitments to
develop high quality services that provide individuals with greater choice and
independence and to provide a wider range of health and social care
services. NHS South Gloucestershire’s Health Improvement Programmes
include matters such as promoting exercise and exercise on prescription.
Therefore, the design of the open space and the housing developments are
areas to which the PCT will have a contribution.
5.
Current Provision
5.1.
There are currently 27 registered GP practices within South Gloucestershire
providing primary care to the population of South Gloucestershire. Appendix
6 lists the practices, number of GPs per practice and number of registered
patients. The locations of each of these are shown in the Appendix 2. GP
practices are independent contractors providing services under a contract
with NHS South Gloucestershire. The vast majority of practice premises are
owned by the practice rather than NHS South Gloucestershire.
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
5.2.
NHS South Gloucestershire currently has 24 Dental practices plus 2 prison
dental practices, 1 Community Orthodontist and 1 Orthodontist practice
based in Hospital. The locations of each of these are shown in the Appendix
3.
5.3.
NHS South Gloucestershire also has 49 pharmacies throughout South
Gloucestershire and 27 Opticians. The locations of each of these are shown
in the Appendices 4 and 5 respectively.
5.4.
NHS South Gloucestershire also provides a wide range of community care
from a mixture of GP practices and separate community clinics. These
services work with primary and secondary care to provide specialist care to
patients in the community.
5.5.
Within NHS South Gloucestershire the standard is for one GP to 1,700
people (based on average of practice populations as at 1 October 2009). This
is above the national average of patients per practitioner which has gradually
fallen from 1,788 in 1999 to 1,520 in 2009 (based on General and Personal
Medical Services – England – 1999-2009, published by Health and Social
Care Information Centre in 2010).
5.6.
The PCT had a capital programme to address existing capacity issues (i.e.
not taking into account the impact of new growth proposed in the South
Gloucestershire Core Strategy Proposed Changes Version) in general
practice with schemes already approved to extend existing premises at
Bradley Stoke, Stoke Gifford Medical Centre, Kingswood Health Centre, Leap
Valley, Stokes Medical Centre and Three Shires Pucklechurch surgery. The
PCT is also developing key community resources in Yate, Cossham,
Thornbury and Frenchay to provide facilities for outpatient, diagnostic and
dentistry services in local accessible settings. However, there is no ongoing
capital programme within NHS South Gloucestershire to address any future
capacity issues as a result of the impact of new growth proposed in the South
Gloucestershire Core Strategy.
5.7.
Yate West Gate Centre opened in early 2010 providing accommodation for
GP Practice, Minor Injuries Service, Diagnostics, Outpatients, Day services,
Imaging and Therapeutics services. West Walk Practice has relocated into
Yate West Gate Centre.
5.8.
Cossham will provide a Birthing unit, Renal unit, Diagnostics, Outpatients,
Day services, Imaging and Therapeutics services.
5.9.
Details of the facilities to be provided from Thornbury and Frenchay are yet to
be finalised. The schemes are still under development, and therefore subject
to consultation and change. Thornbury is likely to provide new
accommodation for two of the practices in Thornbury, Dr Burney and Dr
Male. However, it is not currently expected that Frenchay will include a GP
Practice.
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
5.10.
Dental Services do not work to registered populations so there is no direct
relationship between location of developments and dental practices.
However, large developments may necessitate the provision of additional
dental surgery contract(s). Theoretically, the additional 21,500 new dwellings
would require the equivalent of approximately 7 dental surgeries with three
chairs providing 50,000 units of dental activity per year for the new population
of 50,000. Hence, the PCT may encourage major developments to consider
marketing space in new local centres to dental practices, but NHS South
Gloucestershire commissions NHS Dentistry based on the dental health
needs of the population and this may not coincide with new developments.
5.11.
Pharmacy contracts are commercially funded without support from NHS
South Gloucestershire so would not require financial support from
developers. However, based on the ratio of pharmacies to patients in South
Gloucestershire, it is likely that major developments of approximately 2,000
homes plus, (based on the ratio of pharmacies to residents in South
Gloucestershire) would need to provide accommodation for a pharmacy in
any retail development.
5.12.
Optometry contracts are also commercially funded without support from NHS
South Gloucestershire so would not require financial support from
developers. However, based on the ratio of optometrists to patients in South
Gloucestershire, it is likely that major developments of over 4,000 homes
(based on the ratio of optometrists to residents in south Gloucestershire)
would need to provide accommodation for an Optician in any retail
development.
6.
Spatial Requirements – South Gloucestershire Wide
6.1.
Based on 1 GP per 1700 population, about 60% of the GP surgeries currently
experience capacity issues. The PCT capital programme will provide
additional capacity at the following practices: Bradley Stoke, Stoke Gifford
Medical Centre, Kingswood, Leap Valley, the Stokes and Pucklechurch
(Three Shires). However, there will still be significant shortfall in capacity
across the district not taking account of proposed growth.
6.2.
Simplistically, the new housing developments for South Gloucestershire will
increase the demand for healthcare. The Core Strategy (Post Submission
Version – Dec 2011) makes provision for approximately 26,400 new
dwellings between 2006-2026. Based on 2.31 persons per dwelling (2006
ONS mid-yr population estimates produced for the West of England UAs by
the GLA), the assumption is that there will be a new population of
approximately 60,000 people requiring the services described above.
6.3.
Simplistically, this level of new development would require facilities to
accommodate:
x
approximately 35 GPs and the supporting primary and community care
teams associated with them;
x
Approximately 26 Dentists;
x
Approximately 12 Pharmacies;
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
x
Approximately 6 Opticians.
6.4.
As an example of the likely quantum of new facilities required to serve the
new housing growth, the Emersons Green Medical Centre in Emersons
Green is the Primary Care base for 8,500 patients. It has the capacity to
provide primary care services for 10,000. In entirety therefore the new
developments would require the equivalent of about 6 Emersons Green
Medical Centres for the primary care provision. The Yate West Gate Centre
will provide facilities for outpatient and diagnostic services for 64,000 in and
around the area of Yate. The outpatient capacity and diagnostic capacity
required to serve the whole of the new communities is therefore the
equivalent to half that of the Yate West Gate Centre.
6.5.
The scope for realising development contributions for new services is
however limited as, of the 26,400 dwellings proposed, some 4060 have
already been constructed. Some 6740 have planning permission or are
engaged in viability exercises on major sites:
x
x
x
x
SGLP site 9 - Cheswick Village (750 dwellings) – Consented. No
contribution was sought towards to health services.
SGLP site 13 – Harry Stoke (1200 dwellings) – Consented.
Contribution of £364,000 towards an extension of the Stoke Gifford
Medical Centre.
SGLP site 4 – Charlton Hayes (2200 dwellings) – 733m2 (internal gross
space – serviced shell) in the neighbourhood centre for use as a 3GP
doctors surgery and 2 dentist surgery) on a 20yr lease, by the 751st
dwelling.
SGLP site 5 – Emersons Green East (2390 dwellings) – 709m2 5 GP
Practice.
A further 3840 dwellings have planning permission or are expected to achieve
planning permission in the near future, on small and medium sized sites,
many of which have / will not contribute to new services, thereby the
additional population will exert considerable further pressure on services and
GP and other health accommodation. This leaves a number of proposed new
neighbourhoods plus unidentified windfalls that could potentially contribute
towards new health accommodation. These are discussed in section 7.
Service Provision Standards & Build Costs.
6.6.
Primary and Community Care Services, including medical, dental and
associated community services, can be and usually are highly dispersed with
the location dependant on the nature of the population. However, outpatient
and diagnostic services are normally centred in larger facilities in order to
ensure quality of the service provided and take advantage of economies of
scale offered through concentrating provision.
6.7.
New services will require new facilities where major new communities are
developed or enhanced existing facilities where substantial infill development
increases local populations. In appropriate circumstances it is desirable for
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
health services to be integrated with social care and other community
provision. This would be particularly relevant in larger developments where a
large practice would be co-located with South Gloucestershire Council social
services staff. This is the model that has been followed with the development
of the new Yate West Gate Centre.
6.8.
There are specific accommodation sizing requirements for GP services which
NHS South Gloucestershire has used for recent GP Practice developments.
These are listed at Appendix 7, together with number of homes / residents
that would trigger each development, but these will be part of the detailed
planning for the spatial areas.
6.9.
Indicative costs of new surgeries are also quoted in Appendix 7. The figures
are based on estimated construction costs for new GP surgery of £1,550 –
£1,650 per square metre, plus 15 per cent for associated costs such as
Structural Engineer, leading to a cost of £1,898 per square metre, excluding
land costs. These costs are based on December 2009 costs and make no
allowance for the effect of BREEAM on build cost. As such for the purposes
of estimating costs of facility provision for the purposes of the Infrastructure
Delivery Plan a figure of £2000 per square metre has been assumed. (These
costs have been extrapolated from estimated costs for recent surgeries constructed
in the area started 2008/9 at £1,350 – £1,450 per square metre to build).
6.10.
However, opportunities for synergy should be explored as with other
community infrastructure areas and multi-use buildings such as the Yate
West Gate Centre would be of benefit in the significant new communities.
Such a shared use may be more difficult with infill development where
expansion of current facilities may be the most practical and deliverable
approach.
6.11.
Where buildings are extended, rather than newly built, the construction costs
are likely to be similar to those quoted above. However, there will be
additional costs of approximately £1,000 per square metre for provision of
decant accommodation during construction. These costs are based on costs
of temporary accommodation for Yate West Gate Centre. Such costs may
however, vary significantly depending on the specific circumstances of
individual projects. Indicative costs to extend are quoted in Appendix 7.
6.12.
Almost all GP practice buildings are owned by the GP Practice, with the
exception of four practices listed in Appendix 6. However, NHS South
Gloucestershire contributes to the operational costs of the GP Practices.
Therefore most developments will need to be carried out on behalf of the GP
Practices but with funding from NHS South Gloucestershire.
7.
Spatial areas
7.1.
The details of this section will require review and adjustment once figures and
locations are finalised.
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
7.2.
The following table lists the remaining of houses expected to be built in each
area and the numbers of GPs required to provide for the expected
population.
7.3.
The table also gives a commentary on the ability of local GP surgeries
(Appendix 2) to absorb the expected increase in patients in the area and the
options to extend an existing practice building or develop a new building.
Area
Number of Number Local GP status
houses
of GPs
Allocated SGLP Sites
East of Coldharbour Lane
1
500
Although the local
practice (Northville)
has capacity at
present, this will not
remain. See note 1)
below
New Neighbourhoods
East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood
2,000
3
Land north of Yate
3,000
5
5700
TBC
(2x4GP
Practices)
500
450
2
TBC
Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhoods
Thornbury
Frenchay Hospital
No space at local
practice (Stoke
Gifford) –
New building
required
Insufficient space at
local practice
(Wellington Road) or
other Yate practices
–
New building
required
No suitable practice
available with
capacity in South
Gloucestershire.
Bristol PCT being
consulted. – New
building(s) required
Insufficient space at
any practice in
Thornbury –
Extension possible
TBC
Notes to table:
1) Although Northville surgery currently has capacity, 750 houses are being
built on Wallscourt (Cheswick) which will absorb all the capacity at
Northville. The location of the Northville practice will make extension
difficult. The proximity of the East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood
makes a single health facility for the developments East of Coldharbour
Lane and East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood a longer term possibility.
However, the differing timings of these developments may require an interim
solution for the development East of Coldharbour Lane before a long-term
solution is considered or possible.
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
2) Priorities for capacity improvements to surgeries, as a consequence of small
sites / windfall developments will be subject to confirmation of location and
developer S106 and / or CIL contributions. Dispersed developments may
require additional capacity at various locations throughout area. See
paragraph 7.15 for proposed approach.
7.4.
As can be seen, the current practices cannot absorb the level of growth in
patients within the existing practice staffing as listed in Appendix 6 and many
practices would not be easily extended to accommodate extra capacity.
7.5.
Where a new practice is required, the minimum size of new practice that
would be required for a stand-alone practice is as indicated in the Appendix
7.
7.6.
Where NHS South Gloucestershire commissions healthcare services for its
population, its guiding principle is that the provision of all health and care
services will be considered for possible competitive procurement for provision
of the service.
7.7.
NHS South Gloucestershire’s Procurement and Contestability Strategy
(approved by NHS South Gloucestershire Board in October 2008) sets out
the approach to whether to competitively procure services. There are clear
risks and benefits to contesting and any decision not to contest a service
must be supported by clear and transparent evidence.
7.8.
The size of the service will clearly be a significant factor in choosing whether
to contest a stand-alone service. When making this decision NHS South
Gloucestershire would need to consider whether small stand-alone practices
would be able to provide the wide range of services required by the
population of South Gloucestershire. Therefore, for 2 or 3 GP practices, it
may be possible and desirable to extend an existing practice rather than
building a small stand-alone practice. However, this would be dependent on
the specific practice(s) in the area and the physical possibilities of extending
the practice(s).
7.9.
However, the larger development North of Yate for example, would almost
certainly require new premises to be built within the development area or very
close to the development as the practices in Yate have insufficient capacity to
accommodate the additional patients.
7.10.
The above gives an indication of the rationale for the decision-making by
NHS South Gloucestershire based on current policy guidance. However, any
decision on whether to develop a new practice or extend an existing practice
will be dependent on specific combination of circumstances relating to local
practices when the planning application for any development is considered
and will have to take account of best available information at that point.
7.11.
In cases where more than 3 GPs are required it is likely that a new practice
will be required, a suitable building of the required size and specification
would have to be provided as part of the development; or funding to build a
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
suitable building of the required size and specification. The cost of such a
building will be dependent on a number of factors but indicative costs are
listed in Appendix 7.
7.12.
In cases where 2 or 3 additional GPs are required it is likely that an existing
practice will be extended, the cost will be dependent on the existing building
construction and the indicative costs for extending are listed in Appendix 7.
7.13.
In cases of developments of 735 houses or less, ie less than 1,700 residents,
they may not require a new practice but will generate additional patients at
local practices. As set out in Appendix 6, only ten of the 27 practices in NHS
South Gloucestershire have spare capacity within their current staffing levels,
based on 1,700 patients per GP. Therefore almost all developments may
require additional capacity at local GP practices.
7.14.
Although small numbers of additional patients can normally be
accommodated within the normal turnover of a GP Practice, overall all new
patients require additional resources.
7.15.
It is therefore proposed that where S106 contributions towards specific onsite
or near site requirements cannot be utilised that CIL funding could be utilised
towards the costs of extending existing surgeries. Such an approach where
contributions can be pooled and utilised to meet service priorities, would be
supported by the PCT. This would be a more equitable approach to securing
development contributions, taking into account the many small and medium
sized sites that are likely to come forward during the plan period. Appendix 6
indicates where new extensions may be possible.
7.16.
The exact costs of any extension will depend on the size of the practice to be
extended. However, based on the costs in Appendix 7 for extending a
surgery, Appendix 8 quotes the cost per patient of an extension to a 2, 3, 4 or
5 GP Practice based on the median number of patients for each practice
size.
7.17.
This leads to a cost per patient to extend of £342 - £547, and a cost per
house of £789 – £1,265 to extend a surgery.
7.18.
Although additional new patients will not always require an extension to a
practice, should an extension be required, it will greatly exceed this notional
cost for any extra patients. It is therefore proposed that each house
contributes £955 (the average of the extension costs per house in Appendix
8) towards those extensions that are required as this is more equitable than
requiring those developments to contribute the full cost of the extension
which they trigger whilst requiring no contribution from the previous
developments that generated that position.
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
http://nww.avon.nhs.uk/imtconsortium/Analysis/Maps_GIS/PCT%20maps/SGlos/SGlos_Practices.pdf
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
Appendix 3 - Map showing location of dental practices
http://nww.avon.nhs.uk/imtconsortium/Analysis/Maps_GIS/PCT%20maps/SGlos/SGlos_Dentists.pdf
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
Appendix 4 - Map showing location of pharmacies
http://nww.avon.nhs.uk/imtconsortium/Analysis/Maps_GIS/PCT%20maps/SGlos/SGlos_Pharmacies.pdf
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
Appendix 5 - Map showing location of optometrists
http://nww.avon.nhs.uk/imtconsortium/Analysis/Maps_GIS/PCT%20maps/SGlos/SGlos_Opticians.pdf
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
Appendix 6 - List of GP Practices and patient/GP ratio
Practice Name
Frome Valley Medical Centre
Thornbury Health Centre - Burney
The Stokes Medical Centre
Courtside Surgery
Christchurch Family Medical Centre
Northville Family Practice
Number of
WTE GPs
List Size
7.51
14022
6.25
9884
8.18
7.61
6.31
13893
13104
11270
4
5182
5.17
6.38
7.09
9192
9468
12567
Three Shires Medical Practice
Coniston Medical Practice
Kennedy Way Surgery
Leap Valley Surgery
West Walk Surgery
Close Farm Surgery
The Willow Surgery
The Orchard Medical Centre
Kingswood Health Centre
Hanham Surgery
St Mary Street Surgery
Thornbury Health Centre - Male
Pilning Surgery
Stoke Gifford Medical Centre
Almondsbury Surgery
The Park Medical Practice
The Oaks Medical Practice
Emersons Green Medical Centre
Mangotsfield Surgery
Wellington Road Surgery
Bradley Stoke Surgery
Potential for
Extension
New Extension under
construction
Extension difficult due to
site constraints
Planning Permission
Approved for new
extension
Planning Permission
Approved for new
extension
New extension complete
5.5
5.97
3.5
6.5
8.26
10912
13032
7062
11047
13147
6
14.1
11015
20796
3.03
2.67
2.75
6749
4825
4425
7.14
2.11
3.07
3
3.63
12702
4072
5620
5117
8548
1
1.33
1165
1682
Extension difficult due to
site constraints
Extension Possible
8
14964
New Extension Under
Construction
New extension under
construction
Extension difficult due to
site constraints
Extension Possible
New extension under
construction
Extension Possible
Data correct as at October 2009
Italics – PCT owned buildings
NHS South Gloucestershire has not carried out detailed feasibility reports into the
GP Practice premises and so can not provide a definitive list of which practises could
/ could not be extended. The above comments represent an overview of known
possible opportunities / issues. Assessment of those surgerys with no comment is
required to establish opportunities / priorities. They may also change with patient
movements between practices, irrespective of any developments.
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
Appendix 7 - Sizes of Practice for homes built
Number of
houses
736 – 1,472
1,472 –
2,208
2,208 –
2,944
2,944 –
3,680
Number of
residents
1,701 –
3,400
3,401 –
5,100
5,101 –
6,800
6,801 –
8,500
Number of
GPs
2 GP
Practice
3 GP
Practice
4 GP
Practice
5 GP
Practice
Size of
Practice
368 square
metres
461 square
metres
554 square
metres
689 square
metres
Cost to
build
£698,280
Cost to
extend
£1,396,560
£874,748
£1,749,495
£1,051,215 £2,102,430
£1,307,378 £2,614,755
Appendix 8 – Cost of extending a surgery per patient (or house)
Number of
GPs
2 GP Practice
3 GP Practice
4 GP Practice
5 GP Practice
Number of
residents
1,701 – 3,400
3,401 – 5,100
5,101 – 6,800
6,801 – 8,500
Cost to extend
£1,396,560
£1,749,495
£2,102,430
£2,614,755
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
Cost per patient
£547
£412
£353
£342
Cost per house
£1,265
£951
£816
£789
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
EVIDENCE BASE
LIBRARY SERVICES
(South Gloucestershire Council)
March 2014
Page 1 of 19
18/03/2014
Contents
I
Introduction
Page 3
2
Policy context
Page 3
3
Principles for provision
Page 6
4
The current position in South Gloucestershire
and national standards
Page 8
The South Gloucestershire Library Delivery Plan
2009-2013
Page 8
6
Derivation of contributions
Page 11
7
Level and form of contributions to support growth
Page 13
Appendix 1: Implications of Growth
Appendix 2: Elements of public library space
Appendix 3 Hanham Library catchment area based
on current active users
Page 16
Page 17
5
Page 2 of 19
Page 18
18/03/2014
1.
Introduction
1.1.
The shared vision for South Gloucestershire is set out in the Sustainable
Community Strategy 2012 1 and includes the following objectives:
-
-
Deliver well designed and sustainable new development which integrates
with and benefits existing communities;
Ensure that the social, cultural, health and education needs of all
residents are met;
Conserve and enhance the rich cultural heritage;
Sustain and improve the vibrancy and vitality of town and district centres;
Actively promote equality and value diversity by reducing social inequality,
by improving cohesion and by encouraging positive relationships between
different groups;
Build a stronger community and voluntary sector: encourage volunteering;
Increase people’s involvement in all aspects of their local communities;
Encourage young people to make a positive contribution to their
communities and enable their views and voices to be heard;
Help people make healthy choices and enjoy a healthy lifestyle, ensure
the design of communities encourages play, recreation and active
lifestyles.
1.2.
The provision and improvement of libraries is critical to achieving all these
objectives as they provide a place for local people to take part in many of the
activities that will help achieve these goals.
1.3.
The Local Development Framework (LDF) will set out the spatial expression
of these priorities, and is key to the creation of sustainable communities that
are well designed and planned, provide access to a full range of community
facilities, formal and informal open spaces and that are well integrated with
existing communities.
1.3.
This paper sets out an assessment of requirements for future library services
taking account of residential growth proposed in the South Gloucestershire
Local Plan: Core Strategy (adopted Dec 2013). Any variation in the overall
scale or location of development will clearly alter the requirements. The
document also aims to set out the principles upon which the requirements
are based.
2. Policy Context
2.1.
South Gloucestershire Library and Information Service provides the statutory
service for all residents in the area. This includes the following services:
x Promotion of reading and literacy through the loan of books;
x Developing interest in a range of media through the loan of audio visual
stock (DVDs, CDs);
x Provision of community information points;
x Provision of free access to the internet;
1
South Gloucestershire 2026: “A great place to live and work”, Sustainable Community
Strategy 2012
Page 3 of 19
18/03/2014
x Provision of meeting places for local groups and a base for the delivery of
learning and advice;
x Provision of neutral environments where local people can meet and bring
people together thereby strengthening community cohesion;
x Provision of exhibition areas for use by community groups.
2.2.
Local Authorities have a statutory duty under the 1964 Public Library and
Museums Act 2 to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service to
everyone who lives, works or studies in an area.
2.3
“World Class Places: The Governments Strategy for Improving Quality of
Place”, stresses the importance of providing cultural sporting and healthcare
facilities in association with new housing [DCLG 2009; p 12].
National Planning Policy
2.4.
The approach set out in this document has been updated to be consistent
with changes in national planning guidance, including the Community
Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL) and the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF), the Localism Act 2011 and reflects current South
Gloucestershire Council policies and plans.
2.5.
CIL came into force in 2010 and allows Local Authorities to set standard
charges for new development and is intended to focus on the provision of
new infrastructure. The Planning Act 2008 provides a wide definition of
infrastructure, including cultural facilities such as community centres. The
NPPF acknowledges that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute
to the achievement of sustainable development, for which one of the guiding
principles in the UK’s Sustainable Development Strategy is “ensuring a
strong, healthy and just society”. 3
2.6.
Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning 4 requires Local
Authorities to work with their Local Strategic Partnerships and other relevant
organisations to ensure that sufficient infrastructure is planned in parallel with
housing and other development.
2.7.
The NPPF has as one of its objectives the creation of strong, vibrant and
healthy communities…with accessible local services that reflect community
needs and support health, social and cultural well-being. A key element of
promoting healthy communities is delivering social, recreational and cultural
facilities such as meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings including
libraries, which enhance the sustainability of communities and residential
environments. The framework makes specific reference to meeting places
and public spaces and recognises the need for the built environment to
facilitate social interaction and promote opportunities for meetings between
members of the community who might not otherwise come into contact with
each other, including through strong neighbourhood centres which bring
together those who live, work and play in an area.
2
3
4
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1964/cukpga_19640075_en_1
UK Sustainable Development Strategy “Securing the Future”
Planning Policy Statement 12, DCLG, 2008 ISBN 978 0 11 753996 9
Page 4 of 19
18/03/2014
2.8.
Libraries are an important aspect of the cultural facilities that make up the
social and community offer in a place and as such contribute to the health,
social and cultural well-being of people living in and visiting an area.
Evidence in South Gloucestershire emphasises the importance of these
venues as places where community cohesion is founded and strengthened,
particularly in places that experience multiple deprivation across socialeconomic factors. Libraries are important to the development and support of
and participation in cultural activities. They also contribute towards the
economic success of a place as venues for community learning and
education for all ages.
South Gloucestershire plans and policies
2.9.
The adopted South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy (Dec 2013)
includes policies which require provision and improvement of community
facilities to support future growth, improve the sustainability of communities
and encourage participation in cultural activity. Delivery of sustainable
communities requires the provision of a full range of community facilities,
including libraries, and new development will increase the need for spaces
for people to take part in a wide range of social and cultural activities.
2.10.
SGCS Policy CS6 Infrastructure and Developer Contributions states that
where new development is of sufficient scale to add to overall demand and
impact on infrastructure it will be required to provide community facilities to
mitigate its impacts on existing communities and provide for the needs
arising from development. SGCS Policy CS23 Community Buildings and
Cultural Activity seeks to retain existing facilities and ensure new
development provides or contributes towards new library space, stating that
the Council will work with partners to provide additional, extended or
enhanced community infrastructure and encourage participation in cultural
activity.
2.11.
Area based policies in the Core Strategy set out in more detail the
requirements for library services to serve major new residential development
in a number of locations including new neighbourhoods at Cribbs/Patchway,
East of Harry Stoke and North Yate.
2.12.
The continued provision and improvement of libraries is necessary to meet
the objectives of South Gloucestershire 2026, the Sustainable Community
Strategy 2012 – 2026, as they sit at the heart of delivering community based
activities which support health and well-being, promote community cohesion
for all ages and contribute to the objectives set out above in the Introduction.
2.13.
The Council Strategy 2012-2016 has been updated following adoption of the
refreshed Sustainable Communities Strategy and has the following aims :
x
x
x
To have well designed, sustainable new development which integrates
with and benefits existing communities;
To have an appropriate physical infrastructure within our existing
communities to support the needs of our residents;
To have vibrant, thriving and accessible high streets, town and district
centres;
Page 5 of 19
18/03/2014
x
x
x
x
x
x
To have strong communities that are cohesive, by helping vulnerable
people, combating inequality and bringing people and communities
together;
To have a voluntary and community sector which contributes to local
communities by stimulating the sector and strengthening resilience and
robustness;
For the residents of South Gloucestershire to enjoy the best possible
physical and mental health;
For older people to retain their independence;
To have healthy communities that are leading healthy lifestyles;
To ensure that our children have the best start in life.
Having a library service of suitable scale, quality and in the right place for
communities to use is essential to the delivery of these aims.
2.14.
Libraries are also important to the delivery of other South Gloucestershire
Council strategies including the Cultural Strategy, the Joint Health and
Wellbeing Strategy, the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership
Strategy and the Children and Young People Strategy.
2.15.
Provision of a library service is a statutory council function. Delivery of
sustainable communities requires the provision of the full range of
community and cultural facilities, including libraries. New development will
increase demand on libraries and therefore the library service needs to plan
for the enhancement of existing facilities in order to provide high quality
services for people in the future. Increase in usage requires increases in
space for library buildings, an increase in the quantity of stock to meet
increased demand and increased provision of IT access.
2.16.
South Gloucestershire Council believes it is essential that current levels of
satisfaction, usage and quality be maintained in order to ensure that it retains
its status as a high performing library authority. Any under-provision in
capacity caused by not keeping pace with population growth will undermine
these objectives and the wider social and economic benefits they’re intended
to achieve.
3.
Principles for provision
3.1
Modern public libraries are no longer only places of function – storing or
lending; they are places of information, of free and shared exploration and
learning, using all forms of media. These roles are reflected in the need for a
wider range and new configurations of resources, activity areas and learning
facilities within modern library buildings. Appendix 2 list elements of public
library space commonly provided by library authorities
3.2
The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA), in the publication Public
Libraries, Archives and New Development 5 states that, modern and attractive
public library facilities should have the following characteristics:
5
http://www.mla.gov.uk/resources/assets/P/Public_Libraries__Archives_and_New_Developme
nt__A_standard_charge_approach_13345.pdf.
Page 6 of 19
18/03/2014
x
Be located in highly
neighbourhood centres;
x
Be located in close proximity to, or jointly with, other community facilities,
retail centres and services such as, health or education;
x
Be integrated with the design of an overall development, in mixed use
schemes; providing an active frontage to public areas, and clearly defined
and attractive entrances, accessible to all users including those with a
disability; and
x
Be of a suitable size and standard for intended users.
accessible
locations,
such
as
town
and
The MLA has since been replaced by Arts Council England (ACE) who have
ratified the policy.
3.3
Libraries therefore need to be flexible to meet diverse needs and adaptable
over time to enable new ways of learning. They must also be fully accessible.
Thus modern libraries must be inclusive and holistic in how they provide
services.
3.4
Libraries are also increasingly provided as part of multi-use community
buildings, thereby benefiting from and encouraging customers to undertake
dual purpose trips. There are now many examples of such multi-use practice
throughout the United Kingdom. These include:
x
The Campus in North Somerset brings together two schools, a community
learning centre, library, meeting rooms and sports hall to serve the
Locking Castle housing development;
x
The Platt Bridge Community Library in Wigan includes a primary school, a
Sure Start children’s centre with wrap around nursery care, family support
centre, community health centre and a housing office;
x
The “For All Healthy Living Centre” in Weston super Mare combines
library, church, health practice, community hall and café with training
rooms and office space. It’s runs as a social enterprise promoting health,
learning and well-being; and
x
In South Gloucestershire, the library at Bradley Stoke is situated within the
Leisure Centre and the Council, through the Active Project, has developed
a single membership offer for leisure and library members. In Patchway
the library is situated within the Patchway Hub, the centre includes
children’s services and a Council One Stop Shop
x
There is also scope for libraries to be co-located with residential
development. A local example can be seen in the recently built library at
Staple Hill which has 14 affordable dwellings on the site.
These models of joint provision are an approach the Council would support.
Page 7 of 19
18/03/2014
4.
The current position in South Gloucestershire and
national standards
4.1
South Gloucestershire currently has 13 static libraries and one mobile library.
This equates to an average population per service point of 19,007 compared
with the English Unitary authority median of 17385 6 .
4.2
MLA published in June 2008 ‘A Standard Charge Approach for Public
Libraries, Archives and New Development’. As part of the research, a
national survey concluded that planning obligations sought by local planning
authorities have generally been in the 22-35 sq m per 1,000 population range.
MLA recommend a benchmark standard charge based on 30sq.m. of library
space per 1,000 population.
4.3
New residential or commercial developments will increase the potential
number of library users to whom the authority has an obligation to deliver a
service. This will impose an additional financial cost on the service. While
the revenue costs of such a service are met by increased council tax
collection, the initial one-off costs cannot be met this way, and a contribution
from developers is sought for capital improvements appropriate to the scale
and nature of the development. Key indicators which will reflect an increase
in population include:
x Staff per 1,000 population:
x Stock per 1,000 population;
x Enquiries per 1,000 population; and
x PC use per 10,000 population.
Increased usage in the library service will place pressure on all the above and
reduce the quality of the existing service. The citizens panel survey carried
out within South Gloucestershire show that 53% of the adult population have
used a library in the last 12 months 7 .
5.
The South Gloucestershire Library Delivery Plan 20092013
5.1
In 2010 South Gloucestershire Council approved a Library Delivery Plan 2009
– 2013 (LDP) 8 . The aim of the Delivery Plan is to:
x Identify how the library service supports key priorities of the South
Gloucestershire Council Plan;
x Outline key actions that will enable the service to develop in the next four
years; and
x Summarise the library services and policies.
6
CIPFA Public Library Statistics 2012- 13 Actuals
South Gloucestershire Viewpoint Survey 2011
8
Plan approved by Executive Councillor 22nd February 2010
http://council.southglos.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=14125
7
Page 8 of 19
18/03/2014
5.2
The Plan includes adoption of the MLA recommendation of 30 sq.m. of library
space per 1,000 population as a basis for developer contributions for housing.
The library standard charge has been adopted by a number of local
authorities in England. Examples of the standard being adopted are cited in
the document Public libraries and new development; Progress in Adoption of
the MLA Recommended Standard Charge for Public libraries (report by
Martin Elson, October 2008 9 ). The MLA standard has been accepted by
developers in South Gloucestershire for example at Hanham Hall and Park
Farm, Thornbury.
Improving the service for the existing community
5.3
The Library Delivery Plan also outlines a programme to improve services to
the existing local community, especially to increase the amount of library
space for customers. Significant investment has been made in the South
Gloucestershire Library service since 1996 as the Authority seeks to increase
the level of provision. Projects completed include:
x
x
x
x
x
x
The opening of five new libraries (Bradley Stoke, Emersons Green, Filton,
Staple Hill and Patchway which has been redeveloped and opened in
September 2011):
The replacement of the mobile library:
The extension of three libraries (Cadbury Heath, Hanham, Winterbourne):
The complete refurbishment and extension of Yate Library funded by £1.5
million from the Big Lottery Fund:
The internal refurbishment of libraries at Kingswood, Chipping Sodbury
and Downend Libraries: and
The introduction of Radio Frequency Identification [RFID] to enable the
service to deal with increased usage without additional staff and to release
staff to work with customers. RFID stands for the Radio Frequency
Identification, used in libraries it enables customers to issue and return
books themselves through self issue machines.
5.4
The above clearly demonstrates the Council’s commitment to the
development of library services and the need to ensure that further
developments do not have a negative impact on the improvements the
projects listed above have delivered. The Council will continue to identify
funding options to help increase space in libraries to discharge the range of
functions modern libraries have to perform effectively [See summary in
Appendix 2].
5.5
The development of library buildings has been funded from a range of
sources including:
x South Gloucestershire Council capital funding (extensions,
refurbishments)
x Big Lottery Fund (Yate Library);
x Growth point funding (Patchway Library);
x Partnership with Housing Associations (Staple Hill Library); and
9
http://www.mlasoutheast.org.uk/assets/documents/10000F53ProgressinAdoptionoftheMLAR
ecommendedStandardChargeforPubliclibrariesOctober2008.doc
Page 9 of 19
18/03/2014
x
Developer contributions (Emersons Green Library and other library
projects).
5.6 Compared to the MLA guidance, library services in South Gloucestershire fall
substantially below the recommended space requirement of 30 sq.m. per 1,000
population. The Library Delivery Plan identifies actions the service is taking to
address this shortfall to provide additional capacity in libraries. It also reviews the
priorities for further growth and enhancement at each service point, and sets
these out in Appendix 1. In spite of these potential improvements, there will
remain existing significant shortfall in capacity across the District even taking
account of the capital programme identified within the Delivery Plan.
Table 1: Existing library provision in South Gloucestershire 10
Library
Bradley Stoke
Library
Cadbury Heath
Library
Chipping
Sodbury Library
Downend
Library
Emersons
Green Library
Filton Library
Hanham Library
Kingswood
Library
Patchway
Library
Staple Hill
Library
Thornbury
Library
Winterbourne
Library
Yate Library
Library
Catchment
population
Gross
Library floor
space
sq m
Current sq m of
public space in
each library per
1,000
population
Gross library
floor space
required
30sq m per
1,000
population
Surplus or
shortfall
sq m
36,721
582
15.8
1,102
-520
11,967
204
17.0
359
-155
6,677
70
10.5
200
-130
14,179
365
25.7
425
-60
21,080
450
21.3
632
-182
12,178
218
17.9
365
-147
18,590
363
19.5
558
-195
22,378
369
16.5
671
-302
10,465
310
29.6
314
-4
14,004
359
25.6
420
-61
22,414
421
18.8
672
-251
8,262
276
33.4
248
28
36,407
759
20.8
1,092
-333
Catchment areas
5.7
10
The catchment areas of the current libraries has been mapped based on the
usage pattern of customers combined with Census figures for the wards (e.g
see Appendix 3 Hanham Library Example). It should be noted that customers
will visit a library based also on where they attend school, work, shop or use
other local facilities as well as where they live.
Updated October 2011
Page 10 of 19
18/03/2014
6. Derivation of contributions
Cost of provision
6.1 Contributions will be calculated using the floorspace standard of 30sq.m. per
1,000 population and a build cost per square metre based on the MLA
benchmark costs taken from the Building Cost Information Service [BCIS] 11 mean
building costs for libraries based on the figure on 1st April of the year in which the
planning application is submitted. The BCIS index is made up of new builds and
extensions over the whole of England. The benchmark includes the following:
x
cost of constructing the library building, including space open to the
public, and backroom space (e.g. office, store, toilets etc);
x
allowances for design and external works, including car parking, hard
standing and landscaping;
x
cost of initial equipment of the building, including IT equipment and initial
book and other stock
The figure for initial fit out costs (88% of building cost) is averaged from those
local authorities that gave a breakdown of costs at the time the standard
charge document was written. In appropriate circumstances, the developer’s
contributions towards the provision of land will be required as well.
6.2 Table 2 illustrates how the cost per sq.m. would be calculated using BCIS mean
building cost for libraries from 2011 as an example. This formula will be used in
South Gloucestershire to calculate a contribution per person which will then be
applied to the expected future population of a proposed development. The
relevant BCIS figure will be inserted at *.
Table 2: Library building costs at October 2011
Aspect of work
Cost per
square metre
Cumulative
cost per square
metre
Mean building cost for public
library buildings (BCIS) 2011*
£1,624 12
£1,624
£1,868
External works: car parking, hard £244
standing, landscaping, security
fencing, signage (assume 15% of
build costs)
Design costs (assume 15% of
£280
£2,148
building and external works costs)
Fitting out costs, including initial
£1,429
£3,577
book stock and ICT (88% of
capital costs of £1,624)
Total cost
£3,577
The cost of 30 sq.m. of library provision at £3,577 per sq.m. is £107,310 and
this is the cost of provision for 1,000 people.
11
12
BCIS published by RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors)
The BCIS mean figure current at the time a planning application is submitted will be used
Page 11 of 19
18/03/2014
The cost per person is therefore £107,310 ÷ 1,000 = £107.31.
Note the figure of £107.31 per person is for illustrative purposes for this
example and may vary according to the BCIS figure at time of application.
Where the local library cannot be extended funding will be sought for the
costs of stock, IT and internal refurbishment to enable the building to deal
with additional demand. This will be based on the figures in Table 2 and are
illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3: Costs of library provision where extension is not feasible
Residential development where extension to local
library is not possible
Fitting out costs, including initial book etc. stock and
ICT (88% of capital costs of £1,624)
Cost of providing library services at £1,429 per sq.m.
equals
Cost per person
Costs
£1,429
£42,870
£42.87
The figures in tables 2 and 3 will be revised on 1st April each year. They do
not include land costs or VAT and should be indexed from the date an
application is submitted.
How contributions would be spent
6.3 Contributions may be used for additional stock, associated fixtures and fittings,
ICT equipment and services, or the cost of an extension, both physical and in
terms of the service. Contributions will normally be directed to the library most
closely associated with the community where the development is proposed,
however it should be noted that the library service operates as an Authority wide
service, and that items such as stock are purchased for the Authority as a whole.
6.4 Other related off site facilities and services may also benefit from contributions,
which will then be used to improve the service within the local community.
Contributions from individual small developments or “windfalls” may be ‘pooled’ to
enable more significant improvements at any one individual library to meet
increased demand.
Page 12 of 19
18/03/2014
Level and form of contributions to support growth
7.1 The South Gloucestershire Council Core Strategy makes provision for more than
28,000 new dwellings between 2006 and 2027. Using the average household
size of 2.4 persons as the basis for estimating the likely population within a
development (2011 Census), the assumption is that this level of growth will lead
to approximately 68,000 additional residents who will require access to library
services over this period.
7.2 The Core Strategy proposes new neighbourhoods in three locations which will
require a number of new community centres on site. A further 4,000 dwellings
have planning permission or are expected to achieve planning permission on
small and medium sized sites. Unidentified windfalls could also potentially
contribute towards new provision or improvements to existing community
facilities. The approach to provide or expand library services to support this
growth for different scales of development is set out below.
7.3 With the introduction of CIL the mechanism for securing funding and provision of
community infrastructure is changing. The Council is preparing a Regulation 123
list and a Supplementary Planning Document which will cover CIL and s106. CIL
Regulation 122 sets out the following tests that must be satisfied in order for
obligations to be required in respect of development proposals:
• the obligation must be necessary to make the proposed development
acceptable in planning terms;
• the obligation must be directly related to the proposed development;
• the obligation must be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
proposed development.
7.4 The Council will consider planning applications on their merits in terms of impact
on local libraries in line with policy guidance and evidence on a case by case
basis. Until a CIL approach is adopted Section 106 will continue to be the
preferred mechanism to fund specific items including library space to support
delivery of the Core Strategy new neighbourhoods as well as the redevelopment
of Frenchay Hospital and Land East of Coldharbour Lane. The Council will seek
a contribution from other developments if they would give rise to the need for
additional or expanded community infrastructure which is necessary in planning
terms, directly and fairly related to the development in scale and kind and not
provided for in development proposals. Where there is robust evidence that there
is sufficient capacity in existing libraries to meet the needs arising from new
development contributions will not be sought.
7.5 If a CIL approach is adopted the floorspace standard set out above and the
method for calculating contributions in paragraph 6.2 could be adapted to
establish a per dwelling tariff. The developer contributions that will be sought per
person to provide library services to support this growth and the approach taken
for different scales of development is set out in detail below and summarised in
Table 4.
Page 13 of 19
18/03/2014
Table 4: Summary of developer contributions sought from new development
Type of development
Cost per person in new
development
Residential development where extension to
library is required
£107.31
Residential development where no extension
to library can be built. The funding will be
used for additional stock, IT and internal
refurbishment
£42.87
Care Home development.t This relates to
homes where the residents are totally
dependent on services provided within the
home and the library service would be
brought in by the local library service
£24.00
Contributions will be sought from:
Strategic residential and mixed use Core Strategy allocations
7.6 Where appropriate developers will be expected to provide land and construct a
library, preferably as part of a multi-use building, or make a financial contribution
towards the capital costs of providing library extensions to local libraries required
for the development. Any requirement for a new library will be reviewed at
the appropriate time in the context of whether the Council can guarantee
revenue funding.
Medium or small residential developments
7.7 These developments will attract developer contributions to offset the pressure
placed upon the service by additional residents. Housing reserved for occupation
for vulnerable residents and affordable dwellings will be treated as other
residential development for the purposes of calculating library contributions as the
service has a statutory duty to provide for all residents.
Care homes
7.8 The service has a responsibility to provide library services to all residents
including people who are unable to travel to a library. South Gloucestershire
Libraries provide regular deliveries of stock to 80 care homes within the area to
meet the reading needs of the residents. Where a new care home is built, or
existing properties are converted to this use, the service will seek contributions
towards the loan service based on the South Gloucestershire figure of 784 items
per 1,000 population to support the establishment. The contribution would be
£24 per resident which is calculated as follows:
Basis of calculation: £10.00 per volume including servicing and acquisition costs
as a start-up collection, additional books £7,844 per 1,000, for next two years.
[£7.84 x 2 years = £15.68 + £7.84 = £24 rounded].
Page 14 of 19
18/03/2014
Development thresholds
7.9 Previously the Council has applied a threshold where contributions for Library
Services are sought via negotiation and S106 agreements for proposals of more
than 10 household units. To continue to use this threshold would mean that a
significant proportion of new developments would not contribute towards the
mitigation of increased pressure on library facilities. The service will therefore
seek contributions from all developments of one household unit or more if a
proposed development would give rise to the need for additional or expanded
community infrastructure which is necessary in planning terms and not provided
for in an application 13 . Until this approach is possible through the development of
an adopted CIL Charging Schedule DPD, the Council will consider applications
on their merits in terms of impact on local library services in line with policy and
guidance on a case by case basis.
7.10 The Council is currently compiling information on works it would wish to carry
out to mitigate the impacts of growth should funds become available from
development beyond the strategic sites identified in Appendix 1.
13
In line with guidance in planning circular 05/2005
Page 15 of 19
18/03/2014
Appendix 1: Implications of Growth
These tables list the major residential and mixed developments allocated in the
adopted Core Strategy and the associated requirement for library enhancement to
provide for the expected new population. Libraries identified for extension have
sufficient space for this. Costs are based on the per person contribution of £107.31
outlined above and if costs change may need to be amended at time of applications.
Table 5: Requirements for enhancement of libraries for strategic residential
and mixed use allocations
Area
Dwelling
numbers
Estimated
new
residents
(2.4ppd)
Space
require
d
(sq.m.)
Financial
contribution
if library not
built by
developers
(£107.31 pp)
Libraries
where
enhancements
might be made
Options for
enhancement
500
1,200
36
£128,772
Bradley Stoke
Winterbourne
Downend
Extension,
additional stock
and IT
2,000
4,800
144
£515,088
Bradley Stoke
Winterbourne
Downend
Land North of Yate
3,000
7,200
216
£772,632
Yate
Land South and West
of Filton Airfield and
Cribbs Patchway
Remodelling
5,700
13,680
410.4
£1,468,001
New library
New library (see
para. 7.3)
or
Extension,
additional stock
and IT
Extension,
additional stock
and IT. Possible
satellite location
in community
centre in addition
to extension
New library on
airfield site;
developers will
be expected to
provide land and
construct a
library, preferably
as part of a multiuse building
Thornbury, Park Farm
500
1,200
36
£128,772
Thornbury
Frenchay Hospital
450
1,080
32.4
£115,895
Downend library
Mobile library
SGLP 14 Housing
Sites
Land East of
Coldharbour Lane
New
Neighbourhoods
(CS 15 )
Land East of Harry
Stoke
Combine
contribution to
new library at
East of Harry
Stoke
14
15
Extension,
additional stock
and IT
Extension,
additional stock
and IT
Subject to timing
of devt and
revenue funding
South Gloucestershire Local Plan 2006
South Gloucestershire Core Strategy Post Submission Version (Dec 2011)
Page 16 of 19
18/03/2014
Table 6: Requirements for enhancement of libraries for small and windfall sites
Area
Dwelling
numbers
Estimated new
residents
(2.4ppd)
Space
required
(sq.m.)
Financial
contributions
(£107.31 pp)
Options for
enhancement
2,990
7,176
215.3
£770,057
Enhancement of
existing local libraries,
assessed on site by
site basis.
District Wide
Small & Medium
sites/windfalls – 250 per
annum to 2012
Appendix 2: Elements of public library space
Public space
Reception area, cloakrooms, toilets, baby care facilities
Open access to books and other print collections, local studies material
Networked PCs with internet access and IT support; computer teaching area
Dedicated areas for priority audiences; children and young people
Meeting room, advice rooms, exhibition space
Some share space with sport, health, education, council information or general
community facilities
Non public space
Staff offices, rest room
Workrooms, storage, plant room
Computer server room, security, cleaners store
External
Service and large group access
Car and cycle parking
Landscaping, signage, other security
Source MLA [2008] Public Libraries and New Development: A Standard Charge Approach
Page 17 of 19
18/03/2014
Appendix 3 Hanham Library catchment area based on current active users
Page 18 of 19
18/03/2014
Page 19 of 19
18/03/2014
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
EVIDENCE BASE PAPER
COMMUNITY CENTRES &
VILLAGE HALLS
March 2014
Page1of21
Contents
I
Summary
Page 3
2
Introduction
Page 3
3
Policy context
Page 4
4
Principles for provision
Page 6
5
Current position in South Gloucestershire
Page 9
6
Calculation of contributions
Page 10
7
Level and form of contributions to support growth
Page 11
Appendix 1: List of Dedicated Community Centres & Village Halls
Appendix 2: Map showing distribution of DCCs
Page2of21
Page 16
Page 21
1. Summary
1.1.
Community centres and village halls are essential to meet the objectives set out in the
NPPF and the Development Plan to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all,
deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs and
create sustainable communities.
1.2.
For strategic residential and mixed used developments new community centres are
required on site either as part of a multi-use community complex or located with other
community uses. For smaller sites financial contributions will be required to increase
capacity at existing community centres; where this isn’t feasible options to create
increased capacity in other community facilities may be considered.
1.3.
Contributions will be calculated using the floorspace standard of 0.14sq.m. per person
and a building cost per square metre gross internal floor area taken from the published
BCIS mean building costs for new build Community Centres published for the South West
region. Allowance will be made for design fees, external works, initial fitting out and
equipment plus contingencies as appropriate. This will then be applied to the expected
future population of a proposed development as follows:
Cost per sq.m.
X
0.14sq.m. per person
=
£ contribution per person
2. Introduction
2.1.
The shared vision for South Gloucestershire is set out in the Sustainable Community
Strategy 2012 1 and includes the following objectives:
-
-
1
Deliver well designed and sustainable new development which integrates with and
benefits existing communities;
Plan well for sustainability, affordability and healthy lifestyles in new developments;
Ensure that the social, cultural, health and education needs of all residents are met;
Identify and reduce health inequalities;
Conserve and enhance the rich cultural heritage;
Sustain and improve the vibrancy and vitality of town and district centres;
Increase community planning, ownership and involvement in managing facilities and
services;
Actively promote equality and value diversity by reducing social inequality, by
improving cohesion and by encouraging positive relationships between different
groups;
Build a stronger community and voluntary sector: encourage volunteering;
Increase people’s involvement in all aspects of their local communities;
Encourage young people to make a positive contribution to their communities and
enable their views and voices to be heard;
Reduce the level and impact of crime and disorder on our communities and improve
public confidence;
Help people make healthy choices and enjoy a healthy lifestyle, ensure the design of
communities encourages play, recreation and active lifestyles.
South Gloucestershire 2026: “A great place to live and work”, Sustainable Community Strategy 2012
Page3of21
2.2.
The provision and improvement of community centres and village halls are critical to
achieving all these objectives as they provide a place for local people to take part in many
of the activities that will help achieve these goals.
2.3.
The Local Development Framework sets out the spatial expression of these priorities and
is key to the creation of sustainable communities that are well designed and planned,
provide access to a full range of community facilities, formal and informal open spaces
and which are well integrated with existing communities.
2.4.
This paper sets out an assessment of requirements for future growth for community
centres and village halls taking account of existing provision and dwelling growth
proposed in the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy (adopted Dec 2013).
Any variation in the overall scale or location of development will clearly alter the
requirements. The document also sets out the principles upon which the requirements are
based.
3. Policy Context
National Planning Policy
3.1.
The approach set out in this document has been updated to be consistent with changes in
national planning guidance, including the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations
(CIL) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Localism Act 2011 and
reflects current South Gloucestershire Council policies and plans.
3.2.
CIL came into force in 2010 and allows Local Authorities to set standard charges for new
development and is intended to focus on the provision of new infrastructure. The
Planning Act 2008 provides a wide definition of infrastructure, including cultural facilities
such as community centres. The NPPF acknowledges that the purpose of the planning
system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, for which one of
the guiding principles in the UK’s Sustainable Development Strategy is “ensuring a
strong, healthy and just society”. 2
3.3.
Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning 3 requires Local Authorities to work
with their Local Strategic Partnerships and other relevant organisations to ensure that
sufficient infrastructure is planned in parallel with housing and other development.
3.4.
The NPPF has as one of its objectives the creation of strong, vibrant and healthy
communities…with accessible local services that reflect community needs and support
health, social and cultural well-being. A key element of promoting healthy communities is
delivering social, recreational and cultural facilities such as meeting places, sports
venues, cultural buildings that enhance the sustainability of communities and residential
environments. The framework makes specific reference to meeting places and public
spaces and recognises the need for the built environment to facilitate social interaction
and promote opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might
not otherwise come into contact with each other, including through strong neighbourhood
centres which bring together those who live, work and play in an area.
3.5.
Community centres and village halls are an important aspect of the cultural facilities that
make up the social and community offer in a place and as such contribute to the health,
2
3
UK Sustainable Development Strategy “Securing the Future”
Planning Policy Statement 12, DCLG, 2008 ISBN 978 0 11 753996 9
Page4of21
social and cultural well-being of people living in and visiting an area. Evidence in South
Gloucestershire emphasises the importance of community venues as places where
community cohesion is founded and strengthened, particularly in places that experience
multiple deprivation across social-economic factors. Community centres and meeting
spaces are important to the development and support of and participation in cultural
activities. They also contribute towards the economic success of a place as venues for
community learning and education.
South Gloucestershire plans and policies
3.6.
The adopted South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy (Dec 2013) includes
policies which require provision and improvement of community facilities to support future
growth, improve the sustainability of communities and encourage participation in cultural
activity. Delivery of sustainable communities requires the provision of a full range of
community facilities, including high quality meeting spaces and new development will
increase the need for spaces for people to take part in a wide range of social and cultural
activities.
3.7.
SGCS Policy CS6 Infrastructure and Developer Contributions states that where new
development is of sufficient scale to add to overall demand and impact on infrastructure it
will be required to provide community facilities to mitigate its impacts on existing
communities and provide for the needs arising from development. SGCS Policy CS23
Community Buildings and Cultural Activity seeks to retain existing facilities and ensure
new development provides or contributes towards new meeting spaces, stating that the
Council will work with partners to provide additional, extended or enhanced community
infrastructure, including community centres, and encourage participation in cultural
activity.
3.8.
Area based policies in the Core Strategy set out in more detail the requirements for
community centres to serve major new residential development in a number of locations
including new neighbourhoods at Cribbs/Patchway, East of Harry Stoke and North Yate.
3.9.
The continued provision and improvement of community centres and village halls is
necessary to meet the objectives of South Gloucestershire 2026, the Sustainable
Community Strategy 2012 – 2026, as they sit at the heart of delivering community based
activities which support health and well-being, promote community cohesion for all ages
and contribute to the objectives set out above in the Introduction.
3.10.
The Council Strategy 2012-2016 has been updated following adoption of the refreshed
Sustainable Communities Strategy and has the following aims :
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
To have well designed, sustainable new development which integrates with and
benefits existing communities;
To have an appropriate physical infrastructure within our existing communities to
support the needs of our residents;
To have vibrant, thriving and accessible high streets, town and district centres;
To have strong communities that are cohesive, by helping vulnerable people,
combating inequality and bringing people and communities together;
To have a voluntary and community sector which contributes to local communities by
stimulating the sector and strengthening resilience and robustness;
For the residents of South Gloucestershire to enjoy the best possible physical and
mental health;
For older people to retain their independence;
To have healthy communities that are leading healthy lifestyles;
Page5of21
x
To ensure that our children have the best start in life.
Having sufficient community centres and village halls of suitable scale, quality and in the
right place for communities to use is essential to the delivery of these aims.
3.11.
Community centres and village halls are important to the delivery of other South
Gloucestershire Council strategies including the Cultural Strategy, the Joint Health and
Wellbeing Strategy, the Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership Strategy and the
Children and Young People Strategy.
4. Principles for Provision
Definition of community centres/village halls
4.1.
While there is no single nationally recognised definition of a community centre or village
hall there is no doubt that all people need access to community facilities for a wide range
of activities. The Localism Act 2011 suggests that an asset whose primary use furthers
the social well-being or social interests of a local community is recognised as having
community value 4 . For the purposes of this paper South Gloucestershire Council defines
a community centre or village hall as a “dedicated facility which provides a range of
affordable and accessible activities and services which is owned or managed by the
community for use by the whole community in perpetuity”. Management by the community
allows the facility to respond directly to local needs.
4.2.
A distinction is made between a dedicated community centre and a meeting space that’s
available for community members or groups to use in a building with a different primary
purpose, for instance a room for hire in a public house or church, or a school hall.
Similarly the distinction is made between a dedicated community centre and a facility
which is owned by or reserved for a particular use or user group rather than for general
use by the whole community; for instance ex-servicemen’s clubs, sports and social clubs
and scout huts. Exceptions may exist where such facilities are available for use by the
wider community and this use is secured by legal agreement; these would be counted as
dedicated community centres.
Catchment Areas
4.3.
While there are no national standards for the catchments of community centres, guidance
is outlined in the handbook for planners, designers, developers and community groups
“Shaping Neighbourhoods: A Guide for Health, Sustainability and Vitality” (2003) 5 . This
suggests that the catchment population required to sustain one community centre is
around 4,000 people (see table 1) and that 800m is the furthest people should expect to
live from a community centre.
4.4.
Analysis of the household survey of sports and recreation facilities undertaken by South
Gloucestershire Council in 2010 6 indicated that 75% of users of indoor community halls
walk for on average 15.5 minutes to get to them. At the average walking speed of 3 miles
(4,800metres) per hour a person can walk approximately 1,240 metres in 15.5 minutes.
4
Localism Act 2011 (c.20) Part 5 Community empowerment Chapter 3 Assets of community value
Shaping Neighbourhoods: a guide for health, sustainability and vitality by Hugh Barton, Marcus Grant,
Richard Guise (Taylor & Francis 2003)
6
Householder survey on sport, recreation and open space undertaken in 2010 to inform the evidence base
for the emerging South Gloucestershire Core Strategy
5
Page6of21
National guidelines based on Fields in Trust 7 research recommends conversion of actual
distances travelled into straight line distances to allow analysis to be undertaken using a
GIS mapping system. This allows for the fact that routes to sites will not be straight, and
the actual route taken will be more complex and further than a straight line distance to a
facility. This effectively reduces the distance travelled by 40% to give the equivalent
straight line distance. Thus the typical travel time in South Gloucestershire can be
expressed as equivalent to approximately 745 metres straight line distance, allowing us to
identify a reasonable distance for people to travel to such a facility.
4.5.
Population numbers and densities in rural areas are much lower than in urban areas and
a village or community hall often serves a population spread over a wider geographical
area than its equivalent in a more built up area. In these areas people will generally
expect to travel further to their nearest community centre.
4.6.
Using the findings from the household survey and the recommended standards in
“Shaping Neighbourhoods” we consider 800m straight line distance from a dedicated
community centre to be a reasonable standard to seek in urban areas for the majority of
residents. In rural areas this would be an unrealistic standard to seek and so in those
areas it is more reasonable to seek a standard of provision that is aligned more closely
with the ratio of 1 centre per 4,000 residents.
Table 1: Accessibility standards from Shaping Neighbourhoods (2002) Barton et al
Space Standards
4.7.
7
There is no nationally recognised floorspace standard for community centres or village
halls but Sport England produces a helpful guidance note “Village and Community Halls”
(2001) which outlines good practice in the design of new community buildings and
Fields In Trust (previously the National Playing Fields Association): www.fieldsintrust.org
Page7of21
illustrates a range of buildings of different sizes which accommodate various facilities.
The Council will seek to apply standards set out in that guidance note or appropriate
equivalent standards where new provision or improvements to local community meeting
facilities are required.
4.8.
The minimum standard should be a building which can accommodate a range of activities
and provide for many different community groups and activities that will develop and
support health, social and cultural well-being for all people. All buildings should contain
toilets, changing rooms, including appropriate space and facilities for those with
disabilities, a kitchen, foyer, store and office as well as a number of flexible spaces and
rooms for meetings and activities. Where a new community building is required, the Sport
England design guidance suggests as a minimum a building should include a main hall, a
secondary hall and a lounge/community room, with a total minimum floorspace of 575
square metres (GIFA 8 ). A sample layout is shown below. In addition to this suitable and
useable external spaces and adequate car and cycle parking should be provided as part
of the facility where appropriate.
4.9.
Applying this minimum floorspace for a new centre to the “Shaping Neighbourhoods”
standard of one community centre per 4,000 people gives a ratio of 0.14 square metres
GIFA per person. For the purposes of identifying the minimum amount of community
centre floorspace needed to support a local community South Gloucestershire Council will
therefore use 0.14 square metres GIFA per person.
4.10.
This will be used as a minimum standard to calculate both new community centre
provision and the scale of enhancement of existing facilities to provide for the residents of
new development, where either there is no dedicated community centre close enough for
residents to use, or where it can be demonstrated that there is insufficient capacity in
existing facilities. To inform this assessment it is appropriate to consider the ratio of
usable space in a facility to the local population and the programmes available for those
users, as well as numbers and distribution of community centres, as together these
contribute to the overall quantity and quality of provision.
8
GIFA: gross internal floor area
Page8of21
5. Current Provision in South Gloucestershire
5.1.
There are many community facilities in South Gloucestershire including dedicated
community centres as well as spaces in schools, churches, sports clubs and even fire
stations that are available for hire or use by local people. Long term use by the
community of space in shared facilities whose primary purpose is not that of a community
centre cannot be guaranteed and they are not typically as responsive to local needs.
Therefore it is important to have sufficient dedicated community centres which are
available for wider public use and can respond directly to local needs, in order to create
and sustain mixed, inclusive and cohesive communities.
5.2.
There are approximately 80 facilities known to us which can be counted as dedicated
community centres or village halls in South Gloucestershire; these are listed in appendix
1. The map at appendix 2 shows how they are distributed across the district and that,
while they broadly correspond with populated areas, they are not evenly distributed and
some areas are less well served by centres and halls.
5.3.
In many of the more populated urban areas provision in number and distribution of
centres is generally good with most residential areas being well served by dedicated
community centres. Analysis of the 2010 household survey of sports and recreation
facilities supports this and indicates that 36% of respondents consider the quantity of
indoor hall, studios and rooms is about right. This rises to almost 50% in the north fringe
and Yate/Chipping Sodbury.
5.4.
In the more rural parts of the district, provision is also generally good, with many villages
having a good number of community centres or village halls per head of population. In
some cases dedicated community centres serve village populations of fewer than 4,000
residents, so the space to user ratio is high, although this doesn’t necessarily mean that
the quality of those spaces is high. If we accept that rural residents normally expect to
travel further to such a facility than urban dwellers, as supported by the 2010 householder
survey 9 , generally all but the most remote rural areas are within reasonable reach of a
dedicated facility.
5.5.
In the towns of Yate and Chipping Sodbury there are seven dedicated community centres
and these are mostly distributed in a wide east-west band which broadly follows the main
A432. Residential areas to the north of the B4059 in the north of Yate are least well
served in terms of distance from a dedicated facility.
5.6.
In Thornbury there are three dedicated community halls and these are concentrated in the
west and south of the town with most residential areas being within reasonable distance
of at least one of these. Within the town there are a small number of residential streets
that are further than the recommended distance from a hall.
5.7.
While coverage is generally good across the district, there are exceptions, and in some
areas people live much further than the recommended distance from a community hall or
there are physical barriers such as major roads or railways which prevent reasonable
access. These areas include Barrs Court, Rodway Hill and Siston Hill which lie close to
the A4174 in the area known as the east fringe 10 . In the north fringe 11 the residential
areas which lack good access to dedicated community centres include residential
communities around Catbrain Lane and Stoke Park.
9
Householder survey on sport, recreation and open space undertaken to inform the evidence base for the
emerging South Gloucestershire core strategy 2010
10
Described as Communities of the East Fringe of the Bristol Urban Area in SGCS
11
Described as Communities of the North Fringe of the Bristol Urban Area in SGCS
Page9of21
5.8.
The principles of provision we would seek to achieve are set out in section 3 above.
Where developments come forward in areas where there appears to be sufficient
provision, existing community centres will be put under pressure from new residents and
there will be a displacement effect over time. It is therefore important to bring all areas of
the district up to an acceptable standard of space and accessibility. The approach South
Gloucestershire Council will take to addressing a lack of provision where there is
evidence of insufficient or inadequate community centre provision is set out below.
6. Calculation of contributions
6.1.
Where costs for building new community centres and providing new capacity at existing
facilities aren’t known at the time an application is submitted, it is appropriate to use a
formula. This will be based on mean building costs per square metre of gross internal
floor area for new build Community Centres adjusted for the South West Region as
published by the Building Cost Information Service [BCIS] of the Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors 12 . In addition to this basic building cost, it is reasonable to make
allowance for design fees, external works (including car parking, hard standing, external
lighting, sustainable drainage system and landscaping), the cost of initial fitting out and
equipping of the building (including loose furniture and ICT) to ensure facilities are of
sufficient quality to meet community needs plus contingencies.
6.2.
Contributions will be calculated using a build cost per square metre based on the BCIS
mean building costs for Community Centres current at the time a planning application is
submitted. To illustrate this the formula below uses the mean building cost for Q1 2014.
Table 2: Typical Calculation of cost per sq.m.
Cost per sq.m.
6.3.
Mean building cost for Community Centres
(BCIS) Q1 2013
External works (assume 15% of build costs)
Design costs (assume 15% of building + external
works costs)
ICT, fitting out (say 50% of mean building costs)
Sub-total cost per sq.m.
Contingency @ 15%
£1,442 13
Total cost per sq m
£3,021
£216
£248
£721
£2,627
£394
14
The cost per sq.m. current at the time of application can then be applied to the floorspace
standard of 0.14sq.m. per person to give a contribution per person:
Cost per sq.m.
X
0.14sq.m. per person
=
£ contribution per person
=
£422.94
In this example:
£3,021
X
0.14
12
BCIS published mean for community centres 500sq.m. – 2,000sq.m. GIFA (Generally) rebased to South
West region
13
The BCIS mean figure current at the time a planning application is submitted will be used.
14
The cost per sq.m. shown is illustrative only, contributions will be based on figures current at time of
application.
Page10of21
6.1.
The contribution per person will then be applied to the expected future population of a
proposed development. The figure excludes land and VAT and should be indexed in
s106 agreements from the date an application is submitted, to allow for any change in the
index during the period taken to determine an application. The agreed figure should be
based on the mid-point of construction.
6.2.
Where a new dedicated community centre/village hall is required the recommended
minimum size is 575sq.m. and the total size should be calculated using the predicted
population and the space standard of 0.14 sq.m. per person. Total floorspace will depend
on whether the facility combines a number of uses and what those are. The layout and
the design of the building will be agreed in collaboration with the Council and with the
organisation/s likely to run the facility.
7. Level and form of provision and contributions to support development
7.1.
The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy makes provision for more than 28,000 new
dwellings between 2006 and 2027. Using the average household size of 2.4 persons as
the basis for estimating the likely population within a development (2011 Census), the
assumption is that this level of growth will lead to approximately 68,000 additional
residents who will require access to community centres and halls across the district.
Based on the minimum space standard of 0.14sq.m.per person this level of new
development would require more than 9,500sq.m. of community centre space, or the
equivalent of 16 new halls of 575sq.m.
7.2.
In addition to the growth set out in the Core Strategy, more than 6,500 new dwellings on
strategic housing sites allocated in the South Gloucestershire Local Plan (SGLP) have
planning permission and provision of community space is agreed for those as follows:
x Cheswick Village (750 dwellings) – £400,000 contribution towards dual use
community facilities in new primary school on site.
x Harry Stoke (1200 dwellings) – new community building onsite (493sq.m.).
x North Field Charlton Hayes (2200 dwellings) – £1.5m contribution towards off site
provision.
x Emersons Green East (2390 dwellings) – new community hall on site (880sq.m.) and
social space in a cricket pavilion (200sq.m.).
7.3.
The Core Strategy proposes new neighbourhoods in three locations which will require
new community centres on site. A further 4,000 dwellings have planning permission or
are expected to achieve planning permission on small and medium sized sites.
Unidentified windfalls may also potentially contribute towards new provision or
improvements to existing community facilities. The approach to provide or expand
centres to support this growth for different scales of development is set out below.
7.4.
With the introduction of CIL the mechanism for securing funding and provision of
community infrastructure is changing. The Council is preparing a Regulation 123 list and
a Supplementary Planning Document which will cover CIL and s106. CIL Regulation 122
sets out the following tests that must be satisfied in order for obligations to be required in
respect of development proposals:
• the obligation must be necessary to make the proposed development acceptable
in planning terms;
• the obligation must be directly related to the proposed development;
• the obligation must be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
proposed development.
Page11of21
7.5.
The Council will consider planning applications on their merits in terms of impact on local
community centres in line with policy guidance and evidence on a case by case basis.
Until a CIL approach is adopted Section 106 will continue to be the preferred mechanism
to fund specific items including community centre space to support delivery of the Core
Strategy new neighbourhoods as well as the redevelopment of Frenchay Hospital and
Land East of Coldharbour Lane. The Council will seek a contribution from other
developments if they would give rise to the need for additional or expanded community
infrastructure which is necessary in planning terms, directly and fairly related to the
development in scale and kind and not provided for in development proposals 15 . Where
there is robust evidence that there is sufficient capacity in existing community facilities to
meet the needs arising from new development contributions will not be sought.
7.6.
If a CIL approach is adopted the floorspace standard set out above and the method for
calculating contributions in paragraph 6.2-6.4 could be adapted to establish a per dwelling
tariff.
Strategic residential and mixed use developments and Core Strategy allocations
7.7.
For large scale new residential and mixed developments such as the new
neighbourhoods, community centre space is required on site in a new facility which
should be easily accessible to all residents of that community. Where it will improve the
long term sustainability and quality of provision for the community, co-location of meeting
space with other suitable uses in a multi-purpose facility or as a cluster of complementary
uses will be encouraged. Such a facility might for instance combine a community centre
with a library, space for activities for young people and for the support of older people, a
cafe and health centre. It might be located in a local centre close to housing for the
elderly. The combination that best suits the characteristics of each new neighbourhood
will be determined through master planning for the sites and development management.
7.8.
For multi-use facilities the floorspace requirements for community centre space set out in
section 4 will be added to those spatial requirements for other uses to give an overall
minimum facility floorspace. Efficiencies in floorspace may be made where as part of a
multi-use centre facilities can be shared effectively e.g. reception areas, toilets, kitchens,
parking; provided it can be demonstrated that the appropriate capacity for all uses can still
be met. Where appropriate, developers will be expected to provide land at nil cost and
build a new community centre required for the development to a specification agreed with
the Council or to transfer the land at nil cost and make a financial contribution towards the
costs of the Council building the facility, using the formula in paragraph 6.1-6.3.
7.9.
Unforeseen development proposals of a strategic nature (1,500+ units) that come forward
either as a single application or as separate proposals which together add up to this scale
of new development in an area, are likely to be required to provide facilities on this basis.
7.10.
Contributions will not be sought from Extra Care Housing (ECH) schemes where these
are classified as C2 under the relevant Use Classes Order as ancillary social facilities
would normally be provided as part of those schemes. Where an ECH scheme is classed
as Use Class C3 consideration will be given to whether contributions should be made
towards local social and community facilities based on whether adequate and suitable
ancillary facilities are provided on site as part of the scheme.
15
In line with the tests of CIL regulation 122
Page12of21
Medium and small residential developments
7.11.
For smaller non-strategic and non-allocated sites where residential development is of a
scale that doesn’t require a new community facility on site and where there is evidence,
for example from management bodies of facilities or community-led plans, that local
facilities don’t have the capacity to accommodate the needs of new residents or where
there are quality or accessibility deficiencies, contributions towards creating additional
capacity and improving access will be sought.
7.12.
In these cases, the formula set out in paragraph 6.2-6.4 will be applied to the population
that will be generated and used to calculate the contribution; this may be adjusted to suit
local circumstances and evidence. As community centres are intended for use by all
residents, exceptions will not be made for affordable dwellings when calculating
contributions.
7.13.
Contributions will be spent to create additional capacity in nearby dedicated community
centres that new residents are most likely to use; for instance through extending the fabric
of existing facilities or through improved management and accessibility. Where there isn’t
a suitable dedicated community centre nearby improvements may be made to nondedicated community spaces and agreements put in place to ensure provision is made
available for the new residents. If there is no clear option for spending funding at the time
an application is considered contributions may be pooled.
7.14.
Table 3 sets out the requirement for community centres for new development expected
on allocated strategic residential and mixed use sites and the suggested approach for
delivery. Table 4 sets out the required community centre space for new development
expected for smaller developments.
How contributions will be allocated
7.15.
It is important to secure long term community access to facilities and the Council aims to
ensure that investment is made in facilities most likely to deliver this. Good quality
buildings with maximum flexibility of use will ensure that best value is achieved, both in
terms of well-being benefits to the community and in terms of investment in sustainable
assets.
7.16.
The following options will be considered for providing community centre space:
ƒ extension or renovation of an existing facility
ƒ a new or replacement building
ƒ changes to management arrangements and/or programmes
7.17.
The Council will identify the preferred project to create additional capacity to meet
evidenced local needs in consultation with the most appropriate body that represents the
local community; this might include Town and Parish Councils, community lead
organisations, management bodies of facilities, Local Area Forums and Safer Stronger
Community Groups. This will take account of local evidence including a list of assets of
community value which is maintained by the Council.
7.18.
Where new buildings are provided they should meet the minimum standards of Sport
England 16 or equivalent relevant standards. Where new centres are provided for the new
neighbourhoods or other strategic sites the Council will follow its approved process to
select a management body to run the facility. Delivery of improvements to existing
community centres will be led by the organisations responsible for the facility to be
16
Sport England guidance note “Village and Community Halls” (2001)
Page13of21
improved. They will need to demonstrate how funding will be spent to provide additional
capacity and commit to this in writing.
7.19.
To inform future infrastructure planning the Council together with local decision making
bodies may identify potential projects that would improve capacity in community facilities
and bring the most health and social well-being benefits to residents. The Council will
endeavour to take capacity of facilities into account when taking decisions about the
allocation of s106 contributions as well as funding from CIL and the New Homes Bonus.
Table 3: Indicative requirements for community centres for strategic residential and mixed
use allocations with options for delivery
Area
Dwellings
Estimated
new
residents
(2.4 ppd)
Land East of
Coldharbour
Lane
500
1,200
168
Land East of
Harry Stoke
Land North of
Yate
Land at Filton
Airfield,
South of
Filton Airfield,
West of the
A4018, and
Cribbs
Patchway
remodelling
(residential
requirements
only)
2,000
4,800
672
3,000
7,200
1,008
5,700
13,680
1,915.2
Frenchay
Hospital
490
1,176
164.6
Page14of21
Space
required
(0.14sq.
m. per
person)
Options for delivery
Too small for new stand alone
centre, so options include:
x add contribution to enhance
provision on UWE Frenchay
campus
x add to East of Harry Stoke
requirement
x reserve land on site and find
pooled funding to deliver a
facility
Substantial new neighbourhood: on
site facility required
Substantial new neighbourhood: on
site facility required
Dedicated community centres
required for each individual
development parcel. Co location
with other CI considered.
Airfield site: substantial new
neighbourhood: minimum two
centres should be built and co
location with other CI considered.
South of airfield: substantial new
neighbourhood; on site facility
required.
West of A4018: substantial new
neighbourhood; on site facility
required.
Cribbs Causeway /Patchway
remodelling should integrate with
Patchway/Coniston. Financial
contribution to enhance existing
community facilities there.
New community centre on hospital
site to serve the whole village
or
A financial contribution towards
improvements at Frenchay village
hall (subject to this being viable).
Table 4: Requirements for community centres for smaller sites with options for delivery
Area
Dwellings
Estimated
new
residents
(2.4 ppd)
Space
required
(0.14sq.
m. per
person)
Options for delivery
Small &
Medium
sites/windfall
s – 250 per
annum to
2012
3,750
9,188
1,286.32
x
Page15of21
Enhancement of existing local
facilities assessed on site by
site basis. Delivery through
partners/ community based
organisations with stakeholder
engagement.
Appendix 1: Dedicated Community Centres & Village Halls, South Gloucestershire
Ref
No.
Name Of
Venue
Address
Postcode
Owned by
Managed by
Almondsbury
Old School
Village Hall
Armstrong Hall
Complex
Aust Village
Hall
Church Road,
Almondsbury
BS32 4ED
Almondsbury
Parish Council
Almondsbury
Parish Council
Chapel Street,
Thornbury
Main Road, Aust
BS35 2BJ
Charitable Trust
Charity or Trust
BS35 4AZ
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Badminton
Memorial Hall
Baileys Court
Community
Centre
Brook Way
Community
Centre
Cadbury Heath
Hall
Hayes Lane,
Badminton
Baileys Court Road,
Bradley Stoke
GL9 1DD
Aust village hall
trust on behalf of
the people of
Aust
Yate Parochial
Council
Bradley Stoke
Town Council
Brook Way, Bradley
Stoke
BS32 9DA
Bradley Stoke
Town Council
Bradley Stoke
Town Council
School Road,
Cadbury Heath
BS30 8EN
Oldland Parish
Council
8
Casson Centre
BS34 5DQ
9
Charfield
Memorial Hall
Rodway Road,
Patchway
Wooton Road,
Charfield
Patchway Town
Council
Charitable Trust
10
Chipping
Sodbury Town
Hall
Coalpit Heath
Village Hall
57-59 Broad Street,
Chipping Sodbury
BS37 6AD
214 Badminton
Road, Coalpit Heath
BS36 2QB
12
Cold Ashton
Parish Hall.
Cold Ashton,
Chippenham
SN14 8JT
13
Coniston
Community
Centre
Coniston Road,
Patchway
BS34 5LP
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Patchway Town
Council
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Chipping
Sodbury Town
Lands Charity
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
14
Cromhall
Parish Hall
GL12 8AJ
15
Crossbow
House
Community
Centre
Talbots End,
Cromhall, WottonUnder-Edge
58 School Road,
Frampton Cotterell
16
Dodington
Parish Hall
Downend
Assembly Hall
Finch Road,
Chipping Sodbury
Salisbury Road,
Downend
BS37 6YZ
Downend Folk
House
Lincombe Barn,
Overndale Road,
Downend
BS16 2RW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
17
18
Page16of21
BS32 8BH
GL12 8SR
BS36 2DA
BS16 6RA
Chipping
Sodbury Town
Lands Charity
Coalpit Heath
Village Hall
Charity.
The Bristol
Diocesan Board
of Finance.
Patchway Town
Council lease to
Coniston Comm.
Assoc
Tortworth Estate
Company
Frampton
Cotterell and
District
Community
Association
Dodington Parish
Council
Charitable Trust
South
Gloucestershire
Council
Yate Parochial
Council
Bradley Stoke
Town Council
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Executive cttee
manages the
building
Dodington Parish
Council
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Ref
No.
Name Of
Venue
Address
Postcode
Owned by
Managed by
19
Doynton Village
Hall
Toghill Lane,
Doynton
BS30 5SY
Charitable Trust
20
Dyrham &
Hinton Village
Hall
Easter
Compton
Village Hall
Elberton Village
Hall
Dyrham Lane,
Dyrham,
Chippenham,
Main Road, Easter
Compton,
SN14 8HA
Community Hall
Trust
BS35 5SJ
Almondsbury
Parish Council
Elberton Road,
Elberton, Olveston
BS35 4AB
Elberton Village
Hall Ltd
Emersons
Green Village
Hall
Falfield Village
Hall
Emerson Way,
Emersons Green
BS16 7AP
Bristol Road, Falfield
GL12 8DE
South
Gloucestershire
Council
The Diocese of
Gloucester
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Charity or Trust
Filton Folk
Centre
Frenchay
Village Hall
Elm Park, Filton
BS34 7PS
Beckspool Road,
Frenchay
BS16 1NU
Hallen Village
Hall and
Recreation
Centre
St. Elizabeth’s
Hall
Moorhouse Lane,
Hallen
BS10 7RU
Trustees
Hambrook Lane,
Hambrook
BS16 1RT
Frenchay Church
High Street, Hanham
BS15 3EJ
Hanham Folk
Centre
High Street,
Hawkesbury Upton,
Badminton
Ram Hill, Coalpit
Heath
GL9 1AU
Hawkesbury
Upton Parish
Council
Westerleigh
parish council for
people of
Henfield and
Westerleigh
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Hanham
Community
Centre
Hawkesbury
Hospital Hall
31
Henfield Hall
32
Hill Village
Community
Hall
Horton and
Little Sodbury
Village Hall
33
34
Iron Acton
Village Hall
BS36 2UF
Hill Road, Hill,
Berkeley
GL13 9DX
Horton Hill, Horton
BS37 6QH
High Street, Iron
Acton
BS37 9UH
Page17of21
Trustees (are a
Charity)
Bristol Diocese
Trust
Trustees of
Horton & Little
Sodbury Village
Hall & Recreation
Ground
Registered
charity
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Filton Community
Association
Voluntary
Management
Committee:
Frenchay Village
Hall Charitable
Trust
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee:
Hambrook Village
Hall Trust
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Elected Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Ref
No.
Name Of
Venue
Address
Postcode
Owned by
Managed by
35
Jubilee Centre
BS32 8HL
36
Jubilee Hall
Savages Wood
Road, Bradley Stoke
Green Hill, Alveston
Bradley Stoke
Town Council
Parishioners of
Alveston
37
King George V
Memorial Hall
Wotton Road,
Rangeworthy
BS37 7LZ
The people of
Rangeworthy
38
Kingswood
Community
Association
Little Stoke
Community
Hall
Littleton Village
Hall
Community Centre,
High Street,
Kingswood
Little Stoke Park,
Little Stoke Lane,
Little Stoke
Littleton-UponSevern, Thornbury
BS15 4AB
Charity buildings
BS34 6HR
Stoke Gifford
Parish Council
Bradley Stoke
Town Council
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Stoke Gifford
Parish Council
BS35 1NR
CofE owns, long
lease to LVH MC
41
Longwell Green
Community
Centre
Shellards Road,
Longwell Green
BS30 9DU
42
Marshfield
Community
Centre
North Common
Community
Centre
North
Patchway Hall.
The Hayfield,
Marshfield
SN14 8PG
Longwell Green,
Memorial Hall
and Playing Field
Association
Registered
charity
Millers Drive, North
Common
BS30 8XX
Gloucester Rd,
Patchway
BS34 6ND
Oldbury-onSevern
Memorial Hall
Olveston
Parish Hall
13 Camp Road,
Oldbury-on-Severn
BS35 1PT
Trustees charitable trust
Upper Tockington
Road, Olveston
BS35 4DY
Olveston Parish
Hall Trust
Page
Community
Association
Park Centre
Page Road, Staple
Hill
BS16 4NE
High St, Kingswood
BS15 4AR
49
Patchway
Community
Centre
Rodway Road,
Patchway
BS34 5PF
50
Pilning Village
Hall
Cross Hands Road,
Pilning
BS35 4JB
51
Poole Court
BS37 5PP
52
Poplar Rooms
Poole Court Drive,
Yate
North Road, Stoke
Gifford
South
Gloucestershire
Council
South
Gloucestershire
Council
Patchway Town
Council lease to
Patchway
Community
Association
Pilning and
Severn Beach
Parish Council
Yate Town
Council
Stoke Gifford
Trust
39
40
43
44
45
46
47
48
Page18of21
BS35 2QX
BS34 8PE
Trustees/resident
s of North
Common
The people of
North Patchway
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Yate Town
Council
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Ref
No.
Name Of
Venue
Address
Postcode
Owned by
Managed by
Pucklechurch
Community
Centre
Ridgewood
Community
Centre
Abson Rd,
Pucklechurch
BS16 9RH
Pucklechurch
Parish Council
244 Station Road,
Yate
BS37 4AF
Trust
55
Rockhampton
Village Hall
GL13 9DX
56
Severn Beach
Village Hall
Church Road,
Rockhampton, Nr.
Berkeley
Alveston Lane,
Severn Beach
Rockhampton
village hall
charitable trust
The Children Of
Severn Beach
57
Shire Way
Community
Centre
The Centre, Shire
Way, Yate
BS37 8YS
Charity Trustees
of Shireway
Community
Association
58
St Michaels Old
School Rooms
The Green, Stoke
Gifford
BS34 8PD
59
St Peters Hall.
School Rd,
Frampton Cotterell
BS36 2DB
60
The
Brockeridge
Centre
The Chantry
Woodend Road,
Frampton Cotterell
BS36 2LQ
52 Castle Street,
Thornbury
BS35 1HB
The Greenfield
Centre
The Manor Hall
House
Park Avenue,
Winterbourne
Henfield Road,
Coalpit Heath
BS36 1NJ
St Michaels Old
School Rooms
Trust
Frampton
Cotterell and
District
Community
Assoc.
Frampton
Cotterell Parish
Council
Thornbury &
District
Community
Association
Winterbourne
Parish Council
Westerleigh
Parish Council
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Trustees
Ridgewood
Community
Association
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee,
Privately Owned
and Operated
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
The Old
Grammar
School
The Pavilion,
Filton
Tormarton
Parish Hall
High Street,
Chipping Sodbury
BS37 6AD
Elm Park, Filton
BS34 7PS
High Street,
Tormarton
GL9 1HU
68
Trust Hall
North Rd, Stoke
Gifford
BS34 8PE
Stoke Gifford
Trust.
69
Turnberries
Community
Building
Bath Road,
Thornbury
BS35 2BB
South
Gloucestershire
Council
53
54
61
62
63
64
65
67
Page19of21
BS35 4PY
BS36 2TG
Chipping
Sodbury Town
Lands Charity
Filton Town
Council
Tormarton Parish
Council
Frampton
Cotterell Parish
Council
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Winterbourne
Parish Council
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Chipping
Sodbury Town
Lands Charity
Filton Town
Council
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee:
Thornbury
Community
Building Trust
(TCBT)
Ref
No.
Name Of
Venue
Address
Postcode
Owned by
Managed by
70
Tytherington
Village Hall
Itchington Road,
Tytherington
GL12 8EU
Tytherington
Parish Council
71
Warmley Clock
Tower
Tower Road North,
Warmley
BS30 8XU
72
Warmley
Community
Centre
Westerleigh
Village Hall
20 Deanery Road,
Warmley
BS15 9JB
South
Gloucestershire
Council
Owned by
membership.
Short Hill,
Westerleigh
BS37
Wick and
Abson Village
Hall
Wickwar
Community
Centre
Wickwar Town
Hall
Manor Road, Wick
BS30 5RG
Honeybourne Way,
Wickwar
GL12 8NH
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Parish /Town
Council Managed
High St, Wickwar
GL12 8NP
77
Wickwar
Village Hall
5 Station Road,
Wickwar
GL12 8NB
Tortworth Estate
78
Winterbourne
And District
Community
Centre
Yate
Community
Centre
Yate Parish
Hall
Hoopers Farm,
Watleys End Rd,
Winterbourne
BS36 1QG
Station Road, Yate
BS37 4PQ
Winterbourne
and District
Community
Association
Yate Town
Council
Station Rd, Yate
BS37 4PQ
73
74
75
76
79
80
Page20of21
Held in trust by
Westerleigh
Parish Council.
Residents of the
parish of Wick
and Abson.
South
Gloucestershire
Council
Wickwar Parish
Council.
Yate Town
Council
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Winterbourne
and District
Community
Association.
Voluntary
Management
Committee
Yate Town
Council
Appendix 2: Dedicated Community Centres & Village Halls in South Gloucestershire
Page21of21
DistributionÿofÿDedicatedÿCommunity Centresÿ
32
45
24
9
14
40
2
3
22
76
36
30
46
37
56
50
33
1
21
13
8
27
34
6
11
58
25
4
79 54 10
15
62
35
39 5
57
31
28
67
26
23
17
47
38
29
53
19
72
7
41
20
43
74
CopyrightÿSouthÿGloucestershireÿCouncilÿ[2011].ÿAllÿrightsÿreserved
ThisÿmapÿisÿreproducedÿfromÿOrdnanceÿSurveyÿwithÿtheÿpermissionÿofÿOrdnanceÿSurveyÿonÿbehalfÿofÿtheÿController
ofÿHerÿMajesty'sÿStationeryÿOffice.ÿCrownÿCopyright.ÿÿUnauthorisesÿreproductionÿinfringesÿCrownÿCopyrightÿ
andÿmayÿleadÿtoÿprosecutionÿorÿcivilÿproceedingsÿ100023410,[2011].
42
12
abc
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
EVIDENCE BASE
WASTE MANAGEMENT
(South Gloucestershire Council)
March 2014
Waste Management Infrastructure
1. Introduction
1.1.
The shared vision for South Gloucestershire is set out in the Sustainable
Communities Strategy and the Council Plan sets out how this vision will be
delivered. Both of these have managing future development, promoting safer
and stronger communities and modernising health and community care
services as priorities.
1.2.
The Local Development Framework will set out the spatial expression of
these priorities and is key to the creation of sustainable communities that are
well designed and planned, provide access to a full range of community
facilities, formal and informal open spaces and which are well integrated with
existing communities.
1.3.
This paper sets out a basic assessment of requirements for future growth for
municipal waste management infrastructure taking account of growth
proposed in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy Post Submission
Version (Dec 2011). Any variation in the overall scale or location will clearly
alter the requirements as will external factors, for example changes in the
national waste strategy. The document also aims to set out the principles
upon which the requirements are based.
2. Policy & Legislative Background
2.1
It is a statutory duty of a waste collection authority to arrange for the collection
of household waste and the waste disposal authority to arrange for the
disposal of the collected waste (Section 46 and Section 51 Environmental
Protection Act 1990 part 2).
2.2
There is a raft of policy guidance that supports increased targets for improved
waste management and reductions in the amount of waste going to landfill.
These include:
PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005): Para 20 & 27(iv) require
Development Plan policies to take account of ‘the management of waste’ and
bring forward sufficient land, ‘including for sustainable waste management’.
PPS1 Supplement: Planning & Climate Change (2007): Para 24 & 42 requires
that Planning Authorities should take into account the capacity of existing and
potential infrastructure, including for ‘waste management’ and should expect
new development to ‘provide for sustainable waste management’.
Waste Strategy for England (2007) DEFRA: Sets out the Governments plans
and targets for reducing waste including a household waste recycling target of
50% by 2020.
Government Review of Policy in England 2011
The aim of the review is to ensure waste policies and ways of delivering them
are fit for purpose, meeting society’s expectations. The government wants to
move beyond a throwaway society towards a zero waste economy.
Southwest Regional Waste Strategy (2004) SWRA: Sets out in detail the
regional approach to managing waste, in particular the diversion of
biodegradable waste from landfill.
Southwest Regional Spatial Strategy (July 2008) SWRA: Identifies managing
waste as one of the greatest challenges facing the region. It incorporates
apportionments for Municipal and Commercial and Industrial wastes to 2020.
Joint Waste Strategy & Joint Waste Core Strategy Development Plan
Document – (2009) West of England Partnership: The Council is working in
partnership with other West of England authorities to procure treatment
capacity for residual waste, having agreed a Joint Municipal Waste
Management Strategy. In parallel, the West of England Partnership has
adopted a Development Plan Document for Strategic Waste Facilities. Para
6.29 states that; ‘Urban extensions may provide locational opportunities’, in
reference to new household waste recycling centres.
The Council Plan 2008-2011: Priority 24 - Resource Use, Pollution and
Waste, aims to “Cut consumption of resources, prevent pollution and waste
and live within environmental limits”. This is repeated in the Sustainable
Community Strategy 2008.
South Gloucestershire’s Local Area Agreement 2008-2011: National Indicator
192: Household Waste recycled and composted commits to a target of 50%
by 2010/11 from a baseline of 40% in 2006/7, and NI 193: Municipal Waste
landfilled commits to a target of 46% in 2010/11 from a baseline of 56% in
2006/7.
3.
The South Gloucestershire Local Waste Strategy 2013 – 2019
3.1
The strategy was approved in September 2013 following public consultation.
This is the key document in the delivery of Municipal Waste services in South
Gloucestershire. It describes linkages with national and regional targets, the
strategies as set out above in more detail and implications of the Landfill
Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS). It also sets out current performance and
programmes, future challenges and objectives. There is a general
commitment to;
To encourage the development of a “circular waste economy” in South
Gloucestershire by; recognising the importance of preventing waste and,
where it cannot be prevented, giving material resources a second life through
re-use and recycling, or through the generation of renewable energy and,
only disposing to landfill as a last resort.
4.
Waste Management Infrastructure provision in South
Gloucestershire
4.1
Waste management services are high profile and provided to all residents in
South Gloucestershire. They include kerbside collection of materials for
recycling and residual waste, provision of wheeled bins and boxes for
storage, bulky waste collections, operation of four SORT IT Centres and
provision of a network of approximately 39 ‘bring banks’.
4.2
In the year April 2010 to March 2011 the service dealt with 124,000 tonnes of
waste from 109,380 households, which for the purposes of this document
gives a figure of 1.13 tonnes per household. Nationally household waste has
reduced in recent years due to the effect of the financial recession.
4.3
The materials collected by the kerbside recycling service are glass bottles
and jars, food and drink cans, empty aerosol cans, aluminium foil, clothes and
textiles, shoes, car batteries, household batteries, engine oil and newspapers
and magazines. The collection is made fortnightly.
4.4
The optional subscription based green wheeled bin is collected fortnightly.
The service accepts grass cuttings and garden trimmings, weeds, prunings,
twigs and leaves, garden or house plants, rabbit, guinea pig and rodent
bedding. There is seasonal variation in the amount collected with the amount
peaking during the growing season, May to October.
4.5
Food waste is collected from the kerbside on a weekly basis and the same
vehicle also collects plastic bottles and cardboard as an alternating service.
4.6
The bring banks are mainly bottle banks although some large sites also have
banks for paper, textiles and tetrapak type cartons. Bring banks are used to
service properties that might not fit in with the kerbside collection of
recyclables, for example flats.
4.7
These services are provided by SITA South Gloucestershire through a 25
year PFI contract. A dedicated waste management client unit monitors SITA
and manages the contract. The unit is also responsible for reviewing and
developing waste policies and strategies and working with SITA to implement
changes.
4.8
To enable these services to operate there needs to be a robust supporting
infrastructure of facilities with sufficient capacity to receive, store and
transport all materials collected for recycling, treatment or disposal.
4.9
SITA currently operate the following waste infrastructure facilities through the
PFI contract:o
Two combined waste transfer stations and SORT IT Centres, one at
Collett Way,Yate and one in Carsons Rd, Mangotsfield.
o
Two vehicle and staff depots, one in Dean Road, Yate and the other at
Cowhorn Hill in Warmley. The Yate facility includes a vehicle workshop.
o
Two stand alone SORT IT Centres, one in Station Road, Stoke Gifford
and one in Short Way, Thornbury.
o
One recycling depot in Collett Way, Yate (opposite the transfer station).
o
One Materials Recycling Facility for baling plastic bottles and cardboard in
Collett Way, Yate
4.10
SITA operate a fleet of 65 vehicles of five different types to make the
collections.
4.11
YATE: The existing combined Sort It Centre and Transfer Station serves a
population of 48,000. It was built in 2002 with the old civic amenity site being
converted into a depot for recyclable materials. The SORT IT Centre and
Transfer Station is small with a total area including the transfer station of
6,100m2. The layout is split with the public access road running between the
waste tipping and the recyclable tipping areas and there is very little space on
site for queuing vehicles. Making space for any further waste segregation or
to handle increased quantities is likely to be difficult. In the financial year April
2010 to March 2011 the Sort It Centre handled 8,249 tonnes and of that 64%
was recycled or recovered, and the site as a whole handled 50,480 tonnes.
4.12
THORNBURY: The site was built in 2005 and it serves a population of 27,000
and has an area of 5,000m2. In the financial year April 2010 to March 2011
the site handled 4487 tonnes and of that 65% was recycled or recovered.
4.13
MANGOTSFIELD: Mangotsfield Sort It Centre combined with the transfer
station it is 9,500m2 and it serves a population of approx 98,000. Although it
was built in 2003, the facility was not designed for the extended range of
segregated waste streams now being dealt with. Recent additions such as
waste electrical items and plastic bottle recycling have taken up space
originally for traffic management with the effect of slowing the throughput of
the site, i.e. fewer people can use this site in a given day. Both traffic and
waste capacity are now thought to be near to the limits of the site in its current
form and with the current opening times. In the financial year April 2010 to
March 2011 the Sort It Centre site handled 16,387 tonnes and of that 53%
was recycled or recovered. The site as a whole handled 59,855 tonnes.
4.14
STOKE GIFFORD: The population served by the Station Road civic amenity
site in Stoke Gifford amounts to 65,000 people. It was built in 1981 before the
housing development at Bradley Stoke. The site is small covering an area of
2,400m2 and this limits the number of people that can use the site at anyone
time to around ten. Because of the limited area available, high vehicles and
those with trailers are required to use an alternative site. In the financial year
April 2010 to March 2011 the site handled 7,283 tonnes and of that 61% was
recycled or recovered. Well used sports facilities to the north and east and the
low railway bridge to the south (that would need reconstruction), limit the
opportunity to expand the site.
4.15
There are also currently four Community Composting sites; located in
Thornbury, Patchway, Hawkesbury Upton and Yate. The ethos is one of small
scale composting facilities run on a day-day basis by dedicated community
groups. Both home and community composting help to illustrate the waste
minimisation message. The scheme is managed by StreetCare who provide
support to the community groups. New sites should ideally serve 2,000
properties and be 400m2 in area with suitable controls to prevent flytipping.
The Environment Agency generally require sites to be away from water
courses and 250m from housing unless there are mitigation measures.
4.16
SITA do not operate any disposal facilities within South Gloucestershire. New
disposal, recycling and recovery facilities would improve the Councils
performance under the proximity principle and these may be provided in the
future through the West of England Partnership.
5.
Strategic issues / Waste Planning Principles
5.1
The quantity and the composition of waste that the population produces
varies with the economic cycle and consumer trends however the long term
trend has been that individuals create more waste over time. In addition
waste increases in line with demographic and more specifically housing
growth.
5.2
Additional housing will result in more waste being produced and needing to
be handled. Increased quantities of recycling materials and residual waste will
need to be collected directly from households. In addition there will be an
increase in the amount of waste delivered to the SORT IT Centres. The
capacity of the supporting infrastructure i.e. collection vehicles, transfer
stations, and recycling depots needs to be capable of managing the volumes
of household waste produced by the residents of South Gloucestershire.
5.3
Currently 109,380 households are served and approximately 124,000 tonne
of waste is collected each year. Each household therefore produces 1.134
tonnes of waste per annum.
5.4
The Council is committed to minimising waste generation through awareness
raising and promotional activities, delivered in partnership with SITA.
5.5
There is currently a trend for increased waste stream segregation in order to
increase recovery and recycling rates. Increased segregation, splitting waste
into a number of piles, requires more storage and more complex handling.
The 50% recycling target is a significant increase on the 39.5% achieved in
2007 and its pursuit is creating pressure on existing facilities.
5.6
Overall storage capacity increases with greater number of waste streams
above that needed for mixed waste. Economic loads for a HGV lorry are
twenty tonnes, so in simple terms, for five waste streams a site would need
storage capacity of 100 tonnes. Co-mingled recycling were all dry recyclables
are collected and stored (mixed) prior to mechanical sorting is an alternative
option, however gains made in the reduced area needed for storage are often
lost in the greater area needed for sorting.
5.7
Access to each stockpile of material has an impact on the aspect ratio of the
site footprint. One large stockpile only requires one access point, five
stockpiles require five access points although these may overlap if the site
can be designed as such from the start.
5.8
Well signed logical, ergonomic, layouts for SORT IT Centres are also
educational and help to get the recycling and recovery message across to the
site users and allow them to take part in the success of the site without any
additional efforts.
5.9
Adequate traffic capacity for all forms of transport and sensible locations and
opening hours to reduce overall journey miles and peak period congestion are
important. Larger sites in particular can suffer from congestion around the
access point effectively limiting the size of the catchment area.
5.10
Alternative ways of dealing with waste should not be excluded and it should
not be presumed that past methods will provide the best service for the future.
Kamikatsu village in Japan is part of a UN waste study and it does not have a
waste collection but does have a Sort It centre collecting 34 different waste
streams and is able to recycle 80% of its waste. This model requires a move
away from fewer larger sites to more smaller local sites. Such an option is
more suited to new build towns and smaller existing communities.
6.
Spatial Requirements
6.1
Additional housing will bring an increase in population and the additional
population will produce more waste to be dealt with. Proposed growth of
approximately 27,000 dwellings is expected to increase annual waste
production in SG by 30,500 tonnes per annum. Legislation will continue to
steer waste disposal away from landfill towards recycling and recovery and
more attention will be given to the carbon footprint. This will make waste
collection and handling more complex with a likely increase in land take
footprint. All the existing sites are operating at or near to capacity with the
exception of Thornbury. The most pressing need is for a new SORT IT Centre
in the Bristol North Fringe to replace the inadequate Stoke Gifford site. This
presents an opportunity to add a transfer station in combination, which would
reduce the demands on the Yate and Mangotsfield Transfer Stations. In
addition, remodelling of the Yate SORT IT & Transfer Station site would
enhance capacity.
Yate & Chipping Sodbury
6.2
The Core Strategy proposes an additional 3000 dwellings at North Yate some
incremental infill development. This will generate an additional 3400 tonnes of
waste per annum.
6.3
Additional collection vehicles will be required to serve the additional housing
unless there is a change of method, a double shift system for example. These
vehicles will require secure parking and vehicle servicing areas.
6.4
The recycling storage depot at Yate uses the infrastructure of the original civic
amenity site and as such does not make the best use of the space available.
The site has an area of 5,400m2 although only the central 2,000m2 can be
used for handling and storing recyclables. The outer area is used for parking
for the collection vehicles. Waste is divided into nine streams and the
throughput is 18,672 tonnes per year (April 2010 to March 2011). Increases in
waste arisings, population and the rate of recycling will overload this facility
although the situation is complex. A rebuild on the existing footprint coupled
with an increased rate of export may be enough to cope with demand.
6.5
The Yate Transfer station will generally benefit from an increase in recycling
because in its current configuration it handles mostly residual waste. However
the additional housing will overload the facility unless an equal quantity of
waste can be delivered directly to a disposal point.
North Fringe
6.6
The South Gloucestershire Local Plan allocated major sites at Charlton
Hayes – 2200 dwellings, Cheswick Village – 750 dwellings and Harry Stoke –
1200 dwellings. Currently there is no capacity at the local Stoke Gifford site
for these new households and the expected outcome is for increased queues
at this site and outside along Station Road.
6.7
In addition to these sites the Core Strategy allocates 2000 dwellings on land
East of Harry Stoke, 5700 dwellings at Cribbs / Patchway and rolls forward
the SGLP allocation of 500 dwellings on Land East of Coldharbour Lane
(LECHL). There will also be incremental infill development.
6.8
The Core Strategy allocations plus windfalls will contribute approximately
8,000 additional dwellings. As a consequence, the Stoke Gifford site will be
overwhelmed. A replacement SORT IT centre is therefore required to meet
forecast demand for the locality. This would provide an opportunity to include
a transfer station to alleviate pressure on both Yate and Mangotsfield transfer
stations.
Thornbury
6.9
Thornbury SORT IT Centre at Short Way has significant extra capacity, easily
able to accommodate a further 10,000 dwellings. The expected 500 additional
houses will not present any issues.
Mangotsfield
6.10
There is planning permission for approximately 2,400 dwellings at Emersons
Green East. Significant additional incremental infilling is also expected over
the Core Strategy plan period.
6.11
The existing SORT IT centre and transfer station operates at near capacity
and using this site to provide a service to new properties in the North Fringe
would add to capacity problems and be inefficient. A new transfer station in
the North Fringe area would relieve pressure on this facility and allow the site
to serve the new local population.
Budgets and Funding
5.13
Appendix 1 lists a number of recent civic amenity (SORT IT) projects in the
UK. It shows total build costs vary between £1.1 and £3.8 million with a
typical price excluding land and machinery of £1.5 million. Appendix 2 gives
an outline description of and developer contributions for a facility to serve the
Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood and wider area.
5.14
The design & construction cost of a new SORT IT Centre at 2011 prices
(excluding land) is therefore estimated to be in the order of £2m. The cost of a
new transfer station (which includes additional plant and covered sorting
‘shed’ plus vehicle parking) is estimated to be £3.5m (excluding land). The
total cost is therefore estimated at approximately £5.5m. The cost of
rebuilding the Yate recycling depot is estimated at £0.7 million, making a total
predicted investment of approximately £6.2million.
5.15
The Council has £1.78 million identified within the Waste Management Client
Unit budget for future infrastructure which is subject to continuing review.
There is therefore a potential shortfall of £4.4 million. Other sources of
funding will therefore need to be identified.
5.16
These estimated costs are subject to continual review. The Council is also
currently carrying out a detailed audit of existing waste infrastructure. 2011
Census data will also be available in autumn 2012 which will assist demand
estimates.
7.
Conclusion
7.1 The pressure for waste sorting and recycling facilities will increase as European
and national legislation continues to seek to segregate waste for reuse, recycling
or recovery and as populations grow as a consequence of planned growth. To
meet planned growth it is proposed to replace the existing SORT IT centre at
Stoke Gifford with a combined SORT IT centre and Transfer Station and secure
refuse collection vehicle parking in the North Fringe. The location for this new
facility should be centrally within the main population of the north fringe to
maximise the efficiency of the operation and reduce the impact of transport.
Access is required for public cars, collection vehicles and articulated export
lorries. A link to the A38 on the east side of the Cribbs Patchway New
Neighbourhood would provide the best solution.
7.2 This new site will reduce the demand at the Mangotsfield facility and allow for
growth in the Bristol East Fringe. The cost of the facility is estimated to be £5.5m
excluding land. Council funding will contribute £1.78 million towards the cost of
developing this facility. A rebuild of the Yate recycling facility is also proposed to
accommodate growth in that locality. This is estimated to cost £0.7 million. The
total funding shortfall is approximately £4.2 million. The disposal of the Stoke
Gifford SORT IT may contribute some additional funding. However, there would
remain a significant funding gap. The proposed development of a further 5700
dwellings plus commercial and industrial uses in the Cribbs Patchway area
represents an opportunity to locate a SORT IT & transfer centre in these
commercial areas. It would also be well located to serve the new neighbourhoods
and surrounding population. The funding gap would require Community
Infrastructure Levy and / or S106 funding as well as any further Capital grants etc
from Central Government or other sources that may become available.
Collett Way SORT IT and transfer
Centre and recyclate storage depot.
Proposed remodelling of the
recyclate storage depot.
Stoke Gifford SORT IT to be replaced
by a combined SORT IT and waste
transfer site.
References
1.
South Gloucestershire Local Waste Strategy 2013 to 2019
2.
Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy March 2008
3.
West of England Partnership Preferred Options January 2009
4.
Sort It Centre to service the Bradley stoke and Patchway area Feb
2008
5.
Towards Zero Waste – ecotowns waste management worksheet
Appendix 1
Assessment of civic amenity site construction costs in 2011
Information gathered through an internet search and through a question to members of the
National Association of Waste Disposal Officers.
Kingston Upon Hull £1.4 million
Capacity 15,000 tonnes pa, spilt level, roof, 10 bays.
East Sussex £2 million with land
Large with split level and 15 bins
Lincolnshire £1.8 million
1.25 acres, serving 13,000 population. Split level with canopy.
Exeter (Pinbrook rd) £3.8 million
Large site split level with canopy
Swanage £2.9 million
Split level with canopy. 2,800 tonnes per year. 1 hectare with extensive
screening.
Vale of Glamorgan, Barry Island. £1.1 million
No details
North Yorkshire £1.3 million
16 bays, split level. Land cost £450k
Suffolk County
£600,000 for 2,800m2 site with building.
Appendix 2 - Combined Sort It Centre, Transfer Station and collection vehicle
parking for Cribbs Patchway area
CRIBBS PATCHWAY NEW
NEIGHBOURHOOD
Outline description of waste infrastructure required.
A Sort It centre with a capacity of 200 vehicles per hour, 20,000 tonnes of
waste per year, 14 waste streams, secure boundary.
A transfer station with a capacity of 15 HGV’s per hour, 40,000 tonnes of
waste per year, ability to segregate waste streams, secure boundary.
Collection vehicle parking for 12 HGV’s being a mix of residual waste, food
waste, green waste and recycling service vehicles. Also staff welfare and car
parking for 40 staff. Secure boundary.
Based on a site currently being built at Bridport the land required for a
combined facility in the Cribbs Patchway New neighbourhood will have a land
area of 9,000m2 with a minimum site width of 50m. The land area is a
minimum and does not include land for access, land drainage or landscaping.
Construction is expected to cost £5.5milion. Access should be onto a local
road preferably 30m or more from a distributor road to avoid traffic problems
should a queue form. The site will have a separate entrance for heavy goods
vehicles and for the public.
Table of land areas and costs based on a combined site
Sort It Centre
Transfer Station
Vehicle parking
Total
Land Area
4000m2
2
3800m
2
1200m
2
9000m
Cost
£2.5 million
£2.5 million
£0.5 million
£5.5 million
Contribution
24%
19% *
19% *
Land Area
960m2
722m2
228m2
1910m2
Finance
£0.6 million
£0.475 million
£0.095 million
£1.17 million
* includes contribution from North Thornbury development
Calculation of the % contribution for the Sort It Centre from existing and
proposed housing within the catchment area.
Code
E05002043
E05002046
E05002047
E05002048
E05002055
E05002057
E05002064
E05002070
E05002074
Ward
Almondsbury
Bradley Stoke Central and Stoke Lodge
Bradley Stoke North
Bradley Stoke South
Filton
Frenchay and Stoke Park
Patchway
Stoke Gifford
Winterbourne
totals
Population
4115
8031
3812
9279
10607
6827
9071
12145
6994
Households
1619
3473
1722
3809
4642
2313
3959
4977
2867
New
490
5700
800
2400
70881
29381
9390
The proposed new housing makes up 24% of the future total
Calculation of the % contribution for the Transfer station and vehicle parking
from existing and proposed housing within the (larger) catchment area. This
facility will serve the area of per the Sort it Centre plus the area of Thornbury.
Code
E05002049
E05002060
E05002065
E05002067
E05002071
E05002072
Ward
Charfield
Ladden Brook
Pilning and Severn Beach
Severn
Thornbury North
Thornbury South and Alveston
Totals
Population
4678
3858
3647
3628
7484
7532
30827
Households
1538
1456
1541
1477
3326
3205
12543
New
500
500
The proposed new housing makes up 19% of the future total
Bridport example site
The proposed (2013) Bridport, Dorset combined Sort It Centre and Transfer
Station serves a wide area with an immediate population of 14,000 (Bridport
North, South and Beaminster). This is a recent example of the type of facility
envisaged to serve the catchment area although it does not have a parking
are for the collection vehicles and the population served is significantly less.
Dorset Waste Partnership expect the facility to cost £8 million and the design
has an area of 9000m2.
The neighbouring Sort it Centres are at Sherborne, Dorchester and
Weymouth. The boundary to the west is the County boundary with Devon.
The existing Sort It Centre at Sherborne is of an unusual design and it is not
readily defined from aerial photography.
The design at Dorchester is a simple flat site with 11 bins and around 14
parking spaces, the site land area is 1790m2 with a slightly trapezoidal shape
(65m long and 22 to 33m wide). The population of Dorchester is 19,000 (mid
2012).
Weymouth has a flat level square design, 3600m2 in area (60m by 60m) plus
an entrance road that contains the weighbridge. There are 22 parking spaces
and 17 bins. The population of Weymouth is 52,000 (2011).
Mark Garrett
Waste Contract Engineer
28th February 2014
Appendix 3 SITA assessment of future needs
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE
STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY PROVISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to population growth and planned new housing developments in the
Cribbs and northern fringe areas, new waste management infrastructure is
required to supplement exiting infrastructure which is at and (in the case of
Stoke Goffird Sort It Centre) over capacity.
New infrastructure should take the form of;
1.
a new facility to serve the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood and
existing catchment area comprising materials bulking (possibly refuse,
principally recyclables), a new Sort It Centre to supplement / replace
Stoke Gifford, and a new vehicle parking area for vehicles collecting in the
area,
2. A new vehicle depot to replace Cowhorn Hill depot. The cost of this new
depot could be off-set by the disposal of the Cowhorn Hill depot with
planning permission for residential development.
PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER
This paper reviews the current level of strategic waste management facility
provision within South Gloucestershire and advises upon;
x
x
the adequacy of that existing level of infrastructure to meet future
requirements, and
where there is a shortfall, recommends solutions to remedy any shortfall.
BACKGROUND
The R3 Waste Management Contract was signed between South
Gloucestershire Council and United Waste Services Ltd (now SITA) in 2000.
This contract required;
1. Operation, closure and restoration of Harnhill landfill (now completed and
restored).
2. Construction of a new Refuse Transfer Station (RTS) and Household Waste
Recycling Centre (HWRC) on South Gloucestershire Council owned land at
Collett Way, Yate (built 2002), to replace the former HWRC on Collett
Way.
3. Construction of a new vehicle depot and HGV workshop on South
Gloucestershire Council owned land at Dean Road (built 2002)
4. Redevelop the Carsons Road, Mangotsfield RTS and HWRC (built 2005).
5. Source, securer consents build and operate an In-Vessel Composting
Facility within South Gloucestershire Council (project terminated by mutual
consent following land and planning difficulties and changes in the organic
markets).
6. Develop a new recyclables bulking facility at South Gloucestershire Council
owned land at Cowhorn depot (project terminated by mutual consent due
to need for vehicle depot and stability risk from mine workings).
7. Develop a new larger HWRC to replace the existing Stoke Gifford HWRC at
Station Road (project terminated by mutual consent due to lack of
replacement sites).
8. Develop a new Sort It Centre for Thornbury (built 2006)
DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE SINCE 1999
At the time the R3 contract was signed in 1999, South Gloucestershire had a
population of 241,600 *
The 2011 census recorded 262,800 people in South Gloucestershire, an 8.7%
increase compared to 1999.
The 2011 census also recorded 107,538 occupied households.
When comparing households increase between the 2001 and 2011 census,
the census results show significant increases in households within distinct
areas of South Gloucestershire;
Parish / Area
% age increase in households 2001-2011 †
Stoke Gifford
Bradley Stoke
Mangotsfield Rural
Siston
35%
16%
28%
71%
(3,985 new households)
(2,794 new households)
(2,707 new households)
(1,888 new households)
As shown above, expansion pressures from new households are
concentrated in the northern fringe and eastern areas of the Council
catchment area.
*
Source Office of National Statistics; Mid year Population estimates and Components for
Change
†
Source: SGC Briefing Note on 2011 census results
EXPECTED FUTURE POPULATION PRESSURES
The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy adopted in December 2013 allows
for the creation of 22,545 additional new houses within South Gloucestershire
between 2013 – 2027 making a total of over 130,000 houses.
This represents an increase of 21% compared to the number of occupied
households in 2011 and an increase of 31% when compared to the number of
households in South Gloucestershire in 2001 (99,038 ‡ ), i.e. around 1/3
increase over and above that existing at the time the R3 contract was signed.
EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE ABILITY OF THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE TO MEET FUTURE MEDIUM / LONG TERM NEEDS
The existing municipal waste management and recycling infrastructure within
South Gloucestershire under the existing PFI contract is as follows:
Facility
Purpose
Area
Date built /
operational
Cowhorn Depot
HGV parking &
fleet depot
0.36 hectares
(0.89 acres)
Pre 1999 contract
Mangotsfield Sort
It Centre
Combined RTS &
HWRC & limited
recyclables
bulking
0.89 hectares
(2.2 acres)
2005
Stoke Gifford Sort HWRC
It Centre
0.24 hectares
(0.59 acres)
Pre 1999 contract
Thornbury Sort It
Centre & Reuse
Store
HWRC
0.51 hectares
(1.26 acres)
2006
Yate Baling
facility (Unit A
Collett Way)
Recyclables
Baling
0.3 hectares
(0.74 acres)
2010
Yate bulking &
parking yard
(former HWRC
Collet Way)
Recyclables
bulking & HGV
parking
0.4 hectares
(0.98 acres)
Pre 1999
contract, used as
a HWRC until
2002
Yate Depot Dean
Road
Contract office
and HGV
0.25 hectares
(0.62 acres)
2002
‡
Source: 2001 Census
Yate Sort It
Centre
Collett Way
workshop
Combined RTS &
HWRC
0.62 hectares
(1.53 acres)
2002
At present a number of existing facilities are deemed by SITA to be at
capacity or are operating above their design capacity;
Cowhorn Depot
This site totals 3,670m2 in area which comprises approx 2,800m2 (0.7 acres)
of South Gloucestershire Council freehold land and 870m2 leased from
Western Power Distribution.
The site has been operational from the start of the PFI Contract and is used to
park up to 30 trucks (utilising the additional 870m2 of land leased from
Western Power Distribution).
This site is one of two vehicle depots, (the other being Yate) and serves the
eastern half of the South Gloucestershire area.
However the site is not large enough to accommodate staff parking and
separate arrangements have had to be made for staff parking in the former
golf club car park opposite the site.
The site is currently at capacity. However Western power Distribution have
served notice and will terminate the lease of the additional 870m2 in 2016. At
that point the remaining site within South Gloucestershire control will not be
big enough to accommodate the 30 HGV`s currently parked there.
Furthermore with the roll out of new services, parking will be required for an
additional 9 HGV`s giving a site total of 39HGV`s and in total car parking for
up to 85 members of staff (drivers, loaders and fleet management).
The current site cannot accommodate the continuation of the existing service
beyond 2016 with the loss of the additional leased area and cannot
accommodate the new planned services.
Mangtosfield Sort It Centre
The existing site occupies a plot of 0.89 hectares (2.2 acres) and comprises a
1,650m2 transfer building (66m by 25m) which also serves as the combined
HWRC residual / wood / green / metal bays. In 2014, the site handled 54,268
tpa and 45 HGV`s per weekday.
This site is one of two RTS`s servicing the South Gloucestershire area and as
such serves the eastern half of the Council area.
With the highways constraints of Carsons Road, access and queuing is a key
issue particularly given the fact that it is a combined RTS & HWRC (meaning
that both HGV`s and public cars are using the same stretch of public highway
and are therefore queuing together during peak hours), the site is deemed by
SITA to be running at design capacity.
The site is surrounded on two sides by fields and therefore in theory is
capable of physical expansion. However these fields form part of the urban
fringe green belt, and therefore “very special circumstances” would need to be
demonstrated to justify development of these green belt green fields.
However this site on the wrong side of the District to accommodate additional
service requirements for the Cribbs Patchway / northern fringe expansion
areas.
Stoke Gifford Sort It Centre
This site has been operated largely in its current configuration since 1999.
There have been a number of minor modifications and significant additional
recyclable streams added to the facility since 1999 to accommodate the
changing nature of municipal waste management and recycling since the R3
PFI contract was signed.
Given the significant increase in the local catchment area for this site, with the
expansion of Stoke Gifford housing area and Bradley Stoke, this site has
been identified by both SITA and South Gloucestershire as operating
above capacity for some significant period of time.
The site cannot accommodate any additional housing numbers within its
catchment area and deliver a level of service that residents would expect.
The nearest alternative sites at Yate (at capacity) and Thornbury (within
capacity) are located 7.5 miles and 8 miles away respectively.
Thornbury Sort It Centre & Reuse facility
Thornbury is the most recently built of the four South Gloucestershire Sort It
Centres and as such is purpose built (given the plot of land available).
It was built in 2006 and currently handles 3,134 tpa and an average of 155
cars per day. The Reuse store is a recent addition through the change of use
of the existing storage building on site.
The Reuse store has been a tremendous success and this site remains
operating as anticipated and within design capacity.
Yate baling facility, Unit A Collett Way
This site was leased by SITA from Curly Brothers in 2010 under a 15 year
lease and provides a baling facility for recyclable cardboard and plastics.
The site comprises 0.3 hectares with an existing industrial building measuring
252m2 (28m by 9m).
The site is currently running close to capacity, and due to the constraints of
the existing premises and neighbouring premises on the industrial estate is
not readily capable of expansion.
The site would not be able to cope with additional recyclates from additional
housing provision. Similarly the site is not located in an appropriate area to
receive recyclable materials from the identified expansion areas of Cribbs and
the northern fringe.
Yate bulking and parking yard, Collet Way (former HWRC)
This site comprises 0.4 hectares and bears an unusual layout due to its
former use as the Yate HWRC until 2002 when it was replaced by the new
Sort It centre on the other side of Collett Way.
The site is now used for loose dry recyclables bulking (glass, paper etc) on
the lower level, using for the former HWRC concrete bays and bulking bays
together with a covered paper store built in 2004, whilst the upper level is
used for parking of the Yate collection fleet (around 20 HGV`s).
The site is physically constrained by the former HWRC layout and by the
neighbouring premises of the Dean Road Contract office and workshops and
by Collett Way.
The site is currently considered to be operating at Capacity.
The site may be capable of limited expansion through either the compete
levelling of the site (i.e. removing the former HWRC split level layout and
concrete bays), or from expansion onto a small neighbouring plot of land
which is used by an independent haulier for HGV parking. It is likely that there
would be an issue over cost benefit for the amount of investment required for
a minor increase in site capacity. The site is not ideally located to receive
additional materials from the identified expansion areas of Cribbs and the
northern fringe.
Yate Dean Road Contract office and HGV workshop
This site was developed in 2002 and comprises a two-storey building
accommodating the Contract offices for SITA south Gloucestershire, drivers
welfare and fleet management for the collection fleet based at Yate
(neighbouring Collett Way parking yard) and the collection fleet HGV
workshop.
This site is not capable of physical expansion due to the constraints of
neighbouring sites including the Collett way bulking and parking yard.
Yate Sort It Centre
Existing site occupies a plot of 0.62 hectares (1.53 acres) and comprises a
1,728m2 transfer building (54m by 32m) which also serves as the combined
HWRC residual / wood / green / metal bays. In 2013, the site handled 35,184
tpa and an average of 35 HGV`s per weekday.
This site is one of two RTS`s servicing the South Gloucestershire area and as
such serves the northern and western sections of the Council area. It
therefore services the areas which have seen the highest increase in house
numbers and population since the start of the PFI Contract. It also currently
serves the area in which the greatest level of new homes provision is
expected (Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood).
With the highways constraints from Collett Way and the fact that it is a
combined RTS & HWRC (meaning that both HGV`s and public cars are using
the same stretch of public highway and are therefore queuing together during
peak hours), the site is deemed by SITA to be running at / over design
capacity.
This site is therefore not capable of accommodating additional deliveries and
waste from the Cribbs Patchway housing areas that are anticipated between
2013 and 2027. Similarly due to the physical constraints of the site the only
way to increase the physical capacity of the RTS is to relocate the HWRC to
another site.
This site is not in a suitable location to accommodate additional service
requirements for the Cribbs Patchway expansion areas.
ANTICIPATED FUTURE DEMANDS TO BE PLACED ON THE WASTE MANAGEMENT
AND RECYCLING SERVICE FROM 2015
As stated previously;
1
there has been an 8.7% increase in the population of South
Gloucestershire between 2001 – 2011,
2
The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy targets the creation of an
additional 22,545 new houses between 2013 – 2027, representating an
increase in households of 21% from 2011 levels,
3
The majority of this household expansion will be delivered in the Cribbs /
northern fringe area,
4
The nearest existing Sort It Centre to the expansion area is the Stoke
Gifford Sort It Centre which has been running at over-capacity for a
number of years,
5
The nearest existing site for waste transfer, recyclables bulking and
vehicle parking, are the Yate sites at Collett Way which are at or near
capacity.
6
The existing Cowhorn Hill Depot is at / over capacity. The operation of
this depot will become untenable in 2016 when the leased area is
reclaimed by the Landlord, and with the requirement to provide new
services and additional collection vehicles.
7
With significant increase in housing concentrated in particular areas of
Cribbs Patchway and the northern fringe, spatial issues for vehicle depots
are highlighted, for instance a collection vehicle parked at Yate will take
during a normal working day 1 hour to drive to and from Yate to the
collection area using 3 gallons of diesel per day for an RCV and 1.5 gallons
of diesel for a stillage vehicle (3,900 – 1,950 gallons per annum). This
daily driving time and daily fuel consumption can be saved by locating
collection trucks within the housing growth area.
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO THE ABOVE PROBLEMS
Issues 1 to 5 above could be resolved through the development of a new
combined waste management facility comprising an RTS building, Sort It
Centre, separate HWRC, bulking area for dry recyclables and HGV parking
for locally based collection vehicles.
Issue 6 could be resolved through the closure and sale for residential
development of the existing depot and a new fleet depot created elsewhere
within the eastern fringe area.
New Build facility for Cribbs / Eastern fringe area
A new combined facility as described above to resolve issues 1-5 on one site
would require;
x
1.2 – 1.9 hectares depending on site shape and highways access.
A combined (co-located) facility comprising a number of activities as listed
above would have economies of scale advantages over a number of
individual sites through cost savings from land purchase, construction
economies, environmental and amenity impacts being confined to a single site
rather than separate sites, and lower management costs.
Similar comparable SITA facilities elsewhere in the country are;
Launceston, Cornwall, (layout plan enclosed in Appendix 1).
This site comprised a plot of 1.03 on a sloping site of an irregular shape.
The site accommodates a HWRC to cover the eastern area of Cornwall with
the nearest other sites available at Bude (20 miles), Saltash (20 miles) and
Bodmin (26 miles). The HWRC is expected to handle around 6,500tpa, but is
designed for 10,000tpa.
The parking and bins storage area of the HWRC measures approximately
500m2 excluding access and egress. The area provides 11 parking bays for
the public to unload and recycle (including 3 wide access bays) and provision
for 8 RoRo bins.
The Refuse Transfer Station building is 1,073m2 (37m by 29m by 10m high)
and is designed to transfer a minimum of 40,000tpa of recyclable and non
recyclable wastes
The site handles up to 50 HGV`s per day.
The site took 9 months to build and 6 months for planning (compilation of the
application and subsequent determination).
Earlswood, Surrey, (layout plan enclosed in Appendix 2)
This site recently consented on a green belt site in Surrey and is a
collaboration between SITA, Surrey County Council and Reigate and
Banstead Borough Council. The site measures 1.8 hectares and comprises a
bulking facility measuring 2,508m2 (66m by 38m) and which will have a
throughput of 110,000tpa together with a fleet depot for parking 62 HGV`s.
The site will also accommodate improvement works to Reigate and Banstead
Council`s existing neighbouring depot.
St Erth, Cornwall (layout plan enclosed in Appendix 3)
This new build site replaced an existing small out-dated transfer station and
HWRC. The new site comprised a plot of 1.86 hectares on a long linear flat
site.
The site accommodates a HWRC to cover the western area of Cornwall with
the nearest other sites available at Helston (15 miles), Falmouth (24 miles)
and Redruth (15 miles). The HWRC handles around 8,500tpa, but is designed
for 12,000tpa.
The HWRC area provides 21 parking bays for the public to unload and
recycle.
The Refuse Transfer Station building is 1,700m2 (50m by 34m by 10m high)
and is designed to transfer a minimum of 50,000tpa of recyclable and non
recyclable wastes.
This site also accommodates dry recyclables bulking and HGV parking.
The site handles up to 60 HGV`s per day.
The site took 12 months to build (including 1/2km new road access) and 5
months for planning (compilation of the application and subsequent
determination).
It is recognised however, that plot size constraints may dictate that co-location
is not possible.
In this instance, segregated facilities can be provided, for instance;
Falmouth HWRC, Cornwall (see Appendix 4)
Site area comprises 1 hectare for the HWRC, but 2.6 hectares including
access and highways works on the A394.
The site is designed for 12,000tpa.
This site and the highways works associated with it highlight the constraints
around highways access for busy HWRC facilities.
Hanworth bulking facility & parking depot, South west London (see Appendix
5)
This facility comprised an area of 0.38 hectares for the provision of a Fleet
parking facility for 35 HGV`s as well as a dry recyclables bulking facility for up
to 17,000tpa.
Connon Bridge Refuse Transfer Station (see Appendix 6)
This stand alone Refuse Transfer Station was consented and built to replace
a mothballed landfill to act as a local delivery point for Local Authority
collected municipal wastes.
The site comprised 0.7 hectares (excluding access to public highway) with the
transfer station building measuring 1,800m2 (60m by 30m by 11m high), and
was designed to transfer (bulking with no treatment) up to 160,000tpa.
Vehicle Depot Provision to replace Cowhorn Depot
A potential solution to issue 6 is through the provision of a replacement
eastern area vehicle depot with the potential sale of the existing Cowhorn
depot to part finance the development.
The existing Cowhorn depot comprises (within the freehold ownership of
South Gloucestershire Council) approximately 0.7 acres.
The value of the existing depot with planning permission for residential
development is likely to be between £500,000 to £875,000. The reason for the
value range arises from the housing density that could be achieved on site,
the higher the density the higher the value (land value range from £725,000
per acre to £1,250,000 per acre).
There are existing plots of industrial land within the eastern fringes of South
Gloucestershire (Warmley, Emersons Green, Kingswood) that are currently
available and would meet the spatial requirements of the waste management
service provision going forward including new services.
Currently industrial land on the eastern fringe is around £400,000 - £450,000
per acre. Existing industrial sites in Warmley are being marketed for freehold
sale of £1.75mill for 1.75 acres with 24,000sqft of industrial buildings, offices
and workshops.
Gareth Phillips
Head of Planning & Property – South
SITA UK Ltd
28th February 2014
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
EVIDENCE BASE
EXTRA CARE HOUSING
(South Gloucestershire Council)
March 2014
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
Extra Care Housing
1. Introduction
1.1. The shared vision for South Gloucestershire is set out in the Sustainable
Community Strategy 2012 “South Gloucestershire a great place to live and
work” and the Council Strategy 2012-2016 sets out how this vision will be
delivered. Both of these have managing future development, promoting safer
and stronger communities and modernising health and community care
services as priorities.
1.2. The Local Development Framework will set out the spatial expression of these
priorities and is key to the creation of sustainable communities that are well
designed and planned, provide access to a full range of community facilities,
formal and informal open spaces and which are well integrated with existing
communities.
1.3. This paper sets out an assessment of requirements for future growth for Extra
Care Housing, taking account of growth proposed in the South Gloucestershire
Core Strategy incorporating post submission changes (Dec 2011). Any variation
in the overall scale or location of growth will clearly alter the requirements. The
document also aims to set out the principles upon which the requirements are
based.
2. Extra Care Housing
2.1
ExtraCare Housing should provide a home for as long as is possible which aims
to prevent older people having to move to residential or nursing homes, should
their level of support and care needs increase. It gives people the
independence of living in their own self-contained accommodation within an
environment that enables them to live lives that are as full and independent as
they wish, whilst being able to readily access high quality support and care
services on site.
2.2
ExtraCare housing schemes may also incorporate a wide range of communal
facilities including on site restaurant, laundry, health suite, hairdressing salon,
IT suite etc, all of which can potentially be used as a resource for residents and
older people in the wider community. It is South Gloucestershire Council’s aim
to create balanced communities of older people within the ExtraCare housing
schemes, making sure that each scheme remains flexible enough to serve
older people with a range of personal, social, and care needs whilst maintaining
inclusion within the wider community.
2.3
ExtraCare differs from sheltered accommodation in as much as that there is
24/7 flexible care and support available in addition to a menu of services to
enhance independence and promote health and wellbeing.
2.4
There are currently five ExtraCare schemes (in Yate, Downend, Kingswood and
two remodelled schemes in Filton) operating in South Gloucestershire. See
Appendix for further details.
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
2.5
Policy Context
The following National Strategies provide the policy framework/justification to
support the provision of ExtraCare housing:
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012):
“supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of
housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by
creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that
reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural wellbeing”
Sustainable Planning for Housing in an Ageing population: A guide for regionallevel strategies (Feb 2008) Dept for Communities and Local Government:
states in the forward that ‘the purpose…is to place social sustainability at the
heart of sustainable planning’ and recognises the importance of cross-sectoral
partnerships in order to integrate ‘planning for housing, health, social care and
community’.
Care and Support Specialised Housing Fund – Department of Health and
Housing and Communities Agency , Ministerial Forward (2012)
“In the White Paper, Caring for our future: reforming care and support - and
accompanying draft Bill the Government outlined a plan to shift the system from
one that responds to crisis to one which focuses on wellbeing, and on an
individual’s ability to live independently for as long as possible.
Specialised housing is a key part of this new system. It offers positive solutions
for the people who want to continue living in - and potentially owning - their own
property, remaining as independent as possible as their needs change. Most
importantly of all, we know living in well-designed specialised housing improves
the health and wellbeing of many people.”
New Health and Social Care Structures – What are the Opportunities for
housing (2007) Housing LIN: identifies the role of housing organisations in the
provision of health and social care through creating sustainable
neighbourhoods, providing and adapting more accessible homes and promoting
independence etc.
Lifetime Homes in Lifetime Neighbourhoods Department for Communities &
Local Government. February 2008 - sustainable and “future proofed” design for
long term future. Economic and social sustainability by raising profile of choice
for older people by providing better housing information joined up housing
health and social care and improved specialised housing.
Laying the Foundations: a housing strategy for England. Department for
Communities and Local Government (2012). - “ Without urgent action to build
new homes, children will grow up without the same opportunities to live near
their families, young people will struggle to get a place to call their own and
older people will not have the choice and support they need. Some 60 per cent
of projected growth in households to 2033 will be aged 65 and older. “
White paper Department of Health. January 2006 , Our health, Our care, Our
say - provide a more personal service that is tailored to the specific health or
social care needs of individuals and change the way these services are
provided in communities and make them as flexible as possible.
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
Housing our Ageing Population; Panel for Innovation (June 2009)
Good quality housing for older people in accessible neighbourhoods can bring
considerable benefits – not only to the lives of older people, but in contributing
to inclusive, safer, sustainable communities; and supporting older people to live
healthy, active lives can potentially mean longer-term efficiencies across
housing, health and care services.
2.6
2.7
All these documents point to local authorities paying more regard to
demographic trends and the housing requirements of older people and to
providing greater choice, mirroring an increasingly diverse older population.
Local Authorities such as South Gloucestershire, with social services
responsibilities, and their housing partners, are therefore actively seeking to
enhance the housing with care supply in their areas. This is contingent upon
better domiciliary care for older people in their own homes, and the
development of supported accommodation in the social and private housing
sectors – such as ExtraCare.
Local Strategies
The following Local Strategies interpret National objectives to provide more
flexible support for the elderly, particularly through the provision of ExtraCare
housing:
Joint Accommodation & Care Strategy (March 2006) Community Care &
Housing and South Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust. This is the key
document that’s sets out the Council and former PCT strategy for the provision
of ExtraCare housing to 2016. Its main objective is the development or
facilitation of 15 ExtraCare schemes by 2016, and the promotion of ExtraCare
as an alternative form of provision to residential care. It provides key baseline
data and rationale for this target. The Council works in a strategic partnership
with the other West of England local authorities, Bristol City Council, Bath and
North East Somerset Council, North Somerset Council, and has selected a
Housing Delivery Panel to develop and manage mixed tenure housing across
the West of England until 2015.
Draft Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (2013). In section 7 of the Assessment,
“Ageing and supporting independence” recommendations to be considered by
commissioners include “To continue to deliver mixed tenure ExtraCare Housing
Schemes, where older people can experience a new lease of life.”
2.8
The Joint Accommodation & Care Strategy was set in the framework of the:
Sustainable Community Strategy (2008) Modernising Health & Community
Care Services, (Pg 16)- Quality of Life - need to improve the quality of life by
providing services for older people and vulnerable people to retain and
maximise independence which will include an ExtraCare housing development,
and
SGC Housing Strategy (2013/18) – The housing and healthier living theme
identifies ExtraCare as a key measure of success.
The list of national and local strategies given here is not exhaustive and
strategic objectives and resultant action plans may be updated from time to
time.
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
Demand for ExtraCare
2.9
Existing and future demand for ExtraCare services can be assessed from a
number of sources. These include:
x
x
x
x
x
Joint Accommodation & Care Strategy (March 2006)
@ Shop Toolkit developed by The Housing Learning Improvement Network
(December 2011)
Community Care & Housing Home Care Data
Statistics Projecting Older People Population Information – Institute of Public
Care
2011 Census
2.10 An analysis of supply and demand carried out by South Gloucestershire
Community Care & Housing Department and NHS South Gloucestershire in
December 2005 to inform the Joint Accommodation and Care Strategy for
Older People showed that there was an unmet need for appropriate housing for
older people. It showed that there were a number of areas in South
Gloucestershire, particularly in new development areas, lacking available units.
In other areas sheltered schemes were experiencing high levels of voids due to
the nature of the accommodation available. In final analysis the report stated:
“Overall it appears that there is demand from individuals to move into
accommodation which will offer support if required and allow them to age in
place.”
2.11 In terms of future demand, projected population figures sourced and calculated
using the national Projecting Older Peoples Population Information system
(POPPI), show a substantial increase particularly in the over 85’s age group.
(See below)
*Projected Population Growth in South Gloucestershire
65-84: 2011
65-84: 2020 % change 85+: 2011 85+:2020
38,800
47,200
21.6%
5500
8200
% change
49.1%
*These figures do not take into account future proposed housing growth as set out in the SWRSS.
*Population projections are an indication of the future trends in
population by age and gender over a period of 10 years. They are trend
based projections, which means assumptions for future levels of births,
deaths and migration are based on observed levels mainly over the
2006-2010 period, as used in the 2010-based subnational population
projections. They show what the population will be if recent trends in
these continue. For example there has been an increase of 65-74year
olds of 21.7% from 2001to 2011 and a 30.8% increase of older people
over the age of 75.
2.12 From extrapolating on previous findings it seems evident that demand will grow.
A report entitled “Understanding the demand for ExtraCare Housing” by
Trimmer CS Housing Consultancy for the Department of Health concluded that
actual demand was directly linked to public understanding of the service as well
as the availability of sites. (Simply put, demand for Extra Care accommodation
will grow rapidly as people become aware of it as a housing option. This will not
happen until there are, in any given area a number of schemes on the
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
ground).The report therefore concluded that Local Authorities have a significant
role in the development of the market.
2.13 Care in the Community and ExtraCare is projected to rise with subsequent
reductions in the percentage of the over 65 population accommodated in
Residential Care and Sheltered Housing over the period to 2016.
How much ExtraCare Housing does South Gloucestershire need?
2.14 Currently 258 ExtraCare affordable rented units are available in South
Gloucestershire. The Council and its partners are planning to develop an
additional 442 units of leasehold and rented accommodation by 2016/17. (see
appendix 1 for progress). These will accommodate a range of levels of care and
support need. Those with identified needs would be required to meet the South
Gloucestershire Fairer Access to Care eligibility criteria. For those wishing to
purchase South Gloucestershire would wish to prioritise a local connection.
2.15 The total number of units required has been based on;
x Replacing 30% of admissions who would have previously been in
residential accommodation,
x Accommodating people currently inappropriately placed in sheltered
Housing
x Accommodating older people in South Gloucestershire with low care and
support needs who are looking to move to more appropriate
accommodation (downsizing).
2.16
The need for a greater range of accommodation for Older People is illustrated
in Chapter 10.2.17 of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment by a table
demonstrating the provision of ExtraCare in 2007 on an authority basis and
the projected requirement to 2026.
Authority Social Market
Rented Housing
developed
for
sale/part
sale
South
Glos
37
0
Units
per
1,000
aged
65+
Additional
units
required
to reach
target of 6
per 1,000
of social
rented
stock now
Additional
units
required
to
reach
target
of 6 per
1,000 of
social
rented
stock
2026
Additional
units
required
to
reach
target of
12
per 1,000
of
all stock
now
Additional
units
required
to reach
target of
12 per
1,000 of
all stock
2026
1.0
198
329
433
695
Extract from: Table 10.6 Page 128 Strategic Housing Market Assessment.
The unit requirement demonstrated in the Strategic Housing Market
Assessment can be enhanced further by examining a number of housing
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
and social care trends identified and defined by the Institute of Public Care in
their publication entitled Projecting Older People Population Information
(POPPI).
3. Scheme Design Standards
3.1
The principal aim and object of ExtraCare design is to enable older people to
remain independent for as long as they wish to be. When considering a
potential site the following must be considered to ensure suitability:
1. Location and accessibility to public transport, open space, retail and medical
services.
2. New development should contribute to, local communities; local
businesses; local facilities, enhancing the sustainability of that
neighbourhood and ensuring a positive future for its residents. .
3. The design must focus on providing residents with a secure and safe
environment.
4. Construction and building standards should meet:
x
Area needs to be a minimum of 1.5 - 2 acres/or 1 hectare. A sustainable
scheme will consist of a minimum 50 to 60 units of accommodation with a
range of communal areas appropriate to the location. Sites also require
sufficient landscaped / recreation areas as well as adequate parking and
vehicle turning areas.
x
Recommendations and design aspirations set out in the Housing our
Ageing Population: Panel for Innovation published in December 2009.
x
Housing Design principals for ExtraCare (February 2008) PRP Architects
for the Department of Health.
Further guidelines, are available in the South Gloucestershire Design Brief for
ExtraCare Housing (March 2012).
4. The Extra Care Programme
4.1
The Joint Accommodation & Care Strategy examines the current provision of
accommodation and identifies the need to commission 15 ExtraCare schemes,
(private and public sector) to ensure that existing demand for alternative
accommodation is met. To help meet this target, within the West of England
Delivery Panel a sub group (Lot) has been set up consisting of 6 panel
members specifically selected for the development and management of
ExtraCare and housing for older people.
4.2
The partnership ensures potential developments are suitable in terms meeting
strategic need, location and availability of services in addition to South
Gloucestershire minimum design principals being maintained.
4.3
A number of potential sites are currently in differing stages of development from
early feasibility to planning. Sites include land owned by South Gloucestershire
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
council, private sector large scale development areas. These are set out in
Appendix 1.
5.
Providing Extra Care beyond 2016
5.1
Current figures show people over the age of 65 account for approximately
16.9% *of the total population in South Gloucestershire and projections, not
taking into account proposed housing growth, show a 21.6% increase in people
aged between 65 and 84 to 2020
x 2011 Census figures
5.2
Currently the majority of older people live around the fringe of Bristol,
Kingswood, Downend and Filton areas. Correspondingly appropriate
accommodation services such as the ExtraCare programme are being targeted
in these areas.
5.3
Hence, as the number of older people increases, the Council’s ExtraCare
programme develops and awareness of the model increases as a housing
option, so it is considered that demand will substantially increase. It is
considered therefore that private providers are likely to enter the market on a
commercial basis. Policy CS20 of the Draft Core Strategy therefore guides
privately promoted schemes towards appropriate locations.
5.4
The Core Strategy (Dec 13) proposes an additional 26,400 dwellings to 2027.
Based on 2.31 persons per dwelling (2006 ONS mid-yr population estimates
produced for the West of England UAs by the GLA), the assumption is that
there will be a new population of approximately 60,000 people. 15-20% of these
people will be over 65.
5.5
The position with regard major sites is shown below:
x
x
x
x
x
SGLP site 9 - Cheswick Village (750 dwellings) – Consented. No Extra
Care housing is currently agreed as part of the S106 or proposed.
SGLP site 13 – Harry Stoke (1200 dwellings) – Consented. No Extra
Care housing is currently agreed as part of the S106 or proposed.
SGLP site 4 – Charlton Hayes (2200 dwellings) – An Extra Care
scheme is proposed as part of the S106.
SGLP site 5 – Emersons Green East (2390 dwellings) – An Extra
Care scheme is proposed as part of the S106.
North Yate New Neighbourhood (3000 dwellings) – An Extra Care
Scheme is proposed as part of the S106
5.6
This leaves new neighbourhoods at Cribbs Patchway & East of Harry Stoke
plus unidentified windfall sites that could potentially contribute towards the
provision of new Extra Care accommodation, possibly via S106.
5.7
Discussions with existing providers indicate that Extra Care schemes must be a
minimum size of about 50 to 60 units to be viable given the 24 hour on site care
and support services they provide. Since the majority of windfall sites fall below
this figure in total, requiring a percentage of dwellings to be Extra Care on such
sites would be impractical. Therefore, only major strategic sites are likely to be
able to accommodate a requirement for ExtraCare provision onsite.
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
5.8
With regard major sites estimating the influx of older people cannot accurately
be determined. An assumption would be that older people would be less likely
to relocate for employment/economic reasons and more likely to join families or
take advantage of health, leisure or other related services. However as the
population grows older and more frail there will be a corresponding need to
deliver increased preventative and response services, including ExtraCare in
these new neighbourhoods.
5.9
Given that it is demonstrable that demand for older peoples accommodation will
rise, policy and legislation provides a strong basis for its inclusion in the Local
Development Framework and other plans and strategies of the Council, 5.8
above and the minimum ‘viable’ size for ExtraCare schemes, it is therefore
proposed to require ExtraCare is delivered as part of identified Strategic sites in
the Core Strategy, but not require a certain percentage of dwellings to be Extra
Care, simply that an ExtraCare scheme is delivered with a percentage of
affordable Extra Care. Core Strategy Policy CS20 therefore identifies three
strategic sites (East of Harry Stoke, North of Yate and Cribbs / Patchway new
neighbourhoods) where ExtraCare Schemes will be required.
5.10 The Council intends to adopt new Affordable Housing & Extra-Care SPD in May
2014. This document should be referred to with regard the considerations that
will be taken into account in determining the use class (C2 or C3) of Extra-Care
and implications with regard provision of affordable housing .
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
APPENDIX 1 - Current Position of Extra Care Programme
Site
Cambrian Drive, Yate
Development Target date
Completed Jan 2011
Beaufort Road, Downend
Completed Feb 2011
Fiveways, Kingswood
Completed Jan 2012
Remodelling at Filton:
(2 schemes)
Completed May 2012
Thornbury
Frenchay
Feasibility ongoing
Feasibility ongoing
Cold Harbour Lane
Development timescale forecast for 2017/18
Rural site
Not established
As at February 2014
Technical officer team – community infrastructure for future growth – framework I
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
EVIDENCE BASE
Public Open Space, Outdoor
Sport and Recreation - Provision
and Maintenance
February 2014
Introduction
The Council requires a range of public open space, sport and recreation
facilities to be provided in line with policy to support new developments.
Provision should accord with the standards set out in Core Strategy policy
CS24. All costs are 2013/14 figures subject to annual inflationary uplifts
(annually updated in April).
Core Strategy – Summary of Provision Standards
The Core Strategy requires a range of green infrastructure/open space to be
delivered in order to create sustainable communities, in accordance with
NPPF. The Council has recently adopted its Core Strategy, which contains
provisions standards, that were based on an assessment of existing
accessible sites and through a comprehensive consultation process, a review
of national standards and local comparables has established local standards
of provision, which accords with the approach suggested within the NPPF.
Full details on the standards can be found within the Open Space Audit,
www.southglos.gov.uk/corestrategyevidence . Table 1 provides a summary of
the quantity provision standards set out in the Core Strategy.
Table 1. Open Space Quantitative Provision Standards:
Category of Open Space
Informal recreational open space
Natural and Semi-Natural green
space
Outdoor Sports facilities
Provision for Children and Young
People
Allotments
Total:
Requirement
- Minimum figures, hectares/1,000
population
1.4
1.5
1.6
0.25
(this may be located within the informal
recreational open space)
0.2
4.7
(On the basis that provision for children
and young people can be located within
the informal recreational open space).
In all instances the open spaces to be provided in connection with new
developments will be in addition to the requirements arising from other policy
objectives e.g. surface water infrastructure, retention of nature conservation
sites (other than natural and semi-natural green space, where nature
conservation is included).
Further details on applications of the standards, including the requirement to
address qualitative and accessibility consideration will be set out in the Green
Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document.
Capital Cost of Provision:
Average capital costs for the provision of the different types of open space are
detailed in table 2 below; these exclude the cost of any land purchase that
may be required:
Table 2. Average capital costs per square metre of the different types of
open space provision:
Type of
open space
Average
capital cost
per square
metre
Outdoor
Sports
facilities
£47.93
Provision
for
Children
and Young
People
£160.60
Natural
and Semi
Natural
Green
Space
£13.36
Informal
Recreation
Open
Space
Allotments
£24.10
£8.79
The detailed breakdown of these average costs can be found in Appendix 1.
The costs reflect the type of spaces and facilities that the Council would
expect to see delivered and are based on examples that have been adopted
from other new developments, which have taken place within South
Gloucestershire.
These capital costs are based on a range of industry costs for the provision of
open space facilities, and the maintenance costs are routinely tested through
APSE (Association for Public Sector Excellence). They are therefore
considered reasonable and fully justified in order to ensure standards match
the expectations of South Gloucestershire’s population.
Maintenance Cost:
Where additional open space has been provided as a result of development
or existing provision enhanced to cater for the increased demand arising from
development the developer will be required to pay a contribution towards
fifteen years of future maintenance.
The average costs of maintaining the different types of open space provision
expected in line with policy requirements are detailed in table 3 below. The
detailed breakdown of these average costs can be found in Appendix 2. The
use of average maintenance costs based on typical landscapes has
limitations; as such they would need to be adjusted to take account of more
unique designs and features. Upon this basis the figures set out can be used
as a guide. The costs reflect the type of spaces and facilities that South
Gloucestershire Council would expect to see delivered. The costs reflect the
type of open spaces and associated facilities that the Council has been
adopting from new developments over the last fifteen years. These figures do
not include features such as surface water infrastructure, toilets, teen shelters,
bandstands and other features which can be included in conjunction with
open space provision. The maintenance cost of such features/provision will
need to be assessed separately.
The detailed tables in Appendix 2 are not intended to influence the type of
design that may be achieved on any given location; they must be developed
to reflect site specific consideration and informed through the planning
process. The design assessment for formal and informal provision needs to
be made on a site by site basis and in accordance with the adopted standards
and national policy requirements.
Table 3. Average maintenance costs to maintain the different types of
open space provision:
Type of
open space
Average
Maintenance
Cost per
square
metre for 15
years
Outdoor
Sports
facilities
£14.51
Provision
for
Children
and Young
People
£168.88
Natural
and Semi
Natural
Green
Space
£22.16
Informal
Recreation
Open
Space
£42.48
Allotments
£11.21
The costs in tables 2 and 3 (and their supporting justification in Appendix 1
and 2) are subject to annual inflationary uplifts using GM ’87, published by the
BCIS. The annual uplift to the 2014/2015 figures will be applied as soon the
latest index figures are published.
Full details of the capital and maintenance costs can be found in Appendix 1
and 2.
Future Growth Locations – Open Space, Outdoor Sport and Recreation
Provision Requirements
A detailed break down of the requirements arising from the new
neighbourhoods is set out in Appendix 3, it details the quantum of each open
space typology and the maintenance costs associated with such provision.
These figures are indicative, as highlighted above in this paper, until site
specific details have been discussed and agreed through the planning
applications process.
In summary the following provisions will be required, if full provision of each
typology is proven to be required at the time the planning application is
considered.
Location
East of Harry Stoke
New Neighbourhood
Cribbs / Patchway New
Neighbourhood
Total Spatial
Requirement (sqm)
225,600
Maintenance Cost
642,960
£20,488,536
£7,118,960
Appendix 1: Details of Capital Costs
Capital cost calculator 2013/2014 prices
INFORMAL RECREATION SPACE
INFORMAL RECREATION SPACE
Feature
Unit
Measure
Area/
Unit
Cost 201314
Cleaning virgin ground
Pathways and paving
Soil amelioration - shrub and rose beds
Shrubs
Roses/perennials
Amenity grass - topsoil and turf
Hedging Lm
Post and rail fencing
Floral bedding - spring
Floral bedding - summer
Pond/s
Natural play features
Trees - 30 - 35cm.g.
Trees - 12 - 14cm.g.
Seating/timber features
Provision and installation of litter bins
Provision and installation of dog bin
Interpretation/information boards
sq.m.
sq.m.
sq.m.
sq.m.
sq.m.
sq.m.
l.m.
l.m.
sq.m.
sq.m.
sq.m.
sq.m.
per tree
per tree
per bench
per bin
per bin
per sign
10,000
800
1,560
1,300
260
4,400
400
150
100
100
340
2,400
15
12
4
2
1
1
£4,818.10
£42,827.55
£13,383.61
£31,049.97
£8,351.37
£46,039.61
£3,426.20
£3,854.48
£3,212.07
£3,212.07
£9,100.85
£48,180.99
£16,060.33
£3,212.07
£1,284.83
£856.55
£214.14
£1,927.24
Total capital cost
Informal Recreation Space Approx.
Area
Average cost per sq.m.
£241,012.01
10,000.00
£24.10
NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL
GREEN SPACE
NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL GREEN SPACE
Feature
Unit
Measure
Area/
Unit
Cost 201314
Whips and seedling trees (sq.m.)
Hedges (Lm)
Wildflower grass meadow - spring/summer
Footpath (sq.m.)
Grilles/headwalls
Create ditches/streams/ponds - 1metre deep
Trees (if none on site) 20-25cm.g., incl. aftercare
Planting area - soil amelioration
Strip topsoil and cart to tip, to achieve low fertility (720cu.m.)
Trees in grass meadow 12-14cm.g.
Provision and Installation of Litter Bin
Provision and Installation of Dog Bin
Access signage
Bat box 4no. @ £20 incl. installation
Bird box at £20 incl. installation
sq.m.
l.m.
sq.m.
sq.m.
per grille
sq.m.
per tree
sq.m.
cu.m.
per tree
per bin
per bin
per sign
per box
per box
2,000
800
4,800
800
2
200
28
5,200
4,800
12
1
1
1
4
8
£5,995.86
£6,852.41
£3,747.41
£32,120.66
£642.41
£12,848.26
£22,484.46
£6,959.48
£36,724.62
£3,212.07
£428.28
£214.14
£1,070.69
£85.66
£171.31
Total capital cost
Natural and Semi Natural Green
Space Approx. Area
Average cost per sq.m.
£133,557.70
10,000.00
£13.36
OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES (PITCHES)
Feature
Pitches (total area 24,000sq.m.)
Grass pitches x 2 (incl. primary and secondary drainage system)
Pavilion (4 teams)
Pitch seasonal adjustment area (at 50%)
Cricket wickets and bowling run
Car park/access/roads (cost included in other calcs)
Natural/semi-natural landscape improvement
Technical assessment & drainage feasibility study
Water attenuation/SUDs area
Access signage
Provision and installation of dog bin
Provision and installation of litter bin
(PITCHES)
Unit
Measure
Area/
Unit
Cost 201314
sqm
sqm
sqm
sqm
sqm
sqm
operation
12,800
1
6,400
2,200
1,000
1,600
per sign
per bin
per bin
1
1
1
£176,449.49
£588,878.75
£87,796.47
£35,332.72
£0.00
£21,413.77
£26,767.22
£34,262.04
£1,070.69
£214.14
£428.28
Unit
Measure
sqm
sqm
sqm
sqm
sqm
sqm
per sign
Area/
Unit
685
1,340
5,500
100
1,100
1,681
1
Cost 201314
£85,655.09
£139,189.52
£208,248.94
£2,676.72
£19,165.33
£178,912.07
£1,070.69
OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES (COURTS AND GREENS)
Feature
MUGA
Outdoor tennis
Club grade sports track
Boules
Croquet
Bowls
Access signage
£972,613.55
£48,630.68
£1,021,244.23
24,000.00
£42.55
(COURTS AND GREENS)
OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES (AVERAGE COST PER SQUARE METRE)
Feature
Pitches
Courts and greens
Sub total capital cost
Plus 5% Contingency
Total Capital Cost
Pitches Approx. Area
Annual cost per sq.m.
cost per
sqm
£42.55
£64.07
Sub total capital cost
Plus 5% Contingency
Total Capital Cost
Courts and Greens Approx. Area
Annual cost per sq.m.
£634,918.36
£31,745.92
£666,664.28
10,406.00
£64.07
OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES AVERAGE
Area
sq.m.
12.00
4.00
Total Cost
£510.62
£256.26
Total capital cost pitches
Total area
Average Cost per Sq.m.
£766.88
16
£47.93
PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND
YOUNG PEOPLE
PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE
Feature
Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP)
Minimum 5no. items of play (swinging, rotating, climbing, sliding,
rocking)
Safer surfacing
Fencing incl. gates
Signage
Benches
Provision and installation of litter bins
Access pathways
Grass area ("free space")
Unit
Measure
sq.m.
sq.m.
sq.m.
per sign
per bench
per bin
sq.m.
sq.m.
Area/
Unit
400
1
2
2
Cost 201314
£32,120.66
£16,060.33
£8,565.51
£214.14
£642.41
£856.55
£2,783.79
£2,997.93
ALLOTMENTS
Feature
Site of 10no. 125sq.m. allotments, plus parking
Palisade fencing 1.8m ht.
Fencing hedge sides 1.2m ht steel frame, chespale
Standpipe/trough
Rotavation/power harrowing of plots
Weed control and preparation of pathways and seeding
Stonedust/hardstanding
Prepare and plant hedging north and east sides Lm
Bench
Allotment sign
Total capital cost
Children's Play Approx. Area
Average cost per sq.m.
£64,241.32
400
£160.60
ALLOTMENTS
Unit
Measure
l.m.
l.m.
sq.m.
sq.m.
sq.m.
l.m.
per bench
per sign
Area/
Unit
1,530
78
78
1
1,250
110
170
80
1
1
Cost 201314
£5,032.24
£2,301.98
£1,573.91
£942.21
£235.55
£2,141.38
£685.24
£321.21
£214.14
Total capital cost
Allotments Approx. Area
Average cost per sq.m.
£13,447.85
1,530.00
£8.79
Appendix 2: Details of Maintenance Costs
Maintenance cost calculator 2013/2014 prices, excl. attenuation, culverts, noise bunds, toilets, teen shelters, band stands etc
INFORMAL RECREATION SPACE (Parks amenity green space and green corridors) (based on
2,500sq.m.)
Unit cost
Unit
Area/
per annum Total Cost
2013/14
Resource
Task Description
Measure
Unit
per Annum
Pathways/paving
Sweep
sq.m.
200
£0.13
£25.70
Shrubs
Prune, hoe and weed
sq.m.
325
£2.03
£661.15
Prune, cut, weed, deadhead,
Roses/Perennials
split, replant
sq.m.
65
£6.46
£419.66
Grass
Amenity cut
sq.m.
1,100
£0.24
£259.11
Hedging - 1.5m wide
1.5 high two sides and top
l.m.
100
£2.49
£249.47
prepare supply and plant spring
Floral bedding
bedding
sq m.
25
£19.14
£478.60
prepare supply and plant
Floral bedding
summer bedding
sq.m.
25
£22.35
£558.63
maintenance of vegetation
inlets/outlets and de-silting
Ponds
sq.m.
85
£14.02
£1,191.30
Inspection of and maintenance
Natural play areas
of feature
sq.m.
600
£1.36
£815.87
Arboricultural maintenance
(existing trees)
Trees - mature
per tree
5
£79.95
£399.74
Trees - young
Semi-mature - formative pruning
per tree
3
£15.82
£47.47
Seating/Timber
Clean/paint or preservative once
features
every 4 years
1
0.25
£139.96
£34.99
Litter bins
Empty and dispose
per bin
1
£203.23
£203.23
Dog faeces bin
Empty and dispose
per bin
0.5
£222.46
£111.23
Check fixings and clean every 6
months
Signage/Interpretation
per sign
2
£70.53
£141.05
INFORMAL RECREATION SPACE
Approx. Area sq.m.
Total yearly maintenance cost
Annual cost per sqm.
10% to cover contingency and
vandalism
15% to cover Admin
Total per sq.m.
Total x 15 years Per Square
Metre
2,500.00
£5,597.19
£2.24
£0.22
£0.37
£2.83
£42.48
NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL GREEN SPACE (based on 2,500sq.m.)
Resource
Woodland
Woodland
Task Description
Semi-mature woodland
Tree whips and scrub
Hedges
1.5m - 3m High 2sides + Top
Conservation Cut Summer
Meadow
Sweep
Grass S. Meadow
Hard/Dust Surface
Ditches & streams
Ditches & streams
Trees - mature
Signage/interpretation
Trees - young
Dog faeces bin
Litter bin
Maintenance of grills 6 visits
Litter collect/disposal & annual
vegetation cut back
Arboricultural maintenance
(existing trees)
Check fixings and clean every 6
months
Semi-mature - formative pruning
Empty and dispose
Empty and dispose
NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL GREEN
SPACE
Unit cost
per annum
2013/14
£0.40
£0.73
Total Cost
per Annum
£99.04
£364.03
200
£2.49
£498.94
sq.m.
sq.m.
1200
200
£0.42
£0.13
£501.08
£25.70
6
2
£23.66
£47.32
L.m.
150
£3.52
£528.38
per tree
7
£79.95
£559.64
per sign
per tree
per bin
per bin
2
3
0.25
0.25
£70.53
£15.82
£222.46
£203.23
£141.05
£47.47
£55.61
£50.81
Unit
Measure
sq.m.
sq.m.
Area/
Unit
250
500
Lm
Approx. Area sq.m.
Total yearly maintenance cost
Annual cost per sq.m.
10% to cover contingency and
vandalism
15% to cover Admin
Total per sq.m.
Total x 15 years Per Square
Metre
2,500.00
£2,919.09
£1.17
£0.12
£0.19
£1.48
£22.16
OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES (Pitches, Courts and Greens) (Based on 19,176sq.m.)
Resource
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Pavilion
Litter bins
Dog faeces bins
Litter
Signage
Task Description
Winter maintenance - 5-a-side
Soccer (grass)
Winter maintenance - football
pitch (grass)
Summer maintenance - bowling
greens
Summer maintenance - cricket
square
Summer maintenance - tennis
courts (hard surface)
Summer maintenance - Athletics
track
Re-mark - Multi - use games
area (3 years)
Sweep - Multi-use games area
(MUGA)
Re-mark - (3 years)
Sweep - 5-a-side Soccer (hard
surface)
Cleaning
Empty and dispose
Empty and dispose
General Litter pick and disposal
Check fixings and clean every 6
months
OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES
Unit
Measure
Area/
Unit
Unit cost
per annum
2013/14
Total Cost
per Annum
sq.m.
1,008
£0.40
£407.66
sq.m.
10,800
£0.11
£1,236.46
Approx. Area sq.m.
19,176.00
Total yearly maintenance cost
Annual cost per sq.m.
sq.m.
1,406
£4.70
£6,605.12
10% to cover contingency and
vandalism
sq.m.
74.44
£39.36
£2,930.10
15% to cover Admin
sq.m.
260.75
£1.14
£297.57
sq.m.
3,904
£0.05
£209.60
sq mtrs
685
£0.26
£181.16
sq mtrs
sq mtrs
685
1,008
£0.13
£0.26
£90.58
£266.58
sq.m.
sq.m.
per bin
per bin
sq.m.
1,008
120
0.80
0.80
19,176
£0.13
£5.42
£203.23
£222.46
£0.06
£133.29
£650.32
£162.58
£177.97
£1,170.50
per sign
2
£70.53
£141.06
Total per sq.m.
Total x 15 years Per Square
Metre
£14,660.53
£0.76
£0.08
£0.13
£0.97
£14.51
PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE
(based on 400sq.m.)
Resource
Inspection
Inspection
Task Description
Equipment inspection
Routine weekly maintenance
Inspection
Playground Safety inspection
Safety resurfacing (every 7th
Year)
General Litter pick and disposal
Empty and dispose
Clean/paint or preservative once
every 4 years
Check fixings and clean every 6
months
Semi-mature- Staked/Formative
pruning
Safety resurfacing
Litter
Litter Bins
Seating/Timber
features
Signage/Interpretation
Tree
PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG
PEOPLE
Unit cost
per annum
2013/14
£427.45
£120.23
Total Cost
per Annum
£427.45
£120.23
£865.05
£865.05
1
400
2
£1,484.06
£0.07
£203.22
£1,484.06
£29.86
£406.45
per bench
0.5
£139.96
£69.98
per sign
2
£70.53
£141.06
per tree
1
£15.82
£15.82
Unit
Measure
per site
per site
Area/
Unit
1
1
per site
1
per site
sq.m.
per bin
ALLOTMENTS (based on 1,530sq.m.)
Resource
Hedges - on n.& e.
side
Paths - grass
Troughs/standpipe/wat
er
Hard/dust surface
Fencing and gates
Litter
Signage/Interpretation
Seat
Task Description
1.5 high two sides and top
Amenity cut
Maintenance/repairs/supply
Sweep/rake
Maintenance/repairs
General Litter pick and disposal
Check fixings and clean
Clean/paint or preservative
Approx. Area
Total yearly maintenance cost
Annual cost per sq.m.
10% to cover contingency and
vandalism
15% to cover Admin
Total per sq.m.
Total x 15 years Per Sq.m
400.00
£3,559.96
£8.90
£0.89
£1.47
£11.26
£168.88
ALLOTMENTS
Unit
Measure
Area/
Unit
l.m.
sq.m.
80
288
each
sq.m.
l.m.
sq.m.
per sign
1
1
242
158
1,530
1
0.25
Unit cost
per annum
2013/14
Total Cost
per Annum
£2.49
£0.24
£199.58
£67.84
£100.61
£0.13
£1.21
£0.06
£35.27
£139.96
£100.61
£31.09
£191.16
£98.29
£35.27
£34.99
Approx. Area
1,530.00
Total yearly maintenance cost
Annual cost per sq.m.
10% to cover contingency and
vandalism
15% to cover Admin
Total per sq.m.
Total x 15 years Per Sq.m.
£903.66
£0.59
£0.06
£0.10
£0.75
£11.21
Non-compostables
removal
Annual clearance of
material/debris
operation
1
£144.83
£144.83
CEMETREIES AND CHURCH YARDS
Resource
Task Description
Unit
Measure
Area/
Unit
Cost
Total Cost
per Annum
Unit cost
per annum
2013/14
£135.99
£32.90
total cost
p.a.
£34.00
£32.90
CONTINGENCIES / MISCELLANEOUS / SPECIALIST FEATURES 1000sqm
Resource
Seats / timber
Features
Ditches & streams
Ditches & streams
Ponds / lakes
Attenuation features
Ponds / lakes
Life belts
Life belts
Litter bins
Dog Faeces bins
Teen Shelters
Parcours
Bandstands
Toilets
Noise attenuation
fence
Raised Beds
Culverts
Graffiti walls
Task description
Clean / preservative
Graffiti / clean
Maintenance of grills & annual
vegetation cut back
Litter collect/disposal
maintenance of vegetation
inlets/outlets and de-silting
Spillways/Penstock/Desilting
Litter collect/disposal
Routine safety checks
Replacements
Empty / dispose
Empty / dispose
Maintenance checks
Unit
measure
sq.m.
sq.m.
Unit
0.25
1
sq.m.
sq.m.
1
1
£4.74
£0.04
£4.74
£0.04
sq.m.
0.1Ha
sq.m.
per
annum
per item
per bin
per bin
1
1
1
£13.62
£2,983.60
£0.04
£13.62
£2,983.60
£0.04
1
1
1
1
£413.92
£111.44
£197.45
£222.46
£413.92
£111.44
£197.45
£222.46
10 lin. m.
Noise bunds
SPECIAL FEATURES 1ha
Attenuation pond
Maintenance of spill ways
Attenuation pond
Maintenance of penstock
Attenuation pond
De-silting
Attenuation pond
Vegetation clearance
Culverts
Maintenance check
Trees
Mature tree
Semi-mature - staked &
Trees
formative pruning
Woodland
Mature woodland
Woodland
Woodland with bark mulch
per site
0.1ha
£8,950.82
£8,950.82
10 Lm
per tree
1
1
£131.63
£77.68
£131.63
£77.68
per tree
sq.m.
sq.m.
1
1
1
£15.38
£2.11
£1.12
£15.38
£2.11
£1.12
Appendix 3: Details of the requirements arising from the Growth Locations
Natural and
Semi- Natural
green space
per person
Outdoor Sports
Facilities Space
per person
Equipped
Children's Play
per person
Informal Open
Space per
person
Space
Requirement per
person (m²)
16
2.5
11.5
2
15
Capital Cost per
Sqm
£47.93
£160.60
£24.10
£8.79
£13.36
Maintenance
Cost per sqm
15yrs
£14.51
£168.88
£42.48
£11.21
£22.16
£665.16
£42.19
£480.96
£3,992.42
£797.76
£3,594.48
£7,586.90
Population per
Household
Allotment
Space per
person
Total sqm of
POS per
Person
47
£254.78
£259.23
Costs based per household based
on 2.4 residents
Capital Cost per
household 2.4
residents
£1,840.51
Maintenance
Cost per
Household 2.4
residents 15yrs
£557.18
2.4
£963.60
£1,013.28
£1,172.45
£53.81
Total per Household inc maintenance
A) Land East of Harry Stoke
Number
Space
requirement
Capital Cost
Maintenance Cost
Number of
houses
2000
Number of
future
residents
4800
Outdoor
Sports
Facilities
76800
£3,681,024.00
£1,114,368.00
Equipped
Children's
Play
12000
£1,927,200.00
£2,026,560.00
Informal Open
Space
55200
£1,330,320.00
£2,344,896.00
Allotments
9600
£84,384.00
£107,616.00
Natural and
SemiNatural
green space
Total
72000
£961,920.00
£1,595,520.00
225600
£7,984,848.00
£7,188,960.00
Natural and
SemiNatural
green space
Total
205,200
£2,741,472.00
£4,547,232.00
642,960
£22,756,816.80
£20,488,536.00
B) Cribbs/Patchway
Number
Space
requirement
Capital Cost
Maintenance Cost
Number of
houses
5700
Number of
future
residents
13,680
Outdoor
Sports
Facilities
Equipped
Children's
Play
218,880
£10,490,918.40
£3,175,948.80
34,200
£5,492,520.00
£5,775,696.00
Informal Open
Space
157,320
£3,791,412.00
£6,682,953.60
Allotments
27,360
£240,494.40
£306,705.60
Amended 08.01.14
South Gloucestershire
Police
Section 106
Community Impact Levy
Submission
Submitted on behalf of Chief Superintendent Crew
Prepared by Inspector Treacy
1 of 49
CONTENTS:
1. Executive Summary
2. Background to Police application
3. Current Policing Position
4. Development Overview
5. Why is Community Safety from a policing perspective so
Important?
6. Generic Police Requirements for future planning
applications and Developments
7. Site Specific Development Contributions
8. North Yate Development Contribution
9. East of Harry Stoke Contribution
10. Cribbs Patchway Development Contribution
11. Summary of Required Developer Contributions
2 of 49
3 of 49
Appendices:
1. Secured By Design Research Digest
2. Core Strategy: Potential increase in crime due to New
Build in South Glos. Research Document produced by
Police Crime Analyst
3. Scoping Reports Cheswick Village
4. Scoping Report Charlton Hayes
5. Community Safety North Yate and Harry Stoke reports
6. Special Duty Charges – ACPO Charging Methodology
4 of 49
1. Executive Summary
1.1 This document has been completed to provide planners, developers and other
interested parties a detailed perspective of how planned new developments within
South Gloucestershire will impact on Policing during the development period and in
the future.
1.2 This overarching document, using analytical research of crime patterns, Anti Social
Behaviour reports and the experience of the police and partner agencies, seeks to
identify ways, with the help of developer contributions, to mitigate the projected
increase in calls for police service.
1.3 Three development areas are addressed: North Yate, East of Harry Stoke and the
Cribbs Patchway development. Each development will bring its own operational
problems. In particular, the scoping research on Anti Social Behaviour we have
undertaken on the new Cheswick Village and Charlton Hayes estates provides us
with a firm analytical basis for believing there will be an increase in calls to police
once the new developments are under construction. This will increase again when
the homes are being occupied.
1.4 We are requesting a contribution from developers to help the police meet this
increased demand which amounts to a 20% increase in households within South
Gloucestershire, as well as a 20% increase in retail space on the Cribbs
development.
1.5 To effectively meet these increases police on South Gloucestershire District would
need an increase of 39 officers (as outlined in the Impact of Core Strategy
Document, appendix 2). However, there is recognition that there is unlikely to be an
increase in police establishment by 39 officers.
1.6 Through this document, the Constabulary is seeking to address and mitigate the
increase in demand with a proportionate and evidence based rationale justifying
contributions from developers under Sect 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act
and the Community Impact Levy.
1.7 These contributions amount to:
2 PCSOs for 3 years
2 PCSOs for 5 years
4 police posts
13 ANPR cameras
Generic adaptations achieved through design and equipment specification
5 of 49
2. Background to Police Application
2.1. The Police Act 1996 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 place duties on local
Police Forces to reduce crime and promote effective policing.
2.2. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act places a duty on the local authority, in
exercising their various functions, to consider crime and disorder implications and the
need to do all that they reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in their area.
2.3. South Gloucestershire Council has included crime prevention in their local plan. South
Gloucestershire Local Plan Adopted: January 2006 Chapter 3 Paragraph D1 F states
that it is necessary that “The overall layout and design takes account of personal
safety, security and crime prevention”.
2.4. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which sets out the Government’s
planning policies, states that local and neighbourhood plans should aim to ensure that
developments create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder and
the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.
2.5. The Avon and Somerset Constabulary has been working closely with South
Gloucestershire Council to implement schemes to ensure that new developments
are not only in conformity with “Secured by Design” principles but also that
arrangements are in place to ensure community policing is established in
accordance with both Government policy and local initiatives.
2.6. The Council are of the view that such measures are necessary if the development is
to be successful.
2.7. Any successful police funding bid will be used to ensure effective policing initiatives
to cover the development area and its immediate environment only.
6 of 49
3.
Current Policing Position
3.1.
Policing in South Gloucestershire is currently conducted from five Police stations:
Concorde House Emerson’s Green (the District headquarters), Staple Hill, Filton,
Chipping Sodbury and Thornbury.
There is a police post within the Mall complex.
The attached map illustrates the current position of Police Stations on the district.
3.2.
The current Police establishment in South Gloucestershire is:
234 Police officers
60 PCSOs
62 Members of Police Staff.
3.3.
Core patrol policing is managed and run from Concorde House and Filton Police
stations.
By January 2014 the stations at Staple Hill, Thornbury and Filton will be closed and
a new Police station will open on the A38 on the old Bensons site, Patchway. This
new station will house the new Filton station and a new custody and investigation
centre servicing the greater Bristol area. In addition to these stations there is a
7 of 49
small police post on the Mall complex Cribbs Causeway housing a dedicated team
policing the Mall.
3.4.
The existing police stations will provide the main operating bases for police for the
foreseeable future. The Avon and Somerset Constabulary will not be making any
applications for large scale new police buildings to meet the anticipated increase in
calls on service to the police as a consequence of any new developments.
3.5
Rather, this document will outline how the police will seek to meet the increased
calls on service, which the new developments will bring, within existing police
officer numbers through the use of design, technology and embedding
neighbourhood policing officers (PCSOs) in the heart of new and growing
communities.
4.
Development overview
4.1.
The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy document lays out the planned
development within the county up to 2026. From 2011 to 2026 some 22,375 home
will be built. These developments are set out below. The developments are sited
across the county and the South Gloucestershire police district.
4.2.
These developments will contribute to a significant increase in demand for police
services. If we work on the basis of 2.4 occupants for each home this increased
development could increase the population in South Gloucestershire by 53,700. It
is accepted that there is a national trend for household sizes to drop from 2.4 to 2.1
by 2026 reflecting more single households. However the number of households will
increase and substantially influence the police demand profile.
Planned Development up to 2026
North Yate: 3,000 houses planned, of which 2,700 will be built between 2016
and 2026 and up to 9 ha of employment land.
Thornbury Park Farm: 500 houses between 2012 -2016.
East of Harry Stoke: 2,000 houses mainly built 2016 – 2026 with 50 before
2016.
North East Fringes of Bristol: 2,730 houses between 2012- 2016. These sites
have unimplemented planning permission or will take place on unallocated
brown field sites.
Cribbs Patchway: 5,700 houses built mainly 2016-2026, with 100 built before
2016, 50ha of employment land and greater diversity of Cribbs Causeway retail
area, which will potentially expand by 35,000 sqm.
Infill and windfall sites within existing urban areas and rural villages: 1,360
houses built between 2012- 2026.
8 of 49
Existing Local Plan sites: 7,385 houses on sites allocated or with
unimplemented planning permission.
4.3.
The Cribbs Patchway development, in particular, of 5,700 new homes and the
commercial /retail construction accompanying that development represents the
creation of a new town with up to 13,680 new residents. The increase in demand
for police services created by the residential and commercial expansion will
present a significant policing challenge within existing resource levels.
4.4.
The challenge for the police in South Gloucestershire is how to effectively meet the
increased calls on service within existing resources. By close collaboration with our
partners, planners and developers, and through the effective use of Secured by
Design principles, technology and the targeted deployment of Police and
Community Support Officers, there is an opportunity not only to mitigate the
increase in demand but also create safe communities and cohesive communities.
Our rationale for this is outlined below.
5. Why is Community Safety so important?
5.1. Safe communities are a pre-requisite for achieving sustainable and thriving
communities, which are characterised by high levels of community cohesion and
stability, resident wellbeing and overall vibrancy. Whilst a degree of criminal and
anti-social behaviour can be designed out of new development, design measures
alone will not address community safety fully. Neighbourhood Policing is a national
initiative which places communities – their needs, their issues and their priorities - at
the heart of local policing. Neighbourhood Policing works by encouraging active
collaboration between Police, partners and the public to solve local crime and
disorder problems, improve the quality of life for residents across the neighbourhood
and increase feelings of security. To deliver this form of policing effectively a highly
visible and accessible physical presence within existing and new neighbourhoods is
essential. Experience has shown that developing neighbourhoods need an
enhanced standard of intensive engagement within the emerging community, giving
residents a stronger voice and improved contact and awareness of their
Neighbourhood Police Teams. Our recent experience with new developments has
reinforced this view. This will be outlined more fully below.
5.2. Neighbourhood Policing is fully embedded within South Gloucestershire, with
Neighbourhood Policing Teams operating from five primary bases: Kingswood Civic
Centre, Staple Hill, Filton, Chipping Sodbury and Thornbury. Several smaller police
‘posts’ are based within community locations across the county.
5.3 Crime and disorder has a tangible impact on economic growth, social exclusion and
quality of life issues. Without a range of community safety measures to address
these issues:
Crime will rise
Police response times will reduce
Fear of crime will increase
Community cohesion and wellbeing will suffer
Expectations will not be met
9 of 49
Negative perceptions will be formed and, in the case of new communities,
potential new inhabitants and businesses may choose not to move in and
existing residents/ businesses may choose not to stay.
5.4
The police, in partnership with planners and developers, would like to ensure
where possible that all the new developments across South Gloucestershire are
safe, successful, vibrant, thriving communities with low levels of crime or antisocial behaviour.
6.
Generic Police Requirements for future planning
applications and Developments
6.1
Before going on to outline site specific bids for funding to help the police in South
Gloucestershire meet the increase in service demand the new developments will
bring, a self explanatory list of generic police requirements for these and future
developments is set below1. Their adoption and implementation will assist the
police deliver an efficient and effective police service to new communities and
businesses. Whilst this is by no means a definitive list, these principles will
promote community safety in the new communities.
Requirements:
6.2.
Secured by Design is the official UK Police initiative which promotes the principles
of 'designing out crime'. It focuses on crime prevention of homes and commercial
premises and encourages the use of security standards for a wide range of
applications and products. By combining minimum standards of physical security
and well-tested principles of natural surveillance and defensible space, the principles
have been proven to achieve a reduction of crime risk by up to 75%. The initiative
has been academically validated and is supported by the Government policy
document “Safer Places - The Planning System and Crime Prevention.” The police
require developers to comply with Secured by Design provisions in the planned
developments in South Gloucestershire.
6.3.
Design principles of new developments should include 'active frontages' facilitating
local surveillance by the community.
6.4.
Block perimeters are a required design principle.
6.5.
Street and access design should be made in the cognisance of the ongoing 'part
lighting' roll out in South Gloucestershire.
6.6.
Streetlamps should be of a suitable standard and quality to support wireless CCTV
cameras deployed by the council (and owned by the council), particularly in open
areas, areas of commercial and retail developments. Historically these areas have
1
No similar request was made for sites that have already been granted planning permission (e.g. Emersons
Green East). The police acknowledge that the opportunity to do so has now passed.
10 of 49
been hotspots for anti- social behaviour. Wireless CCTV cameras require lamp
standards of a minimum height of 8 metres to be effectively deployed. This should
be the minimum height for areas where historically police and partners experience,
or have had reported, anti social behaviour, i.e. shopping areas, open areas such
as play areas skate board parks or natural meeting points with potential shelter.
6.7.
Consideration should be given to excluding identified potential ASB hotspots from
the roll out of the part lighting scheme (Council Lighting scheme).
6.8.
Every opportunity should be made to extend the fibre optic cable network (owned
and maintained by the council). If not the fibre then the ducting should be laid. This
allows the council to extend the CCTV network and/or the opportunity to extend it
at a later date without the requirement for retrofit2.
6.9.
In larger developments the police will seek to have police “posts” to give the new
communities greater access to police services and allow the police service greater
visibility in these new communities (at zero or peppercorn rent to the police).
Ideally these posts will be a suitably sized room in a community ‘one stop shop’
development (not stand alone buildings or new police stations). Detailed requests
are described later in the document.
6.10. Rear car parking courts or blocks of garages are strongly discouraged in new
developments; if unavoidable, they should be gated.
6.11.
Road widths in new developments must be sufficient for Fire tenders to pass
safely.
6.12. Coach house build design is not to be encouraged. If built then appropriate gating
is essential.
6.13. With cul-de-sac developments consideration should be given to potential parking
problems that already exist in residential areas. These should be designed out or
control measures put in place (i.e. yellow lines at junctions).
6.14. New road developments must be scoped for opportunities at the design stage to
site police lay-bys for deployment of Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)
equipped vehicles, speed detection devices and public reassurance.
6.15. All new developments must be assessed by police to ensure there is Airwave
coverage in those areas (Airwave is the emergency services radio network).
Remedial work such as signal boosters or additional masts may require funding if
problems are identified.
This would facilitate alarm monitoring capability by the council to local schools, businesses and
developments in the long term. This has considerable advantages for police working in partnership with the
council, as well as an income generation opportunity for the council.
2
11 of 49
6.16. Crowded Places remain an attractive target for terrorists. Putting in place robust
counter terrorism security reduces both the likelihood and impact of a terrorist
attack. Local Crime Prevention Design Advisers (CPDAs) will liaise with Counter
Terrorism Security Advisers (CTSAs) on new planning applications across a range
of sectors, crowded places, transport infrastructure, licensed premises, utilities and
storage of hazardous material. This will establish how any vulnerability can best be
reduced.
7.
Site Specific Development Contributions
7.1
This report will outline in three sections site specific contributions that individual or
groups of developers can make to assist the police in mitigating the increase in
calls on service that these developments will bring. However, before turning to site
specific requirements it is important to quantify the overall demand on police
services the new developments represent. Analysis of the projected increase is set
out below.
7.2
The increase in new homes is estimated to increase the population by 54,420
people (2.4 per household) – which is equivalent to a 20% increase in households
and population in South Gloucestershire.
7.3
Currently the district employs ~200 Police Constables who each deal with ~300
calls for service from the public which result in ~73 crimes per officer per year.
7.4
In summary the increase of 22,675 houses (54,420 people) is estimated to impact
as follows:
Calls for service: Currently South Gloucestershire police district receives over
58 thousand calls for service from the public each year. This is equivalent to
~200 calls for every thousand people. The new development is estimated to
increase the number of calls for service by ~11 000 from the public. This is
equivalent to the work load of 37 additional officers.
Increase in crime (a subset of calls for service but requiring longer term
investigation): Based on the average rate of crime per thousand people on the
beats where development is planned, it is estimated that the District could
experience an increase of ~ 2700 crimes per year. Based on the current
workload of ~73 crimes per officer this is equivalent to the work load of 37
additional officers.
7.5
A fuller report is at Appendix 2.
7.6
It is accepted that there will be no increases in police officer numbers to cope with
this increased demand.
12 of 49
8. North Yate Development Contribution
Quantifying the demand on policing services
8.1.
The North Yate development is expected to include 3000 new houses and as yet
unspecified commercial development (illustrated on Appendix A of draft planning
master plan).
8.2. This will potentially increase the population in the North Yate area by at least 7200
(using the ACPO toolkit as a guide). If normal planning guidelines are applied 35%
of the new homes will be identified as social housing, some 1050 homes in
groupings of up to six units. This population and demographic increase will
significantly increase the demand upon police services within South
Gloucestershire.
8.3. Policing for the Chipping Sodbury area including Yate is currently managed and run
from Chipping Sodbury Police Station situated in Chipping Sodbury High Street. A
Neighbourhood Policing Team works from this station.
8.4.
In order to project the increase in demand for policing services engendered by the
development, an examination has been made of the crime figures for Yate for
2010/2011 and 2011/12. Attached are two architectural liaison officer reports which
indicate that beat DC 120 which is adjacent to the new North Yate development
site had 1394 crimes between 1/4/2010 and 31/3/2011. From 1/4/2011 to
31/3/2012 we have recorded 1319 crimes (Appendix 5)
8.5.
It should be noted that crimes recorded are not a complete measure of demand on
police as many police interactions do not result in crimes, for example response to
road traffic collisions, anti social behaviour and other calls for service. However, it
does give an indication of trends in demand.
8.6. The below illustrates the breakdown of crime on the Chipping Sodbury area by beat
for 2011/12. You will note that Beat DC 120, which will be adjacent to the new
development, is by far the beat with the highest recorded crime.
Breakdown of crime by beat on Chipping Sodbury Sector for 2011/12:
DC 120 1319
DC 121 360
DC 122 424
DC 123 172
DC 124 611
DC 125 122
8.7
It is not unreasonable to assume that the crime levels in the new North Yate
development will be comparable to the existing Beat DC 120 which will be directly
adjacent to it.
8.8
In addition, it should be noted that Yate is designated by South Gloucestershire
Council, police, and partner agencies as a Priority Neighbourhood. Priority
Neighbourhood status is allocated by the Local Strategic Partnership to identify an
13 of 49
area with higher levels of deprivation and crime. Resources are accordingly
targeted at the area to improve conditions for the inhabitants.
Managing the demand
8.9
The police service would seek to address this increased demand by (i) the use of
technology i.e. ANPR cameras; (ii) the creation of a police post in the new
development and (iii) a dedicated Police Community Support Officer (PCSO)
funded for three years.
(i)
ANPR Cameras:
8.10
There are three main access roads into the new North Yate development. The
police propose the placement of an ANPR camera on all three of these access
roads. ANPR offers the police service a SMART method for monitoring access in
and out of the area of vehicles and associated persons linked to crime and
disorder, therefore permitting targeted (rather than speculative) deployments. This
has proved, since its inception, as an invaluable means of preventing and detecting
crime. These cameras can be mounted on suitable lamp posts with a power supply
or a dedicated post with power. The units are robust and proven technology
requiring little maintenance.
8.11
The cost of the ANPR camera is £5000 per unit, one camera will cover one lane of
traffic.
8.12
A suitable lamppost or similar will have should be provided with electrical power.
8.13
There will be no ongoing cost to the developer.
8.14
This is subject to a satisfactory site survey.
8.15
The equipment and data will remain the property of Avon and Somerset
Constabulary.
The total cost for the three ANPR cameras for North Yate: £15000
(ii)
Police Post:
8.16
Additionally the police propose the provision of a police post within the
development, ideally in any ‘local centre’. This should be co-located within any
Council ‘one stop shop’ provision or similar or within a commercial development if
the former is not possible.
8.17
The police post will allow the Neighbourhood Policing Team increased visibility and
a solid presence in the new community. It will give the new community access to
police in the important transitional stage of the development and allow officers to
forge links and promote community capacity building.
8.18
The police post should be a secure single room at least 6mx6m with electricity
provided. This would allow adequate room for small beat surgeries with the public.
Ideally it should be decorated to a basic standard and be provided with a desk, 2
chairs, a shredder and storage. A laptop safe that meets Secured by Design
standards would be required for security purposes.
14 of 49
8.19
There should also be access on site to W.C. facilities and water (not necessarily
within the post).
8.20
Ideally the police post should have external access as the post may be in use 24/7.
The external frontage should have police signage to promote public confidence.
Similarly there must be designated police parking in a prominent position to the
front of any complex again to promote public confidence.
8.21
If the police post cannot be included in a zoned alarm system it must be provided
with a stand alone alarm system that meets approved standards. This should be
part of the facility agreements.
8.22. Ongoing cleaning and maintenance etc should be part of the facility agreements.
8.23
Provision of the police post and ongoing electricity cost should be provided free of
charge or for a peppercorn rent. The developer should be in a position to provide
costings for any police post provision.
8.24
Additionally the police post must also meet with the requirements and secure the
approval of the Constabulary’s Estates department before the final planning stage.
(iii) Funded Dedicated PCSO Post
8.25
With the development of 3000 new homes in the North Yate area there is going to
be considerable pressure on the existing Neighbourhood Policing Team to meet
the increased demand for police services and visibility in the new neighbourhood.
8.26
To promote community cohesion and to provide a visible police presence in the
new neighbourhood in the crucial development years, the police propose a funded
PCSO post to assist with this important work. The ACPO cost breakdown for a
PCSO is £44,427 per annum, including National Insurance and Pension
contributions (See Appendix 6).
8.27
To meet the increased call on police service we would seek a funding contribution
for a period of three years. We would seek to increase this year on year funding on
a pro rata basis in line with the current ACPO charging formula to cater for inflation
etc.
8.28
The total cost over three years (at today’s cost3) is : £133,281
3
See paragraph 8.27
15 of 49
9. East of Harry Stoke Development Contribution
Quantifying the demand on policing services
9.1.
The East of Harry Stoke development of 2000 houses will be a considerable
distance from Filton Police station from where the relevant Neighbourhood Policing
Team operates. This will still be the case when Filton Police station moves in
January 2014.
9.2.
The development will result in 4800 additional residents requiring policing services.
In the early part of the development a high proportion of the households will be
social housing residents. The scoping analysis of the new Cheswick Village and
Charlton Hayes developments (Illustrated at Appendices 3 and 4) has indicated
been that there is a very strong likelihood of an increase in calls for service,
particularly incidents of Anti Social Behaviour.
9.3.
From the 1/4/2010 to 31/3/2011 there were 1282 crimes recorded in the two beats
adjacent to the proposed new development. From the 1/4/2011 to the 31/3/2012
this rose to 1343 crimes (appendix 5). As with the North Yate hypothesis the police
project that the offence levels for the new development would be broadly in line
with those in the surrounding beats. For example, it is estimated that there will be
an increase in burglaries in the order of 39 per year. With additional calls for
service being estimated at 981 per year ( Appendix 5).
Managing the demand
(i) East of Harry Stoke Police Post
9.4.
To improve police visibility and to promote community building and cohesion in the
early days of the development, the police will be seeking a developer contribution
for a Police post within a community facility developed in that area.
9.5.
The criteria for that police post are the same as set out above for North Yate at
points 8.16 - 8.24. It is projected that this will be at a nominal cost.
(ii) ANPR Camera Provision for East of Harry Stoke
9.6.
The Stoke Gifford Link road (illustrated below) will be a main arterial road linking
the A4174 to Bradley Stoke and the new Stoke Gifford development. It is
anticipated that traffic flow on this road linking the A4174 to the new development
and Bradley Stoke will be heavy and will require additional police patrols. To assist
police in managing this major new road and to utilise technology to detect and
prevent crime we propose the installation of ANPR cameras at each end of the link
road with one camera for each carriageway, four cameras in total (subject to a
satisfactory site survey).
9.7.
The requirements for ANPR cameras are detailed at points 8.10 – 8.15 above.
These units are flexible and could be redeployed elsewhere on the development
subject to need.
Total cost for four ANPR units: £20,000
16 of 49
Illustration of Stoke Gifford Link Road
(iii)
Funded PCSO for East of Harry Stoke.
9.8.
The police would seek a funding contribution for a period of three years at £44,427
a year for a PCSO post at today’s costings. The police would look to increase
these costs in line with the ACPO charging formula for the year the funding is
required.
9.9.
The total cost over three years (at today’s cost4) for one PCSO post: £133,281
4
See paragraph 8.27
17 of 49
10. Cribbs Patchway Development Contribution.
10.1. The Cribbs Patchway development of 5700 homes will cause a potential population
increase of 13,680. This and the proposed commercial and recreational
development in the area will very significantly impact on the capability of the local
Neighbourhood Policing Team and the wider policing resources in South
Gloucestershire to deal with the increased calls on service.
10.2 The new housing development will in its early stages create substantive crime and
Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) issues. The Cheswick Village estate (adjacent to
UWE, Stoke Gifford) and the Charlton Hayes development in Patchway have
clearly demonstrated the over riding need for a clear, fulltime and visible police
presence within such new developments at a very early stage and within the
subsequent formative years.
The Sector Inspector Robert Evely commented:
“It is also right to say that if we had had the ability to put some additional resources
into the area as it was up and coming we would have been able to be much more
effective in dealing with incidents before they happened, to have pursued ABCs
quicker and also to have created NHW Schemes from a very early stage as well”.
(ABCs - Acceptable Behaviour Contracts)
10.3. From February 2010 to date, the Safer Stronger South Gloucestershire ASB Panel
have had regular referrals due to ASB and crime problems on the Cheswick and
Charlton Hayes developments, particularly in regard to social housing residents.
This may be a consequence of social housing residents being amongst the first to
move into new developments before cohesive communities are formed and
community infrastructure is in place.
10.4. The combination of new residents in a new development with limited facilities and
unfamiliar surroundings created tension between neighbours which resulted in
threats and, in the worst cases, violence. Below is a breakdown of the calls to
police (Storm Logs) and crime reports, in the busiest roads for the Cheswick and
Charlton Hayes estates.
Location
The Bowery
Eastfields
Tinding Drive
Little Stoney Leas
Tallsticks
Great Copsie Way
Home Leas Close
Long Down Ave
Woodmead
TOTAL
Storm
Logs
5
11
25
9
1
37
89
160
18
355
Guardian
Incidents
0
26
16
3
0
18
38
50
33
184
10.5. Two more detailed scoping studies have been conducted for each development
and these are illustrated at Appendices 3 and 4. It is clear from this analysis that
problems on new developments ranging from Anti Social Behaviour to crime are
reported to police from the pre-development stage and continue to rise.
18 of 49
10.6. Key findings - Cheswick Village:
The number of ASB related incidents has increased in Cheswick Village since the
start of the Redrow development. Incidents of rowdy nuisance behaviour during
June 2011 – November 2011 were almost double the level recorded six months
previous from December 2010 – May 2011. Throughout the development period
harassment and vehicle nuisance also showed an increase. Priority acquisitive
crime including burglary has also increased in the area since the start of
development. As development has progressed and subsequent occupants move
in, the reporting of ASB increases in these areas as a result creating mini-hotspots
over the longer-term.
A large group of offenders with transient members aged between 9 –16 cause the
biggest proportion of ASB in the area. This group cause nuisance, disorder, arson,
criminal damage and vandalism in the area occurring on a daily basis which is
proving tiresome for local residents both within the Somer Housing areas and
increasingly within occupants of newly built private houses nearby.
Nuisance neighbours is the second biggest driver in relation to ASB reporting in
the area. Occupants living in flats located along Long Down Avenue & Home
Lease Close are by far the highest reporters of nuisance neighbours, many of
whom are both victims and offenders of such behaviour resulting in their being
numerous repeat premises.
The breaching of tags by offenders living in the newly developed Somer Housing
property including bail check failures and missed appointments has shown the
biggest increase in offences since the start of the development. Whilst not directly
ASB, this activity shows an additional call on police resources.
The development sites, whilst under construction, are a focus of ASB behaviour.
The large groups of young offenders are known to routinely break into sites where
they commit vandalism, fool around on construction equipment not only causing
general nuisance but also endangering themselves in the process. The reporting of
such occurrences accounts for approximately 25% of all rowdy type incidents
reported in the village.
There are a small number of repeat premises within the village that routinely report
offences. The reason for the reporting of ASB varies from nuisance behaviour,
breaches of tags and curfews, domestic related issues and harassment. The top 5
repeat premises account for 17% of all offences combined and all repeat premises
account for 39%.
Cycle paths, especially the path that runs from the ring road to the University of
West England are vulnerable to vehicle nuisance caused by youths on mopeds
who endanger walkers and cyclists using the path as well as being an audible
irritation.
The main response that victims of ASB relay to the police is the desire for
increased police patrols in the area. Peak time analysis indicates offences build up
at 5pm before dying down at approximately 9pm. Although this suggests offences
occur while youths are returning home after school, offences occur at the same
rate over weekend periods.
19 of 49
10.7. This report details the impact of the Cheswick Village development on local
policing. The key findings listed clearly demonstrate the over-riding importance of a
clear and visible police presence on new developments from a very early stage.
This presence needs to be visible from the outset of development as experience
shows that building sites are an attractive draw to young people resulting in crime
and nuisance behaviour. The police attest that this analysis would hold true to any
new development within South Gloucestershire.
10.8
Key findings - Charlton Hayes:
Levels of ASB in Charlton Hayes have fluctuated over the last 18 months with no
indications that incidents have reduced or increased.
A small number of residents cause significant harm to the local community within
Charlton Hayes by repeatedly engaging in anti-social behaviour. Intelligence
indicates that some of the top offenders originate from the travelling community.
Neighbours surrounding these offenders in the immediate vicinity report high levels
of offences as a result of loud noise, shouting and harassment. Neighbours living
slightly further a-field from these offenders but on the same street also report
significant levels of ASB caused by unruly children and congregations of anti-social
associates spilling onto the street under the influence of alcohol. These individuals
drain significant amounts of multi-agency resources due to a multitude of factors
including alcohol, child neglect, mistreating of animals and breaching of tags and
ABCs.
Small groups of youths aged 9 – 15, many of whom are females local to the estate,
cause significant amounts of anti-social behaviour to residents within the
neighbourhood. Reported unruly behaviour includes the throwing of stones, kicking
of footballs over gardens, throwing of rubbish over property and generic screaming
and shouting.
Offenders, who breach tags, fail to appear for doorstep checks and miss prearranged appointments account for approximately 25% of all incidents within the
neighbourhood which wastes a significant amount of police time. Other agencies
including housing and social services also report similar occurrences (which are
not reflected in police data).
Youths riding around in the area on mopeds are often the cause of anti-social
reports. Noise created by such activity is the main aggravating factor but there are
also a handful of reports suggesting dangerous driving endangering local
residents.
The design and subsequent development of social housing within the
neighbourhood contributes to significant reporting of offences by residents living in
private property due to social housing being built sporadically throughout Charlton
Hayes, rather than in pockets.
Managing the demand
(i)
Two Police Posts On Cribbs Patchway Development
20 of 49
10.9. Due to the large size of this development the police would like to secure two Police
posts in community buildings within the new development, preferably sited well into
the heart of the development. These posts will promote police visibility and
community cohesion. Ideally the Police posts will be some distance from the new
Filton Police station. The criteria for police posts are clearly set out at points 8.16 8.24 for North Yate. Ideally, this will be at a nominal cost, forming part of the
projected build costs.
(ii)
Two funded PCSO Posts for Cribbs Patchway Development.
10.10. The size of the new development and the projected increase in demand for police
services make the need for additional police resources on the ground from the
outset an imperative to ensure that the development is not bogged down with
continual ASB and does not gain a reputation as a problem neighbourhood; rather
as an attractive and safe place to live.
10.11. The impact on new developments of ongoing Anti Social Behaviour and criminality
is well evidenced above. By deploying a visible dedicated police presence the
police would seek to identify emerging problems or hot spots and focus police and
partnership resources to resolve them at an early stage.
10.12. The police would see this as an opportunity for developers to use as a marketing
point i.e. working with the police to fund a dedicated police presence in the
emerging communities to promote safety, harmony and cohesion.
10.13. Given the scale and life cycle of this development a PCSO presence will be
required over five years to assist the embedding of this growing new town.
10.14. The police seek a funding contribution for a period of five years at £44,427 a year
for each PCSO post at today’s costings. We would look to increase these costs in
line with the ACPO charging formula.
10.15. Total cost per annum for four PCSO posts at today’s costing: £88,854. A total of
(at today’s cost5) £ 444,270 over five years .
(iii)
PCSO Vehicle for Cribbs Patchway Development
10.16.The costings for a PCSO vehicle at today’s prices:
Ford Fiesta 5dr 1.4TDCi Style in livery (or like vehicle).50mph.
3.25 pence per mile for service, maintenance and repairs
(assumes 10k miles per year):
Insurance per annum:
RFL £0 if registered in 'Police' taxation class
£10,500
£325 pa
£1,200 pa
10.17. These costings are at today’s figures. The purchase and running costs will be
sometime in the near future. Therefore these costs will need refreshing to factor in
inflation and any increases in costs in the interim period.
5
See paragraph 8.27
21 of 49
(iv)
ANPR Cameras for Cribbs Patchway Development.
10.18. The Cribbs Patchway development is the largest development and will border
Bristol utilising the old Filton airfield.
10.19. The road layout for the new development has not been outlined. The exact number
of ANPR cameras will be determined once the road layouts have been established
10.20. To meet the expected demand the police will look to site six ANPR cameras
around and in the new development. The criteria for ANPR cameras have been set
out earlier in the report.
10.21. The full cost of six ANPR cameras at today’s prices is: £30,000.
11. Summary of Required Developer Contributions
11.1
All developments with South Glos Core Strategy:
The police requirements are set out in full at Section 6.
11.2
North Yate:
1 x Police post (rent free or peppercorn rent)
3 x ANPR cameras @ £15,000
1 x PCSO for 3 years @ £133,281
11.3
Harry Stoke 2:
1 x Police post (rent free or peppercorn rent)
4 x ANPR cameras @ £20,000
1 x PCSO for 3 years @ £133,281
11.4
Cribbs Patchway:
2 x Police post (rent free or peppercorn rent)
6 x ANPR cameras @ £30,000
2 x PCSO for 5 years @ £444,270
1 x PCSO vehicle (insurance and service inclusive) @ £11,025
22 of 49
Appendix 1.
Summary of research and reports supporting
Secured by Design
Re-evaluating Secured by Design housing in West Yorkshire, Armitage & Monchuk
2009
This survey mirrored the original survey of 1999 and took into account the
improvements made in SBD requirements over 10 years. The results were very
positive, replicating the earlier reductions in crime and fear of crime compared with
non-SBD estates and West Yorkshire as a whole.
Securing the Nation: the case for safer homes. Association of British Insurers 2006
Summarises the evidence for Secured by Design, calls for its wider adoption and
identifies the benefits to the wider audience, the economy and householders. It
provides a per unit cost to developers. Cost is dependent on the pre-existing level
to be upgraded but these are mainly confined to physical security upgrades with
little or no cost for the environmental design element of SBD. The costs were reassessed in 2010 by Davis Langdon in the light of significant reductions in unit costs
as more tested products have become available since publication.
The capital costs of Secured by Design accreditation. Davis Langdon 2010.
Davis Langdon Associates established the cost for SBD for the 2006 ABI report
Securing the nation at £480 to £740 depending on property. Their revised costs for
2010 show dramatic reductions to £70 to £240, reflecting the increased availability
and competitiveness of relevant products.
Permeability &crime risk. Johnson & Bowers 2009
Research of the crime risk posed by permeable layouts and types of cul-de-sac
shows the latter producing an 11% reduction in burglary risk against permeable
local roads, rising to 28% where major roads also feature. SBD does not demand
cul-de-sacs but seeks to achieve a balance between accessibility and crime
reduction by limiting unnecessary routes that attract crime.
Safer Places; the planning system & crime prevention (ODPM & Home Office
2004)
Highlights good practice in crime prevention and designing out crime generally, but
identified Secured by Design as a successful model and devoted an entire section to
practical advice and modelling on how the police, through the CPDA/ALO, can
provide a major contribution to local authority planning and to architects and
developers. It remains a key document in the planning system.
23 of 49
Evaluation of Secured by Design in Gwent, South Wales (John Brown 1999)
Following adoption of SBD by Housing for Wales, a 2 year study of 9,173 homes
confirmed similar reductions in crime as experienced in West Yorkshire – 40% less
burglary and vehicle crime and 25% less criminal damage.
Northview, Swanley Kent, refurbishment. FDKC Architects 1996-2002)
A refurbishment of ten multi-story blocks, replacing remote parking areas with
dedicated parking close to homes, improved security on access to communal deck
levels and landscaping previously void areas. The tenants remained substantially
the same and experienced reduced burglary and car crime levels in excess of 50%.
No evidence of crime displacement or gentrification of the estate.
Cost benefit analysis of ALO/CPDA work. David Lancaster 2010.
A university validated spreadsheet based programme which analyses the scale/type
of building development, the input of the ALO/CPDA, local crime data and trends to
show cost-benefit of applying designing out crime principles to a particular site or
area.
.
The ‘Secure Warm Modern’ programme in Nottingham
Nottingham City Homes and Nottingham Trent University
Crime report Study carried out as a Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) on the
social, economic and environmental benefits of the scheme. It looks at how this
work tackles crime, improves health, increases energy efficiency and reduces fuel
poverty, and has helped promote employment in the local area. Secured by Design
Windows were installed in the area and helped to reduce burglaries.
24 of 49
Appendix 2.
Potential increase in crime due to New Build in South Glos
Date produced:
8 June 2012
Author
Aim:
CIO Angela Archer
To provide the partnership stakeholders with an estimate of the
impact on Crime and calls for service as a result of the core
strategy
Summary
The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy sets out plans to develop 22,675 additional homes, 35 sqm of
retail space and 59 ha of employment land by 2026.
The increase in new homes is estimated to increase the population by 54,420 people (2.4 per household) –
which is equivalent to a 20% increase in households and population in South Gloucestershire.
Co-incidentally the planned increase in retail space within the Cribbs Causeway area is also equivalent to a
20% increase.
Currently the district employs ~200 Police Constables who each deal with ~300 calls for service from the
public which result in ~73 crimes per officer per year.
The following document details the estimated impact of the new development on the South Glos police
District. In summary the increase of 22,675 houses (54,420 people) and 35 spm of retail space is estimated
to impact as follows:
Calls for service: Currently South Glos BCU receives over 58 thousand calls for service from the
public each year. This is equivalent to ~200 calls for every thousand people and ~14 calls per sqm
of retail space. The new development is estimated to increase the number of calls for service by 11
thousand from the public and ~500 from retail. This is equivalent to the work load of 39 additional
officers
Increase in crime: Based on the average rate of crime per thousand people on the beats where
development is planned and an estimated calculation of 4.5 crimes per sqm of retail space, it is
estimated that the District could experience an increase of ~2,800 crimes per year. Based on the
current workload of ~73 crimes per officer this is equivalent to the work load of 39 additional
officers
Methodology
Estimates for the potential increase in crime (as a result of the new build) are based on the average number
of crimes per thousand people currently experienced in the areas identified for development.
Timing of development: The development is planned to be conducted over the next 14 years,
with some build not due to commence until 2016. The figures below have been calculated using
the figures for the total build (which will not be achieved until 2026) and current crime rates
(between April 2011 – March 2012 from Guardian)
Beat and Sector averages: In order to take account of the varying crime levels across the district,
the estimated increase in crime has been calculated using the individual beat and sector averages
where the new development is planned.
Residential vs Retail Crime: “Total” crime covers all crime categories and therefore includes
Shoplifting and other commercial related crimes. All beats have a commercial element, but some
greater than others. The Patchway Beat contains the Mall and Cribbs Causeway complex. After
25 of 49
removing the crimes known to be committed within the Mall building, the Patchway beat records
double the number of crimes per thousand residents than other similar beats and the sector
average. It has therefore been concluded that approximately half of the crimes recorded on the
Patchway beat can be attributed to the Cribs causeway complex. This is a similar case with calls
for service.
Crime on employment land: It has not been possible to establish the impact that the additional 59
ha of employment land will have on crime and calls for service.
Core Strategy
The Core Strategy is a document in which South Gloucestershire Council identifies several areas of new
development across the district:
Between 2006 - 2026 the council aims to provide a total of 26,435 new homes together with supporting
infrastructure including employment, leisure and shopping. Between 2006 and 2011 a total of 4,060
houses were completed, leaving a remainder of 22,375 houses still to be built. (Note: the below figures add
up to 22,675)
The principle areas of South Gloucestershire that will see this growth are:
North Yate: 3,000 houses planned, of which 2,700 will be built between 2016 and 2026 and upto 9
ha of employment land
Thornbury Park Farm: 500 houses between 2012 -2016
East of Harry Stoke: 2,000 houses mainly built between 2016 – 2026, with 50 before 2016
North East Fringes of Bristol: 2,730 houses between 2012-2016. These sites have
unimplemented planning permission or will take place on unallocated brownfield sites
Cribbs Patchway: 5,7000 houses built mainly between 2016-2026, with 100 built before 2016,
50ha of employment land and greater diversity of Cribbs Causeway retail area, which will potentially
expand by 35,000 sqm
Infill and windfall sites within existing urban areas and rural villages: 1,360 houses built between
2012-2026
Existing Local Plan sites: 7,385 houses on sites allocated or with unimplemented planning
permission
Data sources
Current Crime levels: Crime data was obtained from the police Guardian Crime system between
April 2011 – March 2012.
Population Data: Population figures for each Beat were obtained from the beat profiles provided
by the Citizen Focus team. This is based on the estimated increase from the 2001 census data.
The more recent 2011 census data is not yet available.
Calls for service: Obtained from A&S Storm system (SfN). Total calls for service include ASB,
traffic incidents etc.
Police officer numbers: Obtained from the Establishment report on A&S intranet.
Police officer costs: Average cost of mid scale officer obtained from Force ready-reckoner. This
includes pension and NI contribution but does not include uniform, vehicles, accommodation or
supervision.
26 of 49
Potential Increase in Total Crime - Residential
Total Crimes per 1000 people
Area for
Development
Planned
new
houses
North Yate
Thornbury
Harry Stoke
North Fringes
Cribbs
infil/landfill
Existing planning
3000
500
2000
2730
5700
1360
7385
crimes
per
Sector District
MSG
1000
Average Average Average
people
for beat
Population
inc (Av 2.4 nearest Beat
people per
house)
7200
1200
4800
6552
13680
3264
17724
Yate
Thornbury
Stoke Gifford
43
36
56.4
38
38
51
Patchway
105
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
potential increase in Total Crime
using
crimes
using
per 1000
Sector Av
people for
beat
307
43
271
0
1436
0
0
272
45
245
0
698
0
0
using
District
Average
using
MSG
Average
364
61
245
334
698
166
904
403
67
269
367
766
183
993
Note: After removing the crimes known to be committed within the Mall building, the Patchway beat records double the number of
crimes per thousand residents than other similar beats and the sector average. It has therefore been concluded that approximately half
of the crimes recorded on the Patchway beat can be attributed to the Cribs causeway complex.
Potential Increase in Total Crime - Retail
Mall
Cribbs
current
crimes
crimes
per year per sqm
318
4.8
600
6.0
Current Size
(1000 sqm)
66.5
100.7
Estimate increase in
cime of additional 35
sqm of retail space
167
209
Potential Increase in Serious Acquisitive Crime (SAC)
SAC Crimes per 1000 people
Area for
Development
Planned
new
houses
North Yate
Thornbury
Harry Stoke
North Fringes
Cribbs
infil/landfill
Existing planning
3000
500
2000
2730
5700
1360
7385
Population
inc (Av 2.4 neares t Beat
people per
house)
7200
1200
4800
6552
13680
3264
17724
potential increase in SAC
crimes
per 1000 Sector District
MSG
people Average Average Average
for beat
Yate
Thornbury
Stoke Gifford
4.2
3.5
9.8
4.4
4.4
7.9
Patchway
13.9
7.9
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
us ing
crimes
per 1000
people
for beat
using
Sector
Av
30
4
47
0
190
0
0
32
5
38
0
108
0
0
using
using
District
MSG
Average Average
53
9
35
48
100
24
129
61
10
41
56
116
28
151
Serious Acquisitive Crime is defined as Burglary, Robbery, Theft of Motor vehicles and Theft from Motor Vehicle
Potential Increase in Dwelling Burglary
Burglary Crimes per 1000 people
nearest Beat
Area for Development
Planned
new
houses
Population
inc (Av 2.4
people per
house)
using
Sector District
MSG
Beat
Average Average Average
Average
North Yate
3000
7200 Yate
2.8
Thornbury
500
1200 Thornbury
2.9
Harry Stoke
2000
4800 Stoke Gifford
8.2
North Fringes
2730
6552
Cribbs (Residential)
5700
13680 Patchway
10.3
infil/landfill
1360
3264
Potential Increase in Non Dwelling Burglary
Existing planning
7385
17724
Total
22675
54420
Potential Increase in Non Dwelling Burglary
3.2
3.2
8.8
8.8
8.8
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
potential increase in Burglary
using
Beat
Average
using
Sector
Av
20
3
39
0
141
0
0
0
23
4
42
58
120
0
0
0
using
using
District
MSG
Average Average
48
8
32
44
92
22
119
365
50
8
34
46
96
23
124
381
27 of 49
NDB Crimes per 1000 people
nearest Beat
Area for Development
North Yate
Thornbury
Harry Stoke
North Fringes
Cribbs (Residential)
infil/landfill
Existing planning
Total
Planned
new
houses
Population
inc (Av 2.4
people per
house)
3000
500
2000
2730
5700
1360
7385
22675
7200
1200
4800
6552
13680
3264
17724
54420
using
Sector District
MSG
Beat
Average Average Average
Average
Yate
Thornbury
Stoke Gifford
3
5.2
4.5
3.9
3.9
4
Patchway
7.6
4
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
potential increase in NBD
using
Beat
Average
using
Sector
Av
22
6
22
0
104
0
0
0
28
5
19
0
55
0
0
0
using
using
District
MSG
Average Average
37
6
24
33
70
17
90
278
30
5
20
28
57
14
74
229
Potential Increase in calls for service
nearest Beat
Area for Development
North Yate
Thornbury
Harry Stoke
North Fringes
Cribbs (Residential)
Cribbs (Commercial)
infil/landfill
Existing planning
total
Population
inc (Av 2.4
people per
house)
Planned
new
houses
3000
500
2000
2730
5700
35 sqm
1360
7385
22675
7200
1200
4800
6552
13680
Yate
Thornbury
Stoke Gifford
Patchway
3264
17724
54420
No of
call per
current
calls for 1000 people
officers
service
(or sqm required at 292
2011 -12
retail)
per officer
estimated Additional
officers
additional (calls per
calls due to officer
292)
new build
2426
204
8
981
3
2366
2366
201
14
8
8
2750
496
9
2
58379
198
200
10788
39
Total increased requirement for Police officers
nearest Beat
Area for Development
Planned
new
houses
North Yate
Thornbury
Harry Stoke
North Fringes
Cribbs (Residential)
Cribbs (Commercial)
infil/landfill
Existing planning
Total
3000
500
2000
2730
5700
35 sqm
1360
7385
22675
Population
inc (Av 2.4
people per
house)
7200
1200
4800
6552
13680
3264
17724
54420
Yate
Thornbury
Stoke Gifford
Patchway
Cribbs
Additional
Additional
PC/DC required PC/DC equired
to deal with
to deal with
Total
Total crime crime Min Total crime Max Total crime
potential potential increase at 73 increaseat 73
crimes per
crimes per
increase increase
officer
officer
min
max
272
364
4
5
43
61
1
1
245
271
3
4
334
334
5
5
698
698
10
10
168
210
2
3
166
166
2
2
904
904
12
12
2830
3008
39
41
Additional
officers to deal
with additional
calls (292 per
officer)
3
9
2
39
Min
Max
Additional
Additional
cost for
cost for
PC/DC
PC/DC
(£44,550)
(£44,550)
£165,995
£222,140
£26,242
£37,227
£149,517
£165,384
£203,832
£203,832
£425,971
£425,971
£102,526
£128,158
£101,305
£101,305
£551,688
£551,688
£1,727,075 £1,835,704
28 of 49
Appendix 3.
REPORT TITLE: ASB IN CHESWICK
Author:
Date produced:
Plan Owner:
Date requested:
Task summary:
Nathan EMERY
11/10/12
09/10/12
Assess the extent of ASB in relation to new development at
Cheswick Village
5 x 5 x 5 Handling Code
1
May be disseminated to partnership agencies and law enforcement agencies
Inference
The new development within Cheswick Village has resulted in the number of ASB
incidents doubling. A large group of youths aged 9 – 16 who are extremely
disorderly on a daily basis have increased their level of offending within their own
neighbourhood as well in areas of new private development and is the major
problem for community at present. The increase in nuisance neighbours within
Somer Housing and the introduction of offenders on tag and subsequent breaches
are also responsible for increases of ASB incidents during the past 18 months. The
development sites themselves are focal points for Anti-social behaviour
endangering residents and offenders in the process. Youths riding mopeds
dangerously along cycle paths also threaten the safety and peace of the
community. The Police need to increase patrols in the areas identified to reassure
residents who desire increased presence and increase intelligence submissions to
fill intelligence gaps on those responsible for being anti-social in the area. The
Police will need to ensure emphasis is continued and increased where appropriate
on repeat victims at risk, which accounts for a significant portion of all ASB
incidents.
29 of 49
KEY FINDINGS
1. The number of ASB related incidents has increased in Cheswick Village since the start
of the Redrow development. Incidents of rowdy nuisance behaviour during June 2011 –
November 2011 were almost double the level recorded six months previous from
December 2010 – May 2011. Throughout the development period harassment and
vehicle nuisance also showed an increase. Priority acquisitive crime including burglary
has also increased in the area since the start of development. As development has
progressed and subsequent occupants move in, the reporting of ASB increases in
these areas as a result creating mini-hotspots over the longer-term.
2. A large group of offenders with transient members aged between 9 – 16 cause the
biggest proportion of ASB in the area. This group cause nuisance, disorder, arson,
criminal damage and vandalism in the area occurring on a daily basis which is proving
tiresome for local residents both within the Somer Housing areas and increasingly
within occupants of newly built private houses nearby.
3. Nuisance neighbours is the second biggest driver in relation to ASB reporting in the
area. Occupants living in flats located along Long Down Avenue & Home Lease Close
are by far the highest reporters of nuisance neighbours, many of whom are both
victims and offenders of such behaviour resulting in their being numerous repeat
premises.
4. The breaching of tags by offenders living in the newly developed Somer Housing
property including bail check failures and missed appointments has shown the biggest
increase in offences since the start of the development.
5. The development sites whilst under construction are a focus of ASB behaviour. The
large groups of young offenders are known to routinely break into sites where they
commit vandalism, fool around on construction equipment not only causing general
nuisance but also endangering themselves in the process. The reporting of such
occurrences accounts for approximately 25% of all rowdy type incidents reported in the
village.
6. The are a small number of repeat premises within the village that routinely report
offences. Reasons for the reporting of ASB varies from nuisance behaviour, breaches
of tags and curfews, domestic related issues and harassment. The top 5 repeat
premises account for 17% of all offences combined and all repeat premises account for
39%.
7. Cycle paths, especially the path that runs from the ring road to the University of West
England are vulnerable to vehicle nuisance caused by youths on mopeds who
endanger walkers and cyclists using the path as well as being an audible irritation.
8. Intelligence relating to incidents and offenders of ASB in Cheswick Village is extremely
limited and emphasis should be tailored towards increasing the submission of
intelligence to fill vast intelligence gaps.
9. The main response that victims of ASB relay onto the Police is the desire for increased
Police patrols in the area. Peak time analysis indicates offences build up at 5pm before
dying down at approximately 9pm. Although this suggests offences occur while youths
are returning home after school, offences occur at the same rate over weekend periods.
10. The use of Facebook as a means of committing harassment type offences is on the
increase although this is a national trend and not necessarily unique to the village of
Cheswick.
30 of 49
RESTRICTED
DATA DESCRIPTION
1. The number of ASB related incidents has increased in Cheswick Village since the start of
the Redrow development. Incidents of rowdy nuisance behaviour during June 2011 –
November 2011 were almost double the level recorded six months previous from December
2010 – May 2011. Throughout the development period harassment and vehicle nuisance also
showed an increase. Priority acquisitive crime including burglary has also increased in the
area since the start of development. As development has progressed and subsequent
occupants move in, the reporting of ASB increases in these areas as a result creating minihotspots over the longer-term.
The above graph illustrates how offences increased throughout the development stage and after
completion. The dotted red line indicates that ASB related incidents rose sharply at the approximate
time development started which continued for approximately 6 months before slowly reducing from
approximately February 2012.
RESTRICTED
31 of 49
RESTRICTED
The above tables show the breakdown of all logs related offences throughout 3 separate identified
periods as highlighted within the graph above which illustrates the drivers for increases in offences
since the development at Cheswick Village. The table ‘pre-development’ shows figures for the 6
months previous to the approximate start of development, ‘post-development’ shows the 6 months
from the approximate start of development and ‘Last 6 Months’ shows offences within the last 6
months at the time of writing.
The tables indicate offences doubled (50 – 99) post development before reducing to 78 recorded
offences. Rowdy/nuisance behaviour has seen an 80% increase since the start of development
which has sustained in the 18 months since. In addition, a dramatic increase has been experienced
in the number of tag breach related incidents. Such incidents accounted for 2% in the 6 months predevelopment, compared to 31% recorded during the 18 months post development commencement.
Most alarmingly, during August 2011 – November 2011, these incidents accounted for half of all
ASB related incidents. The number of vehicle nuisance type offences has also seen a significant
increase, however, only in the last 6 months where offences have been recorded as being double
as those experienced pre and post development. Slight increases have also been visible in
harassment and priority crime, especially non-dwelling burglary.
RESTRICTED
32 of 49
RESTRICTED
By far the biggest hotspot within Cheswick Village is Long Down Avenue which runs through the
village. Offences committed on this main artery route accounts for nearly a third of offences as
highlighted in the table above.
RESTRICTED
33 of 49
RESTRICTED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
The above shows how hotspots of offences developed throughout each 3 monthly periods (starting
in October 2010 – present) as development was progressed. It also highlights that the major hotspot
continues to remain throughout the time period on Long Down Avenue.
RESTRICTED
34 of 49
RESTRICTED
The above graph shows offence levels on Long Down Avenue and how they compare closely to
total offence levels shown by the dotted red line.
However, these tables showing offence
breakdown in the 6 months pre and post
development indicate how the profile of
offending altered with breaching of tags
(suspicious/wanted) by a small number of
offenders becoming more predominant in the
area.
RESTRICTED
35 of 49
RESTRICTED
2. A large group of offenders with transient members aged between 9 – 16 cause the biggest
proportion of ASB in the area. This group cause nuisance, disorder, arson, criminal damage
and vandalism in the area occurring on a daily basis which is proving tiresome for local
residents both within the Somer Housing areas and increasingly within occupants of newly
built private houses nearby.
Verbatim comments in logs suggest this large group of youths have blighted the area, not only to
residents living in newly developed private property but also innocent residents living amoung the
offenders within Somer Housing. The type of offences and behaviour experienced on an increasing
level since the development has included climbing over fences, destroying plants and property,
vandalism, damaging vehicles by kicking and jumping on them, swearing, playing football and being
an audible nuisance, ringing doorbells on a constant basis. However, their offending goes beyond
annoyance to a level in which they endanger themselves as well as communities they live and
offend in including deliberately starting fires, being in possession of unruly dogs, playing on
construction equipment stored on development sites, breaking into unoccupied houses being built
and engaging in behaviour where they attempt to provoke innocent members of the public into
reacting to their petit and sometimes dangerous behaviour. It is apparent that there is much bad
parenting within the Somer Housing community of Cheswick which fuels this type of behaviour. A
small number of these youths also ride mopeds on cycle paths which is explored later within this
scoping profile.
3. Nuisance neighbours is the second biggest driver in relation to ASB reporting in the area.
Occupants living in flats located along Long Down Avenue & Home Lease Close are by far
the highest reporters of nuisance neighbours, many of whom are both victims and offenders
of such behaviour resulting in their being numerous repeat premises.
Residents living along Long Down Avenue & Home Lease Close report the vast majority of nuisance
neighbour type offences. The most reported nuisance behaviour is the playing of loud music within
these buildings that are divided into flats and is most distressing for residents. There are numerous
repeat victims and premises within the Cheswick area, many including victims who are also known
to offend. Emphasis should be placed on engagement with Somer Housing to manage high risk
victims and subsequent separating of these neighbours if deemed appropriate.
RESTRICTED
36 of 49
RESTRICTED
4. The breaching of tags by offenders living in the newly developed Somer Housing property
including bail check failures and missed appointments has shown the biggest increase in
offences since the start of the development.
The above graph shows the proportion of offences involving the breaching of tags, missed
appointments and bail check failures compared to all ASB related offences reported in the area.
As discussed above, a dramatic increase has been experienced in the number of tag breach related
incidents. Such incidents accounted for 2% in the 6 months pre-development, compared to 31%
recorded during the 18 months post development commencement. Most alarmingly, during August
2011 – November 2011, these incidents accounted for half of all ASB related incidents.
A small number of repeat offenders are evident who combined account for the vast majority of
incidents who are discussed later within this profile under repeat premises.
5. The development sites whilst under construction are also a focus of ASB behaviour. The
large groups of young offenders are known to routinely break into sites where they commit
vandalism, fool around on construction equipment not only causing general nuisance but
also endangering themselves in the process. The reporting of such occurrences accounts
for approximately 25% of all rowdy type incidents reported in the village.
Such behaviour reported to the Police since the start of development include youths climbing on
construction equipment, attempting to start diggers and other plant machinery, climbing on
scaffolding, breaking into houses under construction and general nuisance noisy behaviour. The
security of such sites should be reviewed to ensure groups of youths are unable to access such
sites which are undoubtedly abundant with apparent danger.
RESTRICTED
37 of 49
RESTRICTED
6. The are a small number of repeat premises within the village that routinely report offences.
Reasons for the reporting of ASB varies from nuisance behaviour, breaches of tags and
curfews, domestic related issues and harassment. The top 5 repeat premises account for
17% of all offences combined and all repeat premises account for 39%.
7. Cycle paths, especially the path that runs from the ring road to the University of West
England are vulnerable to vehicle nuisance caused by youths on mopeds who endanger
walkers and cyclists using the path as well as being an audible irritation.
As previously mentioned, vehicle nuisance has significantly increased in the past 6 months. Youths
riding up and down walk ways and cycle paths pose the biggest threat in respect to this type of ASB
and many residents have expressed concerns of the dangerous nature in which these youths ride
their mopeds. Youths are also known to ride these mopeds in the local rugby field and the nearby
forest area. However, the cycle path that links the ring road to UWE remains the most vulnerable to
these dangerous antics committed by these youths. The remainder of vehicle nuisance related
incidents reported fall into a small number of other categories including the reporting of expired or
no tax discs, inconsiderate parking by residents and workers working on the development sites and
vehicles parked on double yellow lines. Although only one incident whereby youths were seen to
throw stones towards traffic has been reported, other anecdotal reports suggest the disruption to
traffic caused by youths littering the road or playing football suggests this maybe significantly
unreported.
8. Intelligence relating to incidents and offenders of ASB in Cheswick Village is extremely
limited and emphasis should be tailored towards increasing the submission of intelligence to
fill vast intelligence gaps.
The number of intelligence reports in relation to ASB in Cheswick is extremely limited, only a
selected number of intelligence reports in relation to repeat victims are in existence suggesting not
enough intelligence is being gathered from the area which is needed to fill intelligence gaps.
9. The main response that victims of ASB relay onto the Police is the desire for increased
Police patrols in the area. Peak time analysis indicates offences build up at 5pm before dying
down at approximately 9pm. Although this suggests offences occur while youths are
returning home after school, offences occur at the same rate over weekend periods.
As previously stated, offences occur evenly throughout
the week and weekends.
ASB builds up from 5pm, peaks significantly before
dying down at 9pm.
~END
RESTRICTED
38 of 49
RESTRICTED
Appendix 4.
REPORT TITLE: ASB IN CHARLTON HAYES, FILTON
Author:
Date produced:
Plan Owner:
Date requested:
Task summary:
Nathan EMERY
11/10/12
09/10/12
Assess the extent of ASB (Anti Social Behaviour) in relation to
new development at Filton.
5 x 5 x 5 Handling Code
1
May be disseminated to partnership agencies and law enforcement agencies
Inference
The small number of residents, some of whom originate from travelling communities,
cause the majority of ASB related incidents in Charlton Hayes, Filton whose
behaviour not only affects immediate neighbours but also extends through the entire
community. Significant amounts of multi-agency resources aimed at these offenders
appear to have a limited affect in curbing such behaviour. Small groups of unruly
local youths also cause harm to the local community by engaging in various
elements of anti-social behaviour resulting in many being handed ABC’s. Offenders
who breach tags place significant demand on Police, now account of a quarter of all
incidents which is lightly increasing over the longer term. Youths who ride mopeds
in the local area who are often deemed as being anti-social and on occasion are
reported as being dangerous. Intelligence needs to be increased in the area to fill
intelligence gaps.
RESTRICTED
39 of 49
RESTRICTED
KEY FINDINGS
1. Levels of ASB in Charlton Hayes has fluctuated over the last 18 months with no
indications that incidents have reduced or increased.
2. A small number of offenders cause significant harm to the local community within
Charlton Hayes, Filton by repeatedly engaging in anti-social behaviour. Verbatim
comments in logs frequently suggest that some of the top offenders originate from the
travelling community.
3. Neighbours living next-door to these offenders in the immediate vicinity report high
levels of offences as a result of loud noise, shouting and harassment. Neighbours living
slightly further a-field from these offenders but on the same street also report significant
levels of ASB caused by unruly children and congregations of anti-social associates
spilling onto the street under the influence of alcohol.
4. Verbatim comments in logs suggest these individuals drain significant amounts of multiagency resources due to a multitude of factors including alcohol, child neglect,
mistreating of animals and breaching of tags & ABC’s.
5. Small groups of youths aged 9 – 15, many of whom are females local to the estate
cause significant amounts of anti-social to residents within the neighbourhood. Reported
unruly behaviour includes the throwing of stones, kicking of footballs over gardens,
throwing of rubbish over property and generic screaming and shouting.
6. Offenders, who breach tags, fail to appear for doorstep checks and miss pre-arranged
appointments account for approximately 25% of all incidents within the neighbourhood
which wastes a significant amount of Police time. Other agencies including housing and
social services also report similar occurrences which doesn’t reflect in figures.
7. Youths riding around in the area on mopeds are often the cause of anti-social reports.
Noise created by such activity is the main aggravating factor but there is also a handful
of reports suggesting dangerous driving endangering local residents.
8. The design and subsequent development of social housing within the neighbourhood
contributes to significant reporting of offences by residents living in private property due
to social housing being built sporadically throughout Charlton Hayes, rather than in
pockets.
9. The amount of intelligence in relation to ASB in Charlton Hayes is limited. Intelligence
needs to be increased in the area in order to fill intelligence gaps.
RESTRICTED
40 of 49
RESTRICTED
DATA DESCRIPTION
1. Levels of ASB in Charlton Hayes has fluctuated over the last 18 months with no
indications that incidents have reduced or increased. However, on average the area
suffers from approximately 15 offences per month.
The above graph shows the amount of incident logs per months commencing March 2011. The
number of incidents reported has fluctuated significantly throughout this period with no distinct
patterns.
RESTRICTED
41 of 49
RESTRICTED
2. A small number of offenders cause significant harm to the local community within
Charlton Hayes, Filton by repeatedly engaging in anti-social behaviour. Verbatim
comments in logs frequently suggest that some of the top offenders originate from
the travelling community.
3. Neighbours living next-door to these offenders in the immediate vicinity report
high levels of offences as a result of loud noise, shouting and harassment.
Neighbours living slightly further a-field from these offenders but on the same street
also report significant levels of ASB caused by unruly children and congregations of
anti-social associates spilling onto the street under the influence of alcohol.
4. Verbatim comments in logs suggest these individuals drain significant amounts of
multi-agency resources due to a multitude of factors including alcohol, child neglect,
mistreating of animals and breaching of tags & ABC’s.
The table on the left indicates the high
number of repeat premises in which ASB
incidents are reported. The top 5 repeat
locations account for 48% of all incidents.
Repeat premises in total account for
approximately 81% of all incidetns
highlighting the significant problem a small
number of residents cause in the area in
relation to ASB.
RESTRICTED
42 of 49
RESTRICTED
The most reported log type is linked to the
breaching of tags (Suspicious/wanted, pre-planned
event & contact record) representing
approximately 25%). The most reported form of
ASB is disturbance/nuisance representing 17.1%
of all logs followed by domestic related ASB
accounting for 10.7%. However, all these forms of
logs are linked to the top repeat premises including
nuisance caused by groups of youths which often
contain children of families living at these
addresses.
Verbatim comments in logs frequently suggest that
some of the top offenders originate from the
travelling community and the same groups of
perpetrators consistently cause the problems.
Alcohol is also frequently mentioned in logs and
the perpetrators being children or youths.
The logs also show a number of partner agencies
being called or referrals made to assist with
individual cases.
RESTRICTED
43 of 49
RESTRICTED
5. Small groups of youths aged 9 – 15, many of whom are females local to the estate
cause significant amounts of anti-social to residents within the neighbourhood.
Reported unruly behaviour includes the throwing of stones, kicking of footballs over
gardens, throwing of rubbish over property and generic screaming and shouting.
The above graphs indicate that this form of ASB builds up at approximately 18:00 and begins to die
down at 23:00. ASB occurs both on weekdays and weekends with no specific days of the week
experiencing high levels of ASB caused by these groups of offenders.
Females are frequently mentioned as being part of the groups that are causing ASB. There is also
a large volume of females on Acceptable Behaviour Contracts.
RESTRICTED
44 of 49
RESTRICTED
8. The design and subsequent development of social housing within the
neighbourhood contributes to significant reporting of offences by residents living in
private property due to social housing being built sporadically throughout Charlton
Hayes, rather than in pockets.
The above map highlights the areas of social housing which are spread throughout Charlton
Hayes.
RESTRICTED
45 of 49
RESTRICTED
Appendix 5.
Crime Analysis Study Area
RESTRICTED
46 of 49
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
47 of 49
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
48 of 49
RESTRICTED
Appendix 6
Special Duty Charges - ACPO Charging Methodology
Scale Point
Basic Salary
Other Allowances - Shift
Other Allowances - Weekend
PCSO
Sc4
16
£
No
O/time
PCSO
Sc4
16
£
National Insurance
Pension Contribution
19,770
2,768
1,977
24,515
1,695
3,334
19,770
2,768
1,977
24,515
1,695
3,334
Employable Cost
29,544
29,544
Overtime premium
9,885
Total Direct Cost
39,429
29,544
Direct Overheads
Uniforms
Insurance
Transport
Training
Call Handling
Communications Infrastructure
360
249
1,071
1,031
4,482
1,895
360
249
1,071
1,031
4,482
1,895
Total Direct Overheads
9,088
9,088
Resource / Operational Cost
48,517
38,632
Indirect Overheads
11,590
5,795
Partnership Full Cost
60,107
44,427
RESTRICTED
49 of 49
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
EVIDENCE BASE
Utilities
March 2014
Electricity
National Grid is responsible for the electricity transmission network in England and
Wales, and has the following electricity transmission assets located within South
Gloucestershire:
x 2VL line – 400kV route from Seabank substation in Bristol to the 4YX line in
South Gloucestershire
x 4YX line – 400kV route from Whitson substation in Newport to Melksham
substation in Wiltshire via Aust Sealing End Compound in South
Gloucestershire
x XL line – 275kV route from Whitson substation in Newport to Melksham
substation in Wiltshire via Iron Acton substation in South Gloucestershire
x YXA/YXB lines – 132kV routes from Oldbury substation in South
Gloucestershire to Iron Acton substation in South Gloucestershire
National Grid has confirmed that specific housing or employment development
proposals within the South Gloucestershire Council area are unlikely to have a
significant effect upon National Grid’s gas and electricity transmission
infrastructure. Western Power Distribution and Central Networks are responsible
for the electricity distribution network in the South Gloucestershire area. Annual
corporate performance review plans are publicly available providing details of
corporate strategies and priorities for their service plan areas as a whole.
WPD & CN are broadly responsible for low voltage cables (132, 33 & 11kv, &
415volts). WPD operate cables in the Severnside and Bristol North Fringe areas of
South Gloucestershire and CN cover the remainder of the district. Western Power
has confirmed that development of some 5700-6200 dwellings plus 40ha of
commercial development in the Cribbs Patchway area will require a new Primary
Sub Station. The sub station would require a site of approximate size 30x30m and
cost in the region £1.6m. This cost would be apportioned between developers
depending upon how much electricity they need. The preferred location would be at
the eastern end of the airfield site. A Multi-Utilities Service Investment Strategy
commissioned by SGC however alternatively concludes that reinforcement of the
existing network and sub stations may provide a viable cost effective solution. The
companies have otherwise confirmed that growth set out in the Core Strategy is
either supportable or have not objected. Both companies wish to continue to be
consulted with respect detailed master planning of the new neighbourhoods where
their transmission lines are directly affected.
Gas
National Grid is responsible for the gas transmission system in England, Scotland
and Wales, and has gas transmission assets located within South Gloucestershire.
National Grid has confirmed that specific housing or employment development
proposals within the South Gloucestershire Council area are unlikely to have a
significant effect upon National Grid’s gas and electricity transmission
infrastructure.
The responsible distribution bodies in South Gloucestershire are National Grid and
Wales & West Utilities. Annual corporate and performance review plans are
publicly available providing details of corporate strategies and priorities for their
service plan areas as a whole. NG & WWU have provided detail with respect the
location of their respective distribution networks and neither has objected to growth
set out in the Core Strategy. Expansion or upgrading of the network is generally
triggered by specific requests from developers to lay infrastructure to specific sites.
WWU wish to continue to be consulted with respect detailed master planning of the
new neighbourhoods where their pipelines are directly affected.
Water & Sewerage
Bristol Water is responsible for water supply and Wessex Water for waste water in
South Gloucestershire. Annual corporate and performance review plans are
publicly available providing details of corporate strategies and priorities for their
service plan areas as a whole.
Bristol Water have confirmed that their will not be the need for significant new
infrastructure to supply growth set out in the Core Strategy. A new ring main has
recently been installed in the Harry Stoke area of the North Fringe and BW are
planning a further main between the Patchway North roundabout and Jct1 of the
M32. Yate is confirmed as currently being ‘very well served’.
Wessex Water previously confirmed that investment at Avonmouth Sewage
Treatment Works has provided future treatment capacity for new development
within the catchment. Existing planned growth to 2016 will increase flows and some
stretches of the strategic sewer system are considered to be approaching capacity.
Wessex Water has undertaken a strategic review for the Business Plan period
between 2015 and 2020. The new trunk sewer link for the Frome Valley Relief
Sewer has been included in these plans and forms our investment strategy to
serve the strategic allocation of 3000 new homes at North Yate.
Future development at North Bristol also requires significant investment in sewer
capacity. Development plans in this area will be subject to a Supplementary
Planning Document for the Cribbs/Patchway New Neighbourhood. This will provide
for a co-ordinated approach to completing a robust drainage strategy for foul water
disposal. These sites will be commencing the initial phases over the next few years
and building out over a period to 2026 and beyond. Strategic infrastructure is
planned across a 10 year period between 2015 – 2025 with a phased approach to
match the rate of development.
OFWAT are currently considering water company plans and will be making
determinations by the end of 2014.
Preliminary assessment indicates that development areas [in the Cribbs Patchway
locality] will gravitate southwards to the Trym Trunk sewer and areas at the north to
the Frome Valley Relief Sewer. New development proposals will require long off
site connecting sewers to agreed points of connection.
Topography of the [Cribbs Patchway] area indicates that flows will generally
gravitate to the south western corner of the site close to the A4018 highway. The
existing railway forms a boundary constraint at the south of the area. Wessex
Water will be making provision to safeguard strategic sewer routes to manage
future development flows. These will be required in the later periods to intercept
and convey flows to the new trunk sewerage.
In advance of this strategic review, some improvements to the trunk sewer network
are nearing completion at Cog Mill upstream of Frampton Cotterell that will support
the final phase of the Frome Valley Relief Sewer. At North Yate there is existing
foul capacity to serve the initial phases of the proposed new neighbourhood and a
Memorandum of Understanding has been entered into with Heron to accommodate
both the initial phases and full development proposed by them.