TENDRING INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY – PART ONE

Tendring District Council TENDRING INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY – PART ONE

Final Report

September 2009

P1931

ROGER TYM & PARTNERS Fairfax House

15 Fulwood Place

London

WC1V 6HU

t (020) 7831 2711

f (020) 7831 7653

e [email protected]

w www.tymconsult.com

This document is formatted for double-sided printing.

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

2 POLICY CONTEXT ...................................................................................................... 3 The evidence base that LDF Core Strategies need on infrastructure ............................. 3

3 OPTIONS FOR GROWTH ............................................................................................ 7

4 HEALTH ..................................................................................................................... 11

5 EMERGENCY SERVICES .......................................................................................... 23 Police ............................................................................................................................ 23 Fire Service .................................................................................................................. 25 Ambulance ................................................................................................................... 26

6 EDUCATION .............................................................................................................. 31

7 TRANSPORT ............................................................................................................. 41

8 UTILITIES ................................................................................................................... 59 Electricity ...................................................................................................................... 59 Gas ............................................................................................................................... 60 Telecommunications..................................................................................................... 62 Water – Potable Supply ................................................................................................. 64 Water – Wastewater ...................................................................................................... 65

9 WASTE ...................................................................................................................... 69

10 CEMETERIES ............................................................................................................ 73

11 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FUNDING ................................................................. 75 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 75 Our remit ...................................................................................................................... 75 Background .................................................................................................................. 75 Past contribution levels ................................................................................................. 76 Factors affecting future contribution levels ................................................................... 76

12 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................. 89

13 OPTIONS ................................................................................................................... 93 Harwich ........................................................................................................................ 93 Clacton-on-Sea/Walton-on-the-Naze ........................................................................... 95 Other Locations ............................................................................................................ 96

14 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 99 Consideration of Part One outputs ............................................................................... 99 Mechanisms for delivery ............................................................................................. 101

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – List of Consultees

Appendix 2 – Further education information (from ECC)

Appendix 3 – Transport modelling outputs

Appendix 4 – Funding for transport infrastructure schemes

Appendix 5 – Previous developer contribution levels

Appendix 6 – Developer contribution analysis assumptions

Tendring Infrastructure Study – Part One Final Report

Roger Tym & Partners with Peter Brett Associates September 2009 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report is Part One of the Tendring Infrastructure Study. The report was written by

Roger Tym & Partners with specialist transport input from Peter Brett Associates.

1.2 The Consultants’ brief was to prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan which will ensure

that the delivery of any development required is not compromised by unrealistic

expectations about the availability of infrastructure. The study will directly inform the

Council and other service providers to identify and prioritise infrastructure provision as

part of an integrated approach to planning and infrastructure development.

1.3 Essentially, the study will underpin the spatial development strategy of the Core Strategy

in the face of testing. It seeks to show that the chosen development strategy is robust and

‘sound’ in planning terms.

1.4 Part One seeks to understand, in terms of infrastructure requirements, which of the

possible development options that are being considered through the emerging Core

Strategy have the greatest chance of being delivered. This considers existing

infrastructure surpluses or deficits and the potential to secure mainstream public funding

for particular types of development. This is coupled with an assessment of the issues

affecting potential developer contribution funding for infrastructure.

1.5 The study brief requires only the following infrastructure items to be considered:

Education – pre-school, primary and secondary

Further Education

Health

Transport

Emergency Services – police, fire, ambulance

Utilities – electricity, gas, telecommunications

Water – potable water and wastewater

Cemeteries

1.6 A list of the consultees in the Part One study is given in Appendix 1.

1.7 Part Two of the study will consider in more depth the infrastructure needs of the Core

Strategy Preferred Option.



2 POLICY CONTEXT

The evidence base that LDF Core Strategies need on infrastructure

2.1 There has been a growing recognition of the link between spatial plans and infrastructure

provision in achieving timely and sustainable delivery of spatial growth. This has taken on

a greater importance in recent years through planning documents.

Local government is required to play an infrastructure co-ordinating role

2.2 The Local Government White Paper on Strong and Prosperous Communities published in

October 2006 referred to local authorities playing a positive co-ordinating role in the

delivery of infrastructure to ensure that the right infrastructure is provided at the right time.

An increased emphasis on ‘place shaping’ was also made.

The Planning White Paper, CSR 07 and PPS12 emphasise the need for an infrastructure planning evidence base

2.3 The Planning White Paper 2007 states that ‘local authorities should demonstrate how and

when infrastructure that is required to facilitate development will be delivered’. This has

also been a major theme in the H M Treasury’s CSR07 Policy Review on Supporting

Housing Growth.

2.4 Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12) highlights the importance of ensuring that the core

strategy of Local Development Frameworks is supported by a robust evidence base on

infrastructure planning.1 PPS 12 states that:

“The core strategy should be supported by evidence of what physical and social infrastructure is needed to enable the amount of development proposed for the area, taking account of its type and distribution. This evidence should cover who will provide the infrastructure and when it will be provided. The core strategy should draw on and in parallel influence any strategies and investment plans of the local authority and other organisations.”

2.5 The document also notes that:

'Good infrastructure planning considers the infrastructure required to support development, costs, sources of funding, timescales for delivery and gaps in funding. This allows for the identified infrastructure to be prioritised in discussions with key local partners.'

2.6 It states what should be considered as part of the infrastructure evidence base and

emphasises the need for the alignment of investment plans of a range of key

infrastructure providers. In particularly, PPS12 states that the planning process

infrastructure evidence base should take account of:

The scale, type and distribution of development proposed for the area;

1 PPS12 June 2008, paragraphs 4.8 to 4.12



The physical, social and green infrastructure needed to enable the development

proposed;

The phasing of development;

The cost, sources of funding and gaps in funding (recognising that the budgeting

processes of different agencies could mean that less information may be available

when the core strategy is being prepared than would be ideal);

The uncertainty of investment plans and undue reliance on critical elements of

infrastructure whose funding is uncertain;

The prioritisation of infrastructure requirements in discussion with key partners;

The responsibility for the delivery of infrastructure.

2.7 Key infrastructure providers are to be encouraged to reflect the core strategy within their

own future planning documents and seek alignment between their infrastructure planning

and the planning process.

There is no detailed guidance on what an infrastructure planning evidence base should consist of

2.8 Unlike some areas of the core strategy where the evidence base requirement is

accompanied with a guidance manual on how to prepare the evidence (for instance in the

case of retail, strategic housing land availability and employment), there is no such

provision for undertaking the evidence base for infrastructure assessment.

2.9 Given the shortage of guidance, the key point to emphasise is that we are mindful of the

need to create a realistic infrastructure assessment that will aid spatial growth delivery.

But the content of the evidence base is not defined and is likely to vary depending on local

circumstances.

We are relying on our understanding of best practice in order to comply with inspectors’ likely requirements for an evidence base

2.10 Given this lack of guidance, we have relied more on our own work and expertise in this

field. This has been cited by the Planning Advisory Service as good practice2. We have

also reviewed Inspector’s Reports on core strategies to improve our understanding of the

expectation from Infrastructure Plans.

2.11 From our review work and experience, it appears that the key is to ensure that we capture

the infrastructure needed and identify the range of providers including the developers and

others who will be responsible for funding the infrastructure. Further:

The infrastructure assessment will be of no use if it is an unrealistic ‘wish list’ that has

no likelihood of getting delivered and will hinder the overall delivery of the planned

growth;

The infrastructure assessment is a way of ensuring that aspirational growth proposals

in spatial plans are clearly grounded in terms of the likelihood of their delivery through

a rigorous process that considers infrastructure ‘showstoppers’, funding, phasing, joint

2 Planning Advisory Service (2008) Local Development Framework seminars: Infrastructure planning and delivery – Participant’s resource book, Key references and links, p.74



collaboration and delivery mechanisms and builds these considerations into the core

strategy and monitoring framework;

At this stage in the development of the infrastructure assessment, where all the

detailed modelling and master planning is not yet available, it is important to note a

point by the Inspector in his response to the Joint North Northamptonshire Core

Strategy. The Inspector stated that ’I do not believe that for soundness, the specific solutions need to be identified in the Core Strategy, only that appropriate solutions

would need to be found.’;

The Inspector will want to see there is a realistic prospect of delivery and if gaps in

funding are identified then a mechanism should be in place to demonstrate how these

are to be addressed in the future; and

The need for infrastructure to support housing growth and the associated need for an

infrastructure delivery planning process has been highlighted in the Government’s

Housing Green Paper. We consider this as an essential element of Infrastructure

Planning and is considered later under the Delivery Process of the final report.



3 OPTIONS FOR GROWTH

3.1 The Tendring Core Strategy Issues and Options was published in March 2009. This

provided four possible spatial strategy options to inform consultation. These options are:

Option 1: Priority Areas for Regeneration. This option focuses new growth in jobs and

housing on Clacton and Harwich, both being Priority Areas for Regeneration in the

Haven Gateway.

Option 2: Incremental Growth. This option seeks to distribute growth between urban

settlements broadly on a pro-rata basis relative to the size of the existing built up area

and its population, recent development rates, the associated demand for new housing

and the identified need for affordable housing. As with Option 1, Clacton would be the

main focus for growth but there would be more scope for development in and around

other settlements, including some of the key rural villages where local needs justify.

Option 3: Economic Potential. This option involves distributing housing growth on a

pro-rata basis in line with the potential for job creation taking into account the

proposed port expansion at Bathside Bay, Harwich and the strength of Colchester as

an economic centre and a growth point in its own right. Harwich would see the biggest

amount of growth but there would also be major developments in Clacton and

eastward expansion of Colchester in the vicinity of the Crown Interchange where the

A120 meets the A12.

Option 4: Hybrid Approach. This option is a hybrid between options 2 and 3. It

distributes new housing growth on a pro-rata basis driven by the housing-led factors in

option 2 but includes an element of employment growth on the fringe of Colchester to

take advantage of its economic strength.

3.2 It would be reasonable to expect that one or a combination of these options will be taken

forward as the Preferred Option, but this will depend on the outcome of the consultation

process and emerging technical evidence, including the findings of this study.

3.3 This study was commenced through a workshop with the service providers. The purpose

of the workshop was to introduce service providers to the study and the new approaches

to understanding infrastructure needs. It also enabled service providers to identify

particular issues with their respective services.

3.4 In order to provide the most appropriate representation of these development options (or

any combination thereof), a broad mapping approach was adopted using the sites put

forward under the Call for Sites process. However, it is important to be clear that Part

One of this infrastructure study is not an assessment of individual sites. Rather, it is an

assessment of the theoretical levels of growth in broad locations across the district. It will

be the role of the Part Two study to understand the specific needs of the individual

development sites and therefore come to a view as to which are the best options in terms

of the ability to deliver development sites along with the necessary accompanying

infrastructure.

3.5 These maps were shared with service providers who then provided a broad response by

location in terms of:



Existing infrastructure surpluses or deficits;

Possible future issues for providing additional services; and

Mainstream funding that may be available to fund development.

3.6 An example of the type of map used is shown in Figure 3.1.



Figure 3.1 Possible development locations for testing



4 HEALTH

Introduction

4.1 Primary health care services in Tendring are delivered by the North East Essex Primary

Care Trust (NEEPCT). NEEPCT was set up in October 2006 through a merger of the

former Tendring and Colchester PCTs, as part of national plans to reconfigure primary

care trusts in England.

4.2 In total, there are 318,000 residents that have registered with commissioned GP

practices. This represents, in effect, the population served by the PCT. Although the

proportion of those aged 0-14 years is largely similar between the two PCTs, the

proportion of older people is markedly different between Colchester (14.5%) and Tendring

(26.2%). Colchester (3.8%) has a slightly more diverse ethnic population than Tendring

(1.3%). The PCT is also responsible for any itinerant or unregistered patients within its

geographical patch, but this is estimated as a relatively low number within North East

Essex.

Our remit

4.3 The following areas are outside our study.

Acute health care. We do not cover acute (generally hospital) care in this report. Our

reasoning here is that whilst PCTs operate as the purchasers and thus the funders of

hospital services, acute service providers are responsible for ensuring the provision of

the infrastructure required to deliver their contracted activity and therefore have

funding which adjusts for capitation .

Pharmacies and Optometrists. PCTs do not financially support the initial provision or

ongoing costs of pharmaceutical and optometric premises. This is a private sector

function. However, the PCT does have a role in advising on the optimal location of

pharmacy and optometric services to ensure access and patient choice is determined

by the national regulations. Applications for the location of pharmacies are managed

on a case by case basis, in line with national regulations.

Dental Premises. PCTs issue a contract to dentists but there are no ongoing capital or

revenue issues. Dentists are contracted to provide an agreed level of units of dental

activity. For this they receive an income. All running costs are charged against this

income.

Infrastructure needs

4.4 Our assessment needs to try to separate out a number of complex and overlapping

issues. The provision of premises is broadly determined by:

Changes in demand – population changes and growth, and expanded patient choice

and public expectations;

Changes in services – new models of care, and new clinical pathways. There is

currently a strong focus from the Government to improve the quality of GPs surgeries.

(For example, the provision of GPs surgeries from converted private housing stock is

no longer seen as adequate); and

Statutory requirements – including the DDA, and Health and Safety.



4.5 Clearly all of these dimensions are important, but it is changes in demand, specifically

regarding population, which fundamentally concerns this report. In particular, it is

important to clearly distinguish between the current reconfiguration of health service

delivery (in larger, more fit-for-purpose health centres) and the expansion in demand

which results from new housing development.

4.6 However, it is the case that the health services can use all of the above drivers to help

them reconfigure the way that services are delivered in order to respond to changing

population sizes, distributions and profiles.

4.7 For example, the PCTs’ mainstream funding has been recently used to improve the

quality of GP surgeries (converted houses being used as surgeries are no longer seen as

adequate), and this process of modernisation that would occur anyway can be intelligently

applied to the changing circumstances of growth. Examples of good practice include the

use by both PCTs of the Department of Health’s Equitable Access Programme, used to

provide money for new facilities. Importantly, future growth requirements over a five year

period were reviewed before spending decisions were made.

Primary health needs are driven by population, not housing growth

4.8 PCTs undertake detailed demographic work, and make planning assumptions about a

growing population. A rough rule of thumb used by PCTs across the country is that there

should be 1 GP for every 2,000 people.

4.9 However, it is the case that some GPs’ lists serve significantly more people than the

rough average of 2,000 while some serve significantly fewer. In practice, there is a good

degree of flexibility in list lengths and no longer, as might be imagined, any statutory

maximum list size. Practices are contracted to provide a range of primary care services

to a registered population and increasingly this means engaging a much richer skill mix of

appropriately trained staff (such as nurse practitioners or health advisory staff) than in

previous years. It is therefore often difficult to identify a “slice” of new provision

specifically targeted at new growth.

The provision of new surgeries

4.10 The size of an average GP’s list means that, even if existing GPs were working at the

maximum sustainable rate, 2,000 new people (or approximately 800 new homes based on

a household size of 2.5 people) would be needed before a new GP practice would

become sustainable. As a result, there is very often no requirement to provide a new GP

surgery for each new development. However, PCTs need to ensure there is sufficient

capacity for patients to register with a local GP, with a degree of choice where possible.

Where there is a small growth in population this may mean extending an existing practice

rather than creation of a new practice and/or building a new practice premise.



4.11 The solution sometimes proposed, that of opening branch surgeries to treat a smaller,

more local population, is not always optimal. Branch surgeries often find it difficult to offer

the wide range of services demanded due to their size although this may be feasible

where premises or facilities can be shared with other agencies, such as local authorities

and social care providers.

4.12 Conversely:

Larger surgeries can be more economically efficient, with shared ancillary and support

facilities;

Larger surgeries often offer wider range of co-located primary services, therefore

providing a wider choice and better access for patients – the national drivers for

change are to provide a wider range of services in a primary care setting;and

Surgeries with a number of GPs are often able to provide additional capacity and can

(at times) absorb some new housing growth. This can be a combination of physical

extension of premises, or more intensive use of existing premises.

4.13 As GP practices accept patients from within an agreed practice boundary, the location of

the proposed developments will impact on some practices more than others, particularly

in more rural areas where the increased demand may fall on only one or two practices.

4.14 NEEPCT suggests a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) should be required for

developments of more than 50 dwellings.

There is a need to make best use of existing capacity

4.15 Overall, though, PCTs believe that there is a need to make use of existing capacity in

order to use resources efficiently.

4.16 NEEPCT’s Estates Strategy 2008-2011 is an implementation strategy, setting out ways to

identify and close gaps in the infrastructure which may affect the capacity and/or

capability of the organisation to deliver the objectives set out in the Five Year Strategic

Plan.

4.17 The Estates Strategy contains a Capital Plan, which outlines designated capital expenses

for the financial years 2008/2009 to 2013/2014. For this period, the plan contains mainly

maintenance activities and works on existing buildings. It also contains the Strategic

Service Development Plan 2007/2008. This is a plan setting out the improvements to the

primary and community health and social care infrastructure for North East Essex.

4.18 A summary of existing capacity is set out in Table 4.1 below.

Capital needs resulting from new growth in Tendring

4.19 The RSS target of 8,500 dwellings would equate to approximately 21,250 new people

(based on a household size of 2.5 people3), and therefore approximately 12 new GPs

would be required in Tendring to 2021. The configuration of this new provision will

3 From ONS mid-year population projections



depend upon a number of factors which will be specific to each growth area, some of

which are set out below:

Location and capacity of existing practices – whether there is capacity for them to

absorb some/all of the growth;

Distance to services for patients – whether the geographic locations of existing

practices are suitable for the new patients;

Workforce availability – recruitment and retention of GPs and supporting staff can

fluctuate;

Relationship to wider strategies and the movement of services, from acute to

community settings for example; and

Cost, including the viability of establishing a small practice and the balance of funding

other priorities at the time of the decision.

4.20 In broad terms, commissioning new practices below around 5,000 patients is unlikely to

be financially viable and the quantum of growth for a new facility would need to exceed

this in order to justify the required infrastructure investment. NEEPCT has a preference

for absorbing growth below this level into existing primary care practices where possible.

4.21 This may mean that the existing premises are no longer viable and a new facility will need

to be considered for the expanding practices. This will have to be judged practice by

practice as capacity needs to be assessed at this individual level.

Current Strategy

4.22 NEEPCT is currently developing its spatial planning for extending or developing new

primary care facilities. At present this is carried out by a combination of direct

commissioning (e.g. through LIFT which is discussed in paragraph 4.29 below) and

applications from GPs.

4.23 NEEPCT has carried out a number of reports, assessments and strategy documents

which are summarised below. However, it does not currently have a detailed 5-year

financial plan, or a longer term assessment of the implications of growth in Tendring.

This is being constructed, alongside revised service delivery strategies, in line with the

East of England Strategic Health Authority World Class Commissioning (WCC)

developments.

Making Healthy Choices – Vision and 5-year Health Strategy 2008-2013 – North East Essex NHS

4.24 The North East Essex NHS’s vision and 5-year health strategy document (2008-13),

entitled Making Healthy Choices, was published in May 2008. It contains nine

commitments for the development of healthcare services. Commitment 6 relates to

improving premises and making them suitable for modern healthcare. The document

explains that a survey of all 44 DP practices and the PCT’s premises has been

undertaken, to inform the PCT’s estates strategy. This document will be superseded by

the new 5 year strategy which the PCT is required to produce as part of the WCC

development but many aspects will remain the same.



4.25 Making Healthy Choices states that the estates strategy will be shaping priorities for the

improvement of healthcare premises which are sub-standard, inadequate in size, or

where local needs can be met in better ways. Making Healthy Choices then states that

consultation with GPs and other healthcare professionals was under way at the time of

the publication of the document. This consultation was particularly concerned with

improving premises in the following locations:

Frinton Road Medical Centre, Holland-on-Sea;

Epping Close Surgery, Great Clacton;

North Road, Great Clacton;

Parsons Heath, Colchester4;

Wivenhoe; and

West Mersea.

4.26 The document states that the Estates Strategy will provide an investment plan to maintain

existing premises and prioritise premises developments for funding decisions. It also states that the design brief for these premises is being developed. It states that the PCT is

also investigating areas where there are insufficient primary care premises, and that the

next tranche of development priorities for future investment will be considered.

Annual Public Health Report and Needs Assessment - North Essex PCT (March 2008)

4.27 NEEPCT’s Annual Public Health Report and Needs Assessment for North Essex contains

an annual assessment of the local health-related needs. The latest available assessment

from March 2008 explains that a number of organisations work in a partnership to set new

targets for improving the health and well-being of the community, as well as health and

social care services. These organisations include The Strategic Health Authority for the

East of England, Essex County Council, and local Councils.

4.28 The document describes a number of health and lifestyle trends in the region, but does

not currently identify specific requirements.

Commissioners' Investment and Asset Management Strategy (CIAMS)

4.29 Arguably the most relevant strategy document to this study is the Commissioners'

Investment and Asset Management Strategy (CIAMS). The CIAMS is a Department of

Health requirement for PCTs to be completed by April 2010. It involves a stock take of

existing premises and then overlaying this information with current need and service

delivery.

4.30 The CIAMS is intended to be future looking to ensure that service reconfiguration and

population needs drive the evidence base for estates rationalisation and configuration for

the future.

4.31 We understand NEEPCT hope to complete the first part of the CIAMS, the estates audit,

by October 2009.

4 We understand Parsons Heath is no longer proceeding and as a result of a public consultation Epping Close will remain autonomous and has been removed from the LIFT programme



Colchester and Tendring LIFT

4.32 The Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) company for Tendring and Colchester is

called Realise Health Ltd. It builds, maintains, operates and owns primary care buildings.

The company is 60% privately owned, with 20% owned by Community Health

Partnerships Ltd (a private company formed by Government to deliver LIFT) and 20%

owned by NEEPCT. The partnership spans 25 years to enable long term benefits to be

gained from the partnership arrangement, both in terms of the transfer of skills and

knowledge, and maintenance of the premises. The Colchester & Tendring 25 year

NEEPCT LIFT agreement began in 2004.

4.33 The LIFT Strategic Service Development Plan 2008/09 – 2013/14 sets out proposed

projects, which are identified below. The first LIFT project was Fryatt Hospital & Mayflower

medical centre in Harwich. The second completed LIFT project was Colchester PCC

completed in 2006.

Colchester Primary Care Centre

4.34 The most recent development by Realise Health Ltd is the new North Colchester Primary

Healthcare Centre on Turner Road in Colchester, which is due to open on 1st June 2009

and can accommodate up to 6,000 patients. This follows the Darzi report which outlined

reforms to improve patients' access to GPs through the creation of 150 extra health

centres in easily-accessible places across the country, open seven days a week from 8am

to 8pm.

Other LIFT developments

4.35 There are currently plans for the following LIFT developments in Tendring:

North Road, Gt Clacton; and

Frinton Road, Holland-on-Sea (currently in negotiation with the Council to purchase

the site in Brighton Road)

4.36 The following LIFT developments in the Colchester catchment may also affect Tendring:

West Mersea (negotiations underway for purchase of land); and

Wivenhoe (negotiations underway for purchase of land)

GP led expansions & relocations

4.37 There are a number of other non-LIFT, GP led potential expansions and relocations in

Tendring. The capital or lease costs of these are still borne by the PCT however, and

proposals must meet the overarching strategic objectives of the PCT.

The largest, in Frinton, near Walton-on-the-Naze, is a proposal for a 8,500 patient health

centre which was recently subject to public consultation; funding for the scheme will be

subject to assessment by the PCT in the summer of 2009. Other applications in Tendring

have been made, but are currently confidential.

Capacity of existing infrastructure

4.38 Based on discussions with NEEPCT, we have summarised the current capacity of the key

areas of Tendring below. It should be noted this is only an approximate “snapshot” in time



and will need to be reviewed on a regular basis. It is also prior to more detailed capacity

consideration which we understand NEEPCT will be carrying out for Part 2 of the study

and will be subject to the findings of NEEPCT’s Commissioners' Investment and Asset

Management Strategy (CIAMS), which will assess current capacity and is due to be

completed next year (see 4.29 above).

Table 4.1 Summary of primary health care capacity in Tendring

Area Capacity Comments

Clacton Reasonable Current capacity is reasonable, but plans

need to be reviewed in light of potential

housing and population growth.

Consequently, this capacity may be

insufficient to accommodate growth.

Harwich Reasonable Primary care centre in Harwich hospital.

Capacity for some growth may be absorbed

into existing primary care practices, but

further provision may be required if

subsequent growth exceeds estimated

population growth.

Walton-on-the-

Naze

Limited Existing capacity is very limited, but new

capacity is subject to approval of the funding

for a new premise at Frinton (see above).

Other options would be developed and

explored with the practice should the

scheme not proceed.

Manningtree Limited Current capacity is limited. Potential

extension of existing practice under

consideration; options would need to be

developed/explored with the practice if the

application for the extension is not

successful

Brightlingsea At capacity Existing modern facility, but no additional

capacity available to accommodate growth

Source: RTP & NEEPCT

Funding

Some mainstream capital funding is available

4.39 Funding for health services is provided to PCTs on a capitation basis, i.e. an amount per

patient. The Trusts are expected to manage their requirements within this. They have a



degree of flexibility in this respect including use of their own capital, realisation of surplus

assets and through various flavours of the PFI.

4.40 The DoH states that part of the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement was a

capital funding increase of 10 per cent in 2008/09, which will support continued growth in

capital investment programmes. Nationally in 2008/09, £400 million is being made

available to fund PCT local capital schemes, with an additional £250 million to fund

national initiatives, such as the community hospitals programme.5 However, there are

expected to be significant constraints on public service funding after 2011 as the country

deals with the ongoing impact of the global recession. This is now being considered

urgently by all public sector bodies, including the NHS, in terms of how it will impact on

current and future investments.

4.41 As explained in paragraph 4.32, there is also a LIFT company in place in Tendring and

Colchester, which can provide capital for some new projects. However, whilst the LIFT

scheme can secure capital funding through the private sector to develop new premises,

the cost of these is borne by the NHS through annual lease payments and hence the

consequences of this revenue must be taken into account as PCTs judge investment

proposals.

4.42 There has always been significant private sector involvement in the creation and capital

funding of new health centres which are then leased to GP practices, with the rent met

from the PCT’s revenue funding within the PCTs budgetary restraints (e.g. development

companies such as Primary Health Properties and Carecapital, together with a number of

specialist investment funds).

4.43 The LIFT company is therefore a procurement option for accommodating future growth

requirements in Tendring, rather than a source of mainstream funding for it. Indeed, using

LIFT may become more difficult for some PCTs in the future as LIFT developments will

have to go on balance sheets next year and will require capital cover. We understand the

Department of Health has only agreed to cover existing assets until 2011. Those PCTs

which have a number of such assets may be the most constrained, although we

understand the LIFT company in Tendring and Colchester is not as stretched as other

PCTs.

Mainstream funding should pay for new capital requirements

4.44 In theory, capitation funding should follow population growth and provide PCTs with the

necessary funds to pay for the new facilities needed. In practice, this is not

straightforward. Firstly, facilities will need to be built in advance of the full realisation of

the population increase, and secondly there will be a subsequent time lag before Health

Service revenue funding catches up with the population growth.

4.45 Changes to the funding allocation mechanism should go some way to address this but will

probably not eradicate it. Neither is it entirely clear that capitation funding responds fully to

the needs of the growth. This was tacitly recognised by Government with a specific

5 DoH (2007) The Operating Framework for the NHS in England 2008/09 (chapter 4)



budget for additional strategic capital investment in the Growth Areas but none for Growth

Points such as Haven Gateway. In any event, the funding made available to the Growth

Areas only amounted to £20 million during the period 2005-6. The result is that NHS

budgets are under pressure in all areas experiencing growth.

PCTs do receive payments for premises, but do not receive specific budget for premises development

4.46 PCTs get funding for GP premises from PCT budget allocations. Funding arrangements

in place at 1st April 2004 (at the time of the new General Medical Services contract)

cannot be rescinded, but PCTs can now negotiate more flexibility in the extent and

duration of new funding commitments. There is no ringfenced funding within PCT

budgets, and all premises costs (existing and new) must come from central PCT

allocations.

4.47 PCTs do not receive a specific budget for new premises developments. Funding for

expansion to the current provision would be at the expense of other competing priorities

and ultimately may not be possible.

4.48 The revenue consequences will be critical to NEEPCT; capital costs are embedded in the

revenue costs attached to new development. Therefore other sources of funding for new

facilities have to be explored. As part of this it is the PCT’s policy is to seek S106

contributions towards healthcare for housing developments.

PCTs have provision in place for small scale premises improvement and extension

4.49 NEEPCT will consider funding small scale improvements and expansion to extend the

range of services they provide where this meets with the overarching strategic objectives

of the PCT.

The approach to capital funding for growth will need to be different in individual cases

4.50 As discussed above, in the case of GP practices only, the PCT pays rent (recurrent

revenue) to the GPs for the use of existing premises and, where funding permits, the PCT

can provide capital and/or recurrent revenue funding for new and expanded premises for

new developments.

4.51 In some instances a form of private finance arrangement exists, where independent

contractor GPs enter into agreements with third party developer companies that specialise

in building Primary Care developments to lease back to the GPs. However, the GPs will

expect this rent to be funded by the PCT and will seek reimbursement assurances prior to

the development proceeding.

Developer funding (Sec.106 agreements)

4.52 NEEPCT does not currently have a developer contribution policy for primary care

premises. We understand it is currently considering the most appropriate way to secure

developer funding for health needs, and is seeking to continue discussions with the

Council and other service providers as part of wider service planning and delivery.



Priorities

4.53 The PCT has identified three key priorities which underpin its healthcare strategy:

Addressing health inequalities;

Mental health; and

Children’s services.

4.54 These priorities do not preclude investment in other services, but are intended to steer

attention into these particularly pressing areas of need. The PCT’s 5 year health strategy

is currently being revised and is due for completion in Autumn 2009, but indications are

that these three key items will remain a high area of priority in future strategy iterations.

4.55 The Tendring area itself has already been identified through the PCT’s health needs

assessment and six facet premises survey as the priority development area. These

assessments were undertaken in 2008 and found that 22% of the PCT’s population is

registered in an area of greatest health need, with the worst premises. This is likely to

effect where NEEPCT funding is directed to meet these needs, and could benefit

Tendring’s ability to accommodate new growth.

4.56 In terms of specific localities, it is likely that the housing development and population

growth in the West Clacton area will be a priority development, as capacity in the vicinity

of that area is unlikely to be able to absorb the additional people requiring primary care

services.

Timing of provision

4.57 As set out above, West Clacton is a key priority in terms of need, and if allocations are

made there and development plans are taken forward, this is likely to need to be delivered

early on.

4.58 The PCT is therefore already in discussions with the Council and the developer of the first

phase to address this issue. The wider Clacton area capacity needs will follow, to ensure

that any proposals for new services fit into a wider ranging plan. Two LIFT schemes are

already underway in Great Clacton and Holland-on-Sea, and these will be factored in to

the locality planning process.

Key issues & conclusions

4.59 The key issues and conclusions for primary health care requirements and funding to

respond to housing growth in Tendring are:

Funding for larger facilities in areas of potential high growth – both Clacton and

Harwich have potential for significant development. As set out above, it may not be

viable to commission a new facility where the increased population from housing

growth is less than 5,000 people (without additional government or developer

contribution funding). Consequently, the actual level of growth in these respective

areas could be a key determinant as to whether NEEPCT can provide the necessary

new facilities that will almost certainly be needed. Where it is found that the

additional primary care capacity cannot be found within local existing practices, then

additional facilities or a new practice may need to be considered even where this is



below the expected lower list size – the PCT is duty bound to commission sufficient

capacity for its population so all options must be explored;

Ability of GPs to absorb capacity where limited development could be located to

accommodate new patients – this won’t be known until the capacity of individual

surgeries is assessed. Assessment will focus on physical capacity, as well as

workforce and recruitment issues;

Capacity created by current applications for extended/new facilities– although Table

4.1 shows there is reasonable capacity in primary care facilities in Tendring, much of

this is dependent on the success of applications by GPs to extend or relocate existing

premises. All new investments are expected to demonstrate a match to the strategic

plans of the PCT and expected population changes – where this is the case, then

these provider led schemes may be considered for funding. Priority will be given to

schemes which address the priority development areas above;

Patient choice –Where possible, patients will be offered a choice of GP practice.

However, in rural areas or areas of low density population this is not always possible.

GP practices in such areas are encouraged to provide as much service choice to

patients as possible, such as gender of the GP, locally based services, etc but there

are sometimes constraints which limit the possible choices available. The PCT works

closely with patient groups and GP practices to address these issues as far as it is

practical to do so;

Movement of services from acute hospital settings to the community. The PCT is

committed to providing services closer to where patients live whenever it is practical to

do so. There will be limitations on this, such as workforce availability, cost of some

specialist equipment, and maintaining the skill level of staff providing highly specialist

treatments. The PCT strategy will set out some of the services which will move to

community settings, including some diagnostic and surgical services, and the

infrastructure requirements will be recognised within any premises development

plans;

Changes to the location and/or delivery of services. Services are increasingly being

delivered at times to suit patients’ changing lifestyles, including early or late sessions

and weekends. All new facilities will have lock down areas to enable the premises to

be open out of normal hours without the need for full staffing. One or two members of

staff will be able to work safely (in line with the PCT’s lone worker policy) and have

access to the facilities they need without needing to leave secure staff areas.

Security and IT systems are similarly geared towards these new ways of working,

which will become increasingly common in the coming years; and

Shared facilities. The PCT is keen to work with partners, through the auspices of the

Strategic Partnering Board, to explore the possibility of shared facilities. Evidence

shows that these are best developed on the basis of service, rather than premises,

needs. Work will continue to explore this potential.



5 EMERGENCY SERVICES

Police

5.1 The Essex Police Authority is an independent organisation whose purpose is to support

and oversee the work of Essex Police. The Police Authority currently comprises nine

councillors, three magistrates and five independent members, but from 1st October 2008

this will become nine councillors and eight independent members, though at least one

independent member must be a magistrate. The functions of the Authority are to:

Ensure Essex has an efficient and effective Police Force;

Obtain the views of the general public as to the kind of Police Service it wishes to see;

Approve the annual budget;

Appoint Chief Police Officers;

Ensure the provision of a continuously improving service by Essex Police;

Act as a responsible authority on Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs);

Maintain a statutory scheme for independent custody visiting;

Ensure Essex Police cooperates with other forces where such cooperation would

be efficient or effective to do so; and

Promote equality and diversity within Essex Police.

Key Policy Documents

Essex Police Authority and Essex Police – Strategy 2008-2011 and Plan 2008-2009

5.2 This document aims to set a clear direction for the policing of Essex, and provides a

framework for the annual plan. In terms of capital investment, it makes the following three

points:

The annual capital grant for 2008/2009 and subsequent financial years will be £3.2 m;

Capital requirements for the next three years have been identified, totalling £42.4 m.

These payments will be phased over three years to 2010/2011; and

In addition to Government Capital Grant, further capital resources will be found from

existing reserves and the sale of existing assets.

5.3 The Strategy also includes some planned budget reductions, as part of the Operation

Austin programme being run by the Police. As part of this programme, full year savings of

£4.4m have been identified towards the 2008/2009 budget, as of 31st December 2007.

The 2008/2009 budget contains total savings of £5.2m, states the strategy. In addition,

the strategy states that the Austin Programme has a target of £6.0m by 31st of March

2009, in line with the published police year plan.

Essex Police Authority Business Plan 2008-2011

5.4 This Plan contains a budget for financial years 2008/2009 to 2010/2011. For 2008/2009,

the overall revenue budget for the Police Authority is £251m, with a capital programme of

£18m.



Capacity of Existing Infrastructure

5.5 The existing facilities are sufficient to serve the needs of the Police force at present in

Tendring.

Needs

5.6 No new build facilities are required, but additional officers and police vehicles are needed.

In terms of officers, there is a need in all areas for sergeants, constables and Police

Community Support Officers (PCSOs) in all areas. The overall assessed impact of

providing for each of the LDF options being tested is as follows:

Clacton – low resourcing impact;

Tendring – medium resourcing impact;

Harwich – medium/high resourcing impact; and

Manningtree/Mistley – high resourcing impact

5.7 The consideration of what constitutes a ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’ resourcing impact is a

judgement made by the Essex Police Authority.

5.8 In addition, a need for one additional police vehicle for each area has been identified.

Costs

5.9 ACPO in the Eastern Region has undertaken an assessment of the one-off capital cost of

providing an additional officer - £8,136. The table below shows the assessed overall cost

of providing the numbers of additional officers that would be required to police the

additional growth in each location. So, for Clacton for example, the total additional cost of

£81,360 is to provide 10 additional officers (1 sergeant, 6 constables and 3 PCSOs).

Table 5.1 Cost of providing additional officers by location

Area Sergeants Constables PCSOs Total

Cost per officer (£8,136)

Clacton £8,136 £48,816 £24,408 £81,360

Tendring Rural (St Osyth, Elmstead Market, Frinton/Walton. Includes Little Clacton, Bentley, Thorpe-le-Soken; Alresford and Brightlingsea)

£8,136 £32,544 £32,544 £73,224

Harwich £8,136 £56,952 £16,272 £81,360

Manningtree &Mistley (includes Ardleigh)

£8,136 £24,408 £16,272 £48,816

Total £284,760

Source: ACPO Eastern Region (2006) Policing Contributions from Development Schemes



5.10 This shows that, for all of the options in aggregate, there would be a total cost of provision

of £285,000. By option, this varies from £48,800 for Manningtree/Mistley to £81,400 for

Clacton or Harwich.

5.11 The cost of a fully equipped new police vehicle has been estimated at £50,000. Therefore,

there would be an additional £50,000 cost per growth option.

Funding

5.12 Essex Police is revenue funded by a mixture of Central Government and local

government funding, with the former only intended to cover national projects. It is

assumed that the Police will effectively fund its capital requirements out of its revenue

budget either by saving, borrowing or renting.

5.13 At a national level, a formula is currently being put together to justify a charge on

development. This has been commissioned by the Association of Chief Police Officers

and the Association of Police Authorities and the intention is to roll this out nationally. It is

likely to be adopted nationally later in 2009. The formula is based on needs being

population, not housing, driven. It reflects the fact that not all occupants of new housing

are new to an area so it discounts the population in new housing to reflect the fact that

many occupants will be in-migrants.

5.14 This formula is, as yet, still in draft and there are several issues that would need to be

reviewed to ensure that it is consistent with the information used by other service

providers. However, the recommendation is that planning contributions are assumed to

have to meet the full cost of growth needs. This is because the capital needs of the Police

are comparatively small and also because the pressure on local authority capital budgets

is likely to become increasingly severe.

Priorities

5.15 No particular priorities have been identified.

Timing of provision

5.16 It is critical that new or enhanced police facilities are provided early on as local police

need to be able to build relationships with expanded or new communities from the outset,

and to react to the need for police services, demand for which will typically commence as

soon as growth starts.

Issues

5.17 No particular issues have been identified. However, it will be important to understand

further the Police’s new contributions policy, and in particular, the demographic

assumptions that underpin it.

Fire Service

5.18 The Essex Fire Authority was formed on April 1st 1998 by virtue of the Local Government

Act 1992. Essex County Fire and Rescue Service (ECFRS), which serves Tendring

district, is directly responsible to the Essex Fire Authority.




Essex Fire Service Budget 2008/2009

5.19 This document states that the budget for capital payments for 2008/2009 has been set at

£10.870m.The greatest part of this budget are the capital financing costs associated with

the development of a new headquarters and a new fire station at Rayleigh Weir. The

provisional figures for the 2009/10 and 2010/11 programmes are £16.681m and

£15.441m.


5.20 There is no current spare capacity within the existing service covering Tendring district.

However, neither was it reported that the service is over-capacity.

Needs

5.21 Under almost all growth scenarios, there would be no foreseen change to current

resource deployment. Only the options in Harwich/Dovercourt would possible require a

change in the current staffing model at Dovercourt Fire Station, as part of ECFRS’s

Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP). However, this is unlikely to require any new

capital expenditure.

Costs

5.22 No specific costs have been identified that would arise from growth.

Funding

5.23 ECFRS mainstream funding comes from a combination of grants from Central

Government and precept from Essex County Council via council tax. These are

constrained by Government Comprehensive Spending Review (three-year plan) and

Government capping on local authorities. In addition to normal capital funding

arrangements, ECFRS will, if necessary, continue to explore opportunities through

partnership working and PFI.

5.24 However, in light of the zero cost figure identified, funding is not an issue.

Priorities

5.25 There are no priorities identified.

Timing of Provision

5.26 There are no issues related to the ECFRS in respect of the timing of growth.

Issues

5.27 There are no particular issues.

Ambulance

5.28 The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EEAST) provides emergency and

unscheduled care and patient transport services in Tendring. The EEAST was formed on

1 July 2006 by the amalgamation of the former Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance

and Paramedic Service NHS Trust, the East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust and the



Essex Ambulance NHS Trust. The new Trust is, geographically, the second largest in

England, employing about 4,000 people (as at July 2007) with more than 2,000 volunteers

working in community response schemes and as non-emergency drivers.

5.29 The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust is required to reach 75% of all life

threatening emergencies within 8 minutes. This target is now measured from the time the

Trust receives the call to arrival on scene.

5.30 The Trust’s main objectives are to:

meet these mandatory standards in service delivery;

deliver current priorities such as Call Connect and the new digital radio and despatch

systems;

begin work on projects to deliver the vision, particularly the technical preparation for

building a knowledge management system and reshaping HEOCs to move to the

emergency and urgent care assessment centre concept; and

prepare the organisation to apply for Foundation Trust status.

5.31 EEAST has service level agreements with the PCTs, specifically in respect of Accident

and Emergency.


Strategic Direction (2007-12)

5.32 The future issues and direction for EEAST is set out in its “Strategic Direction” (2007-12)

document.

5.33 The Trust anticipates that the five-year period covered by this Strategic Direction

document will see “a major shift in the pattern of demand for services”.

5.34 The shift will be driven by “radical changes in the way that different types of emergency

and urgent calls are classified, how they are commissioned, the need to place the patient

at the centre of determining how services are delivered, and a focus on clinical evidence

of patient outcomes, as opposed to target response times, as the key measure of

performance”.

5.35 The ambulance service is therefore demand driven, as opposed to purely population

driven. EEAST is already experiencing a 6% a year increase in calls, which has doubled

since 1992/93; partly driven by changing public attitudes to using the 999 service, an

ageing population profile and increased resources being allocated to emergency

capability.

5.36 These challenges are resulting in consideration of major changes to the delivery of the

ambulance service, which could result in a more flexible “hub and spoke” approach, with

operational staff not assigned to a single centre and only going there as required (e.g. for

training). This could reduce the number of command centres and therefore its property

portfolio.



5.37 In terms of specific requirements relating to housing and jobs growth, we understand no

studies or strategies have been completed to date. Indeed, some more detailed physical

planning relating to new development has been frozen due to the abrupt slow down in

housing development.


5.38 EEAST is currently undertaking a regional review of facilities. While this is intended as an

internal document, we understand EEAST could circulate this to external stakeholders,

such as local authorities and the PCTs.

5.39 EEAST has the following stations in Tendring:

Harwich

Frinton

Clacton

Weeley

5.40 We understand that EEAST generally has difficulty in achieving mandatory national

response time requirements in Tendring because of:

Relatively old stations not now located in optimal locations

Lack of resources at stations

Constraints of the road network

Limited “dynamic deployment” facilities (see 5.45 below)

Pressure on services from Clacton and Frinton stations

5.41 We further understand that Clacton and Frinton are the stations currently under most

pressure, with Weeley also under a significant amount of pressure. All areas served by

these stations therefore have no additional capacity to accommodate any increased

demand for services as a result of new development.

5.42 In particular, there is no station in Brightlingsea; the closest are in Greenstead (east of

Colchester) and then Clacton. Consequently, EEAST struggles to meet response times to

this area and therefore any additional growth would need to be carefully considered on

the basis of current capacity. There is a similar situation in Manningtree/Lawford/Mistley

although the problem is not quite as significant as in Brightlingsea.

Some potential capacity at Harwich station

5.43 We understand the ambulance station in Harwich is likely to be able to cope with

additional growth up to the potential level identified through the call for sites. Additional

resources (including staff and potentially vehicles) would be required in this instance.

Needs

Dynamic Deployment to be introduced more widely

5.44 EEAST is hoping to deliver more of a “hub and spoke” service arrangement in Tendring

over the next 5-10 years to meet demand from the existing population.

5.45 This is part of a “dynamic deployment” approach to improve patient care and response

times through the placement of resources in areas of predicted high demand. Dynamic



deployment is the pre-positioning of resources rather than the activation or mobilisation of

resources to calls. In simple terms, it is about where staff work from during the course of

their shifts.

5.46 The identified locations in this respect are currently identified as:

Traditional ambulance stations (the “hubs”);

Response posts – smaller 24/7 buildings for staff (a “spoke”);

Dynamic activation (or stand by) points – limited or no facilities, but can be a better

location to meet predicted demand (a “spoke”); and

Temporary holding areas

5.47 Demand profiles are analysed by geographical areas and resources matched wherever

possible to the predicted demand. This demand fluctuates depending on time of day, day

of the week and seasonal variations within the year.

Expansion of some facilities, consolidation of others

5.48 As stated above, Tendring does not currently have any response posts or dynamic

activation posts. Consequently, some of these are likely to be introduced in the future.

5.49 However, EEAST is currently considering the consolidation or relocation of some of the

existing ambulance stations. In particular, EEAST would like to co-locate the Weeley and

Clacton stations.

5.50 If there were significant growth in West Clacton, this could be an appropriate location for

such a facility, with a response post or DAP located in Clacton town centre. This would

also potentially improve EEAST’s service to Brightlingsea.

Funding

5.51 EEAST is funded largely by the PCTs, with some additional charitable donations. This

funding is tied to the service level agreements, and is driven more by demand than

housing numbers. For more information on the funding of PCT’s, please refer to the

health section.

5.52 There is, however, often a funding “time lag” where mainstream funding is not provided in

advance or at the same time as step changes in demand, such as through significant new

development. We often reflect this as a need for other funding sources, the annualised

equivalent of the capital costs of the required facilities for three years.

5.53 Where facilities are co-located or relocated, the sale of the existing asset(s) can be used

to fund new facilities. We understand this has not been considered in detail at this stage,

although this may be carried out as a more detailed exercise following the completion of

the regional review of facilities (see above).

5.54 EEAST may seek to secure contributions from development to help fund any shortfall in

new facilities where significant additional demand is created that cannot be adequately

met by current facilities, particularly in Clacton and Frinton.



Priorities

5.55 As stated above, EEASTs priorities are to introduce more dynamic deployment

capabilities in Tendring, and consolidate and/or relocate existing stations that are dated or

not in an optimal location and therefore under pressure to deliver a quality service.

Timing of Provision

5.56 Any significant growth in the Clacton and Frinton areas may require the early provision of

a new station, or introduction of other dynamic deployment facilities.

Issues

5.57 There are no further issues in addition to those identified above.



6 EDUCATION

Introduction

6.1 Education services in Tendring are largely delivered by Essex County Council (ECC).

This section seeks to simplify what is a very complicated subject, based on information

provided by the County Council and our own research.

Our remit

6.2 We have included the following education services within our assessment:

Early Years;

Primary Education;

Secondary Education; and

Post-16 Education / Further Education (FE).

6.3 Only further education is principally provided by the private sector.

Infrastructure Need

Infrastructure requirements are guided by demographic change and shifting demand/supply

6.4 Overall demand for education will be affected by both the quantum and location of new

school aged pupils associated with housing growth, but also changes in the quantum and

location of the current population.

6.5 How this translates into actual infrastructure requirements for education will also be

affected by the quantum and location of existing school capacity. Understanding this

demand and supply equation spatially is critical to assessing education requirements.

Education is now part of a wider approach to children’s services

6.6 It is also important to consider education as part of a wider Children’s Service offer. The

Every Child Matters White Paper and the Children Act 2004 focused on providing a joined

up approach to Children’s services. There are a large number of changes affecting the

delivery of children’s education service delivery, including greater parental choice, the

move to transfer post 16 education funding from Learning and Skills Councils to local

authorities in March 2010, the creation of Children’s Centres, Sure Start programmes,

Extended School provision, the creation of Academies, Voluntary Aided Schools, and

delivery and roll out of programmes such as Building Schools for the Future to help

rebuild or refurbish existing schools.

‘Strategies for Change’ will have a major impact on the future provision of education infrastructure

6.7 There is a process in place aimed at taking a longer term, joined-up look at primary,

secondary and in some instances FE provision, based on forecast population growth,

needs of the community and business in order to provide the best service to the

community. This is being channelled through the preparation of Strategies for Change.



This will involve the merging of various funding programmes to create a holistic delivery

programme for a modernised school infrastructure.

6.8 ECC has completed Parts I and II of its “Strategies for Change”.

There is a need to make best use of existing capacity

6.9 ECC recognises that there is a need to make use of existing capacity in schools in order

to use resources efficiently.

6.10 ECC produces the Essex Schools Organisation Plan (the Organisation Plan) each year.

This is not a statutory requirement following the need for a Children & Young Persons

Plan (C & YP Plan). However, ECC still view the Organisation Plan as a key document,

but that it is not appropriate to include this in the higher level C & YP Plan.

6.11 The Organisation Plan sets out the requirement for places in maintained primary and

secondary schools over a five year period, and identifies the areas where providers will

need to match supply more closely with demand. It provides the context for the future

organisation of school places in Essex and sets out the principles that need to be given

serious consideration when planning school places.

6.12 In doing so, the Organisation Plan reflects the Local Authority’s changing role as it moves

from being a provider to a strategic commissioner of school places. The last published

plan was for the period 2007-12, although the 2008-13 plan is set to be published shortly.

Constantly evolving and changing requirements

6.13 Any education plans or infrastructure requirements could be subject to considerable

alteration over the next few years as the investment and provision in education is

expected to undergo major changes. Therefore it will be essential to keep this information

under constant review and updated regularly.

Current Strategy

6.14 The Organisation Plan is the key education document relevant to this study. Not only

does it consider key county wide objectives such as the appropriate size of schools,

remedies for a surplus or shortage of spaces and admission arrangements, it also looks at

the demand/supply of spaces up to 2012 in each individual area.

Planning for housing growth not yet undertaken

6.15 At present the plan is unable to consider the impact of housing growth but in the event of

the Tendring Local Development Framework making provision for additional housing in

the area, a further review of places is recognised as necessary. ECC prefers to undertake

full scenario testing to influence the spatial strategy adopted and provide a firm footing for

its long term service planning.



Childcare

6.16 The Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2008 (Essex County Council Directorate of

Schools, Children and Families) sets out the assessment of sufficiency regarding the

supply of childcare and parental demand for childcare within Essex. This identifies

perceived unmet need and barriers to take-up identified through parental surveys.

6.17 Its aim is to identify gaps and establish plans to ensure the provision of high quality,

accessible and affordable childcare. The report provides a detailed picture of each district,

enabling the planning of services to take place, together with relevant partners and

childcare providers. In terms of Tendring, this report provides a picture of current services

that are available, and use levels.

6.18 The 2008 assessment for Tendring District identifies gaps in childcare provisions by

geographical area. In Mistley a gap in the provision of flexible childcare options has been

identified. The assessment proposes that a pre-school be developed in the area, together

with a local childminding network.

6.19 Another area where a ‘physical’ gap has been identified is Walton and Frinton. There is a

lack of out-of-school provision, which is proposed to be dealt with through working with

potential providers of out-of-school provision, and the establishment of an all year round

services in the area.

Building schools for the future

6.20 The government’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme seeks to rebuild and

renew secondary schools and the Primary Capital Programme seeks to provide

substantial new investment in primary schools.

6.21 Local authorities are being encouraged to consider from first principles what secondary

school buildings are needed, where they should be located and what facilities they should

have, including their potential development as extended schools. BSF is likely to have a

major impact on the pattern of secondary provision across the county, but it is a long-term

initiative, extending from 2005/6 to at least 2020, subject to continuing political support

beyond the next Comprehensive Spending Review (see para 6.42).

6.22 The indicative programme allocated to Essex anticipates a start in the south of the county

during the period 2008 to 2011, for the west 2011 to 2014 and for central and north Essex

2017 to 2020. An announcement on the start date for the south of the county was made in

December 2006 and Essex formally joined the BSF programme in February 2007.

6.23 The latest Essex Schools Organisation Plan (2007-12) anticipates that the procurement of

a private sector partner to form the Local Education Partnership (LEP) will commence

early in 2008 and this should take around 18-20 month, with building works should

commence on schools in the south of the county in the spring of 2010.

6.24 The 2008 summary progress of the Essex Children and Young People’s Plan (CYPSP)

2006 states that the current Building Schools for the Future programme brings a funding

package of approximately £350 million to cover the construction of 22 secondary schools,

6 special schools and 2 Pupil Referral Units.



6.25 The outline business case for Wave 4 was approved in November 2008, which includes

the Shorefields Special School in Clacton.


6.26 As set out in 6.10, the Essex Schools Organisation Plan assesses the demand and supply

for education in the County, and by district. The 2007 projections (up to 2012) for primary

and secondary schools are set out below:

Table 6.1 Tendring District Primary Schools (2007-2012)

Table 6.2 Tendring District Secondary Schools (2007-2012)

Primary & secondary schools currently have capacity

6.27 Overall, there is anticipated to be an increased surplus in primary and secondary school

places in Tendring up to 2012, even with additional housing.

Rural areas have surplus but pressure in Harwich

6.28 The Organisation Plan comments that some primary schools in rural areas are identified

as having a number of surplus places. It also states that whilst the removal of permanent

accommodation from rural primary schools remains difficult, the situation will be closely

monitored with a view to removing more surplus accommodation in the future.

6.29 The latest plan has not assumed growth in primary school pupil numbers in Clacton due

to inward migration, which had been a previous theme. However, it comments that large

housing developments have taken place in the Harwich area, which has led to pressure

on school places but where appropriate additional accommodation has been put in place.

ECC preliminary assessment of potential education capacity & requirements in Tendring

6.30 ECC has provided an assessment of education capacity and requirements for each of the

potential development sites from the Council’s call for sites.

6.31 Capacity can either be in the form of existing school places or an ability to expand or

improve an existing school. A summary of this is set out in Table 6.2 below.

Actual

2007 2012 2007 20122012 with

housing2007 2012

2012 with

housing

10,800 10,678 9,836 8,603 9,002 964 2,075 1,676

Source: Essex County Council

Forecast

Number on rollCapacity of Schools Surplus/Deficit

Actual

2007 2012 2007 20122012 with

housing2007 2012

2012 with

housing

9,571 9,717 8,928 8,254 8,577 643 1,463 1,140

Source: Essex County Council

Capacity of SchoolsNumber on roll

Surplus/DeficitForecast



6.32 A key school with potential existing physical capacity is the new Clacton Coastal

Academy. This is effectively a merger of the existing Bishops Park College and Colbayns

High School, and opened in September 2009. We understand Bishops Park College was

built using PFI in anticipation of housing growth in the area. As this growth has been

limited, there is significant existing physical capacity. However, some of the school

buildings are likely to be decommissioned in the short term as it is unlikely this capacity

will be needed. We therefore understand the new Academy would have fewer places

than the two existing schools but would retain a degree of flexibility to expand and

accommodate demand from new development in the future. This could provide critical

capacity for development in and around Clacton, if decommissioned buildings can be cost

effectively brought back into use, thereby potentially negating the need for new schools or

school buildings.

6.33 Our analysis has assumed this is provided before development, although we understand

a decision from the government is expected in August. We therefore suggest the

assessment of education capacity and need in the Clacton areas is reviewed when this

decision is made, and the design for the school is monitored closely.

6.34 Two other existing secondary schools that will be critical to accommodate growth are

Tendring Technology College and Colne Community School. Both would only require

limited expansion based on the numbers tested. Bussing pupils to these schools from the

more remote locations considered, and the impacts of additional traffic from parents

driving longer distances, would be opposed by ECC.

Funding

Schools Capital Allocations Funding

6.35 Funding for education is a complex picture, with numerous mainstream sources available

to the service provider (in this case Essex County Council). The bulk of schools’ capital

funding is allocated by formula to education authorities by central Government in line with

the national spending review. Thus the published information for this study relates to the

period from 2008 to 2011. This funding is provided in the form of a grant or as supported

borrowing.

6.36 The main sources of capital funding for the purpose of this study are made up of Basic

Needs Funding, Modernisation Funding and Building Schools for the Future Funding.

Basic Needs Funding

6.37 Basic Needs Funding (BNF) is a capital allocation for building investment based on

forecast population growth using a national formula (adjusted for area differentials). It

therefore responds to a situation in which there is a need for additional school places

aggregated over the entire area covered by an education authority. This aggregation

means that any funding anticipated in growth areas is reduced if numbers on roll are

falling elsewhere. The County has been allocated £51,422,101 for the period 2008/9 to

2010/11.



Modernisation Funding

6.38 This capital funding is available to support building programmes for new or refurbishment

of existing provision and is not intended to meet the growth agenda. The current 2008 –

2011 Capital Allocation is £43,764,695.The County Council Capital Programmes team are

currently completing a new ‘suitability assessment’ that will set priorities for this funding.

We understand it is unlikely any funding will be available for helping to fund new or

expanded schools to accommodate housing growth.

Local Authority Coordinated Voluntary Aided Programme (LCVAP)

6.39 LCVAP is a formulaic programme where the local authority and its partners (usually the

associated dioceses) allocate DCSF funding in line with local needs and priorities for

Voluntary Aided (VA) schools. A project can be phased over several years. Governing

bodies must contribute 10 per cent of the LCVAP project costs.

Building Schools for the Future / Secondary School Funding

6.40 As discussed above, Building Schools for the Future (BSF) is aimed at providing a new

approach to capital investment. It is bringing together significant investment (circa £45bn

nationally) in buildings and in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) over the

coming years to support educational reform. It will be used for replacing and renewing the

existing school stock and funded through the PFI mechanism.

6.41 Generally speaking the sums available have been adequate for these purposes, although

many education authorities claim that the need to demonstrate value for money in PFI

bids makes it difficult to meet the highest standards of provision. Some local authorities

also object to the alleged use by DCSF of BSF to promote Academy schools.

6.42 This focus has restricted the possible application of the BSF to finance the growth

agenda. However the last Comprehensive Spending Review (2007) stated that DCSF

would be looking at the ways in which their capital programmes responded to the growth

agenda and that this review would include Building Schools for the Future Wave 7. In the

future, the rules governing new investment in schools might be more supportive of the

growth agenda than hitherto. Conversely, there is no Government commitment to fund

the BSF programme beyond the duration of the current spending review.

6.43 There is also no indication of when each of the remaining areas in the county will receive

funding. The process by which areas have been identified as areas which will receive

funding has recently changed and there could be further future changes. The level of

funding provided through BSF does not cover the full costs of new provision for marginal

additional pupils. On the PfS funding formula, additional pupils generate 75% of the costs

of new additional provision.

Primary Capital Programme

6.44 The Primary Capital Programme (often inaccurately referred to as BSF for primary

schools) is part of the strategic programme by the government to put more focus on

primary education. Because this is a relatively new focus of attention there is a more

explicit focus on new and universal provision.



6.45 The County has been allocated £30,164,384 for the period 2008/9 to 2010/11. As this is a

relatively new funding stream, it is difficult to evaluate its effectiveness in the context of

existing and emerging needs.

Developer Contributions

6.46 Developer contributions are relied upon to fund new schools and provide the land for the

development. Developer contributions will remain a major source of funding but will be

competing in a climate for limited resources to fund other social and community provision.

6.47 We are aware Essex County Council has a policy on developer contributions, which is set

out in its Developer Contributions Guide.

Conclusions on Education funding

6.48 Although there are numerous mainstream funding sources for education provision, in

reality there is no specific funding (other than discretionary sources such as growth area

funding) for requirements related to housing growth.

6.49 The main funding source, Basic Needs Funding, makes no allowance for a situation in

which there is a need for spaces in one part of an education authority area offset by a

reduction in the number of spaces required in another part. Usually, the proceeds of

selling a surplus school only make a small contribution to the cost of constructing a new

one elsewhere. In any event, these receipts will diminish if planning contributions

increase.

6.50 Consequently, dealing with demographic shifts in the existing population from mainstream

funding sources and existing assets is already a major challenge for education authorities.

6.51 It is therefore likely that developer contribution funding will be required to fund a

significant proportion of any new education requirements resulting from new housing

development in Tendring.

Issues

6.52 Based on our experience elsewhere, education is likely to be, after transport, the second

highest infrastructure cost as a result of housing growth in Tendring.

6.53 Given the complex nature of spatial demand and supply for school places, in addition to

education funding, understanding the key issues is critical to helping shape a spatial

strategy for housing growth in Tendring.

6.54 Based on our conversations with ECC, the above information and our general experience

of education infrastructure, we have summarised the general education issues in

Tendring below:

The importance of existing capacity – there is existing school place capacity in some

areas of Tendring, but not necessarily in the right places or sufficient to accommodate

all the new potential housing growth in an area;

Constraints on using existing capacity - the County Council is required to provide

school transport to any child that would need to walk in excess of two miles up to the

age of eight or three miles for older children, using a safe route. Unless balanced by

better utilisation of existing school places, developments that do not meet these



criteria should be avoided. ‘Tolerable’ walking distances may of course be lower than

these thresholds and opposed on sustainability grounds. The quality of walking and

cycling routes to schools and potential improvements to them must be considered;

Achieving critical mass from development – justifying new schools requires sufficient

demand for new school places. Developments of 200 – 600 dwellings in an area are

often difficult to provide for, being too small to justify a new primary school but too

large to integrate into existing provision;

Risk of underestimating impacts from urban “infill” development – although this

development may be more difficult to identify, provision in an area should not just rely

on the implications of the large greenfield sites. Urban infill sites can change an

education strategy, so should be accounted for as far as possible at the start; and

Availability of developer contributions to cover new requirements – there is likely to be

limited, if any, mainstream funding for new or extended education facilities.

Consequently, securing sufficient developer contributions to be spent in the right

areas will be critical to ensuring the delivery of the necessary future education

requirements resulting from new housing growth in Tendring.

Key risk areas

6.55 In some areas there is currently either no solution or a potentially undesirable solution

(such as provision of a new school where there would be insufficient critical mass of new

pupils) to the levels of potential growth. Other education ‘show-stoppers’ are likely to

emerge once infill development and combinations of site are considered. At this stage,

most of the significant issues appear to relate to primary school provision, except for

secondary school provision in Parkeston/Bathside. Early Years and childcare needs have

not been included below as facilities are generally smaller and, as a result, easier to

establish:

Frinton (impact of 100 additional dwellings) - Frinton Primary would not have sufficient

capacity to take the number of additional pupils without displacing children living in

areas that currently have a reasonable expectation of entry to the school. In order to

maintain single age teaching groups it would be undesirable to expand the school.

Rolls are falling in the area and places may be found at Kirby Primary, although

development in Kirby may require these places;

Kirby Cross (500 dwellings) – the only solution would be to either secure some

adjoining land for Kirby Primary School or move the school to a larger site on the new

development;

Elmstead Market (200 dwellings) - Elmstead Primary is full and does not have site

area to expand. There are no alternative schools within safe walking distance. The

town relies upon school transport to secondary provision;

Great Bentley (200 dwellings) - Great Bentley Primary is full and does not have site

area to expand. There are no alternative schools within safe walking distance. The

village relies upon school transport to secondary provision;

Thorpe-le-Soken (200 dwellings) - Rolph CE Primary could, with an additional

permanent classbase, accommodate around half this level of development. There are

no alternative suitable schools within walking distance to accommodate the balance;



Mistley (600 dwellings) - The precise location of these homes would be key to finding

a solution to the lack of primary capacity in the area, as a single development of 600

dwellings would not quite sustain a new school. Limited surplus capacity at Highfields

and Lawford CE Primaries could be utilised and Mistley Norman could potentially be

expanded. The ‘wrong’ number of homes in the priority admissions area of any one of

the three schools could prove very disruptive to current admission patterns;

Harwich (600 dwellings) - This on its own is not sufficient to justify a new primary

school, yet potentially too large to easily accommodate through expansion of existing

schools. A new primary school in this case may only be justifiable if further urban infill

development creates additional demand. If a new primary school is needed as a

result of development, this creates potential opportunity for urban infill development to

use school without putting pressure on existing schools;

Parkeston/Bathside (3,150 dwellings) - In the absence of other development within its

priority admissions area, a little less than half of this number of homes could be

accommodated within existing capacity at The Harwich (Secondary) School.

Expansion to 1,800 places may be possible given the school’s site area, but this

would be tight and may still not quite accommodate the number of pupils that would

require a place.

Summary of capacity and requirements

6.56 We have identified where existing capacity in school places is available, capacity to

expand or improve an existing school or where new provision is required to accommodate

the potential growth in different areas of Tendring below.

6.57 The following should be noted:

This information has largely been provided by ECC; it has been prepared on the basis

that this stage of the study is ‘a filtering exercise’, with full impacts being considered

as sites (and feasible combinations of sites) are clarified;

ECC was therefore instructed to consider each site in isolation and without accounting

for infill sites that may have or gain planning permission;

ECC point out that once details of site allocations to deliver growth are known and

tested a significantly different picture from the one below may emerge;

If the level of housing growth in an area is lowered, this may affect the proposed

solution for accommodating these additional pupils;

Where capacity for expansion/improvement has been identified, full feasibility studies

will be required to confirm this is possible and acceptable (approximately six month

process); and

Finally, the table should be read in conjunction with Appendix 2 for additional

information and the key risk areas set out in 6.55 above.

6.58 Where there is existing capacity of school places, this would represent a potentially zero

cost solution to accommodating housing growth. Although new provision represents a

higher cost than expansion/improvement, this is not necessarily a higher cost solution on

the basis of costs per pupil (or new house).

6.59 For example, half the new requirement for school places in West Clacton (based on 3,400

dwellings) could be accommodated utilising, and where appropriate expanding existing



primary schools. Consequently, the new requirement would only be for a single two-form

entry school on this basis.

Table 6.2 Summary of potential education solutions to accommodating tested housing growth6

6 These solutions are dependent on the dwelling numbers tested (see Appendix 2). Areas where no potential solution has been identified are not shown.

Potential Use of Existing for

Growth Needs

Potential Expansion of

Existing for Growth Needs

Potential New for Growth

Needs(subject to needs of existing population) (subject to feasibility studies) (subject to suitable land)

Clacton Town Centre Frinton West & Little Clacton

Brightlingsea urban area Great Clacton & Holland-on-Sea

Elmstead Market Harwich*

Alresford Dovercourt*

Thorpe-le-Soken Parkeston/ Bathside

Colchester Fringe

Walton*

Kirby Cross

Brightlingsea Waterside Area*

Mistley

Great Bentley*

St Osyth

Clacton Town (assuming no additional urban infill)

Great Clacton, Little Clacton & Holland-on-Sea

West Clacton

Dovercourt Walton Harwich*

St.Osyth Brightlingsea Waterside & Urban Areas

Parkeston/ Bathside

Mistley Colchester Fringe

Alresford

Dovercourt Clacton areas, Holland-on-Sea & St.Osyth**

Colchester Fringe * (if linked with Colchester North Growth Area)

Brightlingsea urban area Parkeston/ Bathside (key risk area and therefore potentially not possible/ desirable - see 6.54 above)

Harwich Walton

Elmstead Market** Frinton

Alresford** Kirby Cross

Great Bentley** Brightlingsea Waterside Area

Mistley

Colchester Fringe ** (if not linked with Colchester North Growth Area)Thorpe-le-Soken

Source: RTP & ECC

* expansion of existing verses new provision would require careful consideration at the appropriate time

** subject to safe transport routes and costs being met

Early Years & Childcare

Primary

Sec ondary



7 TRANSPORT

Introduction

7.1 Responsibility for transportation policy within Tendring District Council is shared by Essex

County Council, as the Highways Authority, Tendring District Council and the Highways

Agency.

Background

7.2 The principal strategic roads within the district are the A120 and the A133. The A120,

running from Colchester to Harwich, is the only trunk road to pass through the district and

is managed by the Highways Agency. From Harwich to Hare Green the road is single

carriageway, and from Hare Green to Crown Interchange the road is dual carriageway.

Figure 7.1 shows the strategic highway network.

Figure 7.1 The strategic highway network serving Tendring District

7.3 With up to 30,000 vehicles per day on the dual carriageway sections and up to 12,000

vehicles per day on the single carriageway sections, the A120 provides the main transport

link for the movement of freight and passenger traffic travelling between the port of

Harwich and the national road network. As such the proportion of HGV traffic on the road

is relatively high (between 10 and 14%) compared to other roads within Tendring and

Essex.



7.4 The A133 runs from Colchester to Clacton-on-Sea linking into the A120 at Hare Green.

The road is single carriageway apart from the final section from Crabtree roundabout

leading into the A120.

7.5 Aside from the A137 running from Colchester to Manningtree, all other roads within the

district are rural B-roads, providing local access to the coastal towns of Brightlingsea,

Walton-on-the-Naze and Manningtree.

7.6 The district has 14 railway stations, with 6 along the Manningtree to Harwich branch line

and 8 on the Colchester to Clacton and Walton-on-the-Naze lines. Services are operated

by National Express East Anglia. All the stations provide services to London Liverpool

Street; however, these differ in their frequency and journey time. Manningtree provides

the quickest and most frequent service to London with four services an hour in the peak

and a journey time of approximately an hour. Services to Clacton-on-Sea and Harwich run

at a frequency of one an hour in the peak periods and take 1 hour 30 minutes

approximately. To access Walton-on-the-Naze requires changing trains at Thorpe-Le-

Soken.

7.7 The Great Eastern Mainline carries around 60,000 passengers a day into London during

the morning peak, of which approximately 14,000 are from outer suburban areas including

Ipswich, Colchester, Clacton and Chelmsford (Great Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy,

2007).

7.8 First Group operates the bus network which covers the majority of the district. Due to the

rural nature of the district, service frequencies are generally low, apart from in the town

centres of Clacton-on-Sea and Harwich. The majority of services are local, however there

are some more strategic routes.

7.9 Within the district there is also the major international port of Harwich as well as the

smaller coastal ports of Mistley Quay and Brightlingsea.


7.10 A number of key documents provide the policy background for transport provision within

Tendring. These are summarised as follows:

Regional Transport Strategy

7.11 The key objectives of the Regional Transport Strategy for the East of England (May 2008)

are:

to manage travel behaviour and the demand for transport to reduce the rate of road

traffic growth and ensure the transport sector makes an appropriate contribution to

reducing greenhouse gas emissions;

to encourage efficient use of existing transport infrastructure;

to enable the provision of the infrastructure and transport services necessary to

support existing communities and development proposed in the spatial strategy; and

to improve access to jobs, services and leisure facilities.

7.12 The Haven Gateway (a sub region based around the three ports of Harwich, Felixstowe

and Ipswich) is identified as an area likely to come under increasing transport pressure as

a result of underlying traffic growth and the development strategy of the Regional Spatial



Strategy. Changing travel behaviour and managing traffic demand as well as improving

public transport provision will be key to alleviating this transport pressure.

Essex Local Transport Plan 2006-2011

7.13 Essex’s Second Local Transport Plan (LTP2) (2006-2011) is a long term plan which sets

out Essex County Council's plans and policies for the future of transport in Essex. The

Plan sets out five key objectives:

Tackling Congestion: To reduce the rate and incidence of congestion and its effect on

residents and businesses in Essex;

Delivering Accessibility: To enhance accessibility to key services (Education,

Employment, Healthcare and Retail);

Creating Safer Roads: To improve safety on the transport network and to enhance

and promote a safe travelling environment;

Promoting Better Air Quality: To manage the impact of road and air transport on air

pollution; and

Enhancing Maintenance: To maintain highways and public rights of way to a standard

appropriate to their use.

7.14 Within the LTP2, the Haven Gateway forms one of the five Area Transport Delivery

Strategies that have been identified. It is recognised within the plan that the level of

growth expected in the Haven Gateway, specifically Colchester (17,000 dwellings to be

located in and around Colchester town, and 8,500 to be built in Tendring District), will

bring a number of transport opportunities and challenges.

Tendring District Local Plan

7.15 The overriding aim of the Tendring Local Plan is to, “reduce the need to travel and

promote an integrated transportation system, which meets the needs of the whole

community, encourages economic growth and minimises environmental damage.” As part

of this, new development needs to integrate with all forms of transport provision and

ensure that transport needs generated by new development are met.


Highways

7.16 Current levels of congestion on the strategic highway network are shown in Figure 7.2

(sourced from the Essex Local Transport Plan 2006 -2011). This shows the Congestion

Reference Flow (CRF) which is a measure of the ability of a particular highway link to

accommodate the traffic imposed on it. The CRF is determined by a combination of

factors including traffic composition (e.g. HGV content), traffic flow variation and type of

link. When actual daily traffic levels reach the CRF value (1.0) it is expected that

congestion will occur in the peak periods on a regular basis. When the CRF value

exceeds 1.0, congestion will be experienced during peak and off-peak periods.



Figure 7.2 Highway network congestion – present day

7.17 Currently the majority of the strategic highway network is operating within capacity.

Discussion held with Essex County Council’s Environment, Sustainability and Highways

department supported this view. However, pinch points can be identified on the A133

between Crabtree roundabout and Green Lane roundabout, where CRF values are

between 0.8 and 0.99. It is likely that this section of the highway network will become a

constraint in the future. The A120 is currently operating within capacity.

7.18 The CRF flow focuses on link capacity. However the significant limiting factor on the links

will be the key junctions. With regard to the A133 the key junctions are the Crabtree

roundabout and Green Lane roundabout.

7.19 Investigating the A133 pinch point further, localised junction modelling was undertaken of

the existing situation at Crabtree roundabout and Green Lane roundabout. Essex County

Council provided turning count surveys of the junctions undertaken in July 2008, and this

base data was used within the ARCADY model.

7.20 The results show significant queuing on the A133 northbound from Clacton-on-Sea in the

AM peak (0800-0900), and on the A133 southbound in the PM peak (1700-1800). Green

Lane roundabout showed less queuing. Full modelling outputs are contained within

Appendix 3. Maximum queues seen are 84 vehicles in the AM peak and 30 vehicles in the

PM peak on the A133.



7.21 In discussion with Essex County Council it was also noted that access roads leading to

the coast get congested on sunny days. In particular, the B1029 approach to Brightlingsea

experiences queuing on occasions as it is the sole access into the town.

7.22 Figure 7.3 shows fatal accident locations over the last three years within Tendring District,

as obtained from Essex County Council. It can be seen that there are not a significant

number of fatal accidents in the district giving rise to concerns or the need for mitigation.

Figure 7.3 Fatal accidents in Tendring District, 2005-2008

Public Transport

7.23 A public transport accessibility model, Accession, has been used to show how accessible

the District is with regard to public transport services. This accession work highlights the

current areas of under provision and can be used to develop a strategy for serving areas

and highlighting the best areas for the location of sustainable developments.

7.24 Figure 2 shows the peak rail capacity utilisation across the district, as obtained from the

Great Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy (December 2007). This shows the Capacity

Utilisation Index (CUI). The CUI, developed by Network Rail, is a measure of how much of

the available capacity on a section of line is used by the train service taking account of

route characteristics, timetable, the order of trains in the timetable and the headways.

7.25 Figure 7.4 indicates that there are no significant capacity issues on any of the lines within

Tendring district. The maximum capacity utilisation seen is up to 30-70%, on the

Colchester to Manningtree and Colchester to Clacton and Walton-on-the-Naze lines. The

Manningtree to Harwich line sees a particularly low capacity utilisation currently with less



than 30%. Utilisation greatly increases when reaching Colchester and in particular onward

travel to London.

Figure 7.4 Rail capacity utilisation

7.26 It is understood, from discussions with First Group that the bus network currently operates

within capacity. Although services cover the majority of the district, service frequencies

are generally low apart from in town centres such as Clacton-on-Sea, Harwich and

Walton-on-the-Naze. This is shown in Figure 7.5.



Figure 7.5 Bus frequency

Committed Development

7.27 The most significant committed development within the district that is likely to affect future

transport infrastructure needs is Bathside Bay, a £300 million container terminal

development that will make Harwich International Port the second largest container port in

the UK. Planning permission was granted in March 2006 and permissions will run out in

2016.

7.28 Road and rail infrastructure is already in place, servicing the present Harwich International

Port; however, upgrades to the A120 have been recommended by the London to Ipswich

Multi-Modal Study (LOIS) which has been carried out on behalf of the Government.

7.29 In particular LOIS recommended dualling of the A120 between Hare Green and the

Ramsey roundabout to give improved access to the Harwich ports, significant accident

benefits and support for rural regeneration policies. This was identified within the

Inspectors Report for Bathside Bay, where it was stated that the A120 Hare Green to

Harwich dualling was identified as a longer term proposal (post 2016). It was also stated

that in July 2003, the Secretary of State - in referring to the dualling of the A120 between

Hare Green and Harwich – indicated that the scheme is for the longer term and that he

was not asking the Highways Agency to prioritise work on it at that stage as it would

require further detailed examination. In the shorter term, it was suggested that the

Highways Agency address safety issues within its Route Management Strategies.

7.30 As stated within the Inspector’s Report:



“In the base case Traffic Impact Assessment, Bathside Bay Container Terminal (BBCT) would - when fully developed - introduce 3,000 extra 2-way HGV movements/day onto the A120. The volume of traffic on those sections of the A120 between Hare Green and the A120/Little Bentley/Bentley Road junction, and between the Horsley Cross and Ramsey Bridge roundabouts, would exceed the Congestion Reference Flow (CRF) by about 2010/11. These sections of the A120 would need to be improved to at least wide single 2 lane carriageway (WS2) standard if they were to accommodate this level of traffic.”

7.31 Improvements in the short term would however also be needed for the A12/A120/A1232

Ardleigh Crown interchange, the A120/Harwich Road, Wix junction, the A120/Church

Hill/Main Road Ramsey Bridge roundabout and the Parkeston roundabout.

7.32 Development of Bathside Bay will not go ahead until a Preferred Route Announcement

has been made for the A120, together with associated works. Hutchinson Ports UK

Limited (HPUK) would fund any road improvements necessary. If the development does

go ahead, there would be a period of several years from the opening of Phase one of the

development during which an HGV capping measure would operate until the necessary

highway works have been completed.

7.33 In addition to Bathside Bay, Pond Hall Farm, a 27ha site located to the south of the

Dovercourt bypass on land north of the main residential areas of Dovercourt, is allocated

for the development of a new business park for storage and distribution along with general

and light industrial uses. As part of this new development a new access will be needed

directly onto the A120.

7.34 Assuming the Pond Hall Farm site remains an employment-only land use, an at-grade

roundabout access onto to A120 would be appropriate, as advised by the Highways

Agency. The construction cost of this would be in the region of £750,000. The full cost of

the works, including earthworks, telecoms diversions, drainage works and other

infrastructure is likely to come to approximately £1.5 million. The timescales for delivering

an access onto the A120 is likely to be up to three years from application to completion.

7.35 Aside from the access onto the A120, there is also a possibility that if Pond Hall Farm

goes ahead in conjunction with Bathside Bay, the road will need to be dualled from

Ramsey roundabout eastwards to Parkeston roundabout, or there will be a need to

provide suitable demand management measures to ensure the trunk road continues to

operate within capacity. The cost of this, at least in part, may have to be borne by the

Pond Hall Farm developers.

7.36 If the A120 is required to be dualled on this section, the likely cost would be in the order of

£20 million. Such a scheme represents a long term aspiration for the District Council and

is expected to be addressed in the first review of the LDF.



Needs

7.37 The housing requirements for the district, as provided by the East of England Plan, will

need to be supported by appropriate transport infrastructure. It has been assumed that the

dwellings will be allocated across the district, but with the majority being located in the

major coastal towns of Clacton-on-Sea and Harwich.

Highways

7.38 Figure 7.6 (sourced from the Essex Local Transport Plan 2006 -2011) shows that by

2021, under a ‘do nothing’ scenario, congestion on the strategic highway is expected to

rise with the additional housing proposed within the East of England Plan (i.e. 8,500

dwellings for Tendring).

Figure 7.6 Highway network congestion, 2021 Do Nothing scenario

7.39 Clacton-on-Sea/Walton-on-the-Naze: In particular the A133 between Crabtree roundabout

and Green Lane roundabout will become increasingly congested in both the peak and off-

peak periods, and links to Walton-on-the-Naze and Clacton-on-Sea will also see

increased congestion in the peak periods.

7.40 It can be seen therefore that the allocation of significant levels of new development within

the Clacton-on-Sea or Walton-on-the-Naze areas will potentially require improvements or

upgrading of certain sections of the A133, or a robust sustainable transport strategy.

7.41 It is difficult to be exact on what level of development would represent the ‘tipping point’,

such that the A133 improvements are then required. However, it is considered likely that a



figure of approximately 50% of the total development levels assessed (3,000 dwellings

across Clacton and Walton) would potentially create unacceptable levels of congestion.

Essex County Council are currently undertaking a modelling exercise to understand fully

the impact this development might have on the A133.

7.42 What is clear is that currently, congestion is experienced in the peak periods on the pinch

point on the A133. Therefore, further development will put further pressure on this pinch

point and improvements are likely to be needed for relatively small additional levels of

development.

7.43 Harwich: The A120 is shown to have no capacity constraints by 2021 with the addition of

the East of England housing allocations. Therefore, with the housing allocation only, it can

be assumed that upgrades to the A120 will not be necessary.

7.44 This plan however does not take into account the Bathside Bay development, which is

estimated to add up to 3,000 extra 2-way HGV movements per day onto the A1207. If the

Bathside Bay development was to come forward by 2016, Hutchinson Ports UK Limited

(HPUK) will need to upgrade the A120, including dualling of particular sections as well as

other minor improvements. If the development does go ahead, there would be a period of

several years from the opening of Phase One of the development, during which an HGV

capping measure would operate until the necessary highway works have been completed.

HPUK would fund the necessary highways works. This is the situation at present but it is

understood that the Section 106 agreement to which these requirements are tied has yet

to be signed.

7.45 Other areas of development: In addition to Harwich, Clacton-on-Sea and Walton-on-the-

Naze, a lower allocation of additional housing is proposed in Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley

and Brightlingsea. Although these areas of development will have a smaller impact there

may be local access issues arising, particularly where access to a town is by one road

only, e.g. Brightlingsea.

7.46 Sustainable Transport Strategy: The highway impacts stated above all presume that a

sustainable transport strategy would not be implemented with any new development

within the district, and that current mode shares will remain the same. However

sustainable transport and reducing the need to travel are key aims within the adopted

Tendring Local Plan, and therefore it is likely that car usage within the new housing

developments will be discouraged and more sustainable modes of transport encouraged.

This will create mode shifts towards public transport, walking and cycling. Whilst this will

lessen the impact of development on the strategic highway network, investment will be

required to improve the public transport system within Tendring.

Rail

7.47 Currently there are no capacity issues on the rail lines within Tendring District. With the

addition of the allocated housing development within the district, it is not envisaged that

there will be significant problems. Currently the main constraint on rail travel is the low

7 source: Inspectors Report on the Bathside Bay Inquiry



service frequency and journey times to key destinations such as London. In the future

demand for services may increase if the main coastal towns such as Clacton-on-Sea grow

significantly, and as such there may be a need to upgrade lines or increase services. New

rail services would be provided by the franchisee, currently National Express East Anglia.

Bus

7.48 Currently there are no significant capacity issues with the bus network in Tendring,

however, this, like rail, may be associated with the lack of demand for services. With the

new housing allocation within the district, demand for services, particularly local, may

increase which will require planning and delivering new services. One such area that this

might apply is West Clacton, where a significant amount of housing is planned. New

services would be provided by First Group, who would either pay for this directly or look

for an appropriate contribution. There will be a need to place greater emphasis on local

services to link the major housing developments at Clacton and Harwich with town

centres and local jobs - even if existing services are not very well used.

Accessibility

7.49 Accessibility analysis has been undertaken using the public transport modelling software,

Accession. This shows how accessible the potential development areas will be in terms of

public transport (rail and bus) times. The promotion of a sustainable transport strategy will

require good public transport accessibility. Figures 7.7 to 7.12 show the results of the

accessibility modelling.

7.50 Development sites located within town centres (Clacton-on-Sea, Harwich and Walton-on-

the-Naze) are closer to public transport nodes and therefore have the ability to access

more places within 60 minutes. From Clacton-on-Sea for example, Colchester and

Walton-on-the-Naze can be accessed within 31-40 minutes. From Harwich, Manningtree

can be accessed in 21-30 minutes.

7.51 By contrast, developments in more ‘greenfield’ locations have less accessibility. From the

edge of Clacton-on-Sea, Colchester can no longer be accessed within a 60-minute public

transport ride. Similarly, access from Brightlingsea to Clacton has a journey time of 60

minutes despite being relatively close in distance terms. Lack of accessibility to key

destinations by public transport will constrain development. Therefore as stated earlier,

there will be a need to place greater emphasis on local bus provision.



Figure 7.7 Clacton-on-Sea future development – public transport accessibility

Figure 7.8 Harwich Town future development – public transport accessibility



Figure 7.9 Walton-on-the-Naze future development – public transport accessibility

Figure 7.10 Brightlingsea future development – public transport accessibility



Figure 7.11 Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley future development – public transport accessibility

Figure 7.12 West Clacton future development – public transport accessibility



Costs

7.52 It is estimated that the cost of construction of the dualling of the A120 from Hare Green to

Ramsey will be in the order of £45 million. Dualling will need to come forward when the

Bathside Bay development is progressing, however, it is envisaged dualling will be a

longer term scheme, and in the interim shorter term improvements of the A120 will be

implemented in order to enable the early phases of the Bathside Bay development to be

operational.

7.53 The cost of providing access to the A120 for the Pond Hall Farm employment allocation is

likely to be in the order of £1.5 million (including construction costs, earthworks and

drainage works etc). This is assuming Pond Hall Farm remains an employment site only.

If further dualling of the A120 is required between Ramsey Roundabout and Parkeston

Roundabout the approximate cost would be likely to be in the region of £20 million. This

further dualling of the A120 would likely follow the dualling from Hare Green to Ramsey,

therefore would be covered by the first review of the Local Development Framework.

7.54 For the improvements to the A133 between the Crabtree and Green Lane roundabouts,

including upgrades of the roundabouts, the cost is likely to be approximately £12 million.

Funding

7.55 The main sources of funding available for transport infrastructure can be summarised as

follows:

Local Transport Plan (LTP) funding – LTP2 funding is now closed. There may be

potential for LTP3 funding which will run between 2012 and 2016;

Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) funding – This applies for schemes over £5m. As

part of this funding a Major Schemes Business Case needs to be prepared;

Growth Area Funding (GAF);

Growth Point Funding (GPF) – Haven Gateway now has Growth Point Status and can

therefore apply for this funding;

Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) funding – this closes on May 22nd 2009. Future

funding for CIF currently unknown; and

Regional Infrastructure Funding (RIF) – This is a newer source of funding coming

forward and its applicability is currently unknown.

7.56 More information about these funds and the process for bidding for them is included in

Appendix 4.

7.57 In addition, developer contributions can be secured to help pay for infrastructure access

by all travel modes and to ‘pump prime’ new bus services. Typically, a developer may

need to provide a new bus service as part of a S106 agreement, or provide contributions.

Currently, the District Council are in pre-application discussions with Bloor Homes on a

400-dwelling proposal at West Clacton, where this will be discussed. If a developer has to

provide the service directly, they will go to bus companies and form an agreement. The

key point is that this process is negotiable. Only where a route is profitable will a bus

company provide it in any event.



7.58 Out of these sources of funding, the most significant will be LTP and RFA funding. In

financial years 2006/07 to 2010/11 Essex County was allocated £68.3 million from LTP

(integrated transport) funding. For the Colchester and Haven Gateway sub area, a

number of major schemes are highlighted within the delivery programme for 2006-2011.

These include £5m for the regeneration of Jaywick, £7.1m for countywide schemes,

£516,000 for urban traffic management schemes (potentially to resolve localised

congestion problems including in the Clacton-on-Sea area) and £150,000 for Community

Rail Partnership Station Enhancements (for promotion and support of the enhancement of

the Clacton branch rail line). The £12 million for the A133 upgrades could be sought from

LTP3 but it is unlikely that the full amount could be secured.

7.59 Previous funding from GAF has allocated £55,200,000 in 2008/09 – 2010/11 to support

schemes in Chelmsford, Braintree, Haven Gateway and Harlow.

7.60 It should be noted that the proposals for investment on the A120 from Stanway to

Braintree have been cancelled. This was a Highways Agency scheme and therefore does

not have any implications for money that might otherwise become available to spend in

Tendring because it was not under the discretion of Essex County Council.

7.61 The potential from these funding pots, by timescale, is shown in Table 7.1.



Table 7.1 Summary of funding allocations

£m

Comments 2006/07-

2010/11

2011/12 –

2015/16

2016/17 –

2020/21

2021/22-

2025/26

LTP - Essex Wide

LTP (integrated

transport)

£68.345 £68.345 £68.345 £68.345 This is the Essex wide figure. The first period is projected through to

2025/26.

LTP - Colchester and Haven Gateway Sub Area

Jaywick Regeneration £5 Funding will be made available for this through 2nd and 3rd LTPs (majority

3rd).

Countywide schemes £7.130 This is funding from the countywide programme (£68m) for Colchester and

the Haven Gateway.

Urban traffic

Management

£0.516 Delivery of a traffic management strategy to resolve localised congestion

problems including in Clacton-on-Sea.

Community Rail

Partnership Station

enhancements

£0.150 Promotion and support the enhancement of the Clacton branch rail line.

Total funding for Tendring related

schemes

12.796 12.796 12.796 This is the figure currently allocated for projects applicable to

Tendring District within the Delivery programme as outlined in the

Essex LTP 2006-2011.The first period is projected through to 2021/22

– 2025/26.

Growth Area Funding

GAF £55.200 * £92 £92 £92 * This figure is the allocation for 2008/09 -2010/11. Future projections

have been growthed up to 5 years. This is a provisional total allocated by

government to support schemes in Chelmsford, Braintree, Haven

Gateway and Harlow.

Growth Point Funding

GPF £12 £12 £12 £12 Identified for Haven Gateway as a Growth Point.



8 UTILITIES

Electricity

8.1 Electricity is generated from power stations and transmitted through a national network of

electricity lines operating at 275 and 400kv before connecting to local networks owned by

distribution companies. EDF Energy is the appointed distribution company for Tendring

district.

8.2 Electricity in Tendring is supplied from the National Grid transmission system to EDF

Energy at 132kV. Their Grid and Primary sub-stations supply the towns and villages at

33kV and within the catchments via smaller sub-stations and a network of underground

cables at 11kV.

8.3 The area is served by two 132/33kV (Grid) substations, one at Lawford supplying the area

to the north including Manningtree, Harwich and Dovercourt, the other at Clacton

supplying Walton, Frinton, Clacton and areas to the south. Each Grid substation supplies

several 33/11kV substations that finally provide the 11kV distribution network to meet the

local requirements.


8.4 Generally across Tendring district there are no existing capacity issues. The Clacton

132/33kV substation is nearing capacity and is expected to require reinforcement in the

fullness of time. Lawford was reinforced a few years ago and so, at present, has a greater

level of available transformer capacity.

Needs

8.5 As stated above, the Clacton 132/33kV substation will need reinforcement at some stage

in the near future. This is expected to be achieved on the existing site with new larger

capacity transformers and 33kV switchgear.

8.6 Network capacity in the area to the west of Clacton is limited at present. Some

reinforcement has been taking place to maintain the network for generic growth. If an

additional 3,400 dwellings were developed there, it would exceed the existing headroom

available. This may prompt the establishment of a new 33/11kV primary substation in the

area. Land would be required to facilitate this - a new substation would require a plot of

approximately 30m x 40m - and should ideally not be located adjacent to housing. Initial

supplies to new housing would be available from existing 11kV circuits, with the new

primary being delivered when required. In addition, locating a further primary sub-station

to the west of Clacton could also support further development in the area if it was

required.

8.7 All other growth options would be capable of being accommodated by the existing

network of primary sub-stations. In all cases, there may be a requirement to install some

new 11kV network in order to provide new supplies. Development of this network in the

Kirby Cross area may require new crossings of Network Rail lines. However, none of this

is considered to be significant in terms of preventing development.



Costs

8.8 As a guide the current cost of a new sub-station – as may be required to serve high levels

of growth in West Clacton - would be in the region of £2m and the off-site network cable

works are likely to be between £1-3m, dependent on the extent to which operational and

upgrading works are needed to serve the developments.

Funding

8.9 The existing charging methodology is for developers to support the capital investment

needed to extend or reinforce the electricity network to their developments. The charges

made to existing connected customers does not support network extension; it supports

maintenance, repairs and generic reinforcement. Where a development prompts

infrastructure reinforcement they may be required to contribute towards the reinforcement

on a total or a proportional basis.

8.10 EDF may be prepared to fund some strategic infrastructure if that has the benefit of

reinforcing supply to the existing networks. However, the developer will be recharged a

proportion of these costs.

Priorities

8.11 If there is spare capacity within the system this will be allocated on a first come first

served basis. Developments located closer to the point of connection will generally

require a lower capital investment then developments located a distance from the major

infrastructure. EDF will look to invest in the existing infrastructure where customers are

experiencing problems with supply and will look to carry out the necessary reinforcement

works as a priority.

Timing of Provision

8.12 The installation of network and sub-stations to supply a new development could take in

the region of two to three years and this would be phased with the planned growth.

Issues

8.13 The assessment is based on existing network loading. The available headroom capacity

may change as a result of other new connections or increases in demand. This may affect

the assessment of need currently identified. A diverse approach to the increase in

provision of new dwellings across the district reduces the overall impact to the electricity

infrastructure, making large scale projects unlikely.

Gas

8.14 Gas is delivered through seven reception points into the United Kingdom and distributed

through a National Transmission System (NTS). National Grid is responsible for the NTS

which covers the whole of Great Britain.

8.15 A series of off-take points in the NTS supplies gas to twelve Local Distribution Zones. In

the Tendring area, National Grid Gas is the licensed gas transporter.




8.16 Across Tendring district there are no existing capacity issues.

Needs

8.17 All of the possible growth locations, based on the indicative dwelling numbers, currently

have sufficient good quality infrastructure gas mains to support development. The exact

needs will depend on the specific requirements of the particular development (i.e. exact

locations and whether the existing network is providing low pressure/medium pressure,

etc).

8.18 The only growth options that would cause a potential requirement for reinforcement would

be those at St. Osyth (200 dwellings), Brightlingsea (600 dwellings), and Walton-on-the-

Naze (1,000 dwellings). The reason for this is that these locations are at the extremity of

the infrastructure network.

Costs

8.19 The costs of upgrading the existing network – as opposed to providing new infrastructure –

are comparatively small.

Funding

8.20 The expectation by National Grid is that the cost of the network infrastructure both on-site

(i.e. direct services to dwellings) and off-site (i.e. new connections to provide gas from the

National Grid) will be borne solely by developers. The gas company may wish to install

strategic pipelines at an early stage of the developments and will recharge a proportion of

the costs to each developer.

Priorities

8.21 If there is spare capacity within the system this will be allocated on a first come first

served basis. Developments located closer to the point of connection will generally

require a lower capital investment then developments located a distance from the major

infrastructure.

Timing of Provision

8.22 Given that only upgrading of the network is needed, National Grid Gas would be able to

supply these new loads, or reinforce them on a reasonably short timescale, i.e. within six

months. Therefore, the need would follow the planned provision of development.

8.23 Only if a large number of loads are added to the network in a short period of time could

the upstream systems be overloaded. These reinforcements could cause delays in "gas

on dates" but these delays are not considered to be significant within the context of the

likely programme of housing delivery.

Issues

8.24 It will be important to fully engage with National Grid Gas once specific site information is

available, specifying what size loads are likely to be connected and a proposed time

scale. Within NGG’s Network Planning, infrastructure budgets are heavily regulated and

constrained by OFGEM (the gas regulator). This means that reinforcement projects are



planned on a very reactive basis as and when new loads connect to the network. The

connections analysis process and regulatory rules force a reactive, rather than proactive,

approach and any reinforcement requirements are subject to an economic test to

apportion costs. As a wider issue – outside the confines of the study – it will be important

for the infrastructure planning system to work with NGG in order to determine whether a

more proactive approach can be taken.

Telecommunications

Introduction

8.25 This section considers telecommunications infrastructure in Tendring. We review this

subject briefly because landline and broadband provision is dealt with between

developers and providers.


8.26 We understand there are some current broadband capacity issues in Tendring. ADSL

Max (8Mbps) enabled broadband presence in Essex is 98.4%, although it is 100% in

many other areas of the country8. There are currently the following exchanges in

Tendring:

Harwich

Clacton-on-Sea

Frinton-on-Sea

Holland-on-Sea

Brightlingsea

St Osyth

Little Clacton

Weeley

Great Bentley

Wivenhoe

Ardleigh

Manningtree

Wix

Ramsey Source: – www.samknowsbest.com

Needs

8.27 There are no infrastructure requirements on the public sector for providing either fixed-line

or mobile telecom services. BT has an obligation to provide a landline to every household

in the UK, and developers will want to facilitate this otherwise their developments will be

unsellable. The market is functioning well in this regard and there is no need for public

involvement. Mobile phone provision is also a matter for private sector provision. The

8 www.samknowsbest.com



main requirement is for sites for masts. This is dealt with through the development

system.

8.28 Broadband access is also almost universally available through the market, so this places

no infrastructure demands on the public sector either. Business users can purchase

additional bandwidth to speed up their internet access if they wish to. Those requiring

speeds higher than ADSL (up to 8 mbps) can obtain increased bandwidth through the

market.

8.29 It is noted that many users across the district have complained of slow or intermittent

broadband access.

Costs

8.30 As the infrastructure provision is private investment, we have not felt it necessary to

identify the costs.

Funding

8.31 In the case of both fixed-line and mobile, telecoms, new infrastructure will be funded from

the capital programmes of BT and also cable companies, where the latter operate.

8.32 The Digital Britain review mentions a universal access to 2mbps broadband by 2012, but

is unclear on exactly how this will be funded (although it appears to be an extension of

BT’s Public Service Obligation on phone provision across the broadband industry). By

the summer, the review will decide whether the government needs to invest in next-

generation broadband - a superfast network which would further revolutionise

communications and, so the theory runs, stimulate the economy.9

Priorities

8.33 Telecom services should be rolled out as the new housing and commercial development

is built so the issue of priorities does not arise.

8.34 If issues of prioritisation arise with regard to high-speed internet access, BT and other

providers should be encouraged to give priority to employment areas, although they will

probably wish to do so on commercial grounds in any event. But it is important to note

that many existing residents are currently experiencing poor levels of broadband

connectivity and performance. This needs to be addressed.

8.35 We have shown above that these infrastructure costs are generally picked up by the

private sector. They do not represent a priority for public sector investment.

Timing of provision

8.36 Our assessment concentrates on infrastructure provided by the public sector. Telecoms

connections are dealt with privately by the developer. We have therefore not made any

timing assumptions.

9 http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/5631.aspx



Key issues and conclusions

8.37 We do not consider that the provision of telecoms infrastructure gives rise to any

significant issues. It will not be a showstopper. However, there is a need to improve the

levels of broadband quality serving existing residents and, by extension, all future

residential developments.

Water – Potable Supply

8.38 The provider of potable (drinking) water supply to Tendring district is Tendring Hundred

Water Services Limited.


8.39 Existing infrastructure is sufficient to deliver current demand.

Needs

8.40 Nearly all of the major locations – Clacton, Frinton/Walton, Manningtree/Mistley/Lawford

and Brightlingsea - either definitely or almost certainly have sufficient capacity to supply

all the possible growth options. There are various issues that may impact on the need for

particular additional potable water infrastructure but will not be sufficiently significant to

potentially hinder development. These are:

Clacton Town Centre – the water mains in the town centre are generally small

diameter and therefore local mains reinforcements may be required. Special

consideration would need to be given for any high rise development as the maximum

mains pressure is potentially too low to support this;

Frinton - special consideration would need to be given for any high rise development

as the maximum mains pressure is potentially too low to support this; and

Dovercourt, Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley and Brightlingsea – some local offsite

reinforcement may be required depending upon the location of the development.

8.41 There is only one location that cannot come forward until new infrastructure is put in. This

is at Parkeston/Bathside which is dependent on a new service water reservoir being

provided on the outskirts of Dovercourt. This development is already planned. It is

important to be clear that this only relates to new greenfield development around

Parkeston/Bathside. The levels of development assessed within the existing Harwich

urban area will not, on their own, require additional infrastructure.

8.42 The other locations, although within the Company’s area of supply, have limited mains

capacity to serve them. This is principally because these are more rural locations that

have not seen significant development in the past, so little network capacity has been

needed or planned to support their needs.

Costs

8.43 Cost information has not been provided. This is partly because it is dependent on the type

and location of development. Also, it reflects the nature of the funding of water services,

which is explained below.



Funding

8.44 Any new development would be funded by the developer in accordance with the

requirements of the Water Industry Act. In reality, the actual payments made by the

developer for any on-site water main would be significantly less than the cost of the asset.

Any new service connection would be charged in accordance with standard rates and

standard infrastructure charges would also apply. Given the fact that revenue will fill the

shortfall, there are no funding issues with providing potable water supply.

Priorities

8.45 No priorities have been identified.

Timing of Provision

8.46 There are no particular priorities for timing identified.

Issues

8.47 No particular issues have been identified.

Water – Wastewater

8.48 The provider of wastewater services to Tendring district is Anglian Water.


8.49 Across the East of England region as a whole, the sewage treatment works (STWs) and

sewer networks are largely at or near to capacity. This is true of Tendring district where

very little growth can be accommodated without the need for additional capacity to be

provided. The exception is Harwich, where a STW was completed approximately 13

years ago to cope with anticipated growth at that time. As this growth largely did not

materialise, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate potential levels of growth

identified for this area, subject to more detailed feasibility assessment.

8.50 Anglian Water would therefore support growth in Harwich to enable the treatment works to

operate efficiently.

Needs

8.51 Growth in most locations will require some form of expansion of the network. This will

either be in the form of an extension to an existing STW or additional tunnel networks.

8.52 In the major growth locations at Clacton, there would need to be an extension to the

respective existing STW. For development in West Clacton, there could be an issue with

the ability to expand the Jaywick STW (into which flows would discharge) if the full scale

of development was delivered. Therefore, the solution would either be to develop a new

STW in the nearest appropriate location or to move the existing STW to a new location

capable of supporting a larger facility. Development in other parts of Clacton would

require upgrading of Clacton STW and new sewers. In all cases the level of additional

infrastructure required is directly related to the scale of development.

8.53 For all development at Harwich the existing STW is located to the north of the town and

discharges into the River Stour. Therefore, brownfield development in and around



Harwich Town/Dovercourt should be capable of being supported, as long as the tunnel

sewer can be accessed. Development at Parkeston/Bathside would be on the other side

of town to the STW, so would need significant additional sewer networks to be able to

access it. The greater the level of development, the more significant the infrastructure

requirement. Subject to maximising use of the tunnel sewer, there is sufficient treatment

works capacity (subject to more detailed feasibility assessments) to accommodate the

levels of potential growth in the Harwich area.

8.54 Development in Frinton/Walton is likely to be capable of being accommodated in terms of

the capacity of the existing STW, but there is likely to be a need for upgrading to existing

sewers or new sewers.

8.55 Development on the Colchester fringe would discharge into the Colchester STW. This has

capacity to accommodate such levels of growth but the sewer network would need to be

expanded.

8.56 Development at Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley would require expansion of the existing

Manningtree STW. The same applies to any development at Brightlingsea.

8.57 Elmstead Market and Alresford are served by the Thorrington STW. This is a bio bubble

STW and is comparatively new. When taken together, development at these locations

should enable a small expansion of the capacity that this STW can accommodate, such

that development could be supported. However, it is likely that new sewers will be

needed.

8.58 Development at Great Bentley and St Osyth could not be supported by the existing STWs,

so both would need expansion.

8.59 Development at Thorpe-le-Soken would flow into the Clacton STW which has sufficient

capacity to support this development.

Costs

8.60 At this point, it is not possible to determine the cost of extensions to existing STWs or the

cost of providing additional sewer networks. This will need to be determined when

particular schemes are assessed. However, the nature of funding of waste water services

means that costs are not likely to create issues for the delivery of infrastructure needs

(see below).

Funding

8.61 Capital spending on waste water services is funded by the revenue collected from existing

customers. Anglian Water produces a 5-year Asset Management Programme that is

approved by OFWAT. The current 5-year plan is expected to be determined shortly. This

identifies all needs over the next five years.

8.62 On large developments, Anglian Water would expect to see developer contributions being

used to support early delivery of waste water facilities.

8.63 Anglian Water only pays for waste water services related to residential development. The

costs for serving employment and retail development are expected to be met in full by the

developer.



Priorities

8.64 Anglian Water does not consider that there are any particular priorities for growth. The key

issue is timing of provision (see below).

Timing of Provision

8.65 The lead-in times for providing new facilities are considerable. Depending on the size of

the additional facilities (which in turn are directly related to the scale of additional housing

growth) and their location, the expansion of an existing STW would take between 2½ and

5 years. A new STW would take up to 8 years to provide.

8.66 Therefore, any major growth that would require expansion of an existing STW would have

a significant lead-in time.

Issues

8.67 At present it is assumed that there is the land available to extend existing STWs.

However, if there is not (and there is doubt over the ability to expand the Jaywick STW)

then the additional land would have to be acquired which would create additional costs.

This would need to be determined when considering specific schemes.

8.68 It will be the role of the Part Two study to look at the need for and potential to expand

existing STWs.



9 WASTE

9.1 Essex County Council is responsible for the treatment and disposal of municipal waste.

Tendring District Council is responsible for the collection of household waste. The brief for

the study makes it clear that only the management (i.e. treatment and disposal) of waste

should be considered. Therefore, it is only the County function that is relevant.

Key Documents

Essex Waste Strategy 2007 - 2032

9.2 In order to meet the requirements of the EU Landfill Directive, the Government has set the

following targets for recycling and composting of household waste: at least 40% by 2010,

45% by 2015 and 50% by 2020. There are also specific targets for reducing the amount of

biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill to:

75% of 1995 levels by 2010;

50% of 1995 levels by 2013; and

35% of 1995 levels by 2020.

9.3 In practice, this would mean having to dispose of 225kg of residual waste per person by

2020.

9.4 The Essex Waste Strategy states that municipal waste in Essex is currently increasing by

less than 0.5% per annum. This is based on a 7-year historical trend of waste generation

in Essex, which has been 1% per annum. The Strategy estimates that in the future, that

rate will be 0.5% per annum. This projected growth takes into account an increasing

population and an increase in household numbers, as well as behavioural changes from

the public, such as reuse and recycling, reduced packaging, etc.

9.5 In terms of costs, the Strategy states that the average gross cost of municipal waste

management of the Essex CC (as reported under Best Value Performance Indicator 87)

has increased from £35.66 per tonne in 2001/02 to £60.64 per tonne in 2006/07. Whilst

this increase is partly due to service improvements, the increases are mainly as a result of

the Landfill Tax price escalator and other landfill related factors such as diminishing

landfill void space, tougher legislation governing landfill engineering and cost inflation.

Total landfill costs for Essex County Council amounted to £23.3 million in 2006/07. Costs

of waste collection per household in Tendring were £33.60 in 2006/2007.


9.6 There are currently five Recycling Centres for Household Waste in Tendring, located at:

Clacton;

Dovercourt;

Kirby-le-Soken;

Lawford; and

St Osyth.

9.7 The Waste Strategy states that Essex as a whole has been successful in achieving

continued reductions in the total amount of municipal waste going to landfill each year and



increasing recycling rates for household waste year on year. At present there are no

known shortfalls in provision for existing waste transfer and treatment facilities or for

recycling services.

9.8 Equally, there is no known clear surplus in existing facilities. However, with the change in

the type of provision – related to the targets for increased recycling and waste processing –

some of the existing facilities will become obsolete over the long term.

Needs

9.9 The Waste Strategy does not identify a physical infrastructure need as such. However, in

order to deliver the targets in the Strategy for recycling and treatment of waste, it will be

necessary to overhaul the service. To do this, new facilities are required.

9.10 As part of understanding future needs, Essex County Council has undertaken an options

appraisal. In the outset, this looked at the potential for one or two waste processing plants

serving the whole of Essex, or a series of much smaller facilities dotted about the County.

It was determined that the preferred approach was to have either one or two facilities, and

further analysis settled on a two-site approach.

9.11 Although the locations of these two sites have not been finalised – this will only be done

once a bid for Private Finance Initiative funding has been approved – it has been

confirmed that neither will be in Tendring, therefore there are no needs relating to the

district.

Costs

9.12 New households potentially give rise to the following requirements:

Civic Amenity Sites or Recycling Centres for Household Waste (RCHW) – These may

need to be extended, redeveloped or relocated to accommodate the increased waste

throughput. The costs of extending an existing site may be very small if the extension

is modest, but a new site may cost up to £2.5 million;

Waste Transfer Stations – Depending on the location of new development, it may be

more economical to transfer waste from collection vehicles for onward transport to

treatment/disposal facilities. The cost of a waste transfer station is of the order of £1.5

million; and

Waste Treatment Facilities – These typically have a lifespan of at least 25 years and

need to be designed to accommodate housing and waste growth over this period. It is

generally not feasible to extend or upgrade waste treatment facilities and the capital

costs for providing one large enough to deal with growth over its life must be borne at

the beginning of the project. Costs depend on scale and technology adopted.

9.13 However, given that there are no needs associated with future waste provision in

Tendring, there are zero costs as well.

Funding

9.14 In order to deliver the objectives of the Waste Strategy and to meet environmental and

legislative targets, Essex County Council estimates that an investment of £300m of capital

funding is needed in Essex and Southend (on the basis of a joint working approach) over

the next five years or so to provide the new facilities required.



9.15 Essex County Council has put together an Outline Business Case for new strategic waste

facilities. The purpose is to seek funding for these needs through the Private Finance

Initiative (PFI).

9.16 The bid – and the identified need for two facilities – is based on several assumptions.

These include the forecasts of population growth from the Office for National Statistics

and the forecast change in the number of households that informed the East of England

Regional Spatial Strategy.

9.17 It is understood that only 50% of the funding for capital need will come from PFI. Of the

remaining £150m, Essex County Council considers that it will be able to cover the full

outstanding amount through private finance funding sources with the public sector

meeting the service costs that are recharged.

Priorities

9.18 It is clear that the construction of these two waste facilities represents a priority for the

county as a whole, including Tendring.

Timing of Provision

9.19 It is understood that these facilities are to be provided within the first five years of the LDF

period (2011-2016).

Issues

9.20 There are no issues associated with this assessment.



10 CEMETERIES


10.1 There are presently four cemeteries within the district:

Clacton

Dovercourt

Kirby-le-Soken

Walton-on-the-Naze

10.2 The cemetery at Walton is closed to new burials (i.e. it will accept burial of family

members of those already buried there) but the other three still have available burial

space. The cemetery at Kirby is sufficiently close by and with sufficient space to

accommodate the needs of Frinton, Walton and Kirby for the duration of the plan period.

10.3 The Clacton facility has an adjacent plot which was to be used for further burials. Whilst it

has some difficult land conditions, it is considered that there is sufficient burial space for at

least the next 20 years.

10.4 The Dovercourt facility currently has plenty of space, sufficient to cover at least the

duration of the plan period.

Needs

10.5 Subject to mitigation against the ground conditions on the land at Clacton cemetery, there

is no need for any further burial space in Tendring.

Costs

10.6 There are no costs to be addressed.

Funding

10.7 No additional funding is required for any capital growth.

Priorities

10.8 There are no priorities.

Timing of Provision

10.9 The additional space required at Clacton must come forward when required.

Issues

10.10 There are no issues.



11 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FUNDING

Introduction

11.1 In the previous sections we have considered the existing capacity of different types of

infrastructure in Tendring, and an indication of what the future needs and costs issues are

likely to be in response to growth. We also considered what mainstream funding issues

there will be in meeting these potential needs and costs.

11.2 There has generally been insufficient mainstream funding to meet all infrastructure needs

and costs resulting from growth in the past. Developer contributions have been (and are

likely to continue to be) critical to helping to fund new infrastructure requirements.

Our remit

11.3 It is therefore necessary to consider potential developer contribution funding as part of an

infrastructure delivery plan. In this section we have assessed:

Past levels of developer contribution funding;

Factors affecting developer contribution funding; and

Indicative potential developer contribution levels for different types of development in

Tendring.

Background

Each development site is unique

11.4 Development is not a homogenous product; all the development sites identified to

potentially accommodate the identified growth are different. At a fundamental level, the

location of each site is unique. However, there are also likely to be potentially large

differences in the value a site will generate from development, the cost of such

development (including site acquisition costs) and the timing of when the development will

be delivered.

The potential development contribution “pot”

11.5 To understand what level of developer contribution a site could potentially provide

towards funding infrastructure, it is important to understand how value is created by

development to afford this.

11.6 As Figure 11.1 shows below, a theoretical surplus available for developer contributions

can be created where development value exceeds total costs (which includes developer

profit).



Figure 11.1 Estimation of developer contribution approach

Total Development Value

Minus

Land Acquisition Costs

Minus

Total Development Costs

Minus

Developers Profit

= Theoretical Surplus Available to Fund Developer Contributions

11.7 This theoretical surplus or contribution “pot” (where it exists) is a finite amount, and can be

used by a developer to pay for required contributions. These contributions can include

on-site infrastructure such as schools and/or financial contributions such as for strategic

transport infrastructure and open space.

Past contribution levels

11.8 We have been provided with information from the Council on contribution levels for 20

developments in Tendring (see Appendix 5). This information indicates financial

developer contributions ranged from £0 to £8,000 per unit and affordable housing of 0 –

100%. Unsurprisingly, the higher financial contributions levels (for infrastructure such as

open space, education and transport) were achieved where low (or no) affordable housing

was required.

Factors affecting future contribution levels

11.9 The following key variables will affect the general level of developer contribution that

could be available from growth, and how much variation there will be between sites:

The level of land values needed to maintain an adequate flow of land onto the market

(or the site acquisition cost where it has already been acquired by a developer);

The types of sites earmarked for development in the context of their existing use value

and preparation costs;

Whether there are different markets in terms of demand, supply and general sales

values the earmarked sites are located in;

General economic issues such as the affect of the credit crunch on sales values and

demand;

Policy issues such as layout and design rules, and sustainability requirements (such

as Code for Sustainable Homes code levels); and

Potential availability of Housing and Communities Agency grant for affordable housing

contributions.

11.10 Some of the key variables outlined above are discussed below.

House prices and the property market

11.11 House prices are one of the main determinants of the level of potential theoretical value

that a development creates which could be captured by a local planning authority as



developer contributions. As house prices can vary significantly across a district, so

therefore can the potential developer contributions that could be secured to help fund

infrastructure.

11.12 The Fordham Research Affordable Housing Site Viability Study (2006) identified four

broad categories of development in Tendring:

High value locations such as Frinton and Mistley;

Medium-high value rural inland locations such as Ardleigh;

Medium value locations such as Little Clacton; and

Low value sites in less attractive locations such as Dovercourt, Jaywick and some

parts of Clacton.

11.13 When the study was carried out the property market was close to its “peak” in terms of

house prices. The Fordham report suggested prices at this time varied between less than

£2,000 per sq m in lower value areas to in excess of £2,500 per sq m in high value areas.

House prices are falling

11.14 We are currently in an unstable housing market, with house prices having fallen

significantly since 2007/8.

11.15 The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) 2009 Housing Forecast reports the

consensus view is that residential prices (based on the mortgage approval indices

compiled by HBOS and the Nationwide Building Society) are likely to decline by 10% -

15% over the course of 2009, with the peak to trough drop of somewhere between 25%

and 30%.

Predicated timescales for recovery

11.16 There is, however, no consensus view on when values will recover fully to their 2007/8

peak. The RICS Housing Market Survey in June 2009 showed a reported decline in the

rate of price falls nationally. As noted by the Nationwide though, this is based on

abnormally low supply levels. It predicts additional supply is likely to come from

homeowners who see their financial position impacted by higher unemployment and lower

incomes. Increased demand is therefore one potential obstacle to continuing to build

towards a recovery.

11.17 In November 2008 Savills Research predicted that growth would return to the mainstream

by early 2011, with a full recovery to 2007 values in the South East by 2012, and the

South West, East Midlands, East of England, London and Scotland by 201310. Its latest

research in May 2009 predicts growth will not return to the mainstream now until late 2011

or early 201211. Knight Frank reported last year that “prices will take some time to recover

to their 2007 peak, a process which, on average, will be complete by 2015, led by central

London (2012) and concluded by Northern Ireland (2019)”.

10 Savills Research – UK Residential Forecast: Boom and Bust – The Inevitable Cycle? (November 2008) 11 Savills Research – Residential Property Focus: Housing market recovery, the four stages (May 2009)



11.18 Price Waterhouse Coopers UK Economic Outlook (July 2009) includes a more pessimistic

analysis of potential housing market recovery scenarios. Analysis of different economic

conditions shows that even in 2020, after five years of relatively strong growth, real house

prices are projected in a median scenario to be only around 8% above 2008 levels in real

inflation-adjusted terms. Furthermore, their analysis shows there is a 30% chance that

real house prices in 2020 could still be below 2008 levels.

Assumed recovery scenario

11.19 With no consensus on the recovery of the housing market, a possible scenario for the

future level of residential sales values in Tendring is set out below:

Bottom of the market (sales values 25% lower than “peak” levels): 2009-11

Partial recovery (sales values 10% lower than “peak” levels): 2012-14

Full recovery (sales values return to “peak” levels): 2015 +

Local authorities are currently under pressure to renegotiate Section 106 agreements

11.20 As house prices and demand have fallen significantly recently, developers who acquired

land at peak land values, and secured planning permissions before the credit crunch, are

now reassessing the viability of their schemes. In many cases, developers are arguing

their schemes are now unviable on the basis of the Section 106 requirements previously

agreed and are seeking to reduce these requirements. This may be due to genuine

viability issues (such as high abnormal costs and existing use values which are discussed

in more detail below) or because they paid too much for the land.

11.21 This suggests that developer contribution funding for infrastructure is likely be

compromised to some degree until the property and land markets recover.

The differences between brownfield and greenfield development

11.22 One of the key differences that will affect developer contribution levels is the land type.

The most recognised distinction is between “greenfield” and “brownfield” land.

11.23 Although brownfield land can usually support a higher density of development, particularly

where it is in an existing urban area, it still often less profitable to develop than greenfield

land due to the following:

Brownfield existing use values (EUVs) are often higher – The Fordham study in 2006

suggested agricultural land values (i.e. greenfield sites) were £4,000 per ha, but were

£450,000 per ha for industrial land. An agricultural landowner would expect a much

higher price for its land where a residential planning permission can be secured, and

the Fordhams study suggests a greenfield landowner would be prepared to sell at

£150,000 per ha. However, brownfield residential development sites often have

existing buildings on the site rather than been clear. For example, if the existing use

is industrial, the EUV of a site could be in the order of £2m per ha (depending on

factors such as the capital value of the existing buildings, site density etc) with

buildings, rather than £450,000 per ha without buildings; and

Brownfield development costs can be higher. - Brownfield land often has site specific

or “abnormal” development costs associated with it, such as remediation, demolition

and relocation of existing businesses that are not associated with greenfield



development. These costs often have a major impact on viability, and can render

sites unviable for development without public subsidy.

The importance of land costs

11.24 Land costs can form a significant proportion of development costs. As a consequence,

the land cost will have a major impact on the level of developer contributions that could be

secured.

11.25 As set out above, brownfield land with existing value for employment uses often costs

significantly more than greenfield land. As greenfield land forms a potential proportion of

the sites under consideration in this study, we have considered this in more detail.

11.26 The uplift in value of greenfield land on the grant of planning permission for residential

development is significant. However, much of this value goes to the landowner rather

than the developer in the form of eventual development profit. Capturing this landowner

value for developer contributions is critical to funding infrastructure.

11.27 In addition, due to its low existing use value, the land cost of greenfield land is usually

based on the “residual” land value i.e. the residual value after taking into account

projected development value, costs, profit and developer contribution requirements,

including affordable housing that can be paid for land. Consequently, if a developer has

assumed unrealistic values or much lower contributions than a local authority’s

contribution policy, then development may be either unviable or the LA will not receive its

required contributions (see para. 11.20 above).

11.28 Whether the land has already been acquired is therefore an important factor as to the

level of developer contribution that can be secured, particularly in the current market if the

land was acquired before the credit crunch at “peak” land prices.

Developer “options”

11.29 Most medium to large “greenfield” development sites that have been (or could be)

allocated for housing by the LPA are “optioned” by developers rather than purchased

outright. One key reason is due to the risks involved in trying to calculate a set price for a

development on a residual basis (where many costs and other variables such as

development density are unknown).

11.30 A developer will usually pay the landowner (such as a farmer) a non-returnable, but

relatively small, option fee (e.g. £100,000) to secure the legal right to acquire the land in

agreed circumstances. Within the option agreement, there will be a mechanism for

calculating what price will be paid by the developer for the land. This usually includes a

minimum (or “base”) land price (e.g. £250,000 per ha) the landowner will receive if the

developer exercises the option, and a mechanism for calculating a share of any further

value created by the development (usually a percentage of open market value). This

additional value (e.g. a further £250,000 per ha) will take into account development costs,

such as infrastructure costs required to service the site for residential development.

11.31 However, developers usually closely guard details of their option agreements, and

consequently obtaining this information is difficult (unlike, say, house prices which are

publicly available through the Land Registry).



11.32 Even where land was optioned in a strong market with more optimistic assumptions on

house prices, it is possible to secure reasonable developer contributions should the

market weaken (such as now) if the base land price is not breached. In this situation, the

lower development value will be passed on to the landowner through a lower land price

rather than reducing a developer’s profit resulting in unviable development or a need for a

renegotiated Section 106 agreement.

11.33 Indeed, even if a base option price is breached, to ensure reasonable contributions are

secured a developer can seek to renegotiate the terms of the option rather than

renegotiate the Section 106 agreement.

The impact of other planning policies

11.34 As set out above, the potential contribution “pot” from a development is limited. Other

planning policies, such as affordable housing, layout and sustainability requirements, will

need to be borne from this pot. Consequently, planning policies are not mutually

independent; for example, the greater the affordable housing requirements, the less

contribution will be available towards infrastructure and visa versa.

11.35 Affordable housing policy requirements often take a substantial amount out of this pot

(and in some instances render a development unviable). We understand there is a

regional expectation in the RSS that 35% of all new housing should be affordable. We

understand the current affordable housing policy of 40% is currently being reviewed, but

that significant change is not anticipated.

11.36 The Fordhams Study tested the viability of a number of sites in Tendring at varying

affordable housing requirement levels. Based on assumed developer contributions of

£1,650 - £11,600 per unit, it found that 40% affordable housing is only viable in higher

value areas, greenfield sites in other areas (assuming a low land value is required by the

landowner) or brownfield sites with few abnormal development costs.

Housing grant

11.37 The viability assessments in the Fordhams study were required to assume zero housing

grant for affordable housing. This is consistent with the Housing Corporation’s (HC)

previous national policy on grant funding to support procurement through Section 106

Agreements was that none would be available, unless the need for public subsidy could

be demonstrated. Importantly, the HC wished to ensure it did not subsidise land values

i.e. help maintain high land prices to the benefit of land owners.

11.38 In reality, we understand grant funding has been available for developments in Tendring

in the past. We understand from the Council that for the right scheme delivering a

balance of accommodation types with guaranteed delivery, grant rates in excess of

£60,000 per unit were being achieved for socially rented units.

11.39 We also understand the Homes and Communities Agency have recently released their

outturn figures for the East of England for 2008/09. These show an average grant per unit

of £47,545 for social rent (£12,873 per person) and £22,354 per unit for low cost home

ownership (£6,077 per person). This reflects payment of higher grant rates in order to



stimulate the housing industry at a time of recession. Previously the average grant rate for

socially rented units was approximately £35,000 per unit.

11.40 However, it cannot be assumed such levels of grant funding will continue to be available

in the future.

Initial assessment of potential developer contribution funding levels

11.41 For the purposes of this stage of the study, we have undertaken an initial high level

assessment of potential indicative levels of developer contribution funding based on

“generic” development sites to help identify issues effecting infrastructure planning and

selection of growth options in infrastructure terms.

11.42 It should be noted that this will be refined in Part 2 of the study and there are some

important caveats, which are set out below. It should also be noted the Council would

need robust planning policy in place to justify future contributions levels, particularly

where they are significantly higher than previous contribution levels.

Our approach

11.43 As set out above, there are likely to be significant differences in key variables that will

affect potential future developer contribution levels in Tendring.

11.44 To understand the range of potential developer contributions from different developments,

we have undertaken high level assessments of a notional urban extension and a notional

town centre development site at varying house price levels (low, medium and high).

11.45 We have set out below the assumptions used in this analysis. We have varied some of

the key assumptions, e.g. affordable housing, to understand the impact they might have

on developer contribution levels.

Important caveats

Our assessment only draws out strategic issues

11.46 At this stage, we are seeking to understand broad developer contribution issues that will

effect strategic infrastructure planning and the potential growth options on this basis. Our

initial assessment of developer contribution levels does not accurately reflect the wide

range of development sites within the potential growth options.

Calculations used here are not based on, and do not constitute, “Red Book” valuations

11.47 It is very important to note that our assessment of indicative developer contribution

estimates are produced at a high level with a number of assumptions made. The figures

that will be reported from this exercise need to be treated as indicative figures on the

basis of the inputs and assumptions made. They are calculations of the residual worth of

land for development and not the price which it might fetch in the market which can be

very different. They are not based on, and do not constitute, “Red Book” valuations (RICS

Valuation Standards 6th Edition) and do not provide any kind of reliable guide to the

market value of any particular site. It is not our intention in this work to attempt to provide

a substitute for a detailed site viability assessment.



Our analysis is only at a high level. This work should not be used to calculate developer contributions from specific sites

11.48 Our analysis is not on an individual site basis; we have assessed two notional types of

development sites (see below) to understand the potential developer contribution issues

at this stage.

11.49 Consequently, this information should not be used for any purpose other than the

infrastructure assessment, and should not be used in developer contribution negotiations

or to support any developer contribution policy.

11.50 We have not used standard development appraisal software (such as Circle Developer).

This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, they are not tailored to assessing long term

residential development schemes which could form a large part of the expected growth in

Tendring. Most, in our experience, work on the assumption that money will be borrowed

by a developer to pay for a scheme in which they key financial aim is to achieve a

satisfactory margin (profit) on cost whereas volume housebuilders manage equity funding

and aim to achieve a target return on the capital they employ. We understand the

emerging DCLG guidance on appraising Eco-towns recommends using a NPV (return on

capital employed) approach.

11.51 Secondly, appraisal packages are standardised and are therefore not designed to be

integrated with infrastructure spreadsheet models. In our experience, they are also not as

user friendly to allow predetermined key variables to be changed (e.g. affordable housing

percentages).

11.52 We have therefore undertaken our analysis in Excel as this can be refined and directly

linked into a spreadsheet infrastructure funding model at a later stage as required.

We have not undertaken any site specific research

11.53 Given the high level nature of this part of the study, we have not undertaken any research

to understand individual site issues. Consequently, key variables such as site

specific/abnormal costs and land costs are based on our general market knowledge and

do not necessarily accurately reflect actual potential future development sites in Tendring.

Estimated developer contributions are highly sensitive to the assumptions

11.54 Any estimate of developer contributions potentially available to contribute to infrastructure

requirements are extremely sensitive to the assumptions made.

Further refinement will be necessary in the future to understand potential developer contribution levels more accurately

11.55 On the basis of the above, further work and refinement will be necessary in the future to

achieve a more accurate picture of potential developer contribution levels from

development in Tendring to help fund infrastructure. We recommend this is carried out in

Part Two of the study.

Assumptions used for the initial analysis

11.56 In addition to the important caveats above, there are a number of important assumptions

we have used. More detailed assumptions for the purposes of our high level assessment



of developer contribution issues (such as house price levels, densities, affordable housing

etc) are set out after.

No specific developer contribution mechanism is assumed

11.57 Development contributions are currently secured through the Section 106 system

(governed by Circular 05/2005). Although the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is

proposed to work alongside and partially replace the Section 106 system, the maximum

level of contribution that development could afford (without becoming unviable) under

each system is largely the same, although timing and certainty of required contribution will

affect this level.

11.58 The purpose of this assessment is not to determine a CIL charge and implementation

mechanism. However, we still need to include developer contributions that could

realistically be secured to help fund the infrastructure requirements identified in the

assessment. We therefore propose to calculate this based on the level of financial

contribution that could be reasonably secured from development, regardless of the

particular mechanism (whether Section 106 or CIL).

11.59 We have assumed the timing of contribution payments is spread out over the life of the

development. This is envisaged in the latest CIL guidance and contributions in the

majority of large residential and mixed use developments are either spread or back

ended. Our specific assumptions on timing are set out in more detail below.

We have used a notional large urban extension and a notional small, high density, town centre development

11.60 As set out above, we have used a notional urban extension and notional town centre development in our assessment. We have assumed a large “greenfield” urban extension of 25 ha (equating to 525 units) with some site abnormal cost issues, and a cleared 1 ha town centre development (equating to 70 units) with alternative use value for industrial development and some site abnormal cost issues.

Summary of key development assumptions

11.61 As set out above, at this stage we are seeking to understand developer contribution

funding issues as opposed to assessing potential developer contribution funding. We

have therefore based our high level assessment on assumptions made in the Fordhams

report, such as sales values, build costs etc, although these will need to be refined

through the next stage of the infrastructure study. More detailed information on our

assumptions is provided in Appendix 6.

11.62 Our assumptions on affordable housing and sustainability requirements were agreed with

the Council. Finally, we have used our own general market knowledge where necessary.

11.63 We have set our key base assumptions out below. It should be noted that sales values

(i.e. house prices) are based on previous “peak” values rather than current values; this is

discussed in more detail later on.



Table 11.1 Summary of key development assumptions

Variable Urban Extension Category Town Centre Category

Site size (gross) 25 1

Development Density 35dph 100dph

Net/Gross Site Ratio 60% 70%

Development Mix 90% houses/10% flats 10% houses/90% flats

Sales Value £1,884 - £2,422psm (houses) £2,072 - £2,664psm

(houses)

Affordable Housing 40% of residential units

(78% socially rented / 22%

intermediate)

40% of residential units


intermediate)

Affordable Housing

Grant Funding

£0 per unit £0 per unit

Land Acquisition Cost £0.5m per ha £1.0m per ha

Build Costs Apartments: £1,184psm

Houses: £766psm

Apartments: £1,342psm

Houses: £766psm

Sustainability Costs

(Code for Sustainable

Homes)

Code Level 3 assumed

(+ 5% build costs)


(+ 5% build costs)

Site Specific / Abnormal

Costs

£0.5m per ha £0.5m per ha

Secondary

Infrastructure Costs


External Works 13% of build costs 13% of build costs

Fees & Other Costs 10% of build costs 10% of build costs

Sales Rates 100 units pa 50 units pa

Average Unit Sizes

(Private)

Apartments: 65 sq m

Houses: 85 sq m

Apartments: 65 sq m

Houses: 85 sq m

Average Unit Sizes

(Affordable)

Apartments: 70 sq m

Houses: 90 sq m

Apartments: 70 sq m

Houses: 90 sq m

Developer’s Required

Rate of Return

17%pa 17%pa

Key findings from the initial analysis

New development may struggle to provide contributions on basis of assumptions

11.64 To provide a potential contribution to infrastructure funding, it is necessary for sites to

produce a surplus after allowing for other planning requirements (e.g. affordable housing

and sustainability standards).

11.65 Our initial analysis shows both the notional urban extension and town centre sites

produce a negative theoretical surplus available for developer contributions on the basis

of the above assumptions. This indicates not only that actual allocated development sites

might not provide any contributions to infrastructure funding, they may also be financially



unviable i.e. a developer would not undertake the development as little or no profit is

generated and therefore undeliverable.

Urban extension sites appear more viable than town centre sites on basis of assumptions

11.66 Our initial analysis indicates the notional urban extension site is more viable than the town

centre site on the basis of the above assumptions. Whereas the notional urban extension

in a high value area is on the margins of viability (without producing any theoretical

surplus for developer contributions for potential infrastructure funding), the notional town

centre site in all the assumed value areas is significantly unviable.

Sensitivity testing of key assumptions

Reducing affordable housing requirements significantly improves viability

11.67 If affordable housing is reduced to 20%, with grant funding of approximately £20,000 per

unit, a limited amount of theoretical surplus is created in the assumed high value areas. It

should be noted this is based on previous “peak” house prices, and therefore it cannot be

assumed that such indicative contribution levels could be achieved in the current market.

Urban extension sites with limited or no abnormal cost issues could potentially provide significant contributions to infrastructure funding

11.68 We have assumed abnormal costs on the notional urban extension site of £500,000 per

ha as an average to cover some of the types of abnormal issues that are encountered on

development sites. For example, one site may require off site infrastructure works, such

as a stretch of access road or additional utilities, a second remediation/decontamination

and a third acquisition of existing buildings or land (with associated demolition costs).

11.69 We have used an average as we have not assessed individual development sites, and

such information may not be available or accurate in any event. However, some

“greenfield” development sites in Tendring may have limited abnormal costs for residential

development.

11.70 If abnormal costs of only £100,000 per ha are assumed, our analysis indicates an

indicative theoretical surplus available for developer contributions from the notional urban

extension site of over £10,000 per unit in the assumed high value area, based on 40%

affordable housing. If affordable housing is reduced to 20% this increases to over

£25,000 per unit in assumed high value areas and over £5,000 per unit in medium value

areas. The notional urban extension in an assumed low value area still struggles to

produce a theoretical surplus to help fund infrastructure in our notional example though.

11.71 It should be noted that the Fordham Research Affordable Housing Site Viability Study

assumed contributions on sites tested of £1,650 - £11,600 per unit. On this basis, its

viability analysis indicated that 40% social rented affordable housing on sites such as the

St Johns Rd urban extension site in Clacton (assuming £6,900 per unit contributions) was

deliverable, although this assumed much lower land costs.



Lowering greenfield land costs, particularly in lower value areas, could be critical to securing developer contributions

11.72 We have assumed £500,000 per ha land costs for both the notional urban extension and

notional town centre site. Although existing use values for agricultural land, which we

understand will form part of the urban extensions in Tendring, are only approximately

£10,000 per ha from Valuation Office Agency (VOA) information, greenfield landowners

have historically been paid much higher levels where residential permission has been, or

is likely to be, granted.

11.73 If it is assumed land costs for the notional urban extension site are reduced to £250,000

per ha in the future (but house prices have recovered to their 2007 peak levels), the

indicative theoretical surplus available for developer contributions is approximately £5,000

per unit in the assumed high value area at 40% affordable housing. However, medium

and low value areas struggle to produce theoretical surplus available for developer

contributions at 40% affordable housing.

11.74 It should be noted that even if much higher planning contributions than have previously

been secured are required (i.e. in excess of £3,000 per unit), and this is reflected by

developers in the amount they are prepared to pay such landowners, there is a risk land

will not come to the market as landowners may choose to wait for land values to increase

again to past levels.

Some town centre sites may have significantly higher land costs which will effect viability

11.75 While the urban extension land cost assumption is based on high previous levels and in

reality could be lower in Tendring in the future, especially in low value areas, land costs

for town centre and other brownfield land sites could be significantly higher on some sites.

11.76 Fordhams assumed an alternative use value for industrial development of £500,000 per

ha. This is based on VOA information, which we understand assumes cleared sites for

development. As set out in paragraph 11.23, where there are existing buildings on a site

this can push up the value of a site considerably to in the region of £2m per ha. We

therefore used an indicative land cost of £1,000,000 per ha which is likely to be between a

cleared industrial site and one still in use for our notional town centre development site.

11.77 Where land costs are in the region of £2m per ha, this has a significant impact on viability

and would make it extremely difficult for such sites to provide affordable housing, higher

sustainability standards and contributions to infrastructure; one or more of these potential

planning requirements is likely need to be significantly reduced to produce financially

viable development.



Summary of initial developer contribution analysis

11.78 Set out below is a summary table of our findings and sensitivity testing:

Table 11.2 Summary of initial developer contributions analysis

Summary of key issues and findings

11.79 A summary of the key issues and findings from our initial assessment of developer

contribution funding for infrastructure is set out below:

Development only has a limited developer contribution “pot” - This pot can vary

significantly between sites due to differences in variables such as house prices and

development costs (particularly land and abnormal costs). In addition, other

requirements such as affordable housing can significantly reduce the “pot”. The

relationship between different types of contributions needs to be understood as not all

these are likely to be secured without compromising viability and deliverability;

Past developer contribution levels in Tendring have been relatively low - Infrastructure

costs from growth can vary significantly; our experience indicates this range could be

in the order of £10,000 to £40,000 per unit. However, we understand on average only

approximately £3,000 per unit has been secured from development in Tendring in the

last five years, some of which required limited or no affordable housing. This

suggests that developer contribution levels may need to increase if sufficient funding

is to be secured for infrastructure requirements;

The current affordable housing requirements have a significant impact on viability and

potential levels of developer contribution - We have assumed a 40% affordable

housing requirement and no grant is provided by HCA. Our initial analysis, based on

notional urban extension and town centre development sites, suggests such a

requirement may risk sites in low and medium value areas being unviable (i.e. even if

no developer contributions were required, sites may not be financially viable) and may

severely restrict developer contributions from high value areas or those with low land

and abnormal costs;

T he o re tica l Surp lus Ava ila b le to Fund De ve lo p e r Co ntrib utio ns

Base

Assumptions

Lower Affordable

Housing

(20%)

Lower Abnormal

Costs

(£100k per ha)

Lower Affordable

Housing & Abnormal

Costs

Notional Urban

Extension Site

Negative for all value areas

Marginal viability in higher value

area

Over £10,000 per unit in high value

area

Over £5,000 per unit in medium value area &

over £25,000 per unit in high value area

Notional Town Centre

Site


Marginal viability in higher value

area


Over £5,000 per unit in high value area



Viability and developer contributions will be adversely affected until the housing

market recovers - Our analysis has been on the basis of previous “peak” residential

sales values. However, current residential values are significantly lower which will

have a negative impact on the viability of all sites. Some sites may still be deliverable

based on some affordable housing and developer contribution requirements in current

market conditions e.g. where “options” for large greenfield site can be renegotiated to

reflect the short term impact on land values, but it is likely planning requirements

would need to be significantly reduced from those assumed in our initial analysis to

deliver development at the moment;

Prioritisation of planning requirements is required - Our analysis has shown the

impact of other potential planning requirements, in particular affordable housing. It is

unlikely that sufficient developer contributions to infrastructure costs resulting from

growth can be secured if other planning requirements are onerous and there is

significant development in low value areas and brownfield sites with high existing use

and/or abnormal costs. Prioritisation of policy objectives may be essential to ensure

both development and infrastructure are deliverable; and

Allocation of sites and robust developer contribution planning policy will be critical to

securing funding for infrastructure - Our analysis has highlighted the large differences

in potential levels of developer contributions that could theoretically be secured

between different types of site (e.g. straightforward greenfield urban extensions and

brownfield town centre sites with a high existing use value) and the different value

areas of Tendring. If relatively high affordable housing levels are still sought after

prioritisation of planning requirements, then a careful allocation of development sites

will be required to secure sufficient developer contributions to demonstrate the

deliverability of key infrastructure required to support growth. This will need to be

coupled with a robust developer contribution policy to secure the necessary

infrastructure funding from development.



12 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

12.1 Below is a short summary of the big issues arising from the Part One study.

Major issues

12.2 There are fundamentally no infrastructure issues that will absolutely prevent development in

any of the potential locations being considered in the study. However, there are some items

that will have a significant bearing on the preferred locations and, in particular, on the

possible scale of development that could occur. These are:

Transport (A120): If Bathside Bay goes ahead, then significant improvements will need to

be made to the A120, including dualling of certain sections. Without Bathside Bay, then

housing development could occur without the need for these major improvements;

Transport (Pond Hall Farm): if this goes ahead solely for employment uses, then it will

require an at-grade roundabout, costing £1.5 million and taking at least three years to

deliver. If it goes ahead in conjunction with Bathside Bay, then additional dualling of the

A120 could be needed at a cost of £20 million;

Transport (A133): If significant development occurs in Clacton-on-Sea and Walton-on-

the-Naze, then there will need to be upgrading of the A133. This is thought to be in the

region of 50% of the theoretical maximum level of development, i.e. 3,000 dwellings;

Waste water: Any significant development in the district will require extensions to existing

sewage treatment works and major expansions to the capacity of the sewer network; and

Education: potentially, even with the highest levels of growth proposed, there may be

insufficient need in Harwich to justify a new secondary school.

Costs and Funding

12.3 A large proportion of the costs of providing the major infrastructure in Tendring will be met by

the providers themselves. This particularly relates to the utilities, for whom this is a standard

practice and part of their licence agreement with Central Government. Also for waste

management, a large proportion of the costs will be met by the PFI that has been secured.

12.4 Most other infrastructure needs are part-funded by mainstream funding and part-funded by

developer contributions. In this Part One study, it is not possible to be precise about the costs

that would be incurred. This is because exact costs can only be provided when specific

schemes and levels of development are looked at. This will be undertaken in Part Two.

12.5 Clearly it is the major items that will have a significant impact on the overall costs. In

particular, this relates to the major transport schemes on the A120 and A133. Inevitably an

increasing proportion of these costs will have to be met by the developer in the form of

contributions. However, what developers can afford is limited by the viability of the

development, which is discussed below.

12.6 A summary of the costs and funding of the major transportation schemes is shown in Table

12.1.



Table 12.1 Summary of major transport infrastructure scheme costs

Scheme Indicative

Cost (£m)

Likely Funding

Source

Funding available and

source

Indicative

Timescale

Comments

Dualling of the A120

from Hare Green to

Ramsey

45 Developer/Highways

Agency

Majority will be

developer contributions

(HPUK)

Some Highways Agency

funding (costs to be

determined)

Post-2016 Dualling will need to come forward when Bathside

Bay is progressed. However dualling is unlikely to

happen until several years after the opening of

Phase One of the development (post 2016). In the

interim an HGV capping measure would operate.

With regard to dualling HPUK have agreed to fund

any road improvements necessary. Dualling

however is likely to be a cost shared with HPUK

and the Highways Agency.

Improvements to the

A133 between

Crabtree roundabout

and Green Lane

roundabout including

upgrades of the

roundabouts

12 LTP3 Major

Schemes Bid with

developer

contributions

LTP3 Major Schemes

bid for £12m

(Previously £68m Essex

wide LTP2 funding for

integrated transport)

Also GAF and GPF

could be sought

2015/2016 Improvements to the A133 are likely to become

necessary when approximately 50% of the housing

comes on board in the Clacton/Walton-on-the-

Naze area. This is likely to be funded through LTP

3 (2012-1016)

Pond Hall Farm

Access onto A120

1.5 LTP3 LTP3 funding

(Previously £68m Essex

wide LTP2 funding for

integrated transport)

2014 If brought on stream in conjunction with Bathside

Bay, then additional dualling of the A120 will be

needed. This will push delivery back to 2017 at the

earliest.



Developer contribution funding

12.7 Securing the maximum reasonable contributions possible from development will be an

important way of funding, and therefore delivering, the infrastructure required to support

growth in Tendring.

12.8 At the moment, relatively low levels of developer contribution have been secured from

development (up to approximately £8,000 per residential unit). On the basis of other

infrastructure studies and the capacity analysis in this study, it is likely this level of

contributions will be insufficient to provide the necessary funding to meet infrastructure

requirements (even after accounting for mainstream funding available for infrastructure).

12.9 There are likely to be significant differences in the developer contribution funding that

could potentially be secured between areas and types of sites. Our initial analysis has

suggested that both brownfield development and greenfield development in lower value

areas may struggle to provide sufficient contributions based on current affordable housing

requirements and the other assumptions set out in Section 11.

12.10 However, it is likely that a significant amount of the growth in Tendring will be delivered on

these sites. Consequently, relatively large greenfield sites that do not offer reasonable

contributions may need to limited, or those that are relatively straightforward to develop

chosen.

12.11 In addition, securing relatively high contributions from smaller developments in medium to

high value areas that will still have a cumulative impact on infrastructure requirements is

likely to be needed.

12.12 To achieve the above the Council will need to have a robust developer contribution policy

in place to justify higher contribution requirements than previously secured. Ensuring

developers and landowners are aware of the expectations for contributions towards

infrastructure may be important so this is reflected in future land values or results in

renegotiated option agreements where necessary.

12.13 Public sector intervention, for example through the strategic use of HCA grant funding and

Cascade Agreements, may also be required to ensure as much of the future development

as possible provides reasonable contribution levels towards infrastructure.

12.14 We would recommend the Council undertakes further work to understand site specific

issues (e.g. landownership and likely levels of site specific costs) to refine the findings of

the viability analysis in this study.

12.15 In the next chapter we go on to consider the potential of each of the various development

options by location.

.



13 OPTIONS

13.1 In respect of infrastructure considerations there are five key factors that will, to a greater

or lesser degree, impact on which locations will be best to develop. All of these issues will

require decisions to be made by Tendring District Council, informed by the other studies

that make up the evidence base to the Core Strategy. This report outlines what these

issues are and the potential impacts each could have.

13.2 The five key factors are:

The scale of growth that would be delivered (in terms of dwellings and also

commercial space);

The prioritisation of key items needed to support growth;

The ability to fund the principal infrastructure items through public sources, and the

associated impact that this would have on delivery timescales. ‘Principal’

infrastructure means the items without which development simply could not occur;

The mechanisms for securing developer funding, i.e. section 106 or a tariff

approach;and

The differing levels of what development can afford, by location.

13.3 In addition to this, there is the associated impact of other major development to consider.

In the case of Tendring, this fundamentally relates to the development of Bathside Bay. At

present, this has planning permission, subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement.

It is the Consultants’ understanding that one of the major issues currently outstanding

relates to contributions for increases in capacity on the A120. Clearly this will also impact

on delivery of housing at Harwich and also the ability to fund the related infrastructure.

13.4 The assessment of the various options will be shaped around these considerations.

Harwich

13.5 The principal issue dictating the scale of growth that could be achieved in Harwich is the

need for improvements to the A120. Directly related to this is when the Bathside Bay

development will go ahead and how much of the associated improvements to the A120

will be paid for by the developer, Hutchinson Ports UK Limited (HPUK). Without the

Bathside Bay development it would likely be possible to deliver the highest levels of

development (approximately 3,900 dwellings when taking into account all the

development areas tested in Harwich) without the need for the improvements. Equally

however, this may create other pressures on the transport network as the absence of the

new container port would mean fewer local job opportunities for the new residents which

would lead to higher levels of out-commuting. Indeed, the consideration of significant

levels of housing in Harwich is underpinned by the large numbers of jobs that will be

created by the Bathside Bay development.

13.6 However, it is assumed that Bathside Bay will go ahead and currently it is expected that

the first phases of the development will be operational within the first half of the plan

period (by 2018/19). For significant levels of housing development to come forward in the

same first half of the plan period, then it is likely that dualling will be required earlier than



currently envisaged. Given that the proposed timetable for any dualling to go ahead is

over the longer term, then it is unlikely that more than a small proportion of the total

proposed number of dwellings could come forward before this dualling was undertaken.

Nevertheless, following dualling of the A120, the full 3,900 dwellings could be delivered

without unnecessarily detrimental impacts to the road network being experienced.

13.7 There is also the issue of the strategic site at Pond Hall Farm. This will require direct

access to be provided onto the A120 and given the importance it will have in serving

Bathside Bay’s associated employment land needs, this will need to come forward shortly

after Bathside Bay is operational (or earlier). The extent to which this can be paid for by

developer contributions depends on detailed viability analysis and on the possible

mechanisms for charging for development. It is understood that the Pond Hall Farm site

has not come forward to date because of the significant costs associated with providing

the required access (estimated at £1.5m). Moreover, if it was developed along with

Bathside Bay, then additional dualling of the A120 would be needed, pushing the costs up

to £20 million, and delaying delivery until 2017.

13.8 However, if contributions from housing development were to be pooled in some way

(possible through a Community Infrastructure Levy charge - if this is taken forward by

Central Government – or equivalent), then there would be a greater potential for these

costs to be met. Therefore, the higher the levels of housing development, the greater the

chance of bringing forward the Pond Hall Farm site as a major strategic employment

location, which would also provide local jobs for the new residents.

13.9 In terms of other infrastructure needs, it is likely that even at the highest levels of

development, there will be insufficient numbers to justify a new secondary school. Equally

therefore, the larger the number of houses developed, the greater the pressure on the

existing secondary schools serving the area. It will be necessary to undertake further

testing of more detailed options with the education authority (Essex County Council) in

order to understand the optimum level of development from the point of view of secondary

education.

13.10 Waste water is a significant issue for accommodating major development at Harwich, as it

would require expansion of the existing sewerage treatment works and further capacity

added to the sewer network. It will therefore be important to undertake testing of detailed

options with Anglian Water at the earliest stage. Given the longer timescale for significant

growth at Harwich coming forward, the need for expanded sewerage capacity is unlikely

to provide a delay to this.

Recommendation

13.11 It is considered that, subject to further testing of options with the education authority in

respect of secondary education provision and Anglian Water in respect of waste water,

Harwich could reasonably accommodate levels of development up to the maximum level

of 3,900 dwellings. This would occur whether Bathside Bay was delivered or not, although

it is assumed that it will be delivered. If it was not, then there would be other effects

related to the loss of potential job opportunities for new residents that would have been

created.



13.12 Only a small proportion of this growth level (unlikely to be more than 20-25%) could come

forward in the first half of the plan period, as the major improvements to the A120 will not

come forward before then. These improvements are needed to increase the capacity for

development.

13.13 An added consideration is that the development of Bathside Bay will provide a lot of the

funding necessary to make improvements to the highway network, so it is likely that the

development will need to come forward and to do so on its existing planned timescale if it

is not to push major development at Harwich back further, and possibly beyond the 2026

end date of the plan period.

13.14 As Harwich is a lower value area of Tendring, the potential level of development

contribution funding that could be secured from development, particularly on brownfield

sites, could be lower than other areas. However, as there is the potential for significant

greenfield urban extension development, we would recommend further work is

undertaken to establish landownership in this area (i.e. has land been acquired by

developers, and at what price) and the potential level of site specific/abnormal costs.

Clacton-on-Sea/Walton-on-the-Naze

13.15 Like at Harwich, one of the principal issues dictating the scale and timing of growth at

Clacton-on-Sea and also Walton-on-the-Naze is the need for improvements to the A133.

A high level assessment has determined that, if approximately 3,000 of the 6,500

dwellings assessed in the development areas (including existing allocations) were

delivered, then a tipping point would be reached whereby the improvements would be

needed. The majority of the cost of these improvements are likely to be funded through

LTP 3 (2012-1016), so could come forward in the first part of the plan period. However,

they would need to be supported by developer contributions to cover the full cost.

13.16 Moreover, even if possible growth locations at Clacton and/or Walton were developed

prior to the A133 improvements being made, they would not exert unacceptable levels of

congestion on the network. Part of the reason is that, as Clacton grows and moves

towards the District Council’s intentional goal of it becoming a higher order service centre,

increasing numbers of residents will be able to access jobs locally, rather than having to

commute out to other locations, principally Colchester. Therefore, the comparative

additional impact on the A133 will be small. It is only when the higher levels of

development arise that the overall traffic levels on the network will require the

improvements to be made.

13.17 Significant levels of housing development could bring with it significant developer

contributions. In respect of improvements to the A133, these will be needed to support the

LTP3 funding in covering the full costs of the required upgrade. Therefore it will be

imperative that development at Clacton and Walton contributes towards meeting these

costs. A possible risk is that, if planning contributions are sought through a Section 106

agreement, then it may be argued that development cannot directly be related to the need

for the improvements. This is because Clacton and Walton are not adjacent to the location

of the required upgrade, so such strategic needs should be funded by other means.

Therefore, it may be appropriate to explore a mechanism of pooling contributions, either



district-wide or for development in the Clacton/Walton area, recognising its impact on key

locations such as the A133. A clear case would need to be made for doing so, focussing

on making the case that these developments would clearly create unacceptable levels of

congestion on the A133.

13.18 Like at Harwich, waste water treatment will need significant additional infrastructure. This

would be for an extension to the existing sewage treatment works and also significant

additions to the sewer network. This would be the case whether development was in

either west or east Clacton. Again, further work in respect of more specific options would

need to be addressed at an early stage with Anglian Water. If significant levels of

development are to be brought forward early in the plan period, then this is particularly

important given the significant lead-in times generally for providing expanded sewerage

capacity.

Recommendation

13.19 It is recommended that higher levels of development are explored at Clacton and Walton,

at least up to 5,000 dwellings. Certainly, a minimum level of development of 3,000

dwellings should be considered. But development beyond this could be considered

because it is likely that the necessary improvements to the A133 will be delivered, as they

are programmed in LTP3 (whilst recognising the need for developer contributions to meet

some of the costs).

13.20 There is no particular issue that would prevent the focus of development being on either

west or east Clacton, subject to further testing of waste water needs by Anglian Water.

13.21 There is no particular issue either with timescales, so a significant proportion of

development could potentially occur in the first five years of the plan period.

13.22 Clacton, like Harwich, is another relatively low value area of Tendring and therefore the

potential level of development contribution funding that could be secured from

development, particularly on brownfield sites, could also be lower than other areas.

Other Locations

13.23 Most other locations in the district are small and could only accommodate small levels of

development. Certainly those locations such as Brightlingsea that can only reasonably be

accessed by a single road are restricted in their capacity to accommodate the growth

levels proposed.

13.24 In respect of the utilities, and particularly waste water, such locations are operating at or

close to their capacity. To provide additional capacity would be possible but would provide

little additional value on the investment when considering the comparatively low levels of

development that the new infrastructure would be expected to support. Therefore, it may

be difficult to justify such development in a 5-year asset management plan.

13.25 In terms of education, development in any of these locations would certainly be

insufficient to enable the provision of a new secondary school. However, in such a rural

district, if these locations are permitted to grow, then they place significant additional

pressures on the education system as children have to be bussed to the nearest



secondary schools, which can be some distance away. It is for the District Council to

decide where education sits in its list of priorities; on the assumption that it is a high

priority, then significant growth of the smaller towns and villages is not recommended.

13.26 Again, specific infrastructure requirements can more appropriately be assessed by

service providers when they are given more specific growth options to respond to.

Recommendation

13.27 In principle, none of the individual growth locations outside of Clacton/Walton and

Harwich have any fundamental infrastructure problems that mean they could not

accommodate at least some growth. The larger locations such as Brightlingsea and

Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley have potential to accommodate the largest proportion of

development of these areas.

13.28 However, it is a policy decision for the District Council as to the degree it wishes to grow

its existing small towns and villages. Also, whilst service providers have suggested that

there are no fundamental problems in providing additional infrastructure in these

locations, it is clearly more cost efficient to provide for development in areas where there

is already a significant base of infrastructure on which to build.

13.29 Many of the other potential development locations are medium to high value areas of

Tendring. Consequently, relatively straightforward greenfield development sites in these

locations could yield much higher developer contributions than areas such as Clacton and

Harwich/Dovercourt.



14 CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of Part One outputs

14.1 Below is a matrix summarising the significance of the issues for each of the LDF options,

by infrastructure item:



Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Cemeteries/crematoria

Secondary education Harwich – need for new secondary school but numbers possibly insufficient to justfiy

Harwich – need for new secondary school but numbers possibly insufficient to justfiy

Harwich – need for new secondary school but numbers possibly insufficient to justfiy

Primary education Harwich Town – would put significant pressure on existing

primary schools but insufficient to justify new

school

Harwich Town – would put pressure on existing primary

schools

Harwich Town – would put significant pressure on existing

primary schools but insufficient to justify new

school

Harwich Town – would put pressure on existing primary

schools

Emergency services – fire

Emergency services – police

Emergency services – ambulance

Health All areas ‐ Additional capacity needed but levels of growth insufficient to justify new

facilities

All areas ‐ Additional capacity needed but levels of growth insufficient to justify new

facilities


facilities


facilities

Utilities – telecommunications

Utilities – electricity Clacton ‐ New substation needed to serve growth at

West Clacton

Clacton ‐ New substation needed to serve growth at

West Clacton


West Clacton


West Clacton

Utilities – gas

Utilities – potable water supply

Utilities – waste water Clacton – potential issue over ability to expand capacity of

Jaywick STW. Harwich – significant

additional capacity for sewer network required

Clacton – potential issue over ability to expand capacity of









Transport

Waste management

No significant needs Some needs, each of which, in isolation, can be delivered without issue Significant needs which may be difficult to deliver or may serve to push back the timescale of development. Further work needed.



14.2 This represents Part One of a two-part study of the infrastructure needs in Tendring

district to support potential growth. The Part One study largely provides a baseline

assessment of current infrastructure, any potential major issues that would significantly

impact on development and possible requirements associated with growth levels in

certain locations. It supports this with a broad understanding, where possible, of costs and

available funding.

14.3 Inevitably the Part One study can only provide a broad understanding of potential and

needs. It will be for the Part Two study to assess more specific options and understand

process needs. Certainly, from the point of view of the service providers it is far easier to

provide a coherent response to specific growth levels in precise locations. It is therefore

important to stress that the study findings from Part One will in no way prejudice the future

views of the service providers when it comes to the Part Two work or any subsequent

negotiations with developers on particular planning applications.

14.4 The Part One assessment has determined that the main potential locations for

development – Clacton and Harwich – can both accommodate significant levels of growth.

In the case of Clacton, a significant proportion of this could come forward in the first half of

the plan period, given what is known about funding streams for required development. In

Harwich, it is likely that significant development may have to come in the second half of

the plan period, as funding for major improvements to the A120 is not programmed until

this period and this will be necessary to support major growth.

14.5 The other locations can potentially support growth but it is doubtful if it will be possible to

accommodate all of the levels of growth being tested. Certainly for many of the service

providers, it is inefficient to be providing additional infrastructure to service these areas

because the absolute numbers of additional dwellings are relatively small.

Mechanisms for delivery

14.6 As has been briefly considered earlier in the report, it is important to consider not only the

infrastructure needs associated with growth and what development can afford, but also

what mechanisms should be used to secure the developer funding associated with that

growth. At present, this is done through the use of Section 106 agreements which provide

flexibility in the way they can be applied (within the restrictions of Circular 05/2005), but

also lack the certainty of knowing how much developer funding will be secured.

Furthermore, Circular 05/2005 ties the contributions firmly to the direct impact that the

development has. This results in much of the strategic infrastructure (particularly roads,

which development clearly places additional pressure upon) not being provided with

developer funding in order to undertake the necessary upgrading.

14.7 The Government has recognised this and is currently considering a Community

Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This will be a broadly flat charge across all development in an

area, which can then be pooled and contribute to providing for all the infrastructure

needed across that area. A CIL charge would provide a solution to the possible issue that

may arise with development in Clacton and Walton in respect of the improvements

needed to the A133. Under Circular 05/2005, developers may argue that these

developments are not directly related to the congestion on the A133, so should not



contribute to the needs. However, under a CIL, it would be possible to collect a charge per

dwelling from across the district and use it to fund these upgrade works.

14.8 There is still much uncertainty as to whether CIL will be put in place. The recent pre-

Budget report stated that it will not come forward until April 2010 at the earliest. In any

event, districts are not obliged to use a CIL charge. But the draft guidance on CIL,

published by the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) in August

2008, suggests that the Government is certainly looking at generally changing the existing

system. It states at paragraph 20 that:

“The Government is considering whether restrictions on the use of planning obligations should be made once CIL is introduced. There would be a transitional period before any restriction would take effect.”

14.9 Para 5.10 of the document also states that:

“Other options include reducing the scope of planning obligations through a narrower set of criteria than those set out in Circular 05/05, or preventing planning obligations from being used to secure developer contributions through the use of standard charges.”

14.10 If this were to occur then a standard charge approach would not be possible. At present

however, some form of standard charge could possibly alleviate the issues raised for

development at Clacton and Walton. It could also be applied in respect of the

development of Pond Hall Farm at Harwich, whereby a charge on housing development

could contribute to the necessary highway access improvements onto the A120 of a major

strategic employment site, which would provide significant employment opportunities for

the new residents.

14.11 Figure 14.1 illustrates the differences between the alternative types of mechanism that

could be used for collecting developer contributions. If greater certainty of contribution is

wanted, then a tariff or CIL is most appropriate because for each new dwelling there will

be a guaranteed contribution that will not have to be negotiated. If greater flexibility is

required, then it is preferable to continue with the Section 106 approach of negotiating on

a site by site basis.



Figure 14.1 Choices for collecting developer contributions

14.12 It is also important to consider the area over which a charging mechanism should apply.

The draft CIL guidance is clear that a charge doesn’t necessarily have to be applied at just

the district level. It could be applied across a county or sub-region. Potentially, a Haven

Gateway-wide charge should be explored to see if this would provide the required

developer contributions to address the significant needs of the sub-region.

14.13 The more detailed assessment that will be undertaken in the Part Two study will make it

clearer what the preferred options for charging development should be for Tendring

District.

Section 106 Standard Contribution Tariff / CIL

Need for Flexibility to Maximise Contributions

Need for Certainty of Contributions

APPENDIX 1

List of Consultees

Infrastructure category Contact Organisation Education Blaise Gammie Essex County Council Health Tonia Parsons North East Essex Primary Care Trust

Penny Lansdown North East Essex Primary Care Trust Ambulance East of England Ambulance Service Waste water Rob Morris Anglian Water Water Neil Walkington-Mayo Tendring Hundred Water Services Cemeteries David Hall Tendring DC Gas Paul Cudby National Grid Electricity Howard Green EDF Energy Police Jason Gwillim Essex Police

Suzanne Allen Essex Police Strategic Waste Alex Creecy Essex County Council Fire Andy Butcher Essex Fire and Rescue Service Further Education Carol Snape Essex University Telecommunications N/a N/a Transport Martin Mason Essex County Council

Alan Lindsay Essex County Council Peter Chappell Essex County Council Julian Elliot First Group

APPENDIX 2 Further Education Information (from ECC)

Site Type ECC Comments Summary of potential type of provision required

West Clacton (Bockings Elm) – 3,400 dwellings


A development of this scale would require a range of settings to be established, creating i.r.o. 270 additional places. The majority of the provision would need to be on site, including nurseries integrated into any new primary schools that are established. A full Childrens’ Centre may be needed to serve a community of this size if existing ‘reach areas’ cannot be suitably adjusted.

New facility

Primary

Approximately half of the pupils generated by a development of this size could be accommodated by utilising and, where appropriate, expanding existing primary schools in West Clacton. Careful consideration regarding the suitability of each school for expansion and the availability of safe routes to them would be required. Assuming such expansion is feasible, a single new 2f.e. school would need to be established. It is likely that this would be on site and form part of the development’s community hub. Approximately two hectares of land would be needed.

New facility and expansion of existing

Secondary

A development of this size can be expected to generate up to 680 secondary age pupils. Plans for a new Academy in Clacton to replace Bishops Park College and Colbayns High School are under consideration. The new Academy would have fewer places than the two existing schools but would retain a degree of flexibility to expand and accommodate demand from new development. Recommissioning accommodation for secondary school use would incur a relatively small cost.

Expansion of proposed new Clacton academy

Great Clacton & Holland‐on‐Sea ‐ 1,100 dwellings


A development of this size would leave an estimated deficit of 84 places in the relevant wards. On site provision is likely to be required.

New facility

Primary

Homes in and around Great Clacton could be accommodated utilising existing provision. Safe routes to Burrsville Infant and Gt Clacton Junior would however need to be established (not included in cost below). Capacity to serve Holland‐on‐Sea is limited but a programme of replacing temporary classbases with permanent build would provide the additional long term capacity required.

Expansion of existing

Secondary

As noted above, the proposal for a new Academy to serve Clacton has been made cognisant of the need to retain some flexibility to accommodate housing growth.


Clacton Early Years This level of growth throughout the town could be None required

Summary of potential education solutions to accommodating tested housing growth1

Town Centre – 750 dwellings

& Childcare and Primary

accommodated without a need to expand provision. Clearly this would not be the case if additional urban capacity sites are identified and surplus capacity is taken by peripheral greenfield developments.

(unless other development takes capacity)

Secondary

As noted above, the proposal for a new Academy to serve Clacton has been made cognisant of the need to retain some flexibility to accommodate housing growth.


Little Clacton – 200 dwellings


Little Clacton and Weeley ward does not have a ‘day nursery’. Although critical mass may not exist, establishing a new setting should be considered.

New facility

Primary

Engaines Primary would be the only appropriate school for a development in this location and expansion to a minimum of 1.5 f.e would be required.


Secondary

As noted above the proposal for a new Academy to serve Clacton has been made cognisant of the need to retain some flexibility to accommodate housing growth.


Walton – 400 dwellings


Additional provision likely to be required. Expansion of existing verses new provision would require careful consideration at the appropriate time.

Expansion of existing or new facility

Primary

Permanent accommodation for approximately half a form of entry would need to be built to accommodate this level of growth. Existing schools should have sufficient site area.


Secondary

Tendering Technology College would require limited expansion to accommodate pupils from a development of this size.


Frinton – 100 dwellings


A development of this size would not generate critical mass to establish a new EY&C facility. Expansion of an existing setting would need to be considered.


Primary

Frinton Primary would not have sufficient capacity to take the number of children generated by 100 dwellings without displacing children living in areas that currently have a reasonable expectation of entry to the school. In order to maintain single age teaching groups it would be undesirable to expand the school. Rolls are falling in the area and places may be found at Kirby Primary.

No solution found

Secondary



Kirby Cross – 500 dwellings


A development of this size would likely require the establishment of on site bespoke provision.

New facility

Primary Kirby Primary could accommodate under half the proposed development and does not have the site area to expand sufficiently to serve 500 additional dwellings. A development of this size would not justify a new school and therefore the only solution would be to either secure some adjoining land (recreation ground?) or move the school to a larger site on the new development.

Potential expansion on or off‐site

Secondary Tendering Technology College would require limited expansion to accommodate pupils from a development of this size.


Harwich – 600 dwellings


Additional provision would be required. Expansion of existing verses new provision would require careful consideration at the appropriate time.


Primary

A development of this size would not be quite large enough to justify a new primary school although coupled with demand from urban infill this may be the only practical option. Expansion of existing provision would require careful consideration and the completion of a feasibility study.


Secondary

There is sufficient capacity at The Harwich School to accommodate the number of secondary age pupils that can be anticipated from a development of this size.

None required

Dovercourt – 250 dwellings


Harwich West Central ward does not have a ‘day nursery’. Although critical mass may not exist, establishing a new setting should be considered.

New facility

Primary

There should be sufficient capacity at Spring Meadow Primary to accommodate a development of this size.

None required

Secondary

There is sufficient capacity at The Harwich School to accommodate the number of secondary age pupils that can be anticipated from a development of this size.

None required

Parkeston / Bathside – 3,150 dwellings


A development of this scale would require a range of settings to be established, creating i.r.o. 284 additional places. The majority of the provision would need to be on site, including nurseries integrated into any new primary schools that are established. A full Childrens’ Centre may be needed to serve a community of this size if existing ‘reach areas’ cannot be suitably adjusted.

New facility

Primary

A development of this size would require up to 4.5fe to serve it. Some local capacity exists that could be utilised but two new 2fe primary schools may eventually need to be established each on a two hectare site within the development.

New facilities

Secondary

In the absence of other development within its priority admissions area, a little less than half of this number of homes could be accommodated within existing capacity at The Harwich School. Expansion to 1,800 places may be possible given the school’s site area, but this would be tight and may still not quite accommodate the number of pupils that would require a place.


Mistley – 600 dwellings


There is limited provision in this area and a development of this size would likely require bespoke on site provision.

New facility

Primary

The precise location of these homes would be key to finding a solution to the lack of primary capacity in the area, as a single development of 600 would not quite sustain a new school. Limited surplus capacity at Highfields and Lawford CE Primaries could be utilised and Mistley Norman could potentially be expanded. The ‘wrong’ number of homes in the priority admissions area of any one of the three schools could prove very disruptive to current admission patterns.


Secondary Manningtree High could accommodate approximately half the likely pupil product from 600 dwellings. The school appears to have sufficient site area to expand to accommodate the balance of pupils generated. An important consideration would be ensuring all new homes are accessible to the school by safe direct walking and cycling routes of no more than three miles.


Brightlingsea Waterside Area – 400 dwellings


Current provision is close to fully subscribed. Expansion of existing verses new provision would require careful consideration at the appropriate time.


Primary

This level of development could be accommodated by Brightlingsea Infant and Junior Schools but temporary accommodation would need to be replaced with permanent buildings.


Secondary

Colne Community School could accommodate approximately half the likely pupil product from 400 dwellings. Minor expansion would be necessary.


Brightlingsea urban area – 200 dwellings


A development of this size would be unlikely to generate critical mass to establish a new EY&C facility. Expansion of an existing setting would need to be considered.


Primary

This level of development could be accommodated by Brightlingsea Infant and Junior Schools but at least one temporary classbase at the Infant School would need to be replaced with permanent buildings.


Secondary

Colne Community School could accommodate pupils from this level of development. An important consideration should be ensuring all new homes are accessible to the school by safe direct walking and cycling routes of no more than three miles.

None required

Colchester Fringe‐ 1,000 dwellings


A development of this size would likely require the establishment of on‐site bespoke provision.

New facility

Primary

The level of growth anticipated for north Colchester dictates that surplus places in this area cannot be ‘assigned’ to a development in Tendering. A development of this size would generate up to 300 pupils requiring a 1.5fe school on a 1.6 hectare site.

New facility

Secondary

Colchester secondary provision is currently under review with the likely outcome that surplus places in the south of the town are reduced. There is only one secondary school north of the

Expansion of existing or new

London to Ipswich railway line and any surplus, or expansion potential, will be required to accommodate know development plans. Colchester BC’s core strategy alludes to a potential new secondary school to serve their north west greenfield allocation. If this were progressed the necessary redistribution of priority admission areas and planned works could accommodate this development. In the absence of a new school a development in this location would be unsustainable will an estimated 200 pupils requiring transport to the existing priority admission area school, Manningtree High. The school would also need significant expansion, which would require further work to ascertain feasibility.

facility

Elmstead Market – 200 dwellings


There are a few unfilled places in the area and a development of this size would not generate critical mass to establish a new EY&C facility. Expansion of an existing setting would need to be considered.


Primary

Elmstead Primary is full and does not have site area to expand. There are no alternative schools within safe walking distance.

No solution

Secondary

There are no secondary schools within safe walking distance. Pupils from this level of development could be accommodated at Cone Community but school transport costs would need to be met.

None required*

Alresford – 200 dwellings


There are unfilled places in the area but some additional places would be required.


Primary

Alresford Primary has some surplus capacity and can be expanded to serve this level of development in its priority admissions area.


Secondary


None required*

Great Bentley – 200 dwellings


There is limited provision in the ward with only one surplus place identified. Although critical mass may not exist, establishing a new setting should be considered.


Primary

Great Bentley Primary is full and does not have site area to expand. There are no alternative schools within safe walking distance.

No solution

Secondary


None required*

St. Osyth – 200 dwellings


Data on St. Osyth and Point Clear Ward was not available. In common with other rural wards, provision may be patchy and new provision is likely to be necessary.


Primary St. Osyth CE Primary is forecast to have sufficient surplus None required

Source: ECC & RTP

1 These solutions are dependent on the dwelling numbers tested and each site has been considered in isolation

* subject to school transport costs being met. The County Council is required to provide school transport to any child that would need to walk in excess of two miles up to the age of eight or three miles for older children, using a safe route. Unless balanced by better utilisation of existing school places, developments that do not meet these criteria should be avoided. ‘Tolerable’ walking distances may be lower than these thresholds and opposed on sustainability grounds.

places to accommodate this level of development.

Secondary

As noted above, the proposal for a new Academy to serve Clacton has been made cognisant of the need to retain some flexibility to accommodate housing growth. An important consideration should be ensuring all new homes are accessible by safe direct walking and cycling routes of no more than three miles. Failure to provide these would incur long term school transport costs, making the site unsustainable in these terms.


Thorpe‐le‐Soken – 200 dwellings


Beaumont and Thorpe ward has a range of provision but not quite sufficient to accommodate this level of housing growth. Minor expansion of existing provision would be required.


Primary

Rolph CE Primary could, with an additional permanent classbase, accommodate around half this level of development. There are no alternative suitable schools within walking distance to accommodate the balance.

Partial solution to use existing capacity

Secondary



APPENDIX 3 Transport Modelling Output

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB AM Peak.vao - Page 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ___________________ A R C A D Y 6 ___________________ ASSESSMENT OF ROUNDABOUT CAPACITY AND DELAY Analysis Program: Release 1.0 (MAR 2004) (c) Copyright TRL Limited, 2004 Adapted from ARCADY/3 which is Crown Copyright by permission of the controller of HMSO ______________________________________________________ For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact: TRL Limited Tel: +44 (0) 1344 770018 Crowthorne House Fax: +44 (0) 1344 770864 Nine Mile Ride Email: [email protected] Wokingham, Berks. Web: www.trlsoftware.co.uk RG40 3GA,UK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE USER OF THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE SOLUTION OF AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM IS IN NO WAY RELIEVED OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SOLUTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Run with file:- "j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB AM Peak.vai" (drive-on-the-left ) at 16:38:05 on Monday, 27 April 2009

FILE PROPERTIES *************** RUN TITLE: Crabtree Roundabout AM Peak LOCATION: Colchester DATE: 27 April 2009 CLIENT: ENUMERATOR: awilson [KNT-MOB-103] JOB NUMBER: STATUS: DESCRIPTION:

INPUT DATA ********** ARM A - A133 Colchester Road (south) ARM B - Colchester Road ARM C - A133 north

GEOMETRIC DATA -------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM I V (M) I E (M) I L (M) I R (M) I D (M) I PHI (DEG) I SLOPE I INTERCEPT (PCU/MIN) I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM A I 4.75 I 6.30 I 6.30 I 31.80 I 49.00 I 45.0 I 0.592 I 27.405 I I ARM B I 4.16 I 6.90 I 6.90 I 27.00 I 49.00 I 26.0 I 0.615 I 27.821 I I ARM C I 6.92 I 7.36 I 17.80 I 3.00 I 49.00 I 37.0 I 0.497 I 25.852 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V = approach half-width L = effective flare length D = inscribed circle diameter E = entry width R = entry radius PHI = entry angle

TRAFFIC DEMAND DATA ------------------- (Only sets included in the current run are shown)

----------------------- I ARM I FLOW SCALE(%) I ----------------------- I A I 100 I I B I 100 I I C I 100 I -----------------------

TIME PERIOD BEGINS 07.45 AND ENDS 09.15

LENGTH OF TIME PERIOD - 90 MINUTES. LENGTH OF TIME SEGMENT - 15 MINUTES.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB AM Peak.vao - Page 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMAND FLOW PROFILES ARE SYNTHESISED FROM TURNING COUNT DATA DEMAND SET TITLE: Crabtree Roundabout AM Peak ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I NUMBER OF MINUTES FROM START WHEN I RATE OF FLOW (VEH/MIN) I I ARM I FLOW STARTS I TOP OF PEAK I FLOW STOPS I BEFORE I AT TOP I AFTER I I I TO RISE I IS REACHED IFALLING I PEAK I OF PEAK I PEAK I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM A I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 19.25 I 28.88 I 19.25 I I ARM B I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 9.11 I 13.67 I 9.11 I I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 11.84 I 17.76 I 11.84 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMAND SET TITLE: Crabtree Roundabout AM Peak

----------------------------------------------------------- I I TURNING PROPORTIONS I I I TURNING COUNTS (VEH/HR) I I I (PERCENTAGE OF H.V.S) I I -------------------------------------- I TIME I FROM/TO I ARM A I ARM B I ARM C I ----------------------------------------------------------- I 07.45 - 09.15 I I I I I I I ARM A I 0.000 I 0.270 I 0.730 I I I I 0.0 I 416.0 I 1124.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I ARM B I 0.568 I 0.000 I 0.432 I I I I 414.0 I 0.0 I 315.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I ARM C I 0.837 I 0.163 I 0.000 I I I I 793.0 I 154.0 I 0.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I -----------------------------------------------------------

QUEUE AND DELAY INFORMATION FOR EACH 15 MIN TIME SEGMENT --------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 07.45-08.00 I I ARM A 19.25 26.27 0.733 0.0 2.6 36.7 0.14 I I ARM B 9.11 19.27 0.473 0.0 0.9 12.8 0.10 I I ARM C 11.84 23.29 0.508 0.0 1.0 14.7 0.09 I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB AM Peak.vao - Page 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 08.45-09.00 I I ARM A 22.99 26.03 0.883 84.3 43.2 956.7 2.51 I I ARM B 10.88 16.28 0.668 4.2 2.1 33.8 0.19 I I ARM C 14.14 22.74 0.622 3.5 1.7 26.6 0.12 I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


QUEUE AT ARM A -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 08.00 2.6 *** 08.15 6.5 ****** 08.30 47.3 *********************************************** 08.45 84.3 ************************************************************************************ 09.00 43.2 ******************************************* 09.15 2.9 ***

QUEUE AT ARM B -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 08.00 0.9 * 08.15 1.6 ** 08.30 3.9 **** 08.45 4.2 **** 09.00 2.1 ** 09.15 1.0 *

QUEUE AT ARM C -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 08.00 1.0 * 08.15 1.6 ** 08.30 3.4 *** 08.45 3.5 **** 09.00 1.7 ** 09.15 1.0 *

QUEUEING DELAY INFORMATION OVER WHOLE PERIOD -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM I TOTAL DEMAND I * QUEUEING * I * INCLUSIVE QUEUEING * I I I I * DELAY * I * DELAY * I I I------------------------------------------------------------------I I I (VEH) (VEH/H) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I A I 2111.7 I 1407.8 I 2656.1 I 1.26 I 2656.2 I 1.26 I I B I 999.6 I 666.4 I 198.4 I 0.20 I 198.5 I 0.20 I I C I 1298.5 I 865.7 I 178.9 I 0.14 I 178.9 I 0.14 I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ALL I 4409.8 I 2939.9 I 3033.4 I 0.69 I 3033.6 I 0.69 I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * DELAY IS THAT OCCURRING ONLY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD. * INCLUSIVE DELAY INCLUDES DELAY SUFFERED BY VEHICLES WHICH ARE STILL QUEUEING AFTER THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD. * THESE WILL ONLY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IF THERE IS A LARGE QUEUE REMAINING AT THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD. END OF JOB ============================================= end of file ===============================================

[Printed at 16:38:12 on 27/04/2009]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB PM Peak.vao - Page 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ___________________ A R C A D Y 6 ___________________ ASSESSMENT OF ROUNDABOUT CAPACITY AND DELAY Analysis Program: Release 1.0 (MAR 2004) (c) Copyright TRL Limited, 2004 Adapted from ARCADY/3 which is Crown Copyright by permission of the controller of HMSO ______________________________________________________ For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact: TRL Limited Tel: +44 (0) 1344 770018 Crowthorne House Fax: +44 (0) 1344 770864 Nine Mile Ride Email: [email protected] Wokingham, Berks. Web: www.trlsoftware.co.uk RG40 3GA,UK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE USER OF THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE SOLUTION OF AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM IS IN NO WAY RELIEVED OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SOLUTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Run with file:- "j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB PM Peak.vai" (drive-on-the-left ) at 16:39:29 on Monday, 27 April 2009

FILE PROPERTIES *************** RUN TITLE: Crabtree Roundabout PM Peak LOCATION: Colchester DATE: 27 April 2009 CLIENT: ENUMERATOR: awilson [KNT-MOB-103] JOB NUMBER: STATUS: DESCRIPTION:

INPUT DATA ********** ARM A - A133 Colchester Road (south) ARM B - Colchester Road ARM C - A133 north

GEOMETRIC DATA -------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM I V (M) I E (M) I L (M) I R (M) I D (M) I PHI (DEG) I SLOPE I INTERCEPT (PCU/MIN) I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM A I 4.75 I 6.30 I 6.30 I 31.80 I 49.00 I 45.0 I 0.592 I 27.405 I I ARM B I 4.16 I 6.90 I 6.90 I 27.00 I 49.00 I 26.0 I 0.615 I 27.821 I I ARM C I 6.92 I 7.36 I 17.80 I 3.00 I 49.00 I 37.0 I 0.497 I 25.852 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V = approach half-width L = effective flare length D = inscribed circle diameter E = entry width R = entry radius PHI = entry angle


----------------------- I ARM I FLOW SCALE(%) I ----------------------- I A I 100 I I B I 100 I I C I 100 I -----------------------



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB PM Peak.vao - Page 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMAND FLOW PROFILES ARE SYNTHESISED FROM TURNING COUNT DATA DEMAND SET TITLE: Crabtree Roundabout PM Peak ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I NUMBER OF MINUTES FROM START WHEN I RATE OF FLOW (VEH/MIN) I I ARM I FLOW STARTS I TOP OF PEAK I FLOW STOPS I BEFORE I AT TOP I AFTER I I I TO RISE I IS REACHED IFALLING I PEAK I OF PEAK I PEAK I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM A I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 12.02 I 18.04 I 12.02 I I ARM B I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 7.10 I 10.65 I 7.10 I I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 15.40 I 23.10 I 15.40 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMAND SET TITLE: Crabtree Roundabout PM Peak

----------------------------------------------------------- I I TURNING PROPORTIONS I I I TURNING COUNTS (VEH/HR) I I I (PERCENTAGE OF H.V.S) I I -------------------------------------- I TIME I FROM/TO I ARM A I ARM B I ARM C I ----------------------------------------------------------- I 16.45 - 18.15 I I I I I I I ARM A I 0.000 I 0.319 I 0.681 I I I I 0.0 I 307.0 I 655.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I ARM B I 0.697 I 0.000 I 0.303 I I I I 396.0 I 0.0 I 172.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I ARM C I 0.998 I 0.002 I 0.000 I I I I 1230.0 I 2.0 I 0.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I -----------------------------------------------------------






-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Colchester-Crabtree RB PM Peak.vao - Page 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 17.45-18.00 I I ARM A 14.36 27.39 0.524 1.8 1.1 17.2 0.08 I I ARM B 8.48 21.79 0.389 1.0 0.6 9.9 0.08 I I ARM C 18.39 22.90 0.803 30.2 4.5 157.8 0.52 I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


QUEUE AT ARM A -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 17.00 0.8 * 17.15 1.1 * 17.30 1.8 ** 17.45 1.8 ** 18.00 1.1 * 18.15 0.8 *

QUEUE AT ARM B -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 17.00 0.4 17.15 0.6 * 17.30 1.0 * 17.45 1.0 * 18.00 0.6 * 18.15 0.5

QUEUE AT ARM C -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 17.00 1.9 ** 17.15 3.8 **** 17.30 20.5 ******************** 17.45 30.2 ****************************** 18.00 4.5 **** 18.15 2.0 **

QUEUEING DELAY INFORMATION OVER WHOLE PERIOD -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM I TOTAL DEMAND I * QUEUEING * I * INCLUSIVE QUEUEING * I I I I * DELAY * I * DELAY * I I I------------------------------------------------------------------I I I (VEH) (VEH/H) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I A I 1319.1 I 879.4 I 108.5 I 0.08 I 108.6 I 0.08 I I B I 778.8 I 519.2 I 62.7 I 0.08 I 62.7 I 0.08 I I C I 1689.3 I 1126.2 I 855.8 I 0.51 I 855.9 I 0.51 I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ALL I 3787.3 I 2524.9 I 1027.1 I 0.27 I 1027.2 I 0.27 I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * DELAY IS THAT OCCURRING ONLY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD. * INCLUSIVE DELAY INCLUDES DELAY SUFFERED BY VEHICLES WHICH ARE STILL QUEUEING AFTER THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD. * THESE WILL ONLY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IF THERE IS A LARGE QUEUE REMAINING AT THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD. END OF JOB ============================================= end of file ===============================================

[Printed at 16:39:34 on 27/04/2009]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour AM Peak.vao - Page 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ___________________ A R C A D Y 6 ___________________ ASSESSMENT OF ROUNDABOUT CAPACITY AND DELAY Analysis Program: Release 1.0 (MAR 2004) (c) Copyright TRL Limited, 2004 Adapted from ARCADY/3 which is Crown Copyright by permission of the controller of HMSO ______________________________________________________ For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact: TRL Limited Tel: +44 (0) 1344 770018 Crowthorne House Fax: +44 (0) 1344 770864 Nine Mile Ride Email: [email protected] Wokingham, Berks. Web: www.trlsoftware.co.uk RG40 3GA,UK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE USER OF THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE SOLUTION OF AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM IS IN NO WAY RELIEVED OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SOLUTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Run with file:- "j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour AM Peak.vai" (drive-on-the-left ) at 16:40:44 on Monday, 27 April 2009

FILE PROPERTIES *************** RUN TITLE: Green lane Roundabout AM Peak LOCATION: Colchester DATE: 27 April 2009 CLIENT: ENUMERATOR: awilson [KNT-MOB-103] JOB NUMBER: 22376 STATUS: DESCRIPTION:

INPUT DATA ********** ARM A - A133 Colchester Road north ARM B - B1033 ARM C - Services ARM D - A133

GEOMETRIC DATA -------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM I V (M) I E (M) I L (M) I R (M) I D (M) I PHI (DEG) I SLOPE I INTERCEPT (PCU/MIN) I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM A I 6.82 I 9.27 I 9.80 I 41.60 I 79.90 I 43.0 I 0.575 I 40.500 I I ARM B I 4.10 I 8.91 I 3.90 I 18.80 I 79.90 I 40.0 I 0.432 I 24.647 I I ARM C I 3.86 I 6.75 I 5.20 I 17.30 I 79.90 I 33.0 I 0.433 I 24.299 I I ARM D I 3.00 I 8.88 I 18.00 I 21.30 I 79.90 I 29.0 I 0.487 I 29.859 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V = approach half-width L = effective flare length D = inscribed circle diameter E = entry width R = entry radius PHI = entry angle


----------------------- I ARM I FLOW SCALE(%) I ----------------------- I A I 100 I I B I 100 I I C I 100 I I D I 100 I -----------------------



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour AM Peak.vao - Page 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMAND FLOW PROFILES ARE SYNTHESISED FROM TURNING COUNT DATA DEMAND SET TITLE: Green lane Roundabout AM Peak ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I NUMBER OF MINUTES FROM START WHEN I RATE OF FLOW (VEH/MIN) I I ARM I FLOW STARTS I TOP OF PEAK I FLOW STOPS I BEFORE I AT TOP I AFTER I I I TO RISE I IS REACHED IFALLING I PEAK I OF PEAK I PEAK I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM A I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 14.66 I 21.99 I 14.66 I I ARM B I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 9.68 I 14.51 I 9.68 I I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 3.28 I 4.91 I 3.28 I I ARM D I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 12.93 I 19.39 I 12.93 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMAND SET TITLE: Green lane Roundabout AM Peak

-------------------------------------------------------------------- I I TURNING PROPORTIONS I I I TURNING COUNTS (VEH/HR) I I I (PERCENTAGE OF H.V.S) I I ----------------------------------------------- I TIME I FROM/TO I ARM A I ARM B I ARM C I ARM D I -------------------------------------------------------------------- I 07.45 - 09.15 I I I I I I I I ARM A I 0.000 I 0.280 I 0.107 I 0.613 I I I I 0.0 I 329.0 I 125.0 I 719.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I I ARM B I 0.795 I 0.000 I 0.079 I 0.127 I I I I 615.0 I 0.0 I 61.0 I 98.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I I ARM C I 0.397 I 0.439 I 0.000 I 0.164 I I I I 104.0 I 115.0 I 0.0 I 43.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I I ARM D I 0.817 I 0.078 I 0.104 I 0.000 I I I I 845.0 I 81.0 I 108.0 I 0.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I --------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 07.45-08.00 I I ARM A 14.66 38.33 0.383 0.0 0.6 9.1 0.04 I I ARM B 9.68 19.53 0.495 0.0 1.0 13.9 0.10 I I ARM C 3.28 16.59 0.197 0.0 0.2 3.6 0.07 I I ARM D 12.93 24.81 0.521 0.0 1.1 15.5 0.08 I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour AM Peak.vao - Page 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 08.45-09.00 I I ARM A 17.51 37.86 0.462 1.3 0.9 13.3 0.05 I I ARM B 11.55 18.50 0.625 4.5 1.7 27.8 0.15 I I ARM C 3.91 14.97 0.261 0.6 0.4 5.5 0.09 I I ARM D 15.43 23.72 0.651 5.0 1.9 30.9 0.13 I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


QUEUE AT ARM A -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 08.00 0.6 * 08.15 0.9 * 08.30 1.3 * 08.45 1.3 * 09.00 0.9 * 09.15 0.6 *

QUEUE AT ARM B -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 08.00 1.0 * 08.15 1.6 ** 08.30 4.2 **** 08.45 4.5 **** 09.00 1.7 ** 09.15 1.0 *

QUEUE AT ARM C -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 08.00 0.2 08.15 0.3 08.30 0.6 * 08.45 0.6 * 09.00 0.4 09.15 0.2

QUEUE AT ARM D -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 08.00 1.1 * 08.15 1.8 ** 08.30 4.8 ***** 08.45 5.0 ***** 09.00 1.9 ** 09.15 1.1 *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour AM Peak.vao - Page 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUEUEING DELAY INFORMATION OVER WHOLE PERIOD -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM I TOTAL DEMAND I * QUEUEING * I * INCLUSIVE QUEUEING * I I I I * DELAY * I * DELAY * I I I------------------------------------------------------------------I I I (VEH) (VEH/H) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I A I 1608.4 I 1072.3 I 84.1 I 0.05 I 84.1 I 0.05 I I B I 1061.3 I 707.5 I 201.3 I 0.19 I 201.4 I 0.19 I I C I 359.3 I 239.5 I 35.0 I 0.10 I 35.0 I 0.10 I I D I 1417.8 I 945.2 I 226.0 I 0.16 I 226.0 I 0.16 I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ALL I 4446.8 I 2964.6 I 546.3 I 0.12 I 546.4 I 0.12 I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * DELAY IS THAT OCCURRING ONLY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD. * INCLUSIVE DELAY INCLUDES DELAY SUFFERED BY VEHICLES WHICH ARE STILL QUEUEING AFTER THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD. * THESE WILL ONLY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IF THERE IS A LARGE QUEUE REMAINING AT THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD. END OF JOB ============================================= end of file ===============================================

[Printed at 16:40:50 on 27/04/2009]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour PM Peak.vao - Page 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ___________________ A R C A D Y 6 ___________________ ASSESSMENT OF ROUNDABOUT CAPACITY AND DELAY Analysis Program: Release 1.0 (MAR 2004) (c) Copyright TRL Limited, 2004 Adapted from ARCADY/3 which is Crown Copyright by permission of the controller of HMSO ______________________________________________________ For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact: TRL Limited Tel: +44 (0) 1344 770018 Crowthorne House Fax: +44 (0) 1344 770864 Nine Mile Ride Email: [email protected] Wokingham, Berks. Web: www.trlsoftware.co.uk RG40 3GA,UK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE USER OF THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE SOLUTION OF AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM IS IN NO WAY RELIEVED OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SOLUTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Run with file:- "j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour PM Peak.vai" (drive-on-the-left ) at 16:41:49 on Monday, 27 April 2009

FILE PROPERTIES *************** RUN TITLE: Green lane Roundabout AM Peak LOCATION: Colchester DATE: 27 April 2009 CLIENT: ENUMERATOR: awilson [KNT-MOB-103] JOB NUMBER: 22376 STATUS: DESCRIPTION:

INPUT DATA ********** ARM A - A133 Colchester Road north ARM B - B1033 ARM C - Services ARM D - A133

GEOMETRIC DATA -------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM I V (M) I E (M) I L (M) I R (M) I D (M) I PHI (DEG) I SLOPE I INTERCEPT (PCU/MIN) I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM A I 6.82 I 9.27 I 9.80 I 41.60 I 79.90 I 43.0 I 0.575 I 40.500 I I ARM B I 4.10 I 8.91 I 3.90 I 18.80 I 79.90 I 40.0 I 0.432 I 24.647 I I ARM C I 3.86 I 6.75 I 5.20 I 17.30 I 79.90 I 33.0 I 0.433 I 24.299 I I ARM D I 3.00 I 8.88 I 18.00 I 21.30 I 79.90 I 29.0 I 0.487 I 29.859 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V = approach half-width L = effective flare length D = inscribed circle diameter E = entry width R = entry radius PHI = entry angle


----------------------- I ARM I FLOW SCALE(%) I ----------------------- I A I 100 I I B I 100 I I C I 100 I I D I 100 I -----------------------



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour PM Peak.vao - Page 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMAND FLOW PROFILES ARE SYNTHESISED FROM TURNING COUNT DATA DEMAND SET TITLE: Green lane Roundabout PM Peak ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I NUMBER OF MINUTES FROM START WHEN I RATE OF FLOW (VEH/MIN) I I ARM I FLOW STARTS I TOP OF PEAK I FLOW STOPS I BEFORE I AT TOP I AFTER I I I TO RISE I IS REACHED IFALLING I PEAK I OF PEAK I PEAK I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM A I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 21.74 I 32.61 I 21.74 I I ARM B I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 6.36 I 9.54 I 6.36 I I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 2.54 I 3.81 I 2.54 I I ARM D I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 10.79 I 16.18 I 10.79 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMAND SET TITLE: Green lane Roundabout PM Peak

-------------------------------------------------------------------- I I TURNING PROPORTIONS I I I TURNING COUNTS (VEH/HR) I I I (PERCENTAGE OF H.V.S) I I ----------------------------------------------- I TIME I FROM/TO I ARM A I ARM B I ARM C I ARM D I -------------------------------------------------------------------- I 16.45 - 18.15 I I I I I I I I ARM A I 0.000 I 0.310 I 0.063 I 0.627 I I I I 0.0 I 539.0 I 110.0 I 1090.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I I ARM B I 0.701 I 0.000 I 0.114 I 0.185 I I I I 357.0 I 0.0 I 58.0 I 94.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I I ARM C I 0.374 I 0.365 I 0.000 I 0.261 I I I I 76.0 I 74.0 I 0.0 I 53.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I I I ARM D I 0.826 I 0.100 I 0.074 I 0.000 I I I I 713.0 I 86.0 I 64.0 I 0.0 I I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I I I I I I I I --------------------------------------------------------------------






-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour PM Peak.vao - Page 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE DELAY I I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER ARRIVING I I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE (MIN) I I 17.45-18.00 I I ARM A 25.96 38.57 0.673 4.9 2.1 33.1 0.08 I I ARM B 7.60 16.45 0.462 1.7 0.9 13.6 0.11 I I ARM C 3.03 14.27 0.212 0.4 0.3 4.2 0.09 I I ARM D 12.88 26.15 0.493 1.6 1.0 15.2 0.08 I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


QUEUE AT ARM A -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 17.00 1.3 * 17.15 2.0 ** 17.30 4.7 ***** 17.45 4.9 ***** 18.00 2.1 ** 18.15 1.3 *

QUEUE AT ARM B -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 17.00 0.5 * 17.15 0.8 * 17.30 1.7 ** 17.45 1.7 ** 18.00 0.9 * 18.15 0.6 *

QUEUE AT ARM C -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 17.00 0.2 17.15 0.3 17.30 0.4 17.45 0.4 18.00 0.3 18.15 0.2

QUEUE AT ARM D -------------- TIME SEGMENT NO. OF ENDING VEHICLES IN QUEUE 17.00 0.7 * 17.15 1.0 * 17.30 1.6 ** 17.45 1.6 ** 18.00 1.0 * 18.15 0.7 *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRL TRL VIEWER 3.0 AC j:\Colchester\Green Lane Roundabour PM Peak.vao - Page 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUEUEING DELAY INFORMATION OVER WHOLE PERIOD -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ARM I TOTAL DEMAND I * QUEUEING * I * INCLUSIVE QUEUEING * I I I I * DELAY * I * DELAY * I I I------------------------------------------------------------------I I I (VEH) (VEH/H) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I A I 2384.5 I 1589.7 I 236.8 I 0.10 I 236.8 I 0.10 I I B I 697.9 I 465.3 I 91.1 I 0.13 I 91.1 I 0.13 I I C I 278.4 I 185.6 I 26.6 I 0.10 I 26.6 I 0.10 I I D I 1183.4 I 788.9 I 97.1 I 0.08 I 97.1 I 0.08 I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ALL I 4544.2 I 3029.5 I 451.5 I 0.10 I 451.6 I 0.10 I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * DELAY IS THAT OCCURRING ONLY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD. * INCLUSIVE DELAY INCLUDES DELAY SUFFERED BY VEHICLES WHICH ARE STILL QUEUEING AFTER THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD. * THESE WILL ONLY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IF THERE IS A LARGE QUEUE REMAINING AT THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD. END OF JOB ============================================= end of file ===============================================

[Printed at 16:41:54 on 27/04/2009]

APPENDIX 4 Funding for transport infrastructure schemes

Funding for transport infrastructure schemes The sources of funding for transport infrastructure schemes are:

- Regional Funding Allocation - Transport Innovation Fund - Growth Fund - Community Infrastructure Fund - European funds - Road safety grant to local authorities - Local councils, financed through borrowing - PFI schemes - Highways Agency routes of strategic national importance - Highways Agency small schemes under £5m - Network Rail investment, including small schemes under £5m - DfT rail through the High Level Output Specification - Investment by private transport providers eg bus companies, train operating

companies - Developer contributions ( section 106/278) - Community Infrastructure Levy

LTP and Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) Who Leads the Bid? For LTP funding the local Council writes the bid document and DfT decide the money. For RFA funding Dft decide the amount for region and the Regional Transport Board decide on its allocation, but DfT have to give final approval for funding. Explanation/Process RFA is the main source of grant funding for transport infrastructure schemes. There three ways in which the RFA is used to finance the capital cost of schemes which appear in an area’s Local Transport Plan. These are:

- Major scheme allocation for an individual transport schemes over £5million - Integrated Transport Allocation which funds all non-maintenance capital

transport schemes costing less than £5m eg small road projects, bus priority schemes, walking and cycling schemes and transport information projects

- Maintenance Allocation which is used to fund all structural local road maintenance such as re-surfacing.

The Regional Transport Board decides on the priority within its region of schemes to receive monies from the regions allocation of money from the DfT in its RFA. The RFA will fund 90% of the capital cost of prioritised schemes and part of the preparation costs. The boards are now prioritising schemes for delivery upto 2018/19. The final decision on whether a scheme represents value for money and should receive funding rests with the DfT For Essex the Integrated Transport Allocation is around £15.3 million in 2011/12 rising to £17.5 million in 2018/19. The Maintenance Allocation is £21.5 million in 2011.12 rising to £24.7 million in 2018/19.

For Thurrock the Integrated Transport Allocation is around £1.6 million in 2011/12 rising to £1.9 million in 2018/19. The Maintenance Allocation is £1.9 million in 2011.12 rising to £2.2 million in 2018/19. For major schemes, Essex and Thurrock are competing for limited funds against schemes throughout the East of England area. Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) is for the capital funding of schemes which are part of a package of measures which includes a congestion charge. Only a few local authorities are still developing bids from this fund. Regional Infrastructure Funding (RIF) Who Leads the Bid? The Regional Transport Board. This funding is essentially just forward funding mechanism for schemes that will get RFA Explanation/Process This is a newer source of funding coming forward and its applicability is currently unknown. Growth Fund (GAF and GPF) Who Leads the Bid? The funding is decided by Communities and Local Government (CLG) but Home and Communities Agency (HCA) will be involved. Explanation/Process This fund was administered by the Department of Communities and Local Government to support the delivery of infrastructure in the three newer Growth Areas and the Growth Points ( see map attached). It is part of the money that the CLG is spending on the Growth Areas, Thames Gateway, Growth Points and eco-towns. The funding runs until 2011 and is now fully allocated (see spreadsheet for allocation of funds to areas). The money is an unringfenced grant, although it is divided into a capital and revenue element. This means that the local authorities and local partnerships receiving the grant decide how it is spent. It will not all be available for transport projects. Community Infrastructure Fund. Who Leads the Bid? CIF actually doesn’t exist anymore. No plans for further CIF funding. Explanation/Process This was a fund for specific transport projects which helped to deliver housing. All the money has now been allocated to schemes. Like the Growth Fund, these monies were available under the current Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR07). The next CSR will take place after the next election. It may provide additional funds for the growth and community infrastructure fund, or may provide funds for new schemes, consolidate all funding under the RFA process or do something entirely different. European Funds. In the past it has been possible to obtain European Union Funds for schemes such as new roads and public transport in the most deprived areas of Europe. Other funds appear from time to time, for example European money was used to help finance Fastrack in Kent Thameside.

Road safety grant to local authorities. There is only a small sum available annually for local road safety schemes.from the Road Safety Partnership grant administered by the DfT. Local Councils may decide to borrow money or raise Council Tax ( as in the case of Manchester) in order to finance transport schemes. PFI schemes. For these schemes a private company is set up to deliver a scheme and associated maintenance and operation for a fixed period of time. Central government allocates the necessary funds each year needed to meet the payments due to the private company. These are known as PFI credits. To date PFI has been mainly used by the Highways Agency and Transport for London. DfT PFI credits are usually given to highway maintenance and street lighting schemes. Highways Agency has funds for schemes of national importance and a small discretionary fund for schemes under £5m. Many road schemes are funded through the Regional Funding Allocation. Rail schemes. The DfT decides what rail schemes it wishes to fund under the High Level Output Specification. Network Rail also sets out its plans in the Route Utilisation Strategy for each area. Network Rail also has a small discretionary fund fro schemes under £5m. Developer contributions. These are subject to the ability of local planers to negotiate settlements. There are competing demands from other sectors such as health and education. The current economic climate means that these sums are likely to be lower than expected in the immediate future. They are extremely valuable as a source of the 10% local contribution to schemes required by RFA grants. Community Infrastructure Levy. After April 2010 local authorities can choose to exercise the power to make a standard charge on new development ( akin to a tariff) calculated by multiplying the amount of development by the standard local rate for each land use type. The monies raised will be used towards the cost of infrastructure in the area.

APPENDIX 5 Previous Developer Contribution Levels

SITE NO OF UNITSAFFORDABLE HOUSING

‐ UNITS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

‐ CONTRIBUTIONOPEN SPACE ‐ LAND

OPEN SPACE/PLAY

EQUIPMENT PUBLIC REALM

HARWICH

MASTERPLAN

LOSS OF

EMPLOYMENT HIGHWAYS EDUCATION

TOTAL

CONTRIBUTION

TOTAL

CONTRIBUTION

(per unit)

AFFORDABLE

HOUSING (%)

Thorpe Road Clacton 5 £40,000 £40,000 £8,000 0%

Thorpe Road Kirby

Cross49 10 £20,000 £248,303 £268,303 £5,476 20%

Lees School Clacton 39 £80,000 £80,000 £2,051 0%

Highlands Clacton 120 £774,500 £774,500 £6,454 0%

Low Road Dovercourt 162 5 4 parcels of land on site £18,564 £18,564 £115 3%

Capital House,

Dovercourt93 28

Small play area

equipped£228,000 £115,000 £343,000 £3,688 30%

Sydney St. Brightlingsea

(Outline)Up to 37 units £0 £0 0%

Byng Crescent Thorpe 12 12 £0 £0 100%

Royal Hotel Clacton 46 £360,000 £360,000 £7,826 0%

Windsor School Clacton 24 0.81 hectare £100,000 £100,000 £4,167 0%

Former Factory

Harwich34 £61,694 £129,200 £190,894 £5,615 0%

Woolner Road Clacton 30 £82,269 £82,269 £2,742 0%

St Marys Gt Bentley 12 12 £0 £0 100%

Jackson House Clacton 32 12 £44,219 £10,025 £54,244 £1,695 38%

Pallister Road Clacton 10 £18,026 £18,026 £1,803 0%

Harwich Primary 39 £62,530 £62,530 £1,603 0%

High St Dovercourt 10 £13,520 £13,520 £1,352 0%

Waterside Brightlingsea 99 £720,000 £34,400 £78,486 £840,159 £8,486 0%

Lighthouse Clacton 14 £18,590 £20,000 £38,590 £2,756 0%

Plot 3 Stanton Euro,

Dovercourt81 30 £138,000 £60,000 £198,000 £2,444 37%

948 109 £1,854,500 ‐ £843,143 £20,000 £129,200 £10,025 £209,400 £409,058 £3,482,599 £3,674 11%

APPENDIX 6 Developer Contribution Analysis Assumptions

Our assumptions

1.1 Set out below are the key assumptions set out in Section 11 of the main report:

Variable Urban Extension Category Town Centre Category

Site size (gross) 25 1

Development Density 35dph 100dph

Net/Gross Site Ratio 60% 70%

Development Mix 90% houses/10% flats 10% houses/90% flats

Sales Value £1,884 - £2,422psm (houses) £2,072 - £2,664psm

(houses)

Affordable Housing 40% of residential units


intermediate)

40% of residential units


intermediate)

Affordable Housing

Grant Funding

£0 per unit £0 per unit

Land Acquisition Cost £0.5m per ha £1.0m per ha

Build Costs Apartments: £1,184psm

Houses: £766psm

Apartments: £1,342psm

Houses: £766psm

Sustainability Costs

(Code for Sustainable

Homes)


(+ 5% build costs)


(+ 5% build costs)

Site Specific / Abnormal

Costs


Secondary

Infrastructure Costs


External Works 13% of build costs 13% of build costs

Fees & Other Costs 10% of build costs 10% of build costs

Sales Rates 100 units pa 50 units pa

Average Unit Sizes

(Private)

Apartments: 65 sq m

Houses: 85 sq m

Apartments: 65 sq m

Houses: 85 sq m

Average Unit Sizes

(Affordable)

Apartments: 70 sq m

Houses: 90 sq m

Apartments: 70 sq m

Houses: 90 sq m

Developer’s Required

Rate of Return

17%pa 17%pa

1.2 We now set out more information on the above assumptions in this appendix.

Sales value assumptions

1.3 The key variable in relation to the level of developer contributions that could be secured is sales value, in this case housing prices on a £ per square metre (£ psm) basis. We have adopted a low, medium and high approach for each of the notional development sites, using information in the Fordhams Affordable Housing Site Viability Study (2006).

1.4 The Fordhams study identifies four broad categories, from lower priced sites in less attractive areas such as Dovercourt, Jaywick and some parts of Clacton, where prices were estimated to be below £190 per sq ft (£2,045 psm) to high priced localities such as

Frinton and Mistley, where prices were estimated to be £240 per sq ft (£2,583 psm) and upwards.

1.5 We assumed apartments will sell for approximately 10% more on a per sq m basis than houses, and we assumed values in town centre locations would be 10% higher than in urban extensions. On this basis, we used the following indicative value categories:

Assumed “peak” sales values by category (per sq m) houses / apartments

Source: RTP; Fordhams

Our approach to affordable housing

1.6 The two main approaches to using new development to provide affordable housing is either through requiring a developer to provide a set percentage of units as affordable to a Registered Social Landlord (RSL), or provide a set percentage of its land for an RSL.

1.7 We understand from stakeholders that most LPAs usually take the first approach – that is, to apply percentage affordable housing targets to the overall proposed dwelling numbers on the site.

1.8 Following discussions with the Council, we have adopted a requirement for 40% affordable housing. We have used a 78:22 split between socially rented and intermediate affordable housing units.

Factors affecting affordable housing values

1.9 An RSL will pay the developer less for the affordable housing in a development than private buyers pay for private units. This is taken into account in our model.

1.10 Assuming an RSL acquires the units rather than the land for affordable housing, the value a developer will receive from the RSL will largely depend on the following three key factors:

The tenure type (i.e. whether the units are for socially rented or intermediate affordable housing)

“Open market” values (i.e. what “private” units are sold for)

The level of grant funding available

1.11 Our approach to these variables is as follows.

Accounting for tenure type: more value is achieved from intermediate affordable housing

NOTIONAL URBAN EXTENSION NOTIONAL TOWN CENTRE SITELOW

VALUEMEDIUM

VALUEHIGH

VALUELOW

VALUEMEDIUM

VALUEHIGH

VALUE

Apartments £2,072 £2,368 £2,664 £2,280 £2,605 £2,931

Houses £1,884 £2,153 £2,422 £2,072 £2,368 £2,664

1.12 A developer will receive more for intermediate affordable housing units from an RSL than for socially rented units. This reflects the respective value of such affordable housing to the RSL.

1.13 Often a developer will receive less than half the “open market” (or private) value for socially rented units where no grant funding is available. In contrast, where there is grant funding available, a developer can receive almost full market value from an RSL for intermediate affordable units.

Accounting for open market values: we have assessed the value of affordable housing as a percentage of market value

1.14 Higher “open market” (or private) residential values usually correspond to a developer receiving more from an RSL for the affordable housing units.

1.15 We have made assumptions on “open market” residential values for the different development categories (see above). Our approach is therefore to apply a percentage of these “open market” values to the affordable housing element in our notional developments.

Accounting for grant levels: affordable housing grant is changing

1.16 A developer will receive more from an RSL where grant funding is made available by the Homes and Communities Agency (previously the Housing Corporation).

1.17 The Housing Corporation’s (HC) previous national policy on grant funding was none would be available, unless the need for public subsidy could be demonstrated. Importantly, the HC wished to ensure it did not subsidise land values i.e. help maintain high land prices to the benefit of land owners. We understand from meetings with its successor, the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), that it is still following the principle that developer contributions in the first instance should bring forward affordable housing in accordance with the overall percentages, mix of tenure and house type as set out in the local authorities SPD for affordable housing.

We have assumed nil grant funding

1.18 The need for grant funding needs to be justified on an individual site or need basis. It is therefore difficult to apply assumptions of likely grant funding to particular “categories” of development (such as urban extension or urban sites).

1.19 We have therefore adopted a nil based grant position for National Affordable Housing Programme (NAHP) grant as our base assumption, although this has been varied within the sensitivity analysis.

We have combined the above factors to make some affordable housing value assumptions

1.20 We have set out below the assumptions in our analysis model regarding how much the RSL pays the developer for the affordable housing units to allow sensitivity analysis to this variable. It should be noted we have assumed that the grant level per unit will not be applied equally to the socially rented and intermediate affordable housing; the latter will normally be allocated less due to its higher value to an RSL. We have based this high level assessment on our general experience elsewhere.

1.21 These assumptions can be changed or tested in the analysis model in the second stage of the study. We recommend they are reviewed in due course through consultation with local RSLs.

Affordable housing value assumptions (% of market value)

Grant Level

Social Rented Assumed Value

(% of market value)

Intermediate Assumed Value

(% of market value)

No Grant 45% 75%

£10,000 per unit 50% 80%

£20,000 per unit 55% 85%

£30,000 per unit 60% 90%

Source: RTP

1.22 As the above table shows, we have assumed that the developer receives a higher percentage of market value for intermediate affordable units. Indeed, close to full market value (i.e. 100%) is achieved on intermediate housing with a £30,000 per unit HCA grant funding. In contrast, on socially rented affordable units where no HCA grant funding is assumed, the amount received by the developer is assumed to be less than half of that achieved on private units.

Build cost assumptions

Build cost increases are levelling off

1.23 Average build costs have risen by around 25% since the end of 2003 although the rate of increase is now levelling off. DCLG’s Cost Analysis of The Code for Sustainable Homes (July 2008) assumes build costs (i.e. excluding site preparation, external works etc which are separately set out below) of £766 per sq m and £1,342 per sq m for houses and apartments respectively. This is broadly consistent with our own knowledge of build costs. We have used £766 per sq m and £1,184 per sq m on the notional urban extension site, and the higher apartment cost of £1,342 per sq m on the notional town centre site to reflect the higher density and potentially higher quality required.

Code for Sustainable Homes standards will drive build costs up in future

1.24 The introduction of the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) Standards will significantly add to costs when they are introduced (DCLG have not announced any plan to delay this). Unfortunately, there are relatively few houses built to these standards to use as comparables to assess the increased costs above “base” build costs.

1.25 We have used an average of the estimated percentage build cost increases for varying CSH standards in our analysis model from DCLG’s Cost Analysis of The Code for Sustainable Homes. These are as follows:

Code Level 3 – cost increase of 5%




1.26 Unfortunately, there are still relatively few houses built to these standards, so we would recommend these figures are reviewed in the future.

Pre-development and secondary infrastructure cost assumptions

1.27 We have assumed £250,000 per gross ha for pre-development and secondary

infrastructure costs (site preparation including drainage, distributor roads and utilities).

Although this is at the lower end of such costs, we have made a general allowance for

site specific or abnormal costs (see below). We have also allowed 13% of build costs for

external works (such as landscaping and public open space) using published case

studies and our experience of costs elsewhere, and 10% of build costs for professional

fees and other minor costs.

1.28 As with many of the variables, it is not possible to be site specific as each development will have unique costs in this respect, but these general levels are based on experience elsewhere.

Site specific, or “abnormal” development cost assumptions

1.29 There are likely to be additional development costs specific to individual developments

which reflect their individual characteristics. These are usually described as “abnormal”

costs. For example, one site may require off site infrastructure works such as a stretch of

access road or additional utilities, a second remediation/decontamination and a third

acquisition of existing buildings or land (with associated demolition costs). For example,

a report for English Partnerships in 2005 suggested that a typical budget for cleaning up

an industrial site in an area with a low water risk was around £75k - £175k per ha1

1.30 It is not possible to assess all these site specific (or additional) development costs for each site. Indeed, they may not be known at this stage. We have therefore assumed costs of £500,000 per ha for both the notional urban extension and town centre sites. However, if there are town centre sites that have particularly difficult issues such as acute contamination, flood protection and ground conditions, abnormal costs could be higher than those assumed.

,

although it is relatively common for greater sums to be expended on additional

groundworks and substructure on sites that are sloping, wet or unstable.

Sales rate assumptions

Sales rates are key to the cashflow of a development

1.31 Cashflow is critical to a developer. The quicker residential units are sold, the quicker a developer can pay off loans, or achieve a higher rate of return on its own capital employed and reinvest these funds elsewhere. Conversely, a slow sale of residential units means costs already incurred, including land acquisition costs and site preparation costs, will continue to accumulate finance costs until sales income can pay off outstanding balances, or reduce the return on capital employed.

There has been a big slow-down in build and sales rates

1.32 DDCLG data suggests that market housing starts in June 2008 were 27 per cent lower than the June 2007.2

1 English Partnerships Best Practice Note 27 'Contaminated Land Remediation Costs' July 2005

In contrast housing starts by Registered Social Landlords were at their highest quarterly level in eleven years. In September the NHBC estimated a

2http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/housingmarket/

http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/housingmarket/�

quarterly fall of 50% compared with the previous year. Perusal of the interim reports from housebuilders which are mostly released in July and August shows comparably steep falls in completions during the half year. Some of these will be on committed schemes which points to the possibility of further decline, a conclusion backed by anecdotal evidence suggesting that the rate of new private sector starts will be markedly lower still during the coming year.

We have made sales rates assumptions

1.33 A developer is only likely to construct units at a rate it is able to sell units within a reasonable period. In other words, it will not build all private units at one time if this will “flood” the market and mean many are left unsold for a significant length of time.

1.34 We have therefore assumed a sales rate of 25 private (as opposed to affordable) residential units per quarter on the notional urban extension and 7.5 units per quarter on the assumed smaller notional town centre, based on our general market knowledge and information in the Fordhams study where some of the smaller sites are only assumed to have a ceiling level of completions of 4-10 units per quarter.

1.35 Exact sales rates will depend on the strength of the market, demand for the particular development and its size (e.g. a large development site may have more than one developer constructing residential units at one time, which offers a greater diversity of product and is likely to increase sales rates). In our analysis model, for the “urban extension” category at 40% affordable housing, equates to a total of 315 private units in the generic site of 25ha. At a sales rate of 25 units per quarter, the development takes approximately13 quarters (or just over 4 years) for all the units to be sold.

1.36 As with sales values, these reflect closer to rates experienced at the “peak” of the market rather than now; although we have reflected slower build rates in the overall phasing of development, we have utilised this base case for the purposes of analysing theoretical development surpluses.

Developer’s profit

1.37 We have developed a hybrid residual / discounted cash flow analysis to estimate theoretical development surplus arising from residential development to help fund new infrastructure requirements resulting from growth. This can be regarded as a type of “development appraisal” model.

1.38 We have assumed a developer profit based on a discount rate of 17%pa in this analysis model. Although this may be lower than current market profit rates, we are assuming a reasonable profit under normal market conditions for the purposes of this study.

Development mix assumptions

1.39 Through discussions with the Council, and our general development knowledge from other areas, we have assumed the following development mix at this stage:

Assumed “urban extension” development sites: 90% houses / 10% apartments

Assumed “town centre” development sites: 10% houses / 90% apartments

Average unit size assumptions

1.40 We have used the following average unit sizes based on our general development knowledge:

Table 0.1 Average unit size assumptions

Apartment House

Private Residential Units

65 sq m 85 sq m

Affordable Units 70 sq m 90 sq m

Source: RTP

Developer contribution payment timing assumptions

1.41 Finally, we have assumed developer contributions are spread over the life of the development.

1.42 In terms of Sec.106 payments/contributions, the timing of these will be specific to the individual development. For larger developments, these aren’t usually “front loaded” (i.e. are not at the start of the development as this adversely effects a developers cashflow as it may already have other significant site preparation/infrastructure costs in this respect), and are therefore phased or “back ended”.

1.43 Where tariffs are used, these are usually based on a set payment structure that ensures some monies are paid upfront. For example, the Milton Keynes tariff is structured as follows:

10% upon implementable consent

15% before start on site

75% on a quarterly basis after the first completion is sold or rented. The payment size relating to the proportion of dwellings sold or rented.

1.44 The latest CIL guidance envisages the levy is paid by “instalments”, but that these will not be individually negotiated as a Sec.106 is. As the client group has not committed to a CIL or a tariff at this stage, we have therefore adopted a simple timing structure that follows the sale of units i.e. developer contributions are spread over the sales period.

TENDRING INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY – PART ONE

Documents

Transcript of TENDRING INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY – PART ONE