Aylesbury Vale District Council Buckinghamshire ...old.buckscc.gov.uk/media/136833/Buckinghamshire_Infrastructure... · Appendix 1: Responses from service providers Service provider

Colin Buchanan45 Notting Hill GateLondonW11 3PBT 020 7309 7000E [email protected]

LONDON BRISTOL CARDIFF EDINBURGH GLASGOW MANCHESTER NEWBURY BELFAST DUBLIN GALWAYJanuary 2008

Buckinghamshire

. . .

Buckinghamshire Infrastructure study

TRANSPORT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING URBAN DESIGN ECONOMICS MARKET RESEARCH

Buckinghamshire County CouncilAylesbury Vale District CouncilAylesbury Vale Advantage

Final report: Appendices

Hewdon Consulting

Phase 1: Aylesbury Vale

Appendices contents Appendix 1 Responses from service providers Appendix 2 Validation tables Appendix 3 Non-growth related factors influencing service provision Appendix 4 Community Infrastructure Levy; précis of Government statement Appendix 5 Extract from Chelmsford BC Tariff SPD Consultation Draft (2007) Appendix 5 Issues raised by Southern Arc consortium

Appendix 1: Responses from service providers

Service provider contacts

Service Contact Response

Health

Acute John Summers No

Primary Richard Mills Yes

Mental health Harold Caldwell Yes

Education

Higher Education Susan Jones No

Further Education Andy Nobbs Yes

Secondary Stephen Bagnall Yes

Primary Stephen Bagnall Yes

Extended hours Stephen Bagnall Yes

Special schooling Stephen Bagnall Yes

Adult Jon King Yes

Emergency services

Police Peter Smith Yes

Fire Jeremy Williams Yes

Ambulance Lisa Dawson No

Community facilities

Open space Mathew Partridge and Ian Barham

Yes

Nature reserves Catherine Whormsley Yes

Playing pitches / MUGAS Mathew Partridge and Ian Barham

Yes

Children’s play areas Mathew Partridge and Ian Barham

Yes

Community centres Mathew Partridge and Ian Barham

Yes

Sports centres and swimming pools Mathew Partridge and Ian Barham

Yes

Arts / heritage / entertainment Mathew Partridge and Ian Barham

Yes

Shortfall in existing sports and leisure provision

Mathew Partridge and Ian Barham

Yes

Allotments Ian Barham Yes

Community development Tracy Aldworth No

Town centre public realm Beryl Kemplen No

Libraries Elaine Collier Yes

Crematorium and burial grounds Mathew Partridge Yes

Museum and archive Roger Bettridge

Yes – archives only

Wendover Woodland Park Rob Gazzard Yes

Social care

Adult social care Rachel Rothero Yes

Youth and community services Alix Simpson and Chris Garcia

Full response awaited

Children and young people Stephen Bagnall Yes

Waste

Refuse collection and recycling (includes new vehicle and depot

and recycling points) David Smedley Yes

Waste disposal Martin Dickman Yes

Affordable housing Anna Gordon Yes

Inward investment Tracy Aldworth No

Transport

Road projects A meeting was held with Bucks CC’s transport section and the study team on the 3

rd December.

Yes

Rail projects As above Yes

Colin Buchanan, London v1

Appraisal of Infrastructure Requirements (Aylesbury Vale District): Summary Sheet Service Provider:

VALE OF AYLESBURY PCT

AVA schedule ref SH1 Date

Contact (please state) Service (tick box)

Name Richard Mills Higher Education

Position Director of system reform Transport

Telephone no 01494 552241 Health X

Email [email protected] Inward Investment

Emergency Services

Education & Schools

Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities

BCC Waste

Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care

PCT X

NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply)

Police Population growth X

Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections

Forestry Commission New legislative requirements

Private Sector New Standards

Other Use of standardised formula

Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. Specifically, can you specify what is meant by MKSM and the rest of the district (second paragraph of the method/formula section)?

We use the LA ONS projections in line with all NHS bodies

Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?

• Services based on individual needs and choices (with the needs of the patient being paramount) using clinically proven protocols

• Use of workforce and buildings productively

• Localise where possible, centralise where necessary (bringing care closer to home when appropriate but having the right specialisms available in hospitals when needed)

• Integrated care and partnership working (between health and social care for example) to maximise the contribution of the entire workforce

• Prevention being better than cure (in a whole range of circumstances from diabetes to heart disease) as well as health promotion

• Focus on health inequalities and diversity

Question 3: Is there any spare capacity within existing GP surgeries?

Yes, but extra capacity required to meet projected needs

Question 4: In your previous comments you mentioned that requirements for new health centres will depend on where new housing growth will be located. Can you look at the enclosed maps and refine your answer?


No maps enclosed, but, if part of new development with appropriate critical mass this will be achievable

Question 5: Where is the ratio of typical population per GP derived? Is it the local average or a national figure? Similarly, a multiplier of 2.3 persons per household has been used but this is below the average household size for Aylesbury in 2001 (2.51) and higher than the projected figure for 2026 (2.20); are you able to confirm the source for this figure?

1 GP per 1800 pop was the average figure used nationally for planning. However, this is less relevant now that primary care services are provided by a wider skill mix, eg specialist nurses providing some services previously provided by GPs etc Happy to use your projected multiplier for households

Question 6: There is no mention of dental services, are you able to provide any information about likely future requirements?

NHS provision will need some additional expansion, say just an additional surgery

Question 7: Does the PCT encourage the multi-use of facilities, for example, to provide community meeting space or activities that have a health and leisure benefit, such as, yoga; or is this an issue for practice partners?

Yes we do

Question 8: How does a community hospital operate vis-a-vis acute hospitals and health centres, and is it reasonable to anticipate a new community hospital given the Government’s move towards rationalisation of hospital services into larger centres?

We wish to develop intermediate care services (between acute hospitals and primary care0, but would be looking for a flexible solution – perhaps an extended health centre, rather than a traditional community hospital

Question 9: Are the capital cost provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?

Capital costs will have been a current values – but likely to be open to quite a wide variation

Additional notes and comments



Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

AVA schedule ref SH3 Date


Name Higher Education

Position Transport

Telephone no Health x

Email Inward Investment

Emergency Services

Education & Schools


BCC Waste


PCT

NHS Trust x Issues (tick all that apply)

Police Population growth x



Private Sector New Standards x


Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from.

OBMH’s five-year Integrated Business Plan uses population data for Buckinghamshire (to 2011), sourced from Buckinghamshire County Council. Data for this period for Aylesbury Vale are as follows:

Aylesbury Vale

2006 2011 % change pop change

0-19 43,500 42,800 -1.6% -700

20-64 100,500 105,400 4.9% 4,900

65+ 23,400 27,000 15.4% 3,600

total 167,400 175,200 4.7% 7,800 Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?

• Meeting improved national standards for inpatient care (privacy, dignity)

• Continuing to develop and invest in community mental health services

• Maintaining sufficient concentration (critical mass) of inpatient services to sustain required 24-hour staffing whilst providing rotas which meet employment standards (i.e. European Working Time Directive as interpreted by UK Government)

Question 3: Could you please provide details of the plan to redevelop the Manor House Hospital in terms of likely costs and improvement in services provided?

Subject to option appraisal and further assessment, but expect at this stage to have co-located inpatient facilities for adults and older adults (replacing services offered across four sites). These will offer single rooms and en-suite facilities. Energy efficiency will be improved, with current flat-roofed, single-storey buildings on the Manor House site replaced. Costs are estimated at circa £34m. Question 4: Could you please ask your colleagues to quantify the growth needed in terms of ratios per head of population and what that might translate into in terms of staff and accommodation?

No decisions have yet been made about future bed numbers – this will form part of our business case development process early in 2008. Demographic and epidemiological data indicate that the level of mental ill-health amongst older people (65+ and particularly 75+) will increase, whilst care for younger adults will depend more on community staff and services than inpatient provision. Lengths of inpatient stay for 18-65-year-olds with acute mental illness have reduced significantly as community services have been enhanced.


Future property requirements will include:

• An inpatient base for the county (at Manor House, as above)

• An acute day hospital and base for ‘crisis’ services – close to but probably not on the hospital site

• Local bases for community teams, including one in Aylesbury – not on the hospital site, offering office accommodation and some consulting rooms in which to see outpatients

• Access to consulting rooms in GP surgeries and community centres

• Co-location of some services with non-‘mental health’ services for a relevant client group (e.g. potential location of ’early intervention’ staff with youth services)

• Office accommodation for non-patient teams (service management, training, etc.).

Question 5: Can you please detail capital and revenue costs and their likely sources? For capital cost can you indicate whether they are normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? Envisaged capital cost for Manor House redevelopment of £34m, normalised to 2007/08. Once licensed as an NHS Foundation Trust, this sum is planned to come from a combination of Trust sources (an existing capital programme funded from surpluses and property sales) and external borrowing. Property /land sales will need to be sold with the benefit of planning consent which maximises value for the NHS.


Appraisal of Infrastructure Requirements Aylesbury Vale District Summary Sheet

Service Provider

AYLESBURY COLLEGE

AVA Schedule

SE2

Date

Contact (please state)

Name Andy Nobbs

Position Head of Resources

Telephone No. 01296 588570

Email [email protected]

Affiliation (tick box)

BCC

Aylesbury Vale DC

PCT

NHS Trust

Police

Fire/Rescue Services

Forestry Commission

Private Sector

Other �

Question 1. Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. How has demand been measured?

From urban growth agenda for Aylesbury Vale South East Plan.

Question 2. What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?

Increase in population, provision for new business coming into the area, Government skills agenda and priorities including the increase in compulsory schooling from 16-18 (from 2013), 14-19 agenda and employer engagement.

Question 3. Some of the needs set out in the schedule appear to be a result of existing deficits, does your estimate of future needs (ie new 14-16 Vocational Centre [Phase 3 New Build], College Nursery, post-16 Construction Centre, post-16 Further Education Centre [Phase 4 New Build], all Weather Playing Field, post-16 Six From Centre) take into account population and/or planned housing growth? If so, what new or expanded facilities are required to meet future population growth?

The developments take into account population and housing growth. The future needs have been revised: University Centre, Vocation Centre, Innovation Centre, LDD Residential Centre, Day Nursery.

Service (tick box)

Higher Education �

Transport

Health

Inward Investment

Emergency Services

Education and Schools �

Community Facilities

Waste

Social Care

Issues (tick all that apply)

Population Growth �

Housing Projections �

New Legislative Requirements �

New Standards

Use of Standardised Formula

Question 4. Has existing capacity (if any) being discounted from existing needs?

Yes. We are currently operating at capacity.

Question 5. Are land costs included or excluded from capital costs?

All the developments are planned on existing land.

Question 6. Capital Expenditure (£34,000,000) Can you provide more details as to the size and type of facility proposed? For example, the size and type of libraries, laboratories, lecture theatres, sports facilities, etc.

Revised capital expenditure (£62,328,000) attached.

Question 7. Recurring Expenditure (£210,000,000 over 20 years) Could you provide more detail on the basis of your budget? For example, detail on the build up source, base date, uplift applied, etc.

Estimated at 5 % of capital as attached.

Future Developments at Aylesbury College Estimated build costs excluding VAT

Assumptions No.of "rooms"

Students

Square metres

Total square

metres

Student

capacity

Aylesbury Vale

University

Centre

Vocational

centre

Innovation

Centre

Residential

centre for

students with

learning

difficulties for

Buckinghamshir

e Day nursery Total

£ £ £ £ £

Teaching rooms 30 50 3 4500 1500 13500000

Support Space 4500 11250000

Teaching rooms 25 20 3 1500 500 4500000

Workshops 25 20 6 3000 500 12000000

Support space 4500 11250000

Incubator centre 10 100 1000 100 2500000

Teaching rooms 2 12 6 144 12 432000

Living rooms 2 12 6 144 12 360000

Residential accommodation 12 1 6 72 12 720000

Staff accommodation 150000

Day Nursery 250 60 625000

Sub total 24750000 27750000 2500000 1662000 625000 56662000

Sustainability cost uplift 10% 2475000 2775000 250000 166200 62500 5666200

Total 27225000 30525000 2750000 1828200 687500 63,015,700

Operating costs 1,361,250 1,526,250 137,500 91,410 34,375 3,116,410

Operating costs assumed % 5%

£

Teaching space fully

equipped 3000

Workshops, fully equipped 4000

Support space 2500

Residential space 10000

Future Developments at Aylesbury College Estimated build costs excluding VAT

Aylesbury

Vale

University

centre

Vocational

centre

Innovation

Centre

LDD

Residential

centre Day Nursery Total

Square metres 9000 9000 1000 360 250 19610

Estimated build Costs 27,225,000 30,525,000 2,750,000 1,828,200 687,500 63,015,700

Capacity 1500 1000 100 12 60 2672

Partners

Learning and Skills Council yes yes yes

Higher Education Funding yes

South East Development

Authority yes yes

Aylesbury Advantage yes yes yes yes

Aylesbury Vale District

Council yes yes yes yes

Aylesbury Vale enterprise

Hub yes

Bucks County Council yes yes

Bucks Life Long Partnership yes

Bucks Upper Schools yes

North Bucks 14 to 19

partners yes

BCC Special Schools yes

University of Bedfordshire yes

Bucks New University yes

Life Long Learning Network yes

Aylesbury Training Group yes

saved in new

build/college plans

Local busineses yes



Children and Young People Service

AVA schedule ref LS8 & LE1-LE6 Date 7.11.07


Name S.BAGNALL Higher Education

Position DIVISIONAL MANAGER Transport

Telephone no 01296-383527 Health


Emergency Services

Education & Schools x


BCC x Waste

Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care x



Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections x

Forestry Commission New legislative requirements x


Other Use of standardised formula x


I think they have all been done on 21,200, but in general the number has changed over time and the number used on individual pieces of work done by various individuals is not always clear. Source: latest documents available to us usually via AVDC or BCC planning


2004 Children Act and associated Every Child Matters programme 2006 Education & Inspections Act

Question 3: Are the capital costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? Are land costs included within the capital costs? Are you now in a position to identify revenue costs related to the provision of this service, particularly in relation to the period 2006-2011?

The costs in the documentation supplied are usually current costs at time estimate was made i.e. they are not indexed for future inflation. Land costs are not included, assumed to be provided by developer at nil cost. Yes revenue costs can now be estimated but this has not been done yet

Question 4: Can you provide details of the formula for calculating future need and provide details of the types of facility and care and the numbers of additional children & young people?

See attached paper summarising the Children and Young People’s Portfolio position dating from August 2007.


CAPITAL FACILITY/INFRASTRUCTURE

Unit Cost Total

REVENUE

8 New Primary Schools with 420 Nursery Places

5,250,000 42,000,000

2 New Upper Schools 25,000,000 50,000,000

1 New Grammar School 25,000,000 25,000,000

660 6th Form Places ?

Special School Provision 8,000,000

PRO RATA DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT RECEIVED FROM CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN LINE WITH THE NUMBER OF PUPILS ON ROLL

Residential Provision 1,000,000 1,000,000 566,000

Respite Provision 1,000,000 1,000,000 525,000

Family Centre 1,000,000 1,000,000 389,000

3 Children’s Centres [1 per 800 U 5’]

750,000 2,250,000 £615,000 using DCSF model B

FINAL SUBMISSION

Chris Munday

13.08.07

Children and Young Peoples Service Response

Core Strategy Development and Allocated Sites Development Plan Introduction

This paper seeks to advise the County Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council of the challenges and opportunities in relation to the Core Strategy and Allocated Sites Development Plan documents for growth in Aylesbury.

The document considers the following issues:

1. The Portfolio approach to Development 2. Capacity in the nursery sector 3. Capacity in the primary sector

4. Capacity in the secondary sector

5. Capacity for 16 plus education 6. Impact on Special Education provision 7. Impact on Children’s safeguarding

8. Impact on selective education

9. Location of growth 10. How Children and Young People’s Portfolio can support the agenda

The Children and Young People’s Portfolio approach to Development

1. New residential development is likely to result in an increased demand

for school places, either because the scale of development itself or through the cumulative effect of a number of smaller developments.

Where existing facilities do not have sufficient capacity or require improvements to meet the extra demands placed upon them

developers will be expected to provide or contribute to new facilities or make a contribution towards improvements of existing ones.

2. Contributions will be sought from all developments of 4 dwellings or

more, (net additional) and in cases where they are too small to provide part or all of the facility required, will be pooled with other

contributions until such time as the required works can be carried out.

3. For developments in excess of 500 dwellings, an assessment will be made of the need to secure additional accommodation for pupils with

special educational needs.

4. We recognise, however, that not all residential developments will

create a need for school places. Therefore Section 106 contributions

will not be sought from:

• one-bedroom dwellings; • developments exclusively for students;

• sheltered or elderly housing;

FINAL SUBMISSION

Chris Munday

13.08.07

• other specialist housing where it can be demonstrated that the accommodation will not be occupied by children.

5. Affordable housing schemes can generate higher than average numbers

of school age children. However, to ensure that these houses remain

affordable, Buckinghamshire County Council is willing to accept

educational contributions equivalent to private housing.

Calculating Developer Contributions From New Developments

1. The additional pressure new residential developments in Buckinghamshire will place on educational facilities is assessed by

Buckinghamshire County Council. Where developer contributions are

required, they will be calculated from the number of children likely to be generated by the development and the costs of providing additional places.

2. The methodology to derive the generation rates has come from an

analysis of small area information from the 2001 Census and has now been incorporated into the Education Places section of the Wycombe

District Council Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for Developer Contributions (adopted April 2007). The SPD can be viewed in full at

www.wycombe.gov.uk and is intended to act as a model approach to securing developer contributions towards future education provision for the other Buckinghamshire District Councils.

3. The methodology established in the Wycombe SPD sets out that, on average, new dwellings are likely to generate pupils at the following

Pupil Generation Rates:

2-Bed Flats

For Pre-School/Nursery

Places

No. of dwellings x 0.02 pupils generated x

£11,325 = £ per dwelling

For Primary Places No. of dwellings x 0.13 pupils generated x


For Secondary (11-15) Places

No. of dwellings x 0.05 pupils generated x £17,274 = £ per dwelling

For Secondary (16+) Places No. of dwellings x 0.01 pupils generated x £18,544 = £ per dwelling

2-3 Bed Houses and 3-Bed Flats

For Pre-School/Nursery Places


For Primary Places No. of dwellings x 0.27 pupils generated x


For Secondary (11-15)

Places



FINAL SUBMISSION

Chris Munday

13.08.07

For Secondary (16+) Places



4/4+ Bed Houses and Flats

For Pre-School/Nursery

Places



For Primary Places


For Secondary (11-15)

Places



For Secondary (16+) Places No. of dwellings x 0.06 pupils generated x


4. BCC will use Basic Need (BN) cost multipliers, which represent a cost

per pupil for building new accommodation and are adopted by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) for determining capital allocation to local authorities. They are based on the weighted

average of two separate multipliers, one for new schools and one for

extensions to existing schools. The latest cost multipliers are available form the DfES and will be kept under review by BCC.

5. For major developments (ones where the expected yield of children is

in excess of 210 of primary school age or 420 aged 11-16 and the County Council was not able to expand existing provision on existing sites) the developer would be expected to meet the full costs of

providing a new school of an appropriate size within the development site, and to contribute towards the capital costs of equipping the

school. 6. For other developments, the developer would be expected to

contribute towards the costs of providing additional places in existing

schools, (if expansion is feasible), which might include the costs of acquiring land for expansion if the site falls below the size indicated in Government guidance. Contributions will be calculated on the basis of

the above Pupil Generation Rates per dwelling multiplied by the cost of

provision per pupil.

Methodology in this paper

To assess the level of children’s services provision required to meet the

demands for the growth in Aylesbury Town the following methodology has been used.

1. Identified communities in Buckinghamshire in which there is 40% affordable housing

FINAL SUBMISSION

Chris Munday

13.08.07

2. Using school census data established the Household Occupancy rates

for various children’s services in those areas 3. Modelled the impact of those household occupancy rates against a

development similar to Fairford Leys

4. Reviewed the findings

Capacity in the nursery sector

The County Council has a duty to ensure that sufficient sustainable childcare provision is available to enable working parents to work. There is also a duty

to ensure the free provision of childcare for 15 hours for 3 and 4 year olds. The Aylesbury developments will increase the requirements for childcare and for free early years places. It is not possible to establish a formal estimate, as

the nature of the properties proposed in the new development has not been

set out in the documentation. Although using the information gathered from the modelling work suggests an estimated need for an additional 420 nursery places.

Capacity in the primary sector

The County Council has undertaken some modelling of the impact on capacity

within the primary sector. Analysis of the whole of the primary sector suggests for Aylesbury Town a

level of surplus places of 3%. The audit commission recommend, for enabling

parental choice, a level of surplus places of 5%. The levels of surplus or deficit are not uniform across Aylesbury Town. On this basis this is insufficient primary school places in Aylesbury to meet the needs of a growing

population.

Using the model of development based on the existing development in

Fairford Leys the primary pupil generation rate will be 3255 pupils and require eight new primary schools with 2 forms of entry (each would require a 50 place nursery)

Our conclusions are that there are significant issues in relation to the development of sufficient primary places in Aylesbury town. It would not be

appropriate to consider the needs solely of the growth areas as there will be

an impact on the community as a whole. There is a need, therefore, on the basis of the proposed developments to establish a clear Aylesbury Town education plan which considers the nature, number and positioning of schools

required by the Town including the growth areas.

Capacity in the Secondary sector

The County Council has undertaken some modelling of the impact on capacity within the secondary sector

FINAL SUBMISSION

Chris Munday

13.08.07

Analysis of the whole of the secondary sector suggests for Aylesbury Town a

level of deficit places of 5%. The audit commission recommend, for enabling parental choice, a level of surplus places of 5%. The levels of surplus or deficit are not uniform across Aylesbury Town or amongst the school types

(Grammar or Upper). On this basis this is insufficient secondary school places

in Aylesbury to meet the needs of a growing population. Using a model of development based on the existing development in Fairford

Leys the secondary pupil generation rate will be 2100 upper school students requiring two new upper schools with 6 forms of entry (each

would require a 180 place sixth form) and 945 grammar school students requiring one grammar school1 with 5 forms of entry (and a 300 place sixth form)

Our conclusions are that there are significant issues in relation to the development of sufficient secondary places in Aylesbury town. It would not be appropriate to consider the needs solely of the growth areas as there will be

an impact on the community as a whole. There is a need, therefore, on the

basis of the proposed developments to establish a clear Aylesbury Town education plan which considers the nature, number and positioning of schools


Capacity for 16 plus education

The County Council has undertaken some modelling of the impact on capacity

within the tertiary sector The stay on rates in our schools is different. grammar schools have an

approximate rate of 98% at 16 plus whereas upper schools are significantly lower at 43%. It is, therefore, necessary to plan for approximately 1.2 forms

of entry in Buckinghamshire’s post 16 pupil numbers.

Our estimates suggest therefore a need for an additional 660 sixth form places across Aylesbury Town

Our conclusions are that there are significant issues in relation to the development of sufficient tertiary places in Aylesbury town. It would not be

appropriate to consider the needs solely of the growth areas as there will be

an impact on the community as a whole. There is a need, therefore, on the basis of the proposed developments to establish a clear Aylesbury Town education plan which considers the nature, number and positioning of schools


1 Please see note on selective education

FINAL SUBMISSION

Chris Munday

13.08.07

Impact on Special Education Provision

The County Council has also analysed the possible impact of growth on Special Education provision in the town. The modelling suggests an impact of

an additional 210 children with statements of special educational need (some

of whom may require special school provision) and 1365 non-statemented children with some level of special educational need.

The County will need to consider the impact of this level of special educational need in relation to special school provision.

Impact on Children’s safeguarding

The County Council has also analysed the possible impact of growth on

safeguarding provision in the town. The modelling suggests an impact of an additional 576 children in need of whom 33 will be children looked after, 34 would be children with disability and 8 children on the child protection

register.

This level of looked after children would require additional residential

provision as modelling suggests that the number requiring that type of

provision is 7. for looked after children and additional respite capacity for children with disability. The modelling would also suggest the need for a children’s safeguarding infrastructure including family centre provision.

Impact on selective education It is important for the district council to be aware that increased growth in the

population creates an impact on the selective education system policy of the County Council. Selective education is well regarded by the residents of the

County and may have an impact on inward migration into Bucks. The County

Council can not increase the number of grammar school places in Buckinghamshire. Growth will, therefore, impact on the number of places available to students. It is anticipated that some of these issues will be able to

be managed by a reduction in the number of places taken by students from

neighbouring authorities but it is unclear, from the documents provided the level of impact.

Location of growth The area proposed for growth in Aylesbury town in the Brownfield sites and

the southern arc does create some challenges for the portfolio.

Brownfield sites It is difficult to assess the impact of growth from the brown field sites in

Aylesbury town as it is not clear how many pupils would be generated from those developments. The focus in the centre of Aylesbury is key and there is

a need to consider the quality of schools in the centre of the town. There is a

FINAL SUBMISSION

Chris Munday

13.08.07

need to ensure the provision of high quality education provision in the centre

of town. The development of an Aylesbury plan for school places will assist in mitigating risks established through the expansion on brownfield sites.

Southern Arc The lack of clarity around the southern arc does make comments difficult to make. It is important to note that the southern part of Aylesbury has more schools with an established deficit of places in comparison to the north where

there is more surplus. The arc plan, which appears to move away from creating new “communities”, is difficult from an educational perspective as

certainly primary provision sits better in local communities. How Children and Young People’s Portfolio can support the agenda

The section of the report will consider the Core Strategy Policy Framework and how the Children and Young People’s portfolio can assist in its implementation of the preferred policy options.

Sustainable Growth

1. The County Council is committed to ensuring that new school buildings

meet the BREEM Excellent standard. This will ensure that the carbon footprint is neutral for school developments

2. The development will require us to consider the impact of children

from outside of Buckinghamshire in other growth areas applying for

places in Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools. As stated previously the County Council can not, under the present legislative framework develop additional Grammar school places.

Quality of Life

1. As identified earlier the County Council Children and Young People’s portfolio will require development contribution to secure sufficient infrastructure to meet the needs of the new communities. This will

include additional nursery places, primary and secondary places as well

as an infrastructure to support children in needs and their families

2. All of our services are fundamentally important to support social

cohesion. We are concerned that the present proposal may lead to an overall problem in the centre of Aylesbury in relation to school places, with those places being less attractive to families and leading to a

possible development of “sink” schools. We would like to work closely

with the District Council in establishing an Early Years and School Place Plan for Aylesbury in 2007/08

Somewhere to live

FINAL SUBMISSION

Chris Munday

13.08.07

1. The County Council Children and Young People’s Portfolio accept the

need for affordable housing and welcome the development. We would want to ensure that sufficient of this housing is allocated to key workers including teachers, social workers and other members of the

children’s workforce.

2. The METAS service in Children and Young People’s Services works

closely with Gypsy and Traveller groups and maintains a positive

relationship with the community as does our social work service. We have happy to offer support from the services in the development of

an appropriate policy. Somewhere to work and shop

1. The growth in Aylesbury and the subsequent development of additional early year and school places together with additional requirements for children’s safeguarding will create additional employment for the area.

The level of employment can not be fully quantified at this stage.



Primary Schools, Nursery and Secondary school Provision BCC

AVA schedule ref LE6 Date 8 Nov 2007


Name John King Higher Education

Position Asset Manager Transport

Telephone no 01296 382956 Health


Emergency Services

Education & Schools

Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities X

BCC X Waste


PCT



Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections X





All figures have been provided by The Research Team, Policy Support, Buckinghamshire County Council and now come under Strategic Planning, Planning and Development


The BCC Medium Term Plan and housing/population growth. The BCC Property Strategy and Property Review to be completed in the summer of 2008.

Question 3: Can you please specify if you have spare capacity in nursery, primary or secondary schools at an aggregate level?

Not applicable

Question 4: Have you now got enough information to discuss likely sources to cover revenue costs for primary school and nursery provision? Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?

Not applicable

Question 5: Have you now got enough information to discuss likely sources to cover revenue costs for school provision?

Not applicable


Question 6: Have you now developed a formula to calculate capital costs related to ‘extended school’ provision and how have the scale of costs (£500,000 for early years and £3.5m for post-16) been calculated? Will demand for extended school activities also be generated by existing populations and if so is that included in the figures provided?

Not applicable

Question 7: Can you clarify the methodology used to calculate costs for special needs secondary education and extended school facilities, and the costs involved?

Not applicable

Question 8: Can you please provide additional information with regard to deficit/spare capacity in existing provision for adult education?

In the southern area of Aylesbury Vale, there is a deficit in daytime provision. For the whole of the Aylesbury area, there are at present only 7 adult classrooms. They are far from ideal and are already at capacity. The infrastructure is over capacity. The requirements of new housing cannot be accommodated in the present facilities.

Question 9: It is unclear whether a new ALC facility will be required or whether existing facilities can be expanded, can you clarify providing the formula for calculating the additional need.

Within the AV area, there is a deficit in daytime provision. Most ASL is in schools that can’t be used during the day. The expansion of existing schools has risks such as segregation between pupils and adults, infrastructure and the threat of Foundation or Academy status not withstanding the lack of ground space. Daytime ASL on school sites is always best avoided unless a different arrangement can be developed.


I can provide more information or empirical data for Q’s 8 & 9 but more time is required. Adult Community Learning (ACL) is now called Adult Safeguarded Learning (ASL) Please see the other attached document which is the Culture and Learning Section 106 Policy Statement.



Thames Valley Police, Property Services

AVA schedule ref

SO31 Date 7/11/07


Name Peter Smith Higher Education Position Strategic Manager Transport Telephone no 01865 293863 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services √ Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities

BCC Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care PCT NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police √ Population growth √ Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections √ Forestry Commission New legislative

requirements √ *

Private Sector New Standards √ * Other Use of standardised

formula √

* as and when relevant

Question 1: Can you please revise your capital and revenue costs estimates in light of changes contained in the Panel’s Report for the SE Plan growth for an additional 300 dwellings in AV that will be allocated to settlements other than Aylesbury? Capital costs based upon the draft South East Plan EiP Panel Report allocation of 21,500 new homes between 2006 and 2026 and current @ 17/8/07. Should the growth figures be revised, as expected, the cost estimate will need to be reviewed. The cost should be index linked. Allowance for land cost included.

1. COST OF GENERAL OFFICE ACCOMMODATION (non specialist)

Item Data

1 Number of Dwellings in Thames Valley Police Area 896,706

2 Divide by total Thames Valley Police Officers/Thames Valley Police Staff 7741

3 No of Dwellings per Staff Member is (1) ÷(2) = 115.84

4 Number of New Households forecast 21,500

5 New Staff Members required, therefore is (4) ÷ (3) = 185.60

6 Total non-specialist accommodation , M2 115,836

7 Non specialist accommodation per member of staff, M2 is (6) ÷ (2) = 14.96

8 New non-specialist accommodation needed, therefore, is (5) x (7) 2,777.36

9 Current cost of non-specialist accommodation, per M2 is £3,438

10 Cost of non-specialist office accommodation for new households is (8) x (9) = £9,547,170

2. COST OF CUSTODY FACILITIES (specialist)

Item Data

11 Number of Households in Thames Valley Police Area 896,706

12 Total Custody Facilities in Thames Valley Police Area, M2 5,276

13 No of Households per M2 Custody Facility (11) ÷ (12) 169.96

14 Number of New Households forecast 21,500

15 Total new Custody Facilities needed, therefore is (14) ÷ (13) M2 126.50

16 Cost of Custody Facilities per M2 £6,094

17 Cost of Custody Facilities for new households is (15) x (16) £770,864


3. MISCELLANEOUS CAPITAL COSTS PER POLICE OFFICER

Item Data

18 One off start up costs per Police Officer £10,085

19 Ratio Police Officers 0.57

20 Number of Police Officers (see 5 above) 105.67

21 Total £1,065,632

4. MISCELLANEOUS CAPITAL COSTS PER PCSO

Item Data

22 One off start up costs per PCSO £6,916

23 Ratio PCSO 0.07

24 Number of PCSO (see 5 above) 12.71

25 Total £87,886

5. MISCELLANEOUS CAPITAL COSTS PER POLICE SUPPORT STAFF MEMBER

Item Data

26 One off start up costs per Police staff member £4,665

27 Ratio of police staff 0.36

28 Number of Police staff (see 5 above) 67.23

29 Total £313,630

30 Total – costs for development of new households (10 + 17 +21+ 25 + 29) excluding

VAT

£11,785,182

An increase of £164,444 in capital terms. 100% attributed to growth. The revenue cost figure previously given is very much a broad indication. 2-3 additional staff does not significantly impact of this broad figure. No change to the £12m per annum needed at this stage. Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years? The police have several processes that capture relevant data and information and assess it strategically. See the attached document. Annually there is a formal Force Strategic Assessment which involves senior & other relevant staff. Key issues are reviewed and their impact and priority assessed. That then feeds into the Strategic Plans and Delivery Plans for the force and by department, and budget. There are more frequent informal scanning exercises carried out that pick up on new issues, and a more formal internal report is prepared annually as part of the Strategic Assessment process. It covers drivers and issues such as: Politics: eg national policing priorities, reforms (eg reduced bureaucracy), politics, PSA’s, the assessment of policing and community safety (APACS), LAA’s, community engagement. Environmental and socio-demographics: eg population change, housing, transport (more congestion, major facilities), leisure/night time economy (hardening of town centres), Olympics, prison overcrowding Technology (eg an increase in IT crime) Legislation (eg Counter Terrorism Bill) Economic (eg funding) There are therefore always a number and range of issues that will impact on us to varying degrees. The intention to embed neighbourhood policing as a Government led strategy will ensure the need for more neighbourhood offices to deliver community based policing as growth takes place, together with expanded facilities to house more staff generated by an increased number of crimes & incidents. Reviews of working practices/reduction in bureaucracy and any changes in the use of technology to allow more remote working, if implemented, may affect how we deliver services, but it is not envisaged that this will have a significant impact on existing property provision in terms of releasing capacity. We will continue looking to improve use of our resources and partner working where possible. Periodic reviews need to be undertaken to ensure that changes can be and are made as needed.


Question 3: Do capital costs include land costs and are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? Yes land cost is allowed for. Inflation is not allowed for so they will need indexing. The index date would be 17 August 2007 Question 4: In your previous comments you mentioned that requirements for new police stations will depend on where new housing growth will be located. Can you look at the enclosed maps detailing growth in the next 5 years and refine your answer? We are about to prepare a local policing strategy for 6 of our 16 LPA areas. Aylesbury Vale is one of the priority areas and we envisage that being finalised by mid December. We are in the process of agreeing internally a standardised approach to assessing the impact of growth at a local level to quantify the impact and identify specific projects arising from it where we can, and where the available site specific data permits that. Our Aylesbury Vale Local Policing Area have prepared an outline strategy for dealing with local based need, but this is indicative only at this stage as it was produced in advance of, and needs to be tested through, the process outlined in our response to Q6 below. It does not for instance reflect police needs beyond the neighbourhood level such as investigation and support functions where there is expected to be the need for expanded or new facilities. Nor does it reflect the likely outcome of the rest of district site allocations due out in 2008. It has identified the need for the re-classification of one station, and new facilities:

• response teams (essentially uniformed officers in vehicles) being based out of Winslow (currently Buckingham), Aylesbury and Wendover

• neighbourhood teams in north, centre and south of the District as spokes from the three hubs above • Aylesbury (centre hub) could potentially see the need (subject to funding being identified) for new

offices in Berryfields, Hale leys, Watermead covering the north part of the town, covered in response terms from Aylesbury station

• The southern growth arc could see response cover from Wendover with neighbourhood teams in Wendover, and 3 in the approximate positions around Stone/Bishopstone, Stoke Mandeville/Weston Turville. I would anticipate that they would be within new local centres within each of the 3 proposed MDA’s

• The north area could be covered from Winslow with response and neighbourhood teams based there with separate existing neighbourhood offices in Waddesdon and Wing, with Buckingham downgraded to a neighbourhood only location, requiring relocation

As stated this is an outline of a potential but incomplete strategy which I would envisage being complete around mid December 2007 Question 5: Can you clarify if PCSOs are community support officers. If not what does PCSO stand for and are community support officers likely to be employed within an expanded Aylesbury and would that be an additional cost to the TVPA? Yes, Police Community Support Officer (PCSO). They are an important element of neighbourhood policing in most cases forming the larger element of local neighbourhood teams. For instance, a team may have a Sergeant, 2 Police Constables and 4 PCSO’s. PCSO revenue funding is not straightforward at present, with some government funding and some local external revenue funding. Post 1/4/08 I understand (I am checking this) the government funding falls away falling onto TVPA together with any external partner funding it can secure. I understand Aylesbury does have some PCSO positions revenue funded by AVDC and Bucks CC, but am awaiting an internal response confirming the position. Question 6: In the section Usual source of funding capital costs it states, Any capital expenditure attributable to the new developments should be funded from the developments through planning obligations. How is expenditure attributable to the new developments? Assessing the impact of growth is a new area for the police service. Very few forces have a standardised approach to it. We are currently preparing a standardised template to assess the impact of growth at a local level. To date we have adopted the approach used by some police forces and which is shown in the AVA Infrastructure Schedule provided. In essence we have looked at what we have now in terms of staff, property, other infrastructure (eg communication systems – Airwave masts, ANPR) and staff set up capital costs, relate that back to housing growth to produce a space and staff need which is costed. This assumes that the current ratios are projected forward. The more refined approach we are reviewing now looks to identify LPA level ratios and impacts and try to differentiate between housing and non housing generated crime/incidents, consider trends and whether


current ratios are applicable going forward and if not adjust them, review whether there is capacity in buildings locally, and to project forward. We are currently re-considering the most appropriate measure of growth – housing numbers or population. If population, should it be ONS, locally generated projections (more than twice ONS) or through the common use by other service providers of household multipliers (eg if 2.4 phh now dropping to 2.1 is 2.25 appropriate to use?)? If population based, there may well be an additional impact arising from the disproportionate increase in housing stock relative to population increase – ie more opportunity for crime and therefore more incidents. In the absence of a local strategy, all we have is the high level approach already adopted. This effectively flags up that growth will impact on our service, and a high level cost estimate of that need based on housing growth and the assumption of current ratios being maintained going forward. It is possible that the local review will result in a different financial outcome and it is possible that on specific developments, co-location opportunities will reduce the need/cost. Question 7: Under what circumstances would co-location with other organisations be acceptable? Co-location is definitely an option we would be keen to explore. It will reduce space needs through shared common facilities, and may lead to service delivery improvements. It is more likely to be appropriate at a local neighbourhood level in local or neighbourhood centres, although sector police stations or at least some functions may be able to co-locate at that higher level. District level and higher serving facilities are unlikely to be able to be shared for operational reasons. Other service needs need to be mapped for synergies and operational suitability (ie no conflict in “customer” base). We have already approached Bucks CC with a view to commence discussions on co-location opportunities, and will do so at District level as well. In the absence of identified opportunities we are stating our full requirement. Question 8: Can you explain the assumptions that link population growth with increases in incidents?

Historically crime and incidents are recorded as a proportion of population – eg recorded crime per 1000 population. This is an established national form of reporting and covers a range of crime types publicly and periodically reported. Our base assumption is that current crime levels and ratios will be projected forwards to allow for population growth. It is probably not practical to be any more precise, although I am considering whether, when assessing the impact of growth, it is appropriate to make adjustments to some current ratios where we consider that is warranted. The danger is that sometimes these trends are short term and can be influenced by a number of factors – eg changing government crime reporting requirements, new initiatives, changes in process. Regular review would be needed. Other trends may be as a result of circumstances that are not yet officially fully recognised (eg immigrant population numbers and their impact on certain crime types) Additional notes and comments I am awaiting some internal responses (@7/11/07) to some of the issues raised above. I will advise if any amended responses are needed. See the attached ATLAS pro-forma response issued on behalf of the SE Region forces. This will provide some background to our strategic assessment and other relevant processes. I am envisaging the Local Policing strategies to have a structure along the lines of that attached. A summary of what neighbourhood policing is about is attached for information. To address your additional questions;

Capital Expenditure (£11,620,000)

Could you provide more detail on the source of the data used for calculating the police requirements? For example, how are facility requirements calculated in regards to household growth? Attached spreadsheet. Following through the process shows simply that the total manpower is divided into the total floorspace and applied to the new manpower need. The resultant floorspace need is then costed per sqm Could you provide more detail on the robustness of the projected growth projections? The housing figures as from the SE Plan. The growth impacts on staff and floorspace are based on current ratios to houses and police staff at force level respectively.


Could you provide more detail on the scope and costing of exclusions (CCTV, etc.)? CCTV is not included as its usually provided through Local Authorities in partnership with the Police. We don’t anticipate allowing for Automatic Vehicle Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) at this stage although that may become a future requirement as it is rolled out. Operational training seems to be considered a revenue cost, so until/if that changes it is excluded. The non residential property allowance is proving difficult to quantify for us – ie the impact of employment uses cf housing. We are exploring that with the current Local Policing reviews but it may not be possible to identify a formula based approach to it. It would be significantly less than the housing allowance which itself may reduce slightly to accommodate it.

Recurring Expenditure (£240,000,000 over 20 years)

Could you provide more detail on the robustness of police structure assumptions? Unclear what is asked for here. The revenue approach is indicative only and from recollection it makes allowance for staff , equipment and property running costs. If you can let me know what exactly you need, I’ll check it. Could you provide more detail on the scope and costing of exclusions (Training, non residential allowances, etc.)? There are no exclusions from this revenue cost section. We highlighted that it is indicative only for the reasons stated in the final box of the previous form.

One Off set up costs as calculated for Strategic Regeneration Projects

One Off Start Up Costs Police Officers

Detail £ Notes

Uniform & Protective Equipment 1,000 Includes Body Armour

Patrol Car 2,020 on absorption costing

Cost of recruitment 515

IPLDP Probationers 3,500 excl c£54k for outsourced training + yr1 salary

IT Equipment 1,277

Furniture 1,000

mileage and subs

wastage 773 allowance for re-advertising/training through aborted recruitment

Total 10,085

One-off Start Up Costs Support Staff

Detail £

Cost of Recruitment 515

Uniform & Protective Equipment 100 nominal

Staff Training/Induction 1,000

IT Equipment 1,277

Furniture 1,000

mileage and subs nominal

wastage 773

Total 4,665

One-off Start Up Costs PCSO's

Detail

Uniform & Protective Equipment 773

Cost of Recruitment 515

Initial training 2,578

IT Equipment 1,277

Furniture (desk, chair, two drawers & cupboard/locker) 1,000

mileage and subs

wastage 773

6,916

05/12/2007 Police capital costs.xls Start Up Costs MW

Unit 7/8 Kent House

81 Station Road

Ashford TN23 1YS

T 01233 651733

F 01233 651701

Social Infrastructure Planning as part of new communities – Information Proforma

Please return to [email protected] by 10th September 2007

NAME Peter Smith, Strategic Manager SERVICE Thames Valley Police.

1. What service plans does your

service have?

Strategic Plan & Annual Policing Plan, supported by the

Force Delivery Plan.. These must reflect the priorities in

the Home Office’s National Community Safety Plan

currently covering the period 2006-09 as well as local

issues. Each operational Basic Command Unit and main

support service has an annual delivery plan.

2. How often are these service

plans reviewed?

The Strategic Plan has historically been reviewed every

year but refreshed every three years. New legislation will

result in the Three Year Strategic plan being refreshed

annually from 2008 onwards. The new Three Year

Strategy will also replace the Annual Policing Plan as

each refreshed Three Year Strategy will contain a detailed

plan for the first of the three years.

Underpinning Delivery Plans will continue to be fully

refreshed annually.

All plans are subject to a quarterly review to assess

progress against the plan and whether any changes in

environment and thus direction or activity need to be

made.

3. What period do these service

plans cover?

Strategic and Policing plans 3 years. Currently 2005 to

2008. Delivery plans 1 year.

4. What guidance exists to advise

you how to factor in

housing/population growth into

those plans (at Departmental

level or equivalent)

No specific Home Office, Association of Police Authorities

(APA) or Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)

guidance. Most forces source their own population and

housing growth data and assess its impact usually through

its Strategic Planning & Corporate Development sections

and regular Strategic Assessment process which aligns

operational and business planning.

5. How do these service plans

relate to the physical provision of

facilities or wider estate

management strategies

The service plans deal principally with operational issues

and priorities. Most forces will have an estates or property

strategy that is reviewed periodically with engagement of

the operational, support functions and Police Authority

through property committees or forums. As best practice

this should also be considered as part of the Strategic

Assessment process and should be reviewed in the light

of the findings of the Strategic Assessment which leads to

production of the Three Year Strategy and Delivery Plans.

Property provision and strategies historically are not

usually covered specifically in service plans, although

some forces may seek inclusion of a new property

strategy where that reflects a particular change in strategic

direction and/or requires high level recognition. Specific

property or infrastructure (eg ANPR cameras) provision

Unit 7/8 Kent House

81 Station Road

Ashford TN23 1YS

T 01233 651733

F 01233 651701

may be referred to as part of a broader strategic

operational issue, such as the rollout of neighbourhood

policing and the need to provide accommodation for that.

6. How does your service plan take

account of the following:

a) changes in local population and

demographics as a result of new

housing proposals;

b) changes in service requirements

(service levels, funding

settlements, technology);

a) Usually following internal, or potentially external,

research highlighting an issue such as significant

population changes and housing growth, the

Strategic Assessment process will review the

impact of any trends or significant changes and

seek strategic solutions to address those, and

reflect them in service plans. Property solutions

should then follow on, aligning with identified

service needs. Police forces are always looking to

improve their internal processes, to introduce

more structured and analytical approaches to

external changes such a population and housing

growth. Improved partnering arrangements with

key external organisations, engaging with the

planning process and maximising opportunities to

access developer contributions for new facilities,

and regularly reviewing the structure of its

Community & Diversity Officer function to adapt to

changes in community demogaphics and cultural

profile are examples reflected in delivery plan

actions.

b) Policing & Delivery Plans are reviewed annually

and other strategic documents, and partnership

arrangements, will also be reviewed periodically to

take account of changes. Police authorities and

service departments regularly monitor budgets

and availability of and any changes in funding

sources or settlements and assess the availability

and impact of new technology

7. How do these service plans

relate to the statutory town

planning process? In particular

how does town planning

currently help your service

delivery & service plan

objectives?

Currently there is no established relationship to the town

planning process. It is up to each individual force to

ensure it is aware of spatial planning documents and

processes, and to engage with local planning authorities

(LPAs) as necessary. LPA engagement of police

authorities has historically either not taken place, or has

been directed at the wrong contact level ie usually too low

in the rank hierarchy or the wrong specialism.

As there is no current link, the statutory town planning

process does not help our service delivery. We end up

either trying to catch up or failing to be reflected

altogether. This is compounded by a reluctance of many

LPAs to recognise and accept that the police have a

justification and need to be involved, particularly on

provision of infrastructure and access to developer

contributions.

Early engagement in the town planning process, both at

Unit 7/8 Kent House

81 Station Road

Ashford TN23 1YS

T 01233 651733

F 01233 651701

policy and development control levels, would greatly assist

in our local and strategic planning. It would indicate the

nature, scale, location and timing of growth.

Community safety is a key national and local political

issue, and translates to our involvement in designing out

crime and identifying the potential need for

social/community infrastructure. The latter is typically the

requirement for local neighbourhood facilities, but also

provision for associated and support facilities and

equipment such as for custody cells, major crime teams,

roads policing bases, ANPR and CCTV systems, vehicles

etc that may be located away from development sites.

Depending on the impact of new development on our

resources, both site specifically and incrementally, there

may be the need for a step change in police property

provision in the locality or area as a result of new

development, such as provision of a new hub police

station or expanded premises.

It is important to note that S17 Crime & Disorder Act 1998

requires all local authorities and other agencies to

consider crime and disorder reductions and community

safety in the exercise of all its duties and activities –

including spatial planning. The police are required under

the Police Act 1996 to secure and maintain an efficient

and effective force. LPAs should therefore facilitate the

objectives of other legislation where land use

considerations arise. The consistent under emphasis of

community safety throughout LDF documents and some

development control processes is clearly contrary to this

duty, and also the emphasis given in most Sustainable

Community Strategies, and other guidance such as PPS1

(infrastructure provision and safety generally), Safer

Places: The Planning System & Crime Prevention (ODPM

2/04) and now the Green Paper emphasizing good design,

safety and a strategic approach to local infrastructure

provision with the need to involve all service providers that

impact on infrastructure.

8. How would you like those

planning new housing growth to

take account of the requirements

of your service – this can be both

the planning case officer dealing

with a major application and

scheme promoter/developer?

1. Recognition. It should be recognised by LPA’s in

planning policy, and developers in general that

community safety is a key issue and that we are

concerned with (a) ensuring new development

design prevents crime as far as possible through

adoption of Secured By Design Award Scheme

principles to design out crime for both new units

(private as well as affordable) and surrounding

external areas, parking provision and the public

realm (http://www.securedbydesign.com/;

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/index.php?path=2,

64 ) (b) provision of new, enhanced or expanded

Unit 7/8 Kent House

81 Station Road

Ashford TN23 1YS

T 01233 651733

F 01233 651701

police facilities to address operational policing

needs arising from the development. It is in the

interests of developers to address community

safety, particularly on larger schemes. Police

accommodation is typically provided for at

different levels ranging from force HQ’s to Area

HQs, hub/small town police stations,

neighbourhood offices and some lower level

contact points, with a range of ancillary facilities

such as custody cells, criminal justice suites or

centres, workshops, storage, training and offices.

For LPA’s if community safety is not allowed for

appropriately, the additional development will put

existing police resources under pressure, and our

ability to provide an effective police service could

be undermined. This will put at risk the

sustainable community agenda sought by

government.

2. Early and effective engagement. This would be at

early pre-application and master planning stages

involving our Crime Prevention Design

Advisors/Architectural Liaison Officers on design

& CCTV issues, and, typically, our property

department on strategic infrastructure

requirements. LPAs may be given a single point of

contact initially in some cases. Where Planning

Performance Agreements are used, we would

want to be engaged as a key stakeholder and

participant along with other community safety

providers such as the fire and ambulance

services.

3. Prioritisation of and allowance for any identified

police infrastructure in site design/layout, use of

planning conditions, and agreement of s106

contributions. Application of either a standard

formulaeic approach to planning obligations

(where available) or site specific negotiation

following a local assessment by the police of net

capacity shortfall and, by all parties, any viable

opportunity to co-locate and/or share space within

a community “facility” or centre.

4. Design & Access Statements. Specified

compliance with CABE guidance on addressing

community safety

5. Planning policy & development control process

formulation & review. Opportunities to reflect

community safety issues, and in our case,

specifically the police,

9. What are the barriers which may

be stopping this happening and

how might these be resolved?

• Recognition of community safety as a key issue throughout and to an appropriate level within LDFs & Design & Access Statements. Planning

Unit 7/8 Kent House

81 Station Road

Ashford TN23 1YS

T 01233 651733

F 01233 651701

policy needs to accept that as community safety is a key issue in sustainable community strategies, spatial policies need to reflect our requirements for design and infrastructure. Development control processes should be tightened up to avoid superficial or no reference to addressing designing out crime. That community safety within LDFs is related to both design and infrastructure, not just design

• That the police (& other emergency services) should automatically be consulted and effectively engaged on emerging policy and significant planning applications at every key stage from a design and infrastructure perspective. We’re working on that locally with some success where specific contacts within police forces are being appointed or nominated to address LDF issues, but its not automatically coming through, particularly on LDFs. Often LPAs, where the police are on a stakeholder register, address consultation at the wrong level (eg Crime Prevention Design Advisor or local Inspector). Often only design and CCTV issues are picked up in development control procedures. LPAs consultation/engagement strategies need to be tightened up to specifically and automatically include the police, and the approporiate police contact(s) need to be identified by Community Engagement officers under a generic “emergency services” category and included on consultation registers and within SCI’s. Where police forces have nominated contacts for planning issues they should proactively notify LPAs as well.. Many police forces will not have internal specialists or potentially other available internal resource capacity (eg within property departments), so ideally proactive inclusion of appropriate generic policy wording to address community safety issues in LDFs & development control policies and processes by all LPAs should be encouraged, rather than rely on individual forces having capacity to identify and react every time to several documents within each LPA. This would release more police staff time for core duties and ensure consistency.

• That our justification to claim for s106 funds is often questioned and/or given low priority against the standard district/borough/county items despite community safety consistently being a key issue in Sustainable Community Strategies. This appears to be partly due to a lack of understanding of our funding position. There are no capital funds available to police forces from

Unit 7/8 Kent House

81 Station Road

Ashford TN23 1YS

T 01233 651733

F 01233 651701

central government for new infrastructure.

• That the definition of “infrastructure” in LDF’s and existing planning obligation documents (SPG) is often worded too narrowly, often needing us to argue under “community facilities”. The definition should be expanded to include, alongside other examples, “facilities for the emergency services”and where policies are worded to an extent where they can be interpreted (if not specific)to include the emergency services, those services should actively be encouraged to respond to applications.

• Where there is not even a catchall policy phrase, for instance in Local Plans, that gives us a peg to seek contributions, such a policy should be pursued whenever the opportunity arises

• That planning obligation/developer contribution SPDs may not be reviewed regularly enough to allow us access, or amend requirements, where SPDs are already in place. The potential for annual review of infrastructure needs and amendment of schedules or formulae addressing contributions should be sought

• That Secured By Design principles are often not mentioned, or only superficially, with discretionary requirements in Design & Access Statements with applications to show how development addresses community safety and crime reduction. There is clear evidence (ABI report 2006 Securing the Nation - attached) that adopting SBD reduces certain crimes potentially significantly, and saves cost in a wide sense.

LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY POSSIBLE PLANNING OBLIGATION PRESENTATION FORMAT (Police)

There is no set way to present these planning obligation requirements except that they must focus on legitimate requirements and costs that are attributable to the development itself whether directly (eg need for new neighbourhood police office on site) or indirectly (add to need for off site provision whether locally, or beyond the immediate neighbourhood – eg custody, HQ support). However, the basic requirements are: 1. Policy context – Police should fall within “community” or “social” infrastructure

provision. Justification for seeking contributions. 2. Overview of policing with reference to for example :

a. approach to service delivery – organisation structure, range of services b. crime profiles and performance indicators c. trends and any scope for change d. hierarchy/types of premises

Tier 1 – Neighbourhood police (NP) office (stand alone or co-located) Tier 2 – Sector Station Tier 3 – Local Policing Area HQ Station Tier 4 – Basic Command Unit HQ Station Tier 5 – Force HQ Support Specialist Independent Enquiry Point (eg part of a library if we set up any)

3. Which developments should contribute?

a. Generic types – eg all housing and commercial uses b. Thresholds – eg 1 or more dwellings and 100 sqm + non housing. c. Outline basis of contribution d. Any cross boundary issues

4. What type of facility is typically needed & whether provided on site or off site

a. Local policing (district level) impact on site and off site b. BCU (county level) impact c. Force wide impact d. Staff and operational equipment items (vehicles, query CCTV?) e. Staff have a property and set up cost

5. How the contribution is calculated. Ideally:

a. relevant ratio, cost (property and set up costs) & then apportion. We may need to do by LPA, BCU, Force wide for different functions.

b. formula approach per dwelling by type (1 bed to 5 bed with weighting for

particular demand generators?). Population impact can be converted to dwelling cost.

c. formula approach per employee for non housing use if feasible. This is more problematical

d. emerging use of spreadsheet calculators to consolidate several formula depending on developer scheme input

6. list of identified current and proposed projects requiring a contribution – ie how

will the money be spent? 7. We expect Local Planning Authorities to review their planning obligations

documents at regular intervals ranging from annually to a maximum of 5 yearly. 8. The introduction of a statutory planning charge (a “tariff”) may alter how we

present our local needs. Consultation is expected on that within 6 months, coming into effect within 2-3 years.



Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service

AVA schedule ref SO32 Date 5th Nov 2007


Name Des Williamson Higher Education

Position Director of Risk Management Transport



Emergency Services �

Education & Schools


BCC Waste


PCT


Police Population growth �

Fire/Rescue Services � Housing projections �

Forestry Commission New legislative requirements �

Private Sector New Standards �

Other Use of standardised formula �


South East Plan BCC(2006)Population Projections 2001-2026 Regional Housing and Employment figures: Aylesbury Vale April 06 (AVA) District housing trajectories (2007)


• Fire and Rescue Service Act 2004

• Civil Contingencies Act 2004

• Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

• The Fire and Rescue Service National Framework 2006-08; including: o New Dimensions Programme o CLG FiRe Control Project o CLG Firelink Project o CLG FiRe Buy Programme o Integrated Personal Development Plans

• Government requirements regarding cashable and non-cashable efficiency savings

• Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire Authority Integrated Risk Management Plan Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service (BFRS) is duty bound to deliver services, as defined in statute and according to Fire Authority Policy and Priorities and identified by the Community Risk Profile and detailed in Community Plans. These services are bound by financial constraints and the risks and pressures are compounded by population/housing growth. In addition, BFRS is required to deliver, by statute and local and national stakeholders, increasingly proactive services to achieve enhanced community safety. Some of this service delivery and organisational support is being undertaken in partnership with other service providers and voluntary organisations.

Question 3: Is the cost of securing water supplies including hydrants at £12.90 per dwelling based on local costs or is this a national figure?

This is a local figure derived from a development of 1200 houses.

Question 4: Is the fire service responsible for the installation of sprinkler systems or do developers and building owners have to fund installation? Similarly, are developers or the fire service responsible for the provision of fire hydrants within new development areas?


Sprinklers: Developers/owners are responsible for the installation of these systems where there is a requirement under Planning or Building Regulations. This Fire Authority advocates that planning authorities should require sprinkler systems be fitted to homes and other buildings that are intended to be occupied or be put to a use that is vulnerable from fire. Hydrants: Developers are responsible for the funding of hydrants in all non-residential developments. As an example of current developments, Wycombe District Councils’ Developer Contributions SPD identifies hydrants as a cost to be borne by developers of dwellings above a threshold of four (+) dwellings. BMKFA advocates that planning conditions for the installation of hydrants are considered by LPA’s which will improve the safety of our communities and remove any residual financial burden from BFRS.

Question 5: The preferred options stage of AVDC’s core strategy locates growth to the south of Aylesbury (see attached map). Does this make it easier to determine future infrastructure requirements?

Should the Southern Growth arc be realised, then this information helps to confirm the assumptions made in relation to future BFRS costs and requirements as submitted to Aylesbury Vale Advantage. Detailed mapping and analysis is currently being undertaken by this Authority. However, in order to more accurately determine the exact requirements necessary to 2026, we will need much more specific information on housing locations, density and anticipated occupancy groups.

Questions 6: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?

The costs provided are normalised, base year 2007/08

Question 7: Can you explain the relationship between population growth and increase in facilities. Is it based on existing ratios of population or is there a correlation between growth and service provision?

The figures submitted are based upon existing ratios and spatial use. However, BFRS requirements are not solely related to population growth but also factor population density, traffic movements and economic expansion; factors that are likely to affect the communities’ risk profile. The resource requirements to maintain, or preferably enhance, the Fire Authority’s contribution to reducing risk in the community, as the built environment, population and associated risk profiles increase, will ultimately be determined, for operational Response, by evidence underpinned by sophisticated geographical computer-modelling, and by pro-rata workload modelling for Community Safety Prevention and Protection intervention requirements. [The answer to Q.5 applies]


Computer-modelling based on the government approved Fire Service Emergency Cover (FSEC) system, has demonstrated conclusively that the fire and rescue service premises at Stocklake in Aylesbury, and supported some distance away by Waddesdon and Haddenham, will not meet the Fire Authority attendance times for current and proposed new build areas at Weedon Hill, Berryfields, Ashton Clinton Road, and the major infrastructure “arc” to the south of Aylesbury. The modelling suggest that an additional new fire station will be required to the south west of Aylesbury (modelled from “Hartwell”) in order to maintain Community Safety Standards.



AVDC and Bucks CC

AVA schedule ref LO1a, LO1b, LO1c, LO1d and LO1e Date 23/11/07


Name Catherine Whormsley Higher Education

Position Green Infrastructure Officer Transport



Emergency Services

Education & Schools


BCC X Waste


PCT








The figures were sourced from AVDC Forward Plans Division as follows: 2006-2011 7800 2011-16 7000 2016-21 7900 2021-26 8500


We will be producing a green infrastructure strategy to serve the greenspace needs of Aylesbury Vale population and to protect and enhance the local environment and ecosystems.

Question 3: In your previous comments on Local Natural Reserves you mentioned that requirements for local nature reserve will depend on the directions of growth and the assets available. Can you look at the enclosed maps detailing growth in the next 5 years and refine your answer?

See Matthew Partridge answer

Question 4: In your comments on Improved Access to Major Open Space and Corresponding Facilities, you mention that there may be an element of double calculating in the figures listed. Can you check their source and validate these figures?

See Matthew Partridge answer


Question 5: Many of the costs provided are from 2005 are you able to update these?

I was not involved in the original costing therefore I am unable to update this.

Question 6: The set up cost of £9,000 per ha to create a local nature reserve and the cost of £2,500 per ha per year for maintenance, can confirm if this is normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?

As far as I know the costs were estimated in 2006 and are due for an update next year.

Question 7: Can you clarify if the capital costs in LO1e include land costs. Also, the costs of £2.1m for improvements major areas and £14m for canal improvements, are these normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?

The costs for Wendover Woods and Canal Corridors are not included because they are owned by Forestry Commission and British Waterways.


I have recently started the post as Green Infrastructure Officer at Buckinghamshire County Council. Phil Bowsher has left and he was the original contact for these questions. I have tried to answer the questions as well as I can with no previous knowledge of the schedule. I have noticed that Phil Bowsher worked with Matthew Partridge and John Byrne at AVDC on this work therefore the answers should be the same as those at AVDC.



AVDC

AVA schedule ref

LO3 Playing pitches / MUGAs Date 5.11.07


Name Matt Partridge Higher Education

Position Head of Leisure Transport



Inward Investment

Emergency Services

Education & Schools

Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities x

BCC Waste

Aylesbury Vale DC x Social Care

LEA Affordable Housing

PCT


Police Population growth






Population Increases

7800 – 2006/11

7000 – 2011/16

7900 – 2016/21

8500 – 2021/26

Total Growth 32,000 population

Figures provided by AVDC Forward Plans Division


Need to provide green spaces and play provision with new housing developments. To encourage greater healthy activity, and increased participation in sport.

Question 3: Can you detail the relationship between population growth and additional facilities.

The additional facilities requirement is based on the Aylesbury Vale Playing Pitch Strategy 1999, and the AVDC SPG on Sport & Leisure Facilities.

Question 4: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? Are the updated costs per head available yet?


Capital Costs Normalised – based upon initial 2004 figures. Will need to be indexed & refined depending upon location of facilities and ability to co-locate with other facilities. Revenue costs Normalised – based upon 2005 actual costs for the management of sports pitches. This figure includes grounds maintenance, litter clearance, monitoring. The 2007/08 uplift is 6.38%


Additional questions from Donald Chambers, 5.11.07 1 Could you provide more detail on the source of the data used for sports facilities? For example, how are facility requirements calculated in regards to household growth? The additional facilities requirement is based on the Aylesbury Vale Playing Pitch Strategy 1999, and the AVDC SPG on Sport & Leisure Facilities. 2 The provision of land is not included in the budget. Could you provide more detail on how/where/by whom the land will be provided? Not in a position to answer this at present. In the past, land for facilities has been provided either on site as part of the development, or a contribution received from developers for off site provision. 3 Could you provide more detail on the basis of your budget for each element? For example, on the build, up, source, base date, uplift applied etc. Revenue costs are based on current grounds maintenance contract which was let in 2005. Current uplift rate is cumulative 6.38%.



AVDC

AVA schedule ref

LO4 Comunity Halls Date 5.11.07



Position Head of Leisure Transport



Inward Investment

Emergency Services

Education & Schools


BCC Waste



PCT







x



7800 – 2006/11

7000 – 2011/16

7900 – 2016/21

8500 – 2021/26




The need to provide greater community engagement & to provide a tailored service to individual community groups. Where possible to encourage community ownership and management of new facilities.

Question 3: Can you explain how the number of community halls has been calculated and how you have calculated the cost of £600,000 per hall?

Figures identified from Leisure Facilities Audit which identified the need for 1 community centre per Aylesbury Cluster Group - on average every 7000 residents. – 32,000 increase in population = 5 new Community Centres.


Cost per hall based upon capital build estimates for hall to meet Sport England Specification for Community Hall as set out in Supplementary Planning Guide for Sport & Leisure Facilities. The figures are based upon outline estimates for the construction of a Community Centre withn 18 x 17m main hall, second hall, foyer, kitchen, lounge, office, storage, car parking toilets and changing areas as per Sport England Guidance Note

Question 4: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?

Capital Costs Normalised – based upon initial 2004 figures. Will need to be indexed & refined depending upon location of centre and ability to co-locate with other facilities. Revenue costs Normalised – based upon 2007 actual costs for the management of Existing Community Centres in Aylesbury. This figure includes staff/caretaking costs, utilities costs, rates, repairs & maintenance, cleaning, refuse collection etc.

Question 5: Can you explain the relationship between land fill tax and community services funding, please?

Landfil Tax only available for facilities within 10 miles of Landfill Sites at Calvert & Newton Longeville. Not appropriate for Aylesbury Southern Growth Arc.

Question 6: Would the Council consider multi-functional premises with other service providers, and are there examples of shared buildings?

Yes – Berryfield Community School. Quarrendon & Meadowcroft Community Centre & Playcentre. – We would prefer a multi-functional facility if these could be provided.


The provision of land is not included within these figures, we would expect the developers to provide the land for all community facilities as part of their outline proposals.



AVDC

AVA schedule ref

LO5 Swimming pools and dry sports centres Date



Position Head of leisure Services Transport

Telephone no 5181 Health


Emergency Services

Education & Schools


BCC Waste



PCT





Private Sector New Standards X


X



7800 – 2006/11

7000 – 2011/16

7900 – 2016/21

8500 – 2021/26




Sport England guidelines which identify that there should be a multi-purpose sports centre with at least 3 sporting facilities within 20 minutes drive time in rural areas or 20 minutes walk time in urban areas for the whole population. Achievement of these targets will form part of the assessment process for local authorities and will support the levels of funding generated as part of the annual Central Government Award. The importance of accessing local services, to support other key agendas such as Health Improvement, Community Safety, Active Lifestyles will all increase as will the focus on providing excellent sporting opportunities in the lead up to the London 2012 Olympics & Paralympics. There is likely to be a growth in the private sector provision, particularly in the budget sector, the local authority services need to be flexible to meet changing customer needs and address gaps in provision and increasing expectations of service delivery.


Question 3: What additional facilities or improvements / expansion of existing facilities will be required as a result of population growth, and what formula is used to calculate need?

Please see above. The formula for the calculation of new facilities was specified within the Supplementary Planning Guide for Sport & Leisure Facilities produced by Aylesbury Vale District Council. The development of this document was supported by the Sport England Kitbag Model which identifies the appropriate level of swimming pools, sports halls and all weather pitches for individual communities. In support of the Southern Growth Arc, e envisage that the major developments will be the continued enhancement of existing sporting facilities, primarily at Stoke Mandeville Stadium and at Aqua Vale, but also at a number of school and educational facilities which are currently under utilised.


The capital costs are normalised and based upon the National Playing Fields Cost Guide for Sport 2003 (using the South East weighting). These figures are to be updated in 2008. The revenue costs are based upon the current 2007/08 revenue costs for the two Major leisure centres owned by Aylesbury Vale District Council, namely the Swan Pool & Leisure Centre in Buckingham and the Aqua Vale Centre in Aylesbury. The current annual revenue cost of these two facilities is £838,400. The revenue costs indicated in the infrastructure requirements are based upon the percentage growth in the local population over the current base population 168,100 i.e. The uplift is based upon the 5 year population predictions, but could be applied on an annual basis, depending upon more detailed population predictions. 32,000/168,100 x £838,400


We have not included land costs for this element of the infrastructure requirements as it would be anticipated that this would be provided directly by any developer and would be specific to the individual facility requirement.



AVDC

AVA schedule ref

LO8 Arts and entertainment complex Date



Position Head of Leisure & Cultural Services Transport



Emergency Services

Education & Schools


BCC Waste



PCT









7800 – 2006/11

7000 – 2011/16

7900 – 2016/21

8500 – 2021/26


Figures provided by AVDC Forward Plans Division 2007


The key drivers will be the closure of the Aylesbury Civic Centre in 2008, the opening of the New Aylesbury Theatre in 2009 and the further establishment of the Queens Park Arts Centre, especially if it is able to secure a leasehold on its current premises. Looking externally, the arts and entertainment provision will need to remain reactive to competition from alternative facilities, primarily in London, Milton Keynes, High Wycombe and Oxford as well as new planned facilities in Hemel Hempstead. Further lifestyle choice & technology development will enable further entertainment choices to be provided both at home and elsewhere, the provision of live entertainment will need to develop to meet these changing requirements and to address members of our community who are unable to independently access the new arts and entertainment complex.

Question 3: Can you detail the relationship between population growth and the new arts & entertainment complex and how the cost per head has been calculated.

The cost per head has been calculated based upon the AVDC Supplementary Planning Guidance for Sport


& Leisure Facilities and based upon the initial estimated costs associated with the Waterside Theatre Project. The new arts and entertainment complex would provide services for the whole community, including the new growth areas. The venue would be the host for a wide variety of community arts and entertainment activities and the new communities would be expected to contribute to these activities as well as the development of existing facilities to enable them to be used more intensively to meet the needs of the growing population.


The capital costs are normalised, based upon the initial 2004 estimates for the Waterside Theatre Complex, these figures are to be reviewed in 2008. The revenue costs are normalised and based upon the current estimates for the Management of the Waterside Theatre Complex appropriately proportioned to the population growth.


Both the Weedon Hill & Berryfield Developments have contributed to the annual community arts programme within the Waterside Theatre Development, this contribution has been based upon the population growth predicted by these two facilities.



AVDC

AVA schedule ref

LO9 Shortfall in existing sport and leisure provision Date






Emergency Services

Education & Schools


BCC Waste



PCT





Private Sector New Standards X


X



7800 – 2006/11

7000 – 2011/16

7900 – 2016/21

8500 – 2021/26




Increasing Participation Performance Driven Greater Partnership Working Between Public Private Sector Widening Access for the Whole Community London 2012 Olympics Opportunities Use of Leisure to support wider agendas – Health, Community Safety, Community Cohesion, Tackling Fear of Crime, Young People

Question 3: Are the capital and revenue costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base


year has been used?

Not Applicable – Figures taken from Aylesbury Vale District Council Supplementary Planning Guide for Sports & Leisure Facilities and informed by Leisure Facilities Audit and Needs Assessment undertaken on behalf of Aylesbury Vale District Council. The shortfall has been calculated by assessing current provision against the ideal level of provision for every community area in Aylesbury Vale this is based on the following facilities and service areas:-

� Community & Village Halls

� Parks & Open Spaces

� Playgrounds

� Playing Pitches and Pavilions

� Other outdoor sports facilities

� Indoor sports centres and swimming pools

� Arts and entertainment facilities

� Facilities for young people The matrix of requirements issued as the appendix to this note (attached) were used as the basis for this assessment. This basis is currently being used to support the AVDC Ready Reckoner, also attached, which underpins the current levels of developer contributions. These figures were initially calculated in 2004, the total cost of providing this infrastructure for Aylesbury Vale was calculated to be £171,356,562 with the shortfall being calculated to be £59,000,000 (approximately 34% of the ideal provision), this was based upon both the level and quality of existing facilities.


All expenditure has been spread over annual increments as we would seek all development to contribute to this shortfall. This funding will then be used by AVDC, in partnership with our partners to address the shortfall in the most efficient and cost effective manner. No land element has been requested for this element of the infrastructure requirements, this will be addressed as part of the individual facility requirements. The revenue contribution associated with this element of the infrastructure requirements has not yet been fully assessed. This will be the subject of further analysis by AVDC Officers before April 2008



AVDC – (Aylesbury Town Council)

AVA schedule ref

LO10 Allotments Date 8.11.07






Emergency Services

Education & Schools


BCC Waste



PCT









7800 – 2006/11

7000 – 2011/16

7900 – 2016/21

8500 – 2021/26




Smaller garden sizes, further development of flats with communal garden spaces. A desire for organic foods.

Question 3: Where does the ratio of 7 plots per 1,000 pop derive from?

This is the national guideline as identified by the National Playing Fields Association.



Both the capital and revenue costs are based upon current operational costs and are normalised.

Question 5: Why are the set up costs of allotments higher than normal open space?

The initial rotivation of plots, fencing, sheds & water supplies all increase the initial set up costs..




BCC CULTURE AND LEARNING: Libraries

AVA schedule ref LS1 Date 5th November 2007


Name Elaine Collier Higher Education Position District Operations Manager

Wycombe South Bucks Transport

Telephone no 01494 671713 Health Email [email protected] Inward Investment Emergency Services Education & Schools Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities √ BCC √ Waste Aylesbury Vale DC Social Care NHS Trust Issues (tick all that apply) Police Population growth √ Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections √ Forestry Commission New legislative requirements Private Sector New Standards Other Use of standardised formula √

Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from? South East Plan, provided by BCC Section 106 Officer

Question 2: What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years? A library service review, commissioned by members, is currently in progress and will set the strategic vision for service delivery. Other drivers include GC2C, Pathfinder and service delivery from community hubs Question 3: In your previous comments you mentioned that capital and revenue requirements for new facilities will depend on how much housing goes in each location. Can you look at the enclosed maps detailing growth in the next 5 years and refine your answer? In Berryfields a branch library co-located in the school. We do not expect to provide separate static buildings. A branch library would only be considered if it was the intention to co-locate in schools or other community facilities. Mobile library visits will also be considered Question4: Can more detail be provided on how additional floor space has been calculated? Please see attached tariff


Question 5: Are the capital costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used? Normalised, based on RICS Quarterly Review of Building Prices based on 4th Quarter 2005-2006 Additional notes and comments



BCC CULTURE AND LEARNING: MUSEUMS AND ARCHIVES

AVA schedule ref LS3 Date 23 Nov. 2007


Name Roger Bettridge Higher Education

Position County Archivist Transport



Emergency Services

Education & Schools

Affiliation (tick box) Community Facilities YES

BCC YES Waste



Police Population growth YES

Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections YES



Other Use of standardised formula YES

Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from?

NB. The figures given in the schedule v12 under LS3 all relate to the County Museum. The archive service is provided solely by the Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies (CBS), to which all information given below relates. We are working on the basis of 19,200 new houses between 2001-2026, as given on the AVA website. Allowing for 2.4 persons per household, this projects a population increase of 46,080.


• Implementation of The National Archives inspection report on CBS, 2007, requiring provision of additional strongroom space for archive holdings and additional facilities for all our operations.

• Requirement of Milton Keynes Council, for whom we provide the archive service under an SLA, for their own archive repository, including space for additional records generated by Milton Keynes growth agenda.

• Pathfinder project for closer working between the County and District Councils.

• Increased use of records in digital form, though little or no diminution of the accrual of records in paper or other hard-copy formats is predicted and electronic records generate their own additional costs.

.


Capital costs are based upon MLA South East’s ‘Development of a Tariff for Archive Provision in the South East Region’ (‘In Brief’ document, March 2007). The Aylesbury Vale growth agenda will increase demand for our services in terms of customers and of the volume of records generated by AVA itself, by services such as schools and hospitals and by the additional population. At 4th quarter 2006 prices, the recommended tariffs are: £18 per person in new housing (ie. £43.20 per new dwelling with 2.4 persons), at 5 square metres per 1,000 persons, at £3,600 per square metre for construction cost (ie. building and fit-out costs) for archive buildings. On the basis of the figures assumed in Question 1 above, a total of £829,440 in construction costs will be


required at 2006 prices solely to meet the additional demand generated by the AV growth agenda, regardless of the other drivers for new archive provision, as in Question 2 above. This does not include land costs or cost of parking provision. Using the same formula, a new archive facility for the whole of Buckinghamshire, excluding Milton Keynes, at the current population of 479,000 would require 479 x 5 square metres, ie. 2,395 square metres x £3,600 per square metre, ie. £8.622 million.

Question 3: Please detail how the figure of £1.5 million for extending and enhancing the existing Museum Resource Centre at Halton has been calculated, and how is the capital cost able to be spread evenly over 20 years?

Not applicable to archives, as figures provided in Schedule v12 relate to the County Museum only.

Question 4: Are you now in a position to address revenue costs?

No




Forestry Commission

AVA schedule ref LO1f Date 01/11/07


Name Rob Gazzard Higher Education

Position Recreation and Development Manager

Transport



Inward Investment

Emergency Services

Education & Schools


BCC X Waste

Aylesbury Vale DC X Social Care


PCT X




Forestry Commission X New legislative requirements X

Private Sector X New Standards X

Other X Use of standardised formula X


All sources are from AVA: Aylesbury Urban Area (Bucks CC)

Rural Areas (Rest of District) (Bucks CC)

Total Aylesbury Vale District Council (Bucks CC)

Total Projected Completions (AVA)

Total Population (AVA)

Increase in population within AVA Growth Area (Buck CC)


The Forestry Commission works to deliver A Strategy for ‘England’s Trees Woodlands and Forests’

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/rddteam/pdf/0706forestry-strategy.pdf The FC key drivers will focus on deliver of the above strategy. Please see attached business plan

Question 3: Can you clarify if land costs are included within the capital costs provided.

Please see attached business plan



Normalised

Question 5: The park is unable to sustain its current visitor levels, can you clarify what additional infrastructure is required to meet existing visitor demand and demands from future growth?

Please see Business Plan


SOCIAL CARE FOR ADULTS AND OLDER PEOPLE

SOURCE Rachael Rothero Service Manager – Strategic Commissioning [email protected]

PROJECT Direction of travel for Social Care:

Before setting out the national drivers, it s important to highlight the housing requirements of

the population referred to in this paper are a joint duty of the housing and social services. The

national policy agenda is to meet the needs of people with a disability through mainstream

housing provision with an increased focus on the home ownership and assured tenancies.

The County Council will have to work closely with the District Council to ensure that the

housing needs of people referred to in this infrastructure bid are met.

It is also important to note that where Social Services has undertaken recent re-provision

programmes to ensure we are commissioning the right models of support and capacity, the

County Council has had to offer significant capital support to ensure that housing providers

were in a position to develop the capital infrastructure requirements. It is hoped that the

capital requirements set out in this bid will be met to ensure that services can be developed to

meet the needs of people identified in this report over the next 20 years.

National strategy and key messages in terms of infrastructure bid across all adult social care

services is based on the national direction for Community Services set out in the White Paper

‘ Our Health, Our Care, Our Say’. Infrastructure requirements for Adult Social Care have

reflected this direction where people should be supported to retain their independence in their

own homes for as long as possible. It is recognised that whilst based on existing model of

service delivery the numbers of people needing to be placed in residential and nursing will

increase dramatically and more than double by 2020. The challenge is to reduce the demand

for residential care and nursing care by developing alternative models of service. The White

Paper sets out the following changes in terms of models of service delivery

Change approach in terms of model of service provision.

• Supporting more people at home, reducing admission to residential care/ nursing

home and reducing delayed hospital discharges

• Increase of individualised budget- people can remain in own home longer

• Benefits of assistive technology in helping people retain their independence in their

own home

• More home based schemes will be established providing intensive care which will

enable us to respond more flexibly to people needs as they changes over time by

establishing a distinction between the accommodation and the support/ care that

someone needs to enable them to continue to live in their own home. This will include

supported living models of care, Extra Care Housing, more Choice Based Letting for

Supported Housing , home based support in people’s own home

• Greater range of Early Intervention support services to delay that point at which

people present as meeting the Fair Access to Care eligibility criteria.

• All community infrastructure to be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act and

new housing built to the Lifetime Homes standard

TOTAL

CAPITAL

COSTS

The building of supported living units for Physical and Sensory Disability, Learning

Disability, Mental Health and Extra Care and Nursing beds to meet the needs of the

predicted increase in the adult population as a result of the AVA development by 2026 will

result in an additional estimated £5.5 million.

All community infrastructure requirements will need to comply with the Disability

Discrimination Act.

PHASING

Cumulative 2011 2016 2021 2026 TOTAL

Older

People

(Based on

scenario

two)

3 extra

care

1 nursing

@

£420,120

3 extra

care

1 nursing

@

£420,120

5 extra

care

3 nursing

@

£773,460

£773,460

PSD 5 special

needs

flat @

£608,625

11 special

needs flats

@

£1,338,975

19 special

needs flats

@

£2,312,775

28 special

needs flats

@

£3,408,300

£3,408,300

Learning

Disability

3 special

needs flat

@

£365,175

3 special

needs flat

@

£365,175

6 special

needs flat

@

£730,350

£730,350

MH 1 special

needs

flat@

£121,725

1 special

needs

flat@

£121,725

2 special

needs flats

@

£243,450

2 special

needs flats

@

£243,450

£243,250

Day Care Day care

across all

care

groups @

£314,600

Day Care

across all

care

groups @

£314,600

Day Care

across all

care

groups@

£314,600

£314,600

on a

recurrent

basis

Total

£5,469,360

METHOD

AND

FORMULA

USED TO

CALCULATE

COSTS

The methodology to calculate the ASC capital infrastructure requirements is based upon an

increase in the population of Aylesbury Value by 2026 as a result of the additional houses in

the Aylesbury Value Advantage (AVA) proposal compared against the ONS sub-national

population figures. The difference between the two population projections give use the basis

of the growth for the purposes of the bid.

It is important to note however that until the South East Plan is adopted in Autumn 2008 that

the capital infrastructure requirements for Adult Social Care are based upon the most

conservative scenario in terms of growth of 21,200 new dwellings by 2026. If there are an

additional 2,700, 5,000, or 7,500 houses built on top of this then the model below will have to

be scaled up to ensure that we have the infrastructure in place to meet this additional need.

Population forecasts by age groups Aylesbury Vale, 2007 – 2026 based on the AVA

projections based on scenario 1. (21,200 new homes)

Age 2007 2011 2016 2021 2026 Actual

difference

2007/2026

%

difference

2007-2026

0-19

43780

43139 43138 43219 44555 775 2%

20-

64

101400 106060 109379 114157 117415 16015 16%

65+

23967 27171 31766 34911 39149 15183 63%

All

ages

169147 176370 184284 192287 201119 31972 19%

Source: Buckinghamshire County Council Strategic Planning

DATA CORRECT AS AT 2ND APRIL 2007.

1. The above figures are partly based on the housing proposals of the draft South

East Plan, which will not be finalised before Autmun 2008, so may accordingly

change in due course;

2. The figures for Aylesbury Vale District do not take into account the additional

homes related to the expansion of Milton Keynes into Aylesbury Vale, as

proposed in Milton Keynes Partnership’s Draft Long-Term Growth Strategy for the

City. That Strategy assumes the construction of 7,500 homes in the Newton

Longville area in the 2021-26 period (ave.1500 pa) However the scale of that

provision has been contested by both Bucks CC and Aylesbury Vale DC, who

have jointly put forward counter proposals for only 2,700 homes (ave.540 p.a.) in

that area. The finally agreed level of provision will not be known until the new

South East Plan is adopted, in 2008.

Cumulative increase in adult population numbers from a 2007 baseline based on the

County Council projections

Age Band

0-19 20-64 65+ Total

2007 0 0 0 0

2011 -641 4660 3204 7,223

2016 -642 7979 7799 15,137

2021 -561 12757 10944 23,140

2026 775 16015 15182 31,972

Population forecasts by age groups Aylesbury Vale, 2007 – 2026 based on ONS 2004

sub-national population figures. (re-released 2007)

Actual difference

Age 2007 2011 2016 2021 2026

2007/2026

% difference 2007-2026

0-19

44100 43200 42500 42100 42300 -1800 -4%

20-64

103100 104600 105000 106200 105800 2700 3%

65+

24000 26700 31500 34900 39000 15000 63%

All ages

171200 174500 179000 183200 187100 15900 9%

Cumulative increase in adult population numbers from a 2007 baseline based on ONS

2004 sub-national population figures. (re-released 2007)

Age Band

0-19 20-64 65+ Total

2007 0 0 0 0

2011 -900 1500 2700 3300

2016 -1600 1900 7500 7800

2021 -200 3100 10900 12000

2026 -1800 2700 15000 15900

Actual difference between ONS 2004 based on sub-national populations projections

and BCC growth projections based on scenario 1. by 2026

Age Actual total difference by 2026

0-19

2,255

20-64

11,615

65+

149

All ages

14,019

Cumulative difference between ONS sub-national populations and County Council

growth projections

Age 2007 2011 2016 2021 2026

0-19

-320 -61 639 1,119 2,255

20-64

-1,700 1,460 4,379 7,957 11,615

65+

-33 471 266 11 149

All ages

- 2,054 1,870 5,284 9,087 14,019

Adult Care Services (20-64 years)

The following demand assumptions across all of the care groups have been taken from the

10 year needs analysis ‘Identifying the Housing Needs of Social Care Groups in

Buckinghamshire’ developed in partnership between the four District Council’s and Adult

Social Care. This covers accommodation requirements for people who have needs relating to

their learning disability, mental health, physical disability and old age.

National models have been deployed to project future demand for accommodation and

applied to Aylesbury Vale growth based on scenario 1, an increase of 21,200 dwellings.

People with Physical and Sensory Disabilities (18-64)

The estimate of housing demand is based on a population projection model. It assumes that

2.9 people with a severe disability per 1,000 population will need wheel chair accessible

housing in the future The 10 years needs assessment identifies that we will need 8 new units

per year produced in Aylesbury Vale between 2006-11 and 10 new units per year beyond.

This will mean that by 2026 we will need 190 units of wheel chair accessible units for people

with a severe physical disability.

General Growth requirements for Aylesbury Vale based on ONS census mid year

estimates 2002-2004

Years Aylesbury Vale Accumulative total

2006-2011(units per year) 8 40

2011-2016(units per year) 10 90

2016- 2021(units per year) 10 140

2021-2026 (units per year) 10 190

Forecast additional growth for Aylesbury Vale

2.4 beds per 1,000 population growth – difference is 11,764 for adults and older adults which

will require a further 28 units of wheel chair accessible housing by 2026.

2007

2011

2016

2021

2026

Increase in

population

Cumulative

difference

adult and

older adult

-1,733 1,931 4,645 7,968 11,615

Extra Beds

Accumulative

0

5 11 19 28

Cumulative

Capital Cost

(£)

608,625 1,338,975 2,312,775 3,408,300

This is based on a special needs flat costing £121,725 at 2006 prices based on the PSSRU

benchmarks

People with Learning Disabilities 18-64

Based on the Housing Needs Assessment, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report referred

to in the LGA Future Needs Report states that a reasonable target to bridge the gap between

needs and services is 50 places for a population of 100,000. This equates to 48 new units of

accommodation per annum for Buckinghamshire and 17.2 units in Aylesbury Vale per year

17.2 units per year between period 2006-2011 and 17.4 units per year until 2026.

General Growth requirements for Aylesbury Vale


2006-2011(units per year) 17.2 86

2011-2016(units per year) 17.4 173

2016- 2021(units per year) 17.4 260

2021-2026 (units per year) 17.4 347

Forecast additional growth for Aylesbury Vale

The model assumes 0.5 units of supported living for people with a learning disability we will

require a further 6 units to meet the demands of the additional Aylesbury Vale growth.

2007

2011

2016

2021

2026

Increase in

population

Cumulative

difference

adult and

older adult

-1,733 1,931 4,645 7,968 11,615

Extra Beds

Accumulative

0

1 3 3 6

Cumulative

Capital Cost

(£)

121,725 365,175 365,175 730,350


benchmarks.

People with Mental Health Needs

None of this projected demand requires specialist housing. The current plans for remodelling

the former Fremantle Trust services allow for the development of specialist accommodation

on the existing sites. The future projected demand is for mainstream housing from either the

social rented or private rented sectors. In some cases it may be possible to develop shared

ownership for some individuals.

General Growth requirements for Aylesbury Vale


2006-2011(units per year) 35 between 2006/08

28 between 2008/11

70

56

2011-2016(units per year) 28 126

2016- 2021(units per year) 28 238

2021-2026 (units per year) 28 346

Forecast Additional Growth for Aylesbury Vale

MH beds required are 1 per 4,500 of the population. Therefore the growth is not sufficient to

result in any further capacity requirements over and above the baseline for Aylesbury Value

based on the ONS future demand.

2007

2011

2016

2021

2026

Increase in

population

Cumulative

difference

adult and

older adult

-1,733 1,931 4,645 7,968 11,615

Extra Beds

Accumulative

0

1 1 2 2

Cumulative

Capital Cost

(£)

0 121,725 121,725 243,450 243,250


benchmarks.

Older Peoples Services (65+ years)

In contrast the growth of the population of those of 65 years or older is predicted to increase

by 63% by 2026 with an even bigger increase in the 75 year old plus group. However the

difference between scenario 1 of the AVA and the ONS mid year estimates is very small,

which means that whilst our overall requirements in Aylesbury Value by 2026 is considerably

higher if demand follows demographic change based on 63%, the actual capital infrastructure

requirement is small assuming that the underlying capital requirements for the 63% are dealt

with. .

Lang and Buisson when projecting future demand and supply of care homes have indicated

that underlying demand will track demographic change and can be calculated by applying

current 2007 rates to projected future populations. This approach is consistent with the one

adopted by Wanless in the 2006 review. There is an expectation that there will be a

substitution of residential care with alternative community based models of care. It is difficult

at this stage to forecast what impact these community cased models of care will have on the

future requirements for residential care and nursing care. For the purposes of this

infrastructure bid there are two scenarios set out below. Based on Laing and Buisson we will

need:-

• 19.4 units of nursing care per 1,000 population based on England average

• 32.7 units of residential care per 1,000 population.

In scenario one, we would develop residential care and nursing that meets these

requirements. In scenario two our residential care capacity would be substituted by Extra

Care. It is more likely that we will require a capital to support the delivery of the Extra Care

model as this is consistent with the Extra Care Strategy that has been supported by the

County Council and the four District Councils.

Scenario One: Older People Residential and Nursing Care Capital Cost Forecasts,

Aylesbury Vale, 2006 – 2026

This means that we will need an additional 5 units of residential care for older people and 3

nursing beds to meet the additional demand based on the AVA growth

2007

2011

2016

2021

2026

Increase in

population

-33 471 266 11 149

Extra Beds

Residential

(cumulative)

0

0 3 3 5

Extra Beds

Nursing

(cumulative)_

0 0 1 1 3

Cumulative

Capital Cost

(£)

0 0 219,780 219,780 439,560

This is based on a room in a residential/nursing unit costing £54,945 at 2006 prices based on

the PSSRU benchmarks.

Scenario Two: Older People Extra Care and Nursing Care Capital Cost Forecasts,

Aylesbury Vale, 2006 – 2026

If we were to substitute the 5 residential care beds with an Extra Care model of service

delivery which is likely to be the case our capital requirements for Older People would be set

out in the table below

2007

2011

2016

2021

2026

Increase in

population

-33 471 266 11 149

Extra Care

Flats

(cumulative)

0

0 3 3 5

Extra Beds

Nursing

(cumulative)_

0 0 1 1 3

Cumulative

Capital Cost

(£)

0 0 365,175

54,945

420,120

365,175

54,945

420,120

608,625

164,835

773,460

(Source Unit of Extra Care Housing = £121,725 based on 2006 prices

Rm in Nursing Home £54,945 on 2006 prices)

Day Care Provision

Based on the CIPFA – IPF 2006/07 benchmarking we will require the following levels of day

care per 1,000 population across the care groups based on an adult population size of

11,765 by 2026. 22 people will require some form of day care based on current patterns of

services and eligibility criteria.

Care Group Per 1,000 Numbers of people

requiring day care

based on AVA growth

Older People 6.9 1

Learning Disability 0.9 11

Mental Health 0.6 7

Physical and Sensory

Disability

0.3 3

Total 22

PSSRU 2005/06 identified that the capital component of day care unit cost is around £11 per

day. Assuming 5 day/ 52 week occupancy ASC will require a further £314,600 per year

capital on a recurrent basis.

Conclusion

This report sets out Social Care capital requirements based on the projected growth in

population as an outcome of the AVA associated developments. It is important to note

1) that projections around the overall growth in Aylesbury Vale will require significant

growth in accommodation and support services generally and the capital

requirements associated with this will need to be addressed in partnership between

the District Council, County Council and Housing Corporation.

2) The capital infrastructure requirements in this report are based on scenario 1 growth

of 21,200 dwellings in Aylesbury Vale. Agreement to increase housing through the

finalisation of the South East Plan will require a remodelling of this bid based on a

scaling up of the capital infrastructure in order to respond to demand.

3) PSSRU unit cost benchmarks for capital are based on a national average land value.

It is important to note that this element of the unit cost will have to be scaled up to

reflect the land value in Buckinghamshire.

LS6 Adult Social Care – Revenue Cost

Usual Source

of Revenue

Funding

It is assumed that the additional revenue funding required to meet the growth associated with

the AVA development will be built into the government funding formula once the additional

population increase is taken into account. The capital requirements will need to be supported

with revenue funding to pay for the care/support costs of the placements

Additional

Comments

Additional Care Management capacity would be required to ensure we undertake out

statutory requirements under the NHS Community Care Act 1990 Ratio currently is 1 Care

Manager per 3,300 population. We will therefore require an additional 3.5 WTE Care

Manager to meet the growth requirements at £147,000 (includes 25% on-costs)



Youth & Community Services

AVA schedule ref LS7 Date 6.11.07


Name Please see comments below

Higher Education

Position Transport

Telephone no Health

Email Inward Investment

Emergency Services

Education & Schools


BCC � Waste









I provided statistics in relation to the number of homeless young people my team had seen in a year. I provided no population projections, however, I would expect to see a parallel rise in the number of homeless young people proportional to any increase in population.


I do not feel this applies as it would be inappropriate for Community and Youth Engagement to take the lead with this project. We would suggest either AVDC or YMCA.

Question 3: Are you able to quantify the revenue costs for a new purpose built hostel? Are the capital costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?

I am assuming “normalised” means they are only relevant for that year and that they may change (most likely increase) as time progresses. My understanding in this circumstance is that it is normalised from 2004 YMCA figures.

Question 4: Capital Expenditure (£2,500,000) Could you provide more detail on the source of the data used for Youth and Community Services requirements? For example, how are facility requirements calculated in regards to household growth? Could you provide more detail on the basis of your budget for each element? For example, detail on the build-up, source, base date, uplift applied, etc. Could you justify and validate the use of a funding split? Could you justify and validate the provision of land budgeted at no cost?

Recurring Expenditure

The revenue costs require evaluation. Has this issue been addressed?


Using the YMCA as a model – the hostel expanded over future years in regards to household growth and built move on flats to provide move on accommodation from the hostel. I have never worked with the budget so would be unable to ascertain how each elements is affected. I do not know about how the funding split was decided upon. Land has been given by AVDC in the past for projects such as this for no cost. I cannot comment on the Recurring Expenditure.


As previously mentioned: I am not the correct person to contact and will not lead on this project, I was merely asked to provide statistics of homeless young people presenting to my Housing Team annually. Liz Lawrence (our former Head of Service) and myself are named here because Liz was the lead for Housing for the Youth Strategy 2003-7 and I provided her with figures of homeless clients in order to support our claim a hostel is needed. It should be noted that Community and Youth Engagement are not the appropriate Service to lead this project. I would expect AVDC (presumably with a partner such as the YMCA - and they have met to discuss the idea before) to take this forward. I apologise but I do not have an alternative contact name.



Dry waste recycling points

AVA schedule ref LS43 Date


Name David Smedley Higher Education

Position Head of Environment Services Transport



Emergency Services

Education & Schools


BCC Waste X

Aylesbury Vale DC X Social Care







Question 1: Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from?

Based on total of 21,200 properties split as follows 2006-11 (4,900) 2011-16(5,500) 2016-21 (5,500) 2021-26 5,300

However I am not suggesting a direct correlation between the number of dwellings and the number of recycling sites,

but rather an estimate of 2 sites per time period. Hence we are looking at total 6-8 sites dependant on the feasibility of

fitting them in at suitable locations.

These were the figures provided when the initial consideration was given to waste management and is the same as those

used for growth for refuse collection rounds etc (see LS41)


The key drivers for recycling collection is the need to reduce the amount of waste to landfill to meet the Landfill Allowance trading Scheme targets (LATS) which have been agreed as part of the Joint Municipal Waste Strategy for Bucks and to meet AVDC recycling BVPI target currently 30%

Question 3: Can you explain how the figure for £15,000 per site has been reached?

This is very much an estimate based on the most simple underground facility being installed at the time of construction of a development it therefore assumed no underground problems. The figures is however somewhat out of date and a figure of £20,000 per site is perhaps more realistic, it will however depend very much on ground conditions (i.e. no diversion services) and other works being carried out at the same time.



The capital costs are based on current costs they have not been indexed for future years Revue costs are an estimate from 2005/6 and have not been indexed for future years


Currently all AVDC recycling sites are above ground and are simple an cheap to install, with the new development we are looking to use underground sites which are far less intrusive, however if that is not possible we will look for above ground sites which will simply require screening. All site are provide to supplement the household collections schemes for recyclates which will be provided to all properties.



Waste Disposal

AVA schedule ref SO4 Date 9 Nov 07


Name Martin Dickman Higher Education

Position Waste Mgmt Service Mtg Transport

Telephone no 2850 Health


Emergency Services

Education & Schools


BCC � Waste �



Police Population growth �

Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections �

Forestry Commission New legislative requirements �

Private Sector New Standards �



The figures used are derived from Table 1: Housing figures by District in the submitted South East Plan – March 06.


The main drivers for change are legislative – landfill directive, fiscal - landfill tax and Policy – managing waste more substantially by Recycling and composting more and recovering energy from the waste.


Normalised – 05/06 base year.

Question 4: In relation to Project 1 (North Bucks), can you please explain how the figure of £1.5 million per annum for revenue costs has been generated?

This is the total yearly cost for composting green and kitchen waste collected by AVDC and BCC and represents the expected gate fee (£50pt) x total yearly tonnage (30ktp).

Question 5: Can you please outline the key points of the business case for Project 3 (EfW Plant)?

• Current and planned recycling and composting activity will not be sufficient to meet long term LATS targets post 2011, although the recycling and composting rate should reach 50%. By then


• The Treatment of residual waste will be required to meet these longer term LATS targets.

• The Technical and Financial appraisal undertaken indicated that EFW would provide the best technical and financial solution.




Affordable Housing

AVA schedule ref LH1 Date 7.11.07


Name Anna Gordon Higher Education

Position Strategic Housing Manager Transport



Emergency Services

Education & Schools


BCC Waste

Aylesbury Vale DC Yes Social Care



Fire/Rescue Services Housing projections Yes





Affordable housing projections based on % of growth figures provided by the Planning Division.


Grant funding Broader base of providers Housing Corporation Sustainability Code

Question 3: Are the subsidy costs provided normalised or indexed? If normalised what base year has been used?

They are based on a calculation to produce an average subsidy level for the 2006-11 period, using a base year of 2006. Grant levels have been adjusted downwards to take account of the Housing Corporation’s desire to see efficiency gains on s106 sites, which is presumed to continue throughout the next 20 years. Looking across such long time horizons obviously introduces uncertainty about how social housing grant will be applied by the new Homes and Communities Agency.

Question 3: Are you now in a position to discuss revenue costs related to the provision of this service, particularly in relation to the period 2006-2011?

The main revenue cost associated with affordable housing is Supporting People funding. This is funded by central government and is to assist people with supported housing needs to remain in their tenancies.

Question 4: Given that the annual rate of delivery for affordable housing for the period 2001 to 2006 was 85


units per year (2007 housing needs update) how realistic are the levels of affordable housing required? What will be the impact of the Panel Report in the South East Plan reducing affordable housing to 35 from 40 percent?

It will produce an estimated reduction in subsidy required of c £31m.

Question 5: Is the requirement for a new women’s refuge a result of population growth or a need to replace an existing facility? If the former, what is the calculation used?

Based on population growth. The calculation is based on the number of rooms/places (1 per household) per 10,000 population. Current provision is 11 rooms for 167,400 population; resulting in an existing shortfall of 6 rooms, without taking account of any population increase.


AYLESBURY VALE DISTRICT COUNCIL

Review of calculations of the subsidy requirements needed to deliver affordable housing arising from 21,200 new homes between 2007 and 2021.

Property Type Subsidy matrix The calculations passed to me at the initial briefing meeting on 18th January provide a breakdown of the indicative grant levels required for various types and tenures. The unit costs (excluding on-costs, being the price an RSL would be expected to pay a developer on a s106 site) range from £987/m2 for large houses to £1,240/m2 for 1 bedroom flats. These appear to cover typical build costs, although there could still be wide variations as to what RSLs could pay on one site to the next. The grant for rented units is fixed at 45.6% of this cost figure, and the LCHO/Homebuy figure is 50% of the rented grant. My initial reaction is that these seem somewhat arbitrary figures, although I understand they have been derived from known levels for Berryfields MDA. If they are compared with allocations made in the NAHP, the rented grant seems low while the LCHO/Homebuy high. My alternative assessment, based on an analysis of NAHP allocations, gives the following indicative figures: Property type by bedroom size

Property Unit Size

m2 (from AVDC)

Property Unit Size

m2 (rounded)

Unit Cost to RSL without

on-costs

Typical Grant required

For rented units

Typical Grant required for

shared ownership

units 1B2PF 51-55 51 63,750 29,325 8,798 2B3PF 61-65 61 76,250 35,075 10,523 2B4PF 71-75 71 85,200 38,340 11,502 2B4PH 76-80 76 87,400 41,800 12,540 2B4PH 81-85 81 93,150 44,550 13,365 3B5PH 86-90 86 94,600 45,150 13,545 3B5PH 91 91 91,000 47,775 14,333 4B7PH 120 120 120,000 59,400 17,820

Total Subsidy Requirements: Method 1 - Refined version of AVDC’s subsidy calculations If we assume AVDC’s estimated levels of subsidy are correct, but apply the subsidy required for each unit type according to the affordable dwelling mix needed to address housing needs on different sites in JHA’s HNS (Table 6.13), we produce a slightly different result. This would produce average grant of £33,800 for rented and £16,900 for LCHO. The following total subsidy figures result from this method, using a split of 80% rented and 20% for LCHO/Homebuy. They only cover subsidised affordable housing (ie excluding low cost market units in the tables, as these are unsubsidised) for 30%, 35% and 40%: 2007 -11 2011-16 2017 -21 2021-2026 2007-2026 30% 44,741,483 50,220,031 50,220,031 48,393,848 193,575,394 35% 52,198,396 58,590,037 58,590,037 56,459,490 225,837,960 40% 59,655,310 66,960,042 66,960,042 64,525,131 258,100,525

Calculations behind these figures are provided in Appendix A. I note that the Council’s levels of subsidy keep constant throughout the 20 year period. While in the early years this may be appropriate (reflecting the Treasury’s expectations that further efficiency gains are possible) I don’t think it is likely over such a long period. We have to

consider the impact of the Code for Sustainable Homes, which could increase procurement costs considerably. But notably, the Housing Corporation has indicated it does expect to see a reduction in the levels of grant going into new schemes, possibly subsidised further by RSLs’ contributions through recycled capital grant and from their Disposal Proceeds Funds. As far as the figures in the table are concerned, I feel there are two ways of addressing this. The figures could be re-run, adding say 3% annual inflation from year 3 onwards, or the figures could be qualified as being at present day levels, with no allowance for inflation or efficiency gains. For the purposes of simplicity, the latter is taken to apply to all figures in this report. Total Subsidy Requirements: Method 2 - Using NAHP allocations The NAHP allocations provide a further guide to the likely levels of grant that might be available in future. However, there are wide variations between schemes and between RSLs/non-RSLs. Taken together, average grant levels for the 2006-8 programme are as follows:

Rented LCHO 2006-7 £42,207 £8,703 2007-8 £42,843 £12,300

There were some schemes included in these figures that distort the overall numbers: • If Aylesbury New Lodge is excluded, the 2006-7 average rented grant rises to £58,743 • If the nil-grant Moreton Rd scheme is excluded, average 2006-7 LCHO grant rises to £15,775 • If the nil-grant Princes Mary scheme is excluded, average 2007-8 LCHO grant rises to £13,667 Whilst many RSLs and non-RSLs are now providing new build shared ownership without grant, it is fair to allow some subsidy for providing such units for these calculations. With this in mind, the figures have been re-run using average levels of:

Rented LCHO £42,500 £12,500

The following total subsidy figures result from this method. Again, they only cover subsidised affordable housing for targets of 30%, 35% and 40%: 2007 -11 2011-16 2017 -21 2021-2026 2007-2026 30% 53,655,000 60,225,000 60,225,000 58,035,000 232,140,000 35% 62,597,500 70,262,500 70,262,500 67,707,500 270,830,000 40% 71,540,000 80,300,000 80,300,000 77,380,000 309,520,000

Calculations behind these figures are provided in Appendix B. As before, there is no allowance for inflation or efficiency gains. Conclusion The first method produces figures that are very close to the Council’s. Overall, the amount of subsidy required to deliver the affordable housing programme could range from £194m (about £10m per year) to £310m (or over £15m a year), depending on what target level of provision is finally agreed. Richard Broomfield Portfolio Development Consultancy 25th January 2007

METHOD 1 APPENDIX A

Period: 2007 -11 2011-16 2017 -21 2021-2026 2007-2026Number homes to be provided 4,900 5,500 5,500 5,300 21,200Number affordable homes @ 30% 1,470 1,650 1,650 1,590 6,360Number affordable homes @ 35% 1,715 1,925 1,925 1,855 7,420Number affordable homes @ 40% 1,960 2,200 2,200 2,120 8,480

Rented units (80% of total affordable)Average grant per dwelling 33,818 33,818 33,818 33,818 TOTALSubsidy required @ 30% 39,770,190 44,640,009 44,640,009 43,016,736 172,066,946

35% 46,398,555 52,080,011 52,080,011 50,186,192 200,744,77040% 53,026,920 59,520,013 59,520,013 57,355,649 229,422,594

LCHO units (20% of total affordable)Average grant per dwelling 16,909 16,909 16,909 16,909 TOTALSubsidy required @ 30% 4,971,292 5,580,022 5,580,022 5,377,112 21,508,448

35% 5,799,841 6,510,026 6,510,026 6,273,297 25,093,19040% 6,628,390 7,440,029 7,440,029 7,169,483 28,677,931

Total subsidy required 30% 44,741,483 50,220,031 50,220,031 48,393,848 193,575,39435% 52,198,396 58,590,037 58,590,037 56,459,490 225,837,96040% 59,655,310 66,960,042 66,960,042 64,525,131 258,100,525

METHOD 2 APPENDIX B

Period: 2007 -11 2011-16 2017 -21 2021-2026 2007-2026Number homes to be provided 4,900 5,500 5,500 5,300 21,200Number affordable homes @ 30% 1,470 1,650 1,650 1,590 6,360Number affordable homes @ 35% 1,715 1,925 1,925 1,855 7,420Number affordable homes @ 40% 1,960 2,200 2,200 2,120 8,480

Rented units (80% of total affordable)Average grant per dwelling 42,500 42,500 42,500 42,500 TOTALSubsidy required @ 30% 49,980,000 56,100,000 56,100,000 54,060,000 216,240,000

35% 58,310,000 65,450,000 65,450,000 63,070,000 252,280,00040% 66,640,000 74,800,000 74,800,000 72,080,000 288,320,000

LCHO units (20% of total affordable)Average grant per dwelling 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 TOTALSubsidy required @ 30% 3,675,000 4,125,000 4,125,000 3,975,000 15,900,000

35% 4,287,500 4,812,500 4,812,500 4,637,500 18,550,00040% 4,900,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,300,000 21,200,000

Total subsidy required 30% 53,655,000 60,225,000 60,225,000 58,035,000 232,140,00035% 62,597,500 70,262,500 70,262,500 67,707,500 270,830,00040% 71,540,000 80,300,000 80,300,000 77,380,000 309,520,000

.Buckinghamshire infrastructure study Questions raised by Donald Chambers, Colin Buchanan 5 November 2007

Capital Expenditure (£189,585,563 to £252,780,750 plus infrastructure)

• Could you provide more detail on the source of the data used for Affordable

Housing requirements? The figures in the table on page 98 are estimates of the Public subsidy required to deliver AVDC’s affordable housing programme over the next 20 years. Grant figures derived from analysis of NAHP allocations for 2006-8 (excluding nil grant schemes). This gave a mid-point, adjusted average grant for the first 5 year (2006-11) block of £40,375 per rented unit and £11,875 per LCHO unit. These were then applied on across subsequent 5 year blocks, reducing over time by 10%, 20% and 25% to reflect downward pressure on average grant levels, to take account of the Housing Corporation’s desire to see less grant per unit provided (the table was produced in advance of the HC’s NAHP 2008-11 Prospectus, which included annual efficiency targets of 6.5% to 8.5% for rented homes, and 5% to 7% for LCHO – page 42). The resultant grant levels were as follows:

AH % 2007 -11 2011-16 2017 -21 2021-2026 2007-2026

Number homes to be provided 4,900 5,500 5,500 5,300 21,200

Number affordable homes @ 30% 1,470 1,650 1,650 1,590 6,360



Savings on 08/09 grant levels 100% 90% 80% 75%

Rented units (80% of total affordable)

Average grant per dwelling 40,375 36,338 32,300 30,281 TOTAL

Subsidy required @ 30% 47,481,000 47,965,500 42,636,000 38,517,750 176,600,250

35% 55,394,500 55,959,750 49,742,000 44,937,375 206,033,625

40% 63,308,000 63,954,000 56,848,000 51,357,000 235,467,000

Savings on 08/09 grant levels 100% 90% 80% 75%

LCHO units (20% of total affordable)

Average grant per dwelling 11,875 10,688 9,500 8,906 TOTAL

Subsidy required @ 30% 3,491,250 3,526,875 3,135,000 2,832,188 12,985,313

35% 4,073,125 4,114,688 3,657,500 3,304,219 15,149,531

40% 4,655,000 4,702,500 4,180,000 3,776,250 17,313,750

Total subsidy required 30% 50,972,250 51,492,375 45,771,000 41,349,938 189,585,563

35% 59,467,625 60,074,438 53,399,500 48,241,594 221,183,156

40% 67,963,000 68,656,500 61,028,000 55,133,250 252,780,750

• Could you provide more detail on the basis of your budget for each element?

For example, detail on the build-up, source, base date, uplift applied, etc. See above

• Could you provide more detail regarding the basis on which Affordable

Housing sites are provided by developers at "no cost" to BCC. Often the

provision of these types of facilities attract a Tariff reduction for the developer

thus could be construed as a "cost". Are you aware of this being the case in

this instance? A ‘Tariff reduction’ has not been applied since a tariff is not AVDC policy and in any case would exclude provision of affordable housing.

I:\13862X_Buckinghamshire Infrastructure Study\STUDY\Service users responses\Transport questions response.xls 1

A413 Wendover Road Corridor & Gyratory Improvements 15

A4146 Fenny Stratford Bypass

MK growth)

A418 route improvements (Wing & Rowsham sections) 77 Detailed assessment of a road scheme

length - approx 11kms

number of junctions still to be determined - up to 4?

A421 Tingewick to MK Upgrade

Scheme to be determined but proposals for on-line dualling. (see

LTP2 - future plans, section 5 - Major schemes for more detail)

Aylesbury Link Roads 50 See LDF allocated site document map 1

Potentially 2 new link roads needed plus below.

Figure is estimated based on past schemes

yes - see LDF site allocations plan (easter link, stocklake link)

Estimated figure developed from past experience - see TR

General

Capital Expenditure (£144,000,000 to AV)

• Alignment and scope of roadworks.

• Basis of apportionment of budgets.


• Any commuted sums required?

This is predominately a traffic corridor BCC will take into account

the needs of peds and cyclists on this corridor. Plans for cycles are

off the main corridor along Broughton lane and anyped crossings

will be signalised to fit in with UTMC.

capacity issues may include dualling of the route but the exact

requirements haven't been developed as these would have to be

tailored to the development on the edge of MK. (see LTP2 - future

plans, section 5 - Major schemes for more detail)

No - if the growth of Aylesbury goes to the south the link roads will

link the A418 (Oxford Rd) with A41 (Aston Clinton Rd)

See AVDC for details

details of the link roads are unknown at the moment and are

subject to modelling and proper business case appraisal

Development of a dual carriageway from Hulcott crossroads to

A505. (see LTP2 - future plans, section 5 - Major schemes for

more detail)

no appraisal of the scheme has been done - again too early to say

Estimated figure developed from past experience - see TR

details of the link roads are unknown at the moment and are

subject to modelling and proper business case appraisal

Likely to same as existing number i.e. 3 although too early to say

for definite as scheme has not been developed (due for

implementation in 2016-2021)

BCC response

Not required directly for the AC Rd MDA. Developer will be putting

in measures. AC Rd and bus priority measures will be put in place

as a part of the Aylesbury Transport Strategy.

No - see AVDC

we only received a transport assessment a few weeks ago - officers

unavailable at present time to provide info.

Focus car based traffic movements from south & south-east on high quality

corridor, enabling development of public transport corridors on southern radial

routes. This will enhance transport connectivity for employment growth at Aston

Clinton Road MDA (supported by £6.2m GAF funds) and housing growth options

south of Aylesbury. ALONGSIDE GROWTH

2011-26

Attrib to MK

growth

50

2011-21

Online improvements to route in Bucks to improve capacity & journey times as

part of MK to Oxford (M40) strategic route (identified in MKSM SRS) increasing

connectivity (supporting MK to Oxford coach) & productivity. ALONGSIDE

GROWTH

1/3 attrib to

growth = 26

100% attrib to

growth = 50Provide links between either A41 East & A418 West (supporting employment

growth at Aston Clinton Road MDA, housing growth options south of Aylesbury, &

focusing car based traffic movements on high quality corridor enabling cross-

town movements) or between A418 North East & A41 West (supporting housing

growth options north of Aylesbury, & focussing car based traffic movements on

high quality corridor enabling cross-town movements). Both reinforce

development of public transport corridors on key radial routes. (Subject to AVDC

LDF development) ALONGSIDE GROWTH

30% attrib to

growth = 4.5

MAJOR

ROAD

LINKS –

SUB

REGIONAL

50

MAJOR

ROAD

LINKS –

SUB

REGIONAL

Improvements to link south of SHLW bypass to improve capacity & journey times

as part of MK to Aylesbury strategic route (identified in MKSM SRS), focussing car

based traffic movements on high quality corridor, protecting the environment in

settlements on other routes, linking Aylesbury & Luton / Dunstable / Houghton

Regis & Leighton / Linslade growth areas, increasing connectivity (supporting MK

to Aylesbury express bus), increasing productivity & enhancing local accessibility.

ALONGSIDE GROWTH.

LTP or DfT /

SEERA (via

Major

Scheme Bid)

2016-21

(linked to PPTC

strategy)

15

A418 route improvements (Hulcott Crossroads to Aylesbury with A41 Link)

Improvements to link from Hulcott to A41 Aston Clinton Road to improve capacity

& journey times as part of MK to Aylesbury strategic route (identified in MKSM

SRS) increasing connectivity (supporting employment growth at Aston Clinton

Road MDA & MK to Aylesbury express bus), focussing car based traffic

movements on high quality corridor, protecting the environment in settlements on

other routes, enabling development of public transport corridor on A41 and

existing A418, increasing productivity, tackling congestion & enhancing local

accessibility. PRIOR TO GROWTH

2011-26

What is the cost figure based on?

Do we know the GFA of the employment element of the sites or the traffic

generation anticipated?

Under

investigation

Under

investigation

What do the capacity improvements include?

Do we know the number of junctions involved/ length of the sections of the

bypass to be improved?

What is the cost Figure based on?

Does this link include pedestrians, cyclist and public transport facilities? If yes

please advise

Is this a new Link?

Do we have any more information regarding width, length, number of junctions

along this link?


2016-21

Under

investigation

(linked to PPTC

strategy)

LTP /

Developer

Contribution

LTP or DfT /

SEERA (via

Major

Scheme Bid)

Under

investigation



How many new Links? Are these new links?

Do we have any more information regarding width, length, number of

junctions along this link?


2016-26

LTP or DfT /

SEERA (via

Major

Scheme Bid)

/ Developer

Contributions

Proposed for

investigation

LTP or DfT /

SEERA (via

Major

Scheme Bid)

/ Developer

Contributions

Proposed for

investigationImprovements to link north of SHLW bypass to improve capacity on existing link

as part of MK to Aylesbury strategic route (identified in MKSM SRS), providing

access to development areas on SW fringe of MK, increasing connectivity

(supporting MK to Aylesbury express bus) and increasing productivity. PRIOR TO

GROWTH

(linked to PPTC

strategy)

LTP /

Developer

Contribution

This is prodominately a traffic corridor BCC will take into account

the needs of peds and cyclists on this corridor. Plans for cycles are

off the main corridor and ped crosings will be signalised. Will be

easier to achieve balance between the diferent modes through the

implementation of UTMC.

Estimated figure developed from past experience

Infrastructure requirements based on submissions to SEERA for the Sub-Regional Investment Works, as shown in the AVA Schedule of Infrastructure (August 2007)- with CB comments

PROJECTS PERIOD COST (£m)FUNDING

SOURCE

STATUS /

SCHEME DEVTComments

Do the improvements of the A 413 include cyclists and pedestrians facilities

enhancement?

Why is this required directly as a part of then Aston Clinton Road MDA?

Shouldn't main improvements be on Aston Clinton Road itself which will

provide main access to the MDA?





Are these improvements associated with the Berryfields and Weedon Hill sites,

which will be accessed from the A41 the A 413 respectively?

What is the Cost Figure based on?

Aston Clinton Road MDA will comprise housing (120) & employment. Do we

know the GFA of the employment element?

Do we approximately know how many trips this MDA site is likely to generate?


New additional station5

Estimated from previous experience with Aylesbury Vale Parkway

This is not determined as yet. Talks are happening with Chiltern

Route upgrade - Aylesbury to High Wycombe

Estimated from advice from chiltern rail/ network rail. Cost is rough

estimate and further work is needed to establish a realistic cost.

Chiltern Rail are progressing investigative work on possible

extension to the EWR Aylesbury Spur further south to High

wycombe, and then London

East-West Rail – Western Section: Oxford to Bedford

Steer Davis Gleave has been developing the GRIP 3/4 study for

theis scheme. The EW rail consortium is in constant contact with

Network rail for this scheme.

(134 for Oxford

General


• Alignment and scope of proposed railworks.

• Civils works required.

• Extent of signalling interfaces / fringe works.

• Basis of rate build-ups.

• Extent of Network Rail, TOC / FOC buy-in and compensation requirements.


• Who will operate the station(s)

Aylesbury Primary Public Transport Corridors (PPTCs) 17

Aylesbury Urban Traffic Management & Control (UTMC)8

Development of initial business case and costings by consultant

Development of urban traffic management control by linking

signals, VMS, dynamic car park signing, improved travel

information thourgh web etc to improve travel choice, encourage

modal shift and manage the town's increased traffic.

Park & Ride services for Aylesbury 17 provisionally 5 P&R sites - see the Aylesbury strategy

estimated figure fior previous experience and work done on the

parkway P&R

P&R site with car parking and infrastructure for buses. Developer to

subsidise bus services from developments. Decision need to be

made which services serve P&R.

General


• Alignment and scope of roadworks.

• Scope of Traffic Management Scheme(s).

• Size / location of Park-and-Ride facilities

• Basis of apportionment of budgets.


• Any commuted sums required?

• Operation of Park-and-Ride facilities?

• Operation of traffic management facilities?

Total cost

Further queries

1 Please can you confirm which housing numbers and population projections have been used in projecting future service provision and where these were sourced from. Housing numbers from AVDC/ south east plan

2 What are the key drivers of change in the way your service will be provided in the next 5 years?

3

This is a rough estimate after development of one of the corridors

with developer contributions from Berryfields. This has then been

factored up to cover the 5 other corridors.

What improvements measures are proposed?

bus priority measures on each corridor including signalisation and

some congestion management measure including junction

imporvements.


OTHER

2011-21 100% attrib to

growth = 17

2006-1650% attrib to

growth = 4

30% attrib to

growth = 24

Improvements to A413 (N), A41 (SE), B4443, A418 (SW) & A41 (W) to provide

public transport priority and services on key radial routes, supporting sustainable

travel, improving accessibility & creating public transport capacity for housing &

employment growth. ALONGSIDE GROWTH

Provisionally

approved

Provision of new Park & Ride sites and services on all key radial routes to reduce

car journeys to town centre linked to development of PPTCs, supporting

sustainable travel, improving accessibility for housing & employment growth.

OTHER

LTP / TIF /

GAF / CIF /

Developer

Contribution

LTP / TIF /

GAF / CIF /

Developer

Contribution

Total cost that could reasonably be attributable to AV growth is £282 million

LTP / TIF /

GAF / CIF /

Developer

Contribution

Provisionally

approved

Under

investigation

£582 million based on current best estimates, of which c£300 million is attributable to growth in other areas (such as MK) or existing

Strategic rail route linking Bedford to Oxford and Aylesbury (via MK) to improve

connectivity, enhance travel choices & support housing & employment growth in

MKSM growth areas (identified in MKSM SRS). ALONGSIDE GROWTH

2006-16

2006-21

90% attrib to

growth = 58

Integrated traffic management & information system to manage demand for

transport network & enhance public transport priorities across town centre,

providing information to road users to make informed travel choices, increasing

connectivity & sustainability. OTHER

Developer

Contribution /

CR & LR

DfT / CR &

LRRAIL

Proposed for

investigation

80

2016-26New station in Aylesbury to improve access for potential housing growth options

(subject to AVDC LDF development). OTHER

Under

investigation

64 for Aylesbury

spur

100% attrib to

growth = 5

Proposed for

investigation

LTP /

Developer

Contribution /

CR & LR


Has network rail been contacted for advise regarding cost?


Has network rail been contacted for advise regarding cost?


Which line will this station service? Has network rail been contacted for advise

regarding cost?


How many Park and Ride sites



Track & signalling upgrade to rail link to enhance connectivity (potential for MK to

HW route via EWR) & productivity (linked to North South transport links study

identified below) OTHER

2016-26


The Aylesbury Transport strategy takes into account the amount of

growth in the number of houses and jobs and subsequently the vast

majority of the infrastructure needs are as a result of the growth.

Without the growth, there would be some increase in traffic levels,

though marginal and therefore the infrastructure needs would be

far less.

4 Can park and ride facilities be related to growth within AVDC, especially when the majority of the growth is to be located within Aylesbury town?

Aylesbury Transport Strategy is about freeing up road capacity

within the town to enable the additional traffic as a result of the

growth to access the town itself, through modal shift and

intercepting traffic on the outskirts of the town and re-directing onto

other roads such as the new link roads, .

5 Can you clarify whether the new additional station in Aylesbury is in addition to the Aylesbury Vale Parkway station, which has recently secured funding? Separate from Aylesbury Parkway

6

This is an aspiration shared by all and has been recently endorsed

by the Panel Report on the South-East Plan

7 No mention of the essential costs associated with the new east to west link between Berryfields and Weedon Hill as shown in the AVDLP proposal map

8 No mention of the essential costs associated with the improvements to the Aston Clinton Road which will provide access to the AY15 MDA site.

9 No mention of the essential costs associated with the improvements to the Bister Road MDA development which provides access to the AY15 MDA site.

10 To the north west of Aylesbury (next to site AY16) is a potential mixed housing / employment development. Do we have any more information about it? There is no mention regarding cost for access and infrastructure

improvements associated with this development.

Is the upgrading of the line between Aylesbury and High Wycombe a County Council aspiration or are Network Rail and / or Chiltern Railways considering upgrading the route. Similarly, is the rail industry actively exploring

the potential for running services from HW to MK?

To what extent are the transport infrastructure projects a result of housing and population growth within Aylesbury Vale district, and are there other factors that result in the requirement for additional infrastructure?

Buckinghamshire Infrastructure Study Phase One Final Report

Appendix 2

Validation tables

Service area

Service provider

AVA ref.

Methodology in AVA schedule Linked to housing growth?

Validation comments Cost estimates in AVA schedule

Validation comments

Health

Acute Buckinghamshire Hospital Trust

SH2 Buckinghamshire Hospital Trust state that additional secondary (acute) infrastructure is not required for the following reasons: 1. Births are projected to decrease to 2016

and then rise to existing levels by 2026, thus all maternity service can be provided through existing facilities with refurbishment and re-organisation.

2. Sub-19 age group is projected to decrease, thus exiting paediatric services can meet demand.

3. Population projected to increase by 7% to 2026. Current model of provision is anticipated to reduce outpatient requirements by 25% (patients treated at either primary level or not required to attend outpatients).

4. In patient capacity at Stoke Mandeville was planned using population projections to 2016.

no No response received from Buckinghamshire Hospital Trust

none N/A

Primary Buckinghamshire PCT

SH1 Population to GP ratio of 1,950 and four GPS per health centre to calculate future GP / health centre needs. The community hospital is based on the catchment population for Thame Hospital

yes PCT used ONS population projections for AV, because these are the projections used by the NHS in general. PCT makes the point that the ratio of population to GP is becoming less relevant because of changing skills mix, for example, nurses are undertaking tasks that previously GPs undertook. No indication of what thresholds likely to be used in the future, but Buckinghamshire PCT appear to be working on the basis of one health centre per 8,000 population. Anticipate that an additional NHS dentist will be required; the majority of dentist care is private. The PCT are considering the option of providing an “extended health centre” rather than a traditional community hospital which probably explains why the capital costs they provide are low.

£15.6m capital £6m revenue

Projected capital expenditure appears low, health centre cost of £2m valid for 2006. Would expect higher allowances for the later periods. Construction cost for community hospital in period 2021-2026 is lower than current (2007) rates. Davis Langdon in-house data would suggest £1,800 - £2,000/m2 at current prices.

Mental health

Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership Trust

SH3 None provided No indication that housing growth is being used to plan future service requirement

The trust have confirmed that their business plan for the period to 2011 is based on Bucks CC population data of 4.7% (7,800 persons) increase 2006 to 2011. This is the same rate of growth set out in Table 2 of the AVA schedule of infrastructure. Work has commenced on the redevelopment of the Manor House hospital site in order to co-locate inpatient services for adults and older adults (currently these services are provided across four sites). No decisions have yet been made about future bed numbers – this will form part of the business case development process early in 2008. Demographic and epidemiological data indicate that the level of mental ill-health amongst older people (65+ and particularly 75+) will increase, whilst care for younger adults will depend more on community staff and services than inpatient provision. Lengths of inpatient stay for 18-65-year-olds with acute mental illness have reduced significantly as community services have been enhanced. Future property requirements will include:

• An inpatient base for the county (at Manor House, as above) • An acute day hospital and base for ‘crisis’ services – close to but probably not on the hospital

site • Local bases for community teams, including one in Aylesbury – not on the hospital site, offering

office accommodation and some consulting rooms in which to see outpatients • Access to consulting rooms in GP surgeries and community centres • Co-location of some services with non-‘mental health’ services for a relevant client group (e.g.

potential location of ’early intervention’ staff with youth services)

No cost estimates are provided

Anticipate substantial revenue savings through consolidation of services at redeveloped Manor House site and improved energy efficiency of new buildings. DL unable to validate this estimate, unclear if refurbishment and some new build or demolition and new build. Envisaged capital cost for Manor House redevelopment of £34m, normalised to 2007/08. Once licensed as an NHS Foundation Trust, this sum is planned to come from a combination of Trust sources (an existing capital

Validation table (excluding transport)

Service area

Service provider

AVA ref.



Validation comments

• Office accommodation for non-patient teams (service management, training, etc.). programme funded from surpluses and property sales) and external borrowing. Property /land sales will need to be sold with the benefit of planning consent which maximises value for the NHS.

Education

Higher Education

Bucks New University (formally Bucks Chiltern University College)

SE1 Cost for project amount to £3,000 per square metre per student based upon 1350 students.

No No response received from Bucks New University

Cost of £4,050,000 is for construction costs. Cost of providing furniture and I.T. for 15 rooms approx £500,000. Total costs would be in the region of £4,550,000. Excludes land cost (anticipated to be in the region of £1m at current prices). No revenue costs provided.

Estimated build cost appears reasonable at 2011. DL in-house data predicts tender price inflation at 26% over period 2007 – 2011. Noted land costs excluded.

Further Education

Aylesbury College

SE2 Building costs based on current costs of Aylesbury College Phase 1 (completion 2006) and Phase 2 (completion 2007) new build projects. Formula based on estimates from building project architects using industry standard cost per square metre formula. Cost of current project scrutinised by LSC Capital Funds Committee prior to funding being approved for current project.

Yes, related to the Aylesbury Vale South East Plan, although no direct relationship.

Future needs have been revised because a number of the facilities originally identified are to meet existing needs. Drivers of change include: increase in population, new businesses coming into the area, Government skills agenda including the increase in compulsory schooling from 16 to 18, 14-19 agenda and employer engagement. Remains unclear what is related directly to population growth and what is aspirational to improve the College’s product offer or meet changes in the demand for education services.

Total capital cost: £34,000,000. Revenue costs around £10.5 million per annum at today’s prices.

New costs provided: Capital expenditure estimated at £63,015,700 (break down provided in Table 3.5). Revenue costs: 210,000,000 over 20 years (estimated at 5% of total capital cost). Timescale for amended requirements unclear. Unit costs for the Vocational Centre and Day Nursery are robust if constructed in Period 2006-2011. Other requirements will require indexing for inflation through to construction date.

Secondary Bucks CC LE2 The methodology to derive pupil generation rates from new housing development is based on an analysis of small area information from the 2001 Census. The Department of Education and Skills (DfES) have published Basic Need cost multipliers representing a cost per pupil for building new school accommodation, and the County Council applies these for determining capital allocations. Estimates of surpluses/deficits in existing schools based on work undertaken for the School Organisation Plan; however,

Yes 2,675 secondary school students requiring 3 new secondary schools. The calculation of pupil numbers and schools excludes the need within Weedon Hill and Berryfields MDAs The original schedule set out a requirement for two additional secondary schools based on the pupil generation rates used in the Wycombe SPD on developer contributions. Subsequently, the Strategic Planning Section of the County Council have undertaken their own, more detailed assessment of pupil generation using the dwelling mix in recent developments in Aylesbury. Using these figures a third secondary school is required. However; the demographic projections produced by the CC and Manchester University indicate that there will be limited growth in the numbers of students in the period to 2026. If these population projections are correct, there would be a requirement for very limited additional secondary school capacity. Locations of

Capital costs: £67,300,000. The service provider has indicated that at this stage it has not been possible to identify revenue costs. Pro rata dedicated schools grant received from

Capital cost per school has been revised to £21m for two of the schools and £25.3 for the one remaining. Cost at present day prices. Cost for future schools requires indexing for inflation through to spend periods.


Service area

Service provider

AVA ref.



Validation comments

converting demand for secondary schools places into new schools is complicated by the difficulty of providing additional grammar schools places and the lack of capacity in existing grammar schools.

schools to reduce the need to travel might be an issue.

Central Government in line with number of pupils on roll.

Primary Bucks CC LE1 Same as above Yes Pupil generation rate projected to be 3255 and will require 8 new primary schools with nursery provision. In original schedule stated 6 schools required with a further 2 schools possibly required depending on location of development. The original schedule set out a requirement for six additional primary schools based on the pupil generation rates used in the Wycombe SPD on developer contributions. Subsequently, the Strategic Planning Section of the County Council have undertaken their own, more detailed assessment of pupil generation using the dwelling mix in recent developments in Aylesbury. Using these figures a further two primary schools are required. The calculation of pupil numbers and schools excludes the need within Weedon Hill and Berryfields MDAs The demographic projections produced by the CC and Manchester University indicate that there will be limited growth in the numbers of pupils in the period to 2026. If these population projections are correct, there would be a requirement for minimal additional primary school capacity, but new schools would be required to provide primary schools close to place of residence.

Capital costs: £48,000,000. No revenue cost provided

Capital Costs increased to a total of £48,000,000 for 8 new primary schools at £6,000,000 each. Costs are stated as at present day prices. Require indexing for inflation through spend periods.

Extended hours

Bucks CC LE4 / 5 None provided Partially, extended school facilities are to be extended to the whole school population.

660 sixth form places calculated (formula not provided) and these would be accommodated within secondary schools. The work undertaken by the Strategic Planning Section of the County Council indicates 608 sixth form students. Both these figures are likely to be incorrect because of the Government’s proposed changes to the education system whereby 16 – 18 education becomes compulsory. Other extended school facilities are planned to be provided as an integral part of new school buildings. The capital costs of providing extended school facilities are included within the capital costs for new schools.

Capital costs of £10m but no revenue costs provided

Service provider unable to confirm how these costs derived and stating that the costs are included within the costs of a new build school.

Special schooling

Bucks CC LE3 None provided Yes Growth in Aylesbury Vale anticipated to generate 210 additional special needs places (formula not provided); this is equivalent to one new school.

£16 although only £8m attributable to future growth.

Service provider has confirmed these costs. Costs are stated as at present day prices. Spend period 2016-21. Should be indexed for inflation.

Adult Bucks CC LE5 None provided Partially, also driven by anticipated employer requirements to upskill or re-skill workers.

Evening facilities can often be provided within schools or other community facilities, but there is also a need for day facilities and these have to be in a dedicated building. Existing day facilities in Aylesbury do not have the capacity to deal with existing demand and therefore a new day education facility is required. A new day facility is being provided at the Berryfields development, and is based on a need for 100sqm per 1000 dwellings. Applying this formula across Aylesbury there is a need for 1,850sqm of dedicated adult education floor space across the district (this excludes the Berryfields development where space is to be provided).

LSE has calculated build costs as £2,100 sqm. 1,850sqm floor space would total £3.9m.

Costs are present day. Should be indexed for inflation.

Emergency services

Police Thames Valley Constabulary

SO31 Thames Valley Police pro-rataed existing staff and facilities against housing numbers within their area. They then projected existing ratios forward to 2026 using the housing figures supplied to them.

Partially It is apparent that there is not an agreed formula for projecting future need and there is no advice from Central Government or the various police authorities for factoring in population growth to service development plans. The approach taken appears sensible, but does not take account of changes in priorities or crime rates. The method for calculating future crime rates is based on the way crime is recorded which is as a proportion of population.

Capital costs of £11.62. Capital costs have been modified to take account of the

Office and custody facility costs are robust at present day prices. Unclear when spend occurs. Subject to annual review.


Service area

Service provider

AVA ref.



Validation comments

The methodology used is based of currently levels of provision across the whole of the Thames Valley area and is not based on Buckinghamshire or Aylesbury characteristics. However, Thames Valley Police are about to begin preparing local policing strategies for a number of their LPA areas, one of which will be Aylesbury. These will provide a more detailed assessment of need and future policing methods. Provision of future services is also determined by national priorities and local crime levels. Socio-economic status of population influences level of policing required. Aylesbury is a small part of the wider Thames Valley area and will be considered within this wider context.

300 additional houses in the panel report. cost of non-specialist office accommodation is £3,438/sqm, total cost is £9,547,170. cost of custody facilities is £6,094/sqm, total cost is £770,864 start up capital costs per officer £10,085, total cost £1,065,000 start up capital costs per community support officer £6,916, total £87,886 start up capital costs per support staff £4,665, total £313,630 total capital costs £11,785,182

Fire Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue

SO32 None provided but appears that service standards are set by the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004

Yes Sprinkler systems are the generally responsibility of developers although the fire service is responsible for installing systems in households identified as being vulnerable. Installation of hydrants is now being passed on to developers. Computer-modelling based on the government approved Fire Service Emergency Cover (FSEC) system, has demonstrated that the fire and rescue service premises at Stocklake in Aylesbury, and supported by Waddesdon and Haddenham, will not meet the Fire Authority attendance times for current and proposed new build areas at Weedon Hill, Berryfields, Ashton Clinton Road, and the major infrastructure “arc” to the south of Aylesbury. The modelling suggests that an additional new fire station will be required to the south west of Aylesbury in order to maintain Community Safety Standards. The decision has not been taken by the fire authority as to whether a new fire station will be provided.

Capital costs of £6.85m and revenue costs of £15.2m

Capital and revenue costs quoted here are for period 2006-2011. These present day values are carried through to the period 2021-2026 without the application of inflation indices.

Ambulance South Central Ambulance Trust

SO33 Assume that emergency incidents will increase at 7.5% of population growth. No new build required but additional emergency vehicles required and an additional rest facility for crews.

Yes No response received from South Central Ambulance Trust, but the South Central Ambulance Trust extends to includes Hampshire and it is likely that planning for future service provision will be within this wider context rather than being Aylesbury specific.

Capital costs of £575,000 and revenue costs of £2.75m

Capital and revenue costs quoted here are for period 2006-2011. These present day values are carried through to the period 2021-2026 without the application of inflation indices.

Community facilities

Open space Aylesbury Vale DC & BCC

LO1a/b/d/e

Standards used are those set out in “Planning for Sustainable Communities – A Green Infrastructure Guide for Milton Keynes and the South Midlands”. this document is based on national best practice and standards.

Yes The validation process grouped the different open space categories together because it was considered that the breakdown by open space size was too detailed for this exercise. The period 2006 to 2011 has not been included in the calculation of need because it is assumed that need will be met through the existing committed sites.

Total capital costs for open space totalled £25,127,200. Revenue costs

The £2.8m capital cost for Wendover Wood can be removed from these figures, reducing capital costs to £22,327,200. Of this figure £14m is for opening up canal


Service area

Service provider

AVA ref.



Validation comments

The need for a 500+ha open space can be met through improvements to Wendover Wood and therefore LO1e (major open space of 500+ha) is double counting because Wendover Wood is included within the schedule as a separate matter and is controlled by the Forestry Commission and not the District Council. The canals are in the ownership of British Waterways and it is not known what funding options are available to them to contribute towards the £14m costs.

totalled £11.3m corridors to public access. Capital and revenue costs quoted here are for period 2011-2016. Land costs excluded. Costs for all periods are based on 2005 actual costs. Due to be reviewed in 2008. Total spend requires the application of inflation indices through to 2026.

Nature reserves

Bucks CC LO1c Standard used is 1ha per 1,000 population as set out in “Planning for Sustainable Communities – A Green Infrastructure Guide for Milton Keynes and the South Midlands”. this document is based on national best practice and standards.

Yes Locations for nature reserves will be identified through the ecological constraints mapping undertaking by AVDC Forward Plans Division. Ideally nature reserves will be linked through appropriate green infrastructure. The period 2006 to 2011 has been discounted because it is assumed the need for that period will be met through existing commitments.

Capital costs total £210,600 Revenue costs at £117,000 per year

Capital and revenue costs quoted here are for period 2011-2016. Land costs excluded. £9,000 per hectare. Exact scope of work unverifiable, rate appears low.

Playing pitches / MUGAS

Aylesbury Vale DC

LO3 Based on the adopted AVDC SPG on Sports and Leisure Facilities. the guidance reflects Sport England’s facilitators demand estimator for sports pitches.

Yes There is an inconsistency in the population figures quoted. A total population of 32,000 is quoted but the five year figures total 31,200.

Capital costs total £6.66m. Revenue costs total £125,000.

Method of calculation of capital costs unverifiable in quantum terms. Capital and revenue costs quoted here are for period 2011-2016. Land costs excluded. Figures based on 2004 data, to be reviewed in 2007. No application of inflation indices.

Children’s play areas

Aylesbury Vale DC

LO2 Need calculated on the basis of the adopted AVDC SPG on Sport and Leisure Facilities.

Yes The number of facilities contained within the AVA schedule was based on the minimum provision set out in the SPG for sport and leisure facilities. There is an inconsistency in the population figures quoted. A total population of 32,000 is quoted but the five year figures total 31,200.

Capital costs total £1.9m Revenue costs total £65,000 a year.

Method of calculation of capital costs unverifiable in quantum terms. Capital and revenue costs quoted are for period 2006-2011. Land costs excluded. Figures based on 2004 data, to be reviewed in 2007. No application of inflation indices.

Community centres

Aylesbury Vale DC

LO4 Methodology not provided but states that normally expected that developments of 300 units or more provide a community centre.

Yes A point of clarification was sought regarding the reference in the AVA schedule to landfill tax effecting funding. AVDC have confirmed that the landfill tax is available for community facilities within a 10 mile radius of landfill sites (Calvert and Newton Longville). There is an inconsistency in the population figures quoted. A total population of 32,000 is quoted but the five year figures total 31,200.

Capital costs total £3m.

Cost per hall based on 2004 figures Normalised. Insufficient quantum to verify cost, suggest £800- £1,000k for period 2006-2011.

Sports centres and swimming pools

Aylesbury Vale DC

LO5 Based on adopted AVDC SPG Sport and Leisure Facilities. This in turn is informed by the Sport England standards in the planning sports kitbag.

Yes There is an inconsistency in the population figures quoted. A total population of 32,000 is quoted but the five year figures total 31,200. Service provider anticipates being able to improve facilities at some schools in future to increase provision.

Provision of Swimming Pools and Dry Sports Centres Capital costs are based on a “cost per head” of anticipated population growth.


Service area

Service provider

AVA ref.



Validation comments

This implies that a certain sum of money is available in any one period for construction of swimming pools and/or Dry Sports Centres. Difficult to validate what could be constructed. Capital costs are normalised and based on National Playing Fields Association cost guide for sport 2003. These figures are to be updated in 2008. Subsequent periods Not inflation indexed.

Arts / heritage / entertainment

Aylesbury Vale DC

LO7 None provided yes There is an inconsistency in the population figures quoted. A total population of 32,000 is quoted but the five year figures total 31,200. A public art strategy for the town is due to be developed during 2008. AV and MK have been selected by Arts Council Couth East as a priority area. Local information / interpretation of heritage considered an integral aspect of the growth agenda. The SPG for Sport and Leisure Facilities identifies a minimum of four arts workshop areas, including wetroom and kiln, should be provided. A shortage of arts centres was identified in the Local Facilities Audit and Needs Assessment for AV. Construction work has already commenced on the Waterside Theatre complex.

Capital costs total £477,120. Revenue costs total £5,700 per annum.

Provision of additional Arts Centre facilities and expansion of existing facilities Capital costs are based on a “cost per head” of anticipated population growth. This implies that a certain sum of money is available in any one period for provision arts centre facilities. Difficult to validate what could be provided. Capital and revenue costs quoted here are for period 2006-2011. Land costs excluded. Figures based on 2004 data, to be reviewed in 2007. No application of inflation indices.

Shortfall in existing sports and leisure provision

Aylesbury Vale DC

LO9 Based on the 2004 leisure facilities audit which identified shortfalls in provision. The proposal put forward in the schedule is for all new developments to contribute the equivalent of 16.5% of the total cost to meet the identified shortfall. This is based on the 2006 to 2026 additional population being equal to 16.5% of the total 2026 population.

No Shortfalls are not related to growth. Total capital costs of £59m of which 16.55% is equal to £9.4m. Revenue costs have not been calculated.

Allotments Aylesbury Vale DC

LO10 7 plots per 1,000 population. Plots to be provided on sites of 120 plots with a total area of 3ha.

Yes The ratio of 7 plots per 1,000 population is from the National Playing Fields Association. There is an inconsistency in the population figures quoted. A total population of 32,000 is quoted but the five year figures total 31,200.

Capital costs total £240,000 Revenue costs given as £10,000 per annum for each 120 plot site.

Provision of 224 allotment plots over period 2011-2026 Capital and operational are based on current costs but first provision occurs in Period 2011-2016. Costs appear robust at current prices Capital and revenue costs are based on current operating costs and are


Service area

Service provider

AVA ref.



Validation comments

normalised.

Community development

Aylesbury Vale DC

LO11 None provided Partially. Also includes improvements to existing facilities and shortfalls in provision.

No response received from AVDC No details of infrastructure but the schedule provides capital costs but not identifiable what the capital costs relate to. It is apparent that that the identified need is double counting the identified shortfall in existing sports and leisure provision (L09). Identify requirement for 5 community development workers and one team leader, but there is no justification for these additional staff.

Capital costs of £600,000 are given for refurbishing parks within existing areas. Revenue costs are given as the cost of additional community workers and a project development fund. Total revenue costs of £260,000 per annum

Capital costs are included within shortfall in existing sports and leisure provision, therefore nil capital costs.

Town centre public realm

Aylesbury Vale DC

LO12 Costs are based on known costs of the Kingsbury refurbishment and other costed works.

No No response received from AVDC but public realm improvements are not related to growth.

Capital costs total £4.9m Revenue costs total £60,000 per annum.

Capital costs are based on recent work, no detailed designs for refurbishment work available. Allowances appear reasonable. Capital costs will be depended on the scale of works undertaken and the quality of materials and contractors used. Capital and revenue costs quoted here are for period 2006-2011.

Libraries Bucks CC LS1 For communities with a catchment population below 5,000 a mobile service will be provided if there is clear demand; For communities with a catchment population of between 5,000 and 7,500 a mobile or branch library will be provided; Communities with a catchment population over 7,500 a static library will be provided.

Yes The standard for library provision within Buckinghamshire is 32sqm per 1,000 catchment population. This standard is the same as the one used by Hampshire and is slightly above the MAL SOUTH EAST standard of 30.2sqm. The library service does not anticipate providing further separate static buildings, but will incorporate static collections within multiuse buildings, for example, Berryfields MDA will have a static collection within the school.

Capital costs total £5.2m

Capital costs at 2006 prices. £3,210 / sqm, total £5.2m. Cost derived from RICS quarterly review of building prices. Capital costs provided are based on extensions to existing floor areas. Unit rate of £3,210 is valid at 2006 prices

Crematorium and burial grounds

Aylesbury Vale DC

LS2 None provided Partially Site for a new crematorium is indicated within the Aylesbury Allocated Sites DPD preferred option. With growth being concentrated at Aylesbury it makes sense to locate a new crematorium at the town rather than people having to travel to Milton Keynes or Amersham.

Capital cost of £3m to provide a new crematorium plus £200,000 for a cemetery. No revenue costs provided.

Provision of new crematorium and cemetery Capital cost allowance of £3.3m appears reasonable at 2006 prices. The capital cost provided in the AVA schedule is acknowledged to be arbitrary


Service area

Service provider

AVA ref.



Validation comments

Phased extensions / improvements to Halton Museum £1.5m cost at 2Q 2005 prices spread over four spend periods. Difficult to validate due to lack of scope.

Museum and archive

Bucks CC LS3 None provided No No response received from Bucks museums service but response received from Bucks County Archivist. A ratio of 5sqm per person for archive space has been used. This is derived from Museums, Archives and Libraries South East’s tariff document March 2007.

Capital costs of 1.5m for Additional museum floor space. No revenue costs provided.

Archive floor space costed at £3,600sqm. which is robust at 2007 prices. If capital expenditure is spread application of inflation indices required.

Wendover Woodland Park

Forestry Commission

LO1f None provided Partially but also related to improving facilities for existing users.

Wendover Wood has a sub-regional role, with approximately 2.7m people living within a one hour drive radius. The wood is identified in the Bucks green infrastructure strategy as a strategic countryside access hub for the Aylesbury growth area. The existing facilities are unable to cope with current visitor numbers, thus a proportion of the costs are related to meeting existing demand.

Capital costs total £4.3m Revenue costs over the 20 years are projected to be £7m

Work to be undertaken in four phases over the four spend periods. Costs based on previously completed schemes. Base date of current figures not indicated. Cost of Phase 1 works appear reasonable at current prices. Assumed Phase 2 capital cost is £750k. Apparent error in costs for Phases 3 and 4.

Aylesbury strategic access network

BCC and AVDC

none none – this scheme has been added to the schedule subsequent to the validation process

No Creation and enhancement of strategic access links (footpaths and cycle paths) and corridors providing managed recreational links for the population of the expanded Aylesbury town with the Vale and the national/sub-regionally important areas of the Chilterns and the Bernwood Forest. Where possible based on existing features (e.g. watercourses and canals). Includes enhancement of Aylesbury and Wendover Arms of the Grand Union Canal, providing Green Infrastructure links between Aylesbury, Leighton-Linslade, Milton Keynes and Aylesbury and Wendover. This scheme includes improvements to the Aylesbury and Wendover arms of the Grand Union Canal the costs of which are included in LO1e, therefore the costs provided to us of £24 have been reduced to £10m.

£10m Scheme is at a very early stage only being proposed for investigation.

Social care

Adult social care

Bucks CC LS6 Assumed growth in service demand will be in-line with population growth. For the 20 to 60 yr old population projected to be a 16% increase in demand for adult social care services above existing levels. The current ratio of elderly care beds is 903 places per 100,000 population

Yes The demographic projections for AV indicate that the largest growth will be in the 65+ population, which will place increasing demands on services for the elderly. In response to this, new models of care are being investigated and the government in the CSR07 has agreed to investigate the area of elderly care.

Total capital cost of £5,500,000 Revenue costs of £2m

Capital costs for special needs flats are based on a unit cost of £122K at 2006 prices. Nursing unit room costed at £55K at 2006 prices.

Youth and community services

Bucks CC LS7 None provided Partially. There is an existing shortfall in service provision.

Anticipating a parallel increase in homeless young people as population growth, but no ratio provided, and need is not quantified.

Capital costs total £2.5m No revenue costs provided

Stated construction cost equates to £1,880/m2. This is reasonable at current 2007 prices. Recommend inflation index to 2011.


Service area

Service provider

AVA ref.



Validation comments

Cost assumes 50% funding from other service providers.

Children and young people social care

Bucks CC LS8 Based on appraisal of the proportion of looked after children, children on the child protection register, children in need and children with a disability.

Yes It is projected that there will be 576 additional children in need of whom 33 will need to be looked after; 34 children likely to have a disability; and 8 children on the child protection register.

Capital costs of £1.5m but revenue costs not provided.

AVA schedule had a capital cost of £1.5m equally spread over the four spend periods. Response to validation questions dated 7.11.07 shows increased provision totalling £3.0m. Spend profile not indicated. Costs are normalised at 2007 prices.

Waste

Refuse collection and recycling (includes new vehicle and depot and recycling points)

Aylesbury Vale DC

LS41/42/43/44

3 large refuse collection vehicles required for every 7,500 properties based on current service patterns. Requirement for small vehicle to serve high density urban development. New depot required to house additional vehicles because existing site does not have spare capacity. No methodology provided for recycling points but eight recycling points required. Each new house would require a wheelie bin and recycling basket. Flats require a communal facility.

Yes, although influenced by changes in recycling patterns.

Vehicle requirements will be influenced by type of development (high density development requires small vehicle rather than large ones, increased recycling would change the type of vehicles required and the location of waste disposal points is important in determining the amount of down time for a vehicle travelling to / from the waste disposal point. AVDC looking to share facilities with Bucks CC waste services for the new depot to reduce costs. There is no direct correlation between population growth and the number of recycling points. Location of recycling points is a matter of opportunity in being able to identify suitably located sites. AVDC is intending to provide recycling points that are underground to reduce visual intrusiveness. Provision directly related to growth.

Capital costs for new vehicles total £2m. Revenue costs for collection services total £1.97m New depot capital costs total £7.5m Capital costs of dry recycling points total £100,000 to £120,000 Capital costs of refuse receptacles totals £1m . Revenue costs total £106,000

Costs appear robust at current prices. Some capital and all operating costs are spread over the four spend periods at current rates. Inflation indices should be applied. Land costs of new depot not included because it is assumed these will be offset by selling existing depot. Original cost estimates were for £15,000 per site but these have increased to £20,000, although they depend on ground conditions and would be cheaper if surface recycling points were used. Unclear why revenue costs differ from LS41 and clarification required that there is not double counting taking place.

Waste disposal

Bucks CC SO4 None provided Partially. Also to meet changes in legislation requiring greater recycling of rubbish and reduced use of landfill.

Three projects identified within the schedule all three have a catchment that is wider than Aylesbury town. Project one – North Bucks compost processing facility is proposed to be a design, build and operate scheme funded by a private operator. Therefore, funding should not be sought through developer contributions. Project two – two household recycling centres. Funding committed for one site at Aston Clinton and the second centre is to replace an existing centre at Buckingham, and is not required as a result of growth. Project three – energy from waste plant, required to replace existing landfill contracts for the whole of Buckinghamshire which expire in 2009 and 2012. This project is a county wide facility and the requirement is only partially linked to growth. The above three schemes are required regardless of growth and the CC waste management section estimate that project 1 is 30% attributable to growth, project 2 20% and project 3 5%.

Total capital costs of the three projects that is attributable to growth is £8.5m of which £7m is to be sourced from BCC. No revenue costs given

Capital costs are normalised for the base year 2006/07. Of the capital costs, 50 % are attributed to the existing population, thus £56.1m attributable to growth.


Service area

Service provider

AVA ref.



Validation comments

Affordable housing

Aylesbury Vale DC

LH1 Uses the MKSM and draft RSS percentage of 40% and calculates provision at a rate of 30%. Acknowledges that this applies only to sites over 15 dwellings, but the figures provided are a general percentage across the board.

Yes It is not possible to determine at this stage how many units will come forward on sites of less than 15 units and the approach taken is considered acceptable in the circumstances. Since the AVA schedule was compiled, the Panel Report into the RSS has been published and this has reduced the percentage of affordable housing to 35% on sites of 15 or more units. At 35% a global figure of 7,525 affordable units would be built. However, until the final version of the RSS is published AVDC will require 40% affordable housing in accordance with their adopted SPD. The figures provided within the AVA schedule and revised to take account of the Panel Report are in reality higher than the market will deliver. However, changes to the delivery mechanisms available to local authorities, likely to be contained in the Housing and Regeneration Bill, could potentially result in greater delivery from other sources. The estimate of affordable housing, although higher than likely delivery, also fails to reflect the fact that there is an existing backlog of affordable housing in the district of 6,889 households. No provision has been made for supported housing. Increasingly the needs of the elderly and those with disabilities are being provided for in their own homes.

Provide the level of public subsidy at 30 and 40 percent delivery. The figures are £189.6M at 30% and £252.8m at 40%. The only revenue cost to the Council is for supported housing projects and these have not been calculated.

Land cost which not able to value at a general level. Public subsidy required is calculated to be £252,800,000. Revenue costs not provided. Main revenue cost is Supporting People funding which is a central government fund. Estimate of costs not possible to validate. Subject to population growth, central government policy etc. over the period.

Inward investment

Aylesbury Vale DC

SO2 No methodology provided Partially, but continued support required for existing businesses.

No real justification for additional staff or why funding should come from developers. No capital costs but additional revenue costs of £145,000 per annum.

Transport

Road projects

ST1 See Table 3.5

Rail projects ST1 See Table 3.5 Costs considered to be either too low or too high Costs considered reasonable Unable to verify costs


PROJECT

(Objectives)

Desired

Date of completion

Scheme design

costs (£m)

Scheme construction

costs

Potential

Funding sources

Funding Status

Status Validation Categorisation

A413 Wendover Road Corridor & Gyratory Improvements To focus car based traffic movements from south & south-east on high quality corridor, enabling development of public transport corridors on southern radial routes. Required to enhance connectivity for employment growth at Aston Clinton Road MDA and housing growth to the south of Aylesbury.

2016-2026 Costs to take

scheme through

from being an idea to

point where constructio

n or implementa

tion can commence

Costs of constructing or implementing

scheme

LTP / Developer

contributions

No funding Sources

secured for design work.

Proposed for investigation.

The Aston Clinton Road MDA will be completed by year 2016. If the primary purpose of this upgrade is to facilitate access to the ACR MDA this scheme must be a priority for completion by that date. Urgency will be reinforced if first phase of Southern Arc development takes place east of Aylesbury to Marylebone railway line. Further studies will be required to identify the nature of works required. Unclear when these are programmed to take place or how they will be funded.

Requested

A4146 Fenny Stratford Bypass To improve capacity on existing link as part of MK to Aylesbury strategic route (as identified in MKSM SRS). Provides access to development areas on SW fringe of MK. Will facilitate MK to Aylesbury express bus service.

2016-2021 Unknown Unknown LTP or RFA Major

Scheme Bid

Uncommitted

Proposed for Investigation

No modelling has been undertaken to test level of traffic increase and no work on costs yet undertaken.

Requested

A418 route improvements (Wing & Rowsham sections) To improve capacity and journey times between Aylesbury and MK,Luton / Dunstable / Houghton Regis & Leighton / Linslade growth areas.

2011-2021 £0.5m £77 Million DfT (Major Scheme Bid)

Uncommitted Under Investigation

The Council has consulted on four viable route options, two for the Rowsham section and two for the Wing section. A decision expected in September/ October 2007 has been delayed. Further work will be required to conclude the anticipated level of traffic flows which will be using these proposed links in order to determine their size, and hence establish a more robust cost figure. This could take another 18 months. A do minimum option has yet to be assessed and although a public transport study has been undertaken, the benefits of alternative measures have not been assessed. The local authority will be required to fund 10% of the scheme ( at present estimated to be £8m). This funding is not currently available. There is a considerable risk that the project may not be completed to coincide with the development of the allocated MDAs. If the funding is not found for developing the project to its next stage then, at present there is no prospect of it being funded through the normal channels in the next decade. The long term timescale of developing and implementing the total project (part 1 and part 2) means that it is not going to succeed against the criteria associated with CIF bids (especially the requirements to have a higher degree of confidence that the project will be delivered within two years).

Required (Identified as strategic priority in MKSM SRS)

Aylesbury Eastern Link Road (A41 East – A418 North East)

£0.5m £50m DfT (Major Scheme Bid)

This link is assumed in all Bucks CC traffic modelling of growth options for Aylesbury. Too late to secure developer funding from Aston Clinton MDA. CIF funding eligibility would be dependent upon the County completing the

Required

Transport validation table

PROJECT

(Objectives)

Desired

Date of completion

Scheme design

costs (£m)

Scheme construction

costs

Potential

Funding sources

Funding Status


Link between Aston Clinton and A418 is required to take pressure off of the A41 which is constrained and not able to accommodate significant growth in traffic levels.

work required to take progress to a Major Scheme Bid. Current guidance on S106 planning obligations is not supportive of funding such early stage design work where there is no clear prospect of timely implementation from developer contributions.

A421 Tingewick to MK Upgrade Online improvements to route to improve capacity & journey times as part of MK to Oxford (M40) strategic route

2016-2021 Unknown £50 Uncommitted Under Investigation

No formal appraisal of the case for improvement and the form it should take has yet been made. Initial preliminary estimate costs required improvements at around £48m (at 2005 prices in the Bucks LTP). Further studies are required to finalise this figure. Timescales for the design and approval processes make it unlikely that construction could start until 2013 or later.

Required (Scheme identified in

MKSM SRS).

Aylesbury Southern Link Road Provide link between A41 East & A418 West (supporting employment growth at Aston Clinton Road MDA, housing growth to the south of Aylesbury)

2011-2026 £50m GAF (feasibility)

Developer

Contributions

Uncommitted

Uncommitted

Under Investigation

Required to provide access to housing development to south of Aylesbury. One option is to build link road in stages related to the phasing of the Southern Growth Arc. The link road will have to cross two rail lines and the Council have commenced negotiations with Network Rail regarding the costs of bridging the rail lines.

Essential (Subject to LDF Adoption)

A418 route improvements (Hulcott Crossroads to Aylesbury with A41 Link)

To increase capacity & journey times as part of MK to Aylesbury strategic route.

2011-26 Unknown Under Investigation

Required (identified in MKSM

SRS)

New additional railway station on Princes Risborough Line New station in Southern Growth Arc to improve access to Southern Growth Arc

2016-2026 Unknown £5m DfT Chiltern Railways

Developer Contributions

Uncommitted Proposed for Investigation

Chiltern Rail is considering upgrading the Princes Risborough Line. Network Rail’s position on this proposal is unknown.

Requested

Route upgrade - Aylesbury to High Wycombe Track & signalling upgrade to rail link to enhance connectivity (potential for MK to HW route via EWR) & productivity (linked to North South transport links study identified below)

Requested


PROJECT

(Objectives)

Desired

Date of completion

Scheme design

costs (£m)

Scheme construction

costs

Potential

Funding sources

Funding Status


East-West Rail – Western Section: Aylesbury Spur Strategic rail route linking Bedford to Oxford and Aylesbury (via MK) to improve connectivity, enhance travel choices & support housing & employment growth in MKSM growth areas.

2008-2016 Unknown £64m Developer Contributions

/ Chiltern Railways

Uncommitted Under Investigation

(GRIP 4)

The GRIP 2 report March 2007 costed the Aylesbury Spur at £64m The cost benefit ratio (DBR) for the Oxford to MK section of the route falls away significantly from 2.7 to 1.3 and 1.0 with the inclusion of the Aylesbury spur. This is not improved by the inclusion of developer contributions. As the majority of the scheme funding will come from the private sector, East West Rail does not appear in the recent Government White Paper “Delivering a Sustainable Railway” but it is mentioned in the DfT Thames Valley Regional Planning Assessment for the Railway (June 2007). The EiP Panel Report gives support to the implementation of East West Rail. Work is currently under way to develop the operating and business case for the overall Oxford – MK section of E-W Rail. This work is due for completion by the end of 2007.

Required (MKSM SRS and

Panel Report for South East Plan).

Aylesbury Primary Public Transport Corridors (PPTCs) Improvements to A413 (N), A41 (SE), B4443, A418 (SW) & A41 (W) to provide public transport priority and services on key radial routes,

2006-21 £17m Provisionally approved

Design work has already commenced and construction is now well underway. The fourth and final phase will be completed by Autumn 2008.

Essential (committed)


Buckinghamshire Infrastructure Study Phase One Final Report

Appendix 3

Non-growth related factors influencing service provision

Service area Service provider AVA ref. Non-growth related factors that will result in changes to service provision Health

Acute Buckinghamshire Hospital Trust

SH2 No response received

Primary

Buckinghamshire PCT

SH1 • Services based on individual needs and choices (with the needs of the patient being paramount) using clinically proven protocols • Use of workforce and buildings productively • Localise where possible, centralise where necessary (bringing care closer to home when appropriate but having the right specialisms available in hospitals when needed) • Integrated care and partnership working (between health and social care for example) to maximise the contribution of the entire workforce • Prevention being better than cure (in a whole range of circumstances from diabetes to heart disease) as well as health promotion • Focus on health inequalities and diversity

Mental health Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership Trust

SH3 • Improved standards for inpatient care (privacy, dignity); • Continued investment in community mental health services; • Maintaining critical mass of inpatient services to sustain 24hr staffing whilst meeting EU and UK regulations on employment standards.

Education Higher Bucks New University

(formally Bucks Chiltern University College)

SE1 No response received

Further Aylesbury College • New businesses locating in the area and employer engagement • Government’s skills agenda and training priorities

Secondary BCC

LE6 • As LS6 • Demographic issues. • The BCC Property Strategy and Property Review to be completed in the summer of 2008.

Primary BCC

• As LS6 • Demographic issues. • The BCC Property Strategy and Property Review to be completed in the summer of 2008.

Extended hours

BCC

SE2 • Increase in population • Provision for new businesses coming into the area • Government skills agenda and priorities including the increase in compulsory schooling from 16-18 (from 2013) • 14-19 agenda • Employer engagement

Special schooling BCC LE3 • 2004 Children Act and associated Every Child Matters programme • 2006 Education and Inspections Act

Adult BCC LE6 • None identified Emergency services

Police

Thames Valley Constabulary

SO31 • Annual Force Strategic Assessment • Strategic Plans and Delivery Plans • National Policies, political reforms, PSAs, assessment of policing and community safety (APACS) • LAAs • Community Engagement • Environmental and socio-demographics • Technology (increase in IT crime) • Legislation (e.g. Counter Terrorism Bill) • Economics (funding)

Fire

Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue

SO32 • Fire and Rescue Service Act 2004 • Civil Contingencies Act 2004 • Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 • The Fire and Rescue Service National Framework 2006-08; including:

o New Dimensions Programme o CLG FiRe Control Project o CLG Firelink Project o CLG FiRe Buy Programme o Integrated Personal Development Plans

• Government requirements regarding cashable and non-cashable efficiency savings • Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire Authority Integrated Risk Management Plan

Service area Service provider AVA ref. Non-growth related factors that will result in changes to service provision • Requirement to initiate proactive services to achieve enhanced community safety.

Ambulance South Central Ambulance Trust

SO33 No response received

Community facilities Open space

AVDC/BCC LO1a/b/d/e • The need to provide green spaces and play provision with new housing developments

• The need to encourage greater use of open space • The need to encourage more healthy activity

Nature reserves AVDC/BCC LO1c • As LO1a/b/d/e Playing pitches /

MUGAS AVDC LO3 • The need to provide green spaces and play provision with new housing developments • The need to encourage greater healthy activity and increased participation in sport

Children’s play areas AVDC LO2 • As LO1a/b/d/e Community centres AVDC LO4 • The need to provide greater community engagement and to provide a tailored service to individual community groups.

• Where possible to encourage community ownership and management of new facilities Sports centres and

swimming pools

AVDC

LO9 • Increasing participation • Performance driven • Greater partnership working between public private sector • Widening access for the whole community • London 2012 Olympics • Use of leisure to support wider agendas – health, community safety, community cohesion, tackling fear of crime, young people

Arts / heritage / entertainment

AVDC

LO7 & LO8 • Public art strategy for Aylesbury Vale which is due to be produced during 2008 • Queens Park Arts Centre are looking to purchase the freehold of their site which would give them greater security to develop a range of services • AV and MK have been selected as apriority area for the Arts Council of the South East. • Aylesbury Civic Centre to be closed in 2008 with a new theatre opening in 2009 • Competition from other settlements, such as, Milton Keynes, High Wycombe, Oxford, London and new planned facilities in Hemel Hempstead. • Public demands

Allotments AVDC

LO10 • Smaller garden sizes • Increased development of flats • Desire for organic food

Community development AVDC LO11

Town centre public realm AVDC LO12

Libraries BCC LS1 • Library service review • GC2C, Pathfinder and service delivery from community hubs

Crematorium and burial grounds AVDC LS2

Museum and archive BCC LS3 Wendover Woodland

Park Forestry Commission LO1f • Implementing Defra’s “A strategy for England’s trees, woods and forests”

Social care Adult social care

Youth and community services AVDC LS7 • none identified – would need to speak to partners

Children and young people BCC LS8 • 2004 Children Act and associated Every Child Matters programme

• 2006 Education and Inspections Act Waste Refuse collection and

recycling (includes new vehicle and depot and

recycling points)

LS41 / 42 / 43 / 44

• Key driver for recycling collection is the need to reduce the amount of waste to landfill to meet the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme targets (LATS) which have been agreed as part of the joint municipal waste strategy for Bucks and to meet AVDC recycling best value performance indicator of 30%

Waste disposal BCC SO4 • Changes in legislation – landfill directive • fiscal – landfill tax

Service area Service provider AVA ref. Non-growth related factors that will result in changes to service provision • policy – managing waste more sustainably by recycling and composting more and recovering energy from waste.

Affordable housing BCC

LH1 • Grant funding • Broader base of providers • Housing Corporation Sustainability Code

Inward investment Transport

Road projects BCC Rail projects BCC ST1

Appendix 4: Community Infrastructure Levy

The Government published a statement on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in January 2008. A summary of the document is provided below.

Legislative Framework

The Planning Bill provides the legislative framework for a CIL and allows for the preparation of Regulations to explain the detail of the new regime and how the process will work. The Regulations will be flexible when drawn up to allow for subsequent changes when it is placed into practice.

The CIL Regulations will ensure a number of safeguards to ensure accountability and transparency that were lacking in the past system of developer contributions and existing legislative framework. This includes the procedure on setting the charges, monitoring the use of CIL, accounting separately for CIL receipts and a requirement to report how the money is collected and spent. The Bill enables the Regulations to specify what should happen when an infrastructure project which is intended to receive CIL is no longer requires to be funded.

Setting the CIL

To set the CIL, Authorities will have to produce a comprehensive statement on infrastructure need which is embedded within the development plan system to ensure independent testing of proposals and consultation to ensure support and deliverability. Therefore, this process breaks the link between providing a contribution to mitigate against the impact of development to a needs assessment.

Setting CIL will be a two step process:

1. Identification of infrastructure need and how much it will cost 2. Calculation of what contribution each development should make to the

cost.

Authorities charging the CIL should have regard to the following:

� Regional Economic Strategy and infrastructure plans of the area � items that are likely to enable, facilitate or mitigate the impact of

development in the area � the likely yield and likely development viability � only include items that would occur within the period covered by the

development plan � the level of funding likely to be available from other sources � prioritise pieces of infrastructure likely to make the biggest contribution to

enable development.

The authority should also produce a draft charging schedule setting out the rate and or formula of determining how the levy might be calculated. There may be a case for varying charges based on local conditions.

Regulations for determining the amount of CIL to pay could be based on the likely increase in the value of land as a result of planning permission to ensure the viability of the development is not affected by CIL payments as well as taking into account of financial contributions such as affordable housing.

CIL as a funding source for Infrastructure

CIL will contribute to the cost of infrastructure needed to support the development or an area but is not to be used as a general expenditure or the remedy for pre-existing deficiency unless

aggravated by new development. It can also be used on both new infrastructure provision and enhancing existing infrastructure to increase capacity.

The forthcoming Regulations will set out what is defined as ‘infrastructure’ which will be wide enough to encompass both social and environmental infrastructure. Affordable housing may also be included within this definition, although negotiated obligations should continue to provide for affordable housing to be delivered on site. It is noted that there is a need to ensure that there is no reduction in affordable contributions as a result of CIL. However, although CIL is not currently including affordable housing there is the flexibility to include it if evidence later shows that it is necessary.

The new Regulations may help with forward funding of projects by including the option to attribute CIL to expenditure which has already been incurred or the option of reserving CIL receipts that may be incurred in the future to allow for timely delivery of infrastructure.

Bodies such as the Environment Agency and the Highway Authority will be able to receive finding from the CIL revenue.

It is envisaged that CIL will make a significant contribution to providing infrastructure, although it will not be able to meet the entire cost of major infrastructure projects. Therefore infrastructure planning needs to take into account all funding streams available to the Authority.

Secretary of State Powers

The Secretary of State will have the power to ‘call in’ if it is considered that the spending of the CIL is inappropriate, and can cap charges of CILL although these powers will be used as a last resort.

The Role Of Planning Obligations

The CIL will not replace Section 106 contributions and that Authorities can opt not to use CIL to fund infrastructure. Section 106 will be retained as the legal underpinning for negotiated agreement. The Government intend to focus obligations on three areas, subject to consultation:

1. Non-financial, technical or operational matters. 2. Site specific impacts that the developments have on the immediate area

which need mitigation i.e. access roads, on site archaeology or the protection of endangered species found on the site.

3. Ensure that there is sufficient affordable housing.

Further Consultation

There is still a great deal of uncertainty on how the CIL will be delivered and how the charges will be set and therefore subsequent rounds of consultation will be undertaken on these matters including how to incorporate sub-regional infrastructure and in determining the amount of CIL to pay.

Appendix 5: Extract From Chelmsford BC Tariff

SPD Consultation Draft (2007)

An Outline Business Case (OBC) should be established through the requirements of (a)-(g) as set out below, should form an OBC for the scheme to show. This is to ensure that schemes are deliverable and justify an application for development finance from Planning Contributions to provide new or enhanced infrastructure.

2. The OBC will need to demonstrate what other appropriate sources of funding may be available, and service providers will be expected to commit to pursue such applications in a timely and proper manner. The timetable and monitoring arrangements must allow for the LPA to be kept informed of the making and progress of such applications and to make representations where appropriate in support of such applications.

A) Infrastructure must be a scheme that arises from an operational or enabling need required to deliver the objectives of the Spatial Strategy.

B) Infrastructure schemes must be an identified project programmed for delivery by Service Providers (which is either fully evaluated or where feasibility and evaluation is in progress and the scheme has an “in principle” approval). This should include how the scheme is to be financed and the basis of apportionment between Planning Contributions and other sources.

C) There is an agreed programme within a specified timeframe to fulfil criterion (b) which includes identifying the realistic target by which there is expected to be a contractual commitment within an appropriate timescale to meet the implementation requirements of the Plan (to be identified in consultation between the service provider and the LPA). In the case of Community Infrastructure it is expected the projects will form part of an approved programme, which will meet these requirements. If Contributions may be allocated between competing or alternative schemes depending on the progress of implementation or to take account of future changes of circumstances, then this must be identified and specifically agreed with the LPA.

D) It is demonstrated how the scheme arises from and meets the demands of new development; and/or to the extent that it is a modification or extension to an existing scheme or is necessary to deal with an existing deficiency that it is deliverable within an appropriate timescale to meet the Plan, including that it meets eligibility criteria in terms of priority and access to required supplementary or other principal funding.

E) The application is accompanied by a written justification from the service provider demonstrating the need for the infrastructure scheme and for the extent of Planning Contributions sought, and confirmation that the service provider is able and willing to justify the case in DC development control terms at a hearing, appeal or inquiry required.

F) The revenue implication and adequate funding resources are identified.

G) There is an agreed monitoring and implementation framework, which comply with the principles of the Business Case Planning.

Appendix 6: Issues raised by Southern Arc

Consortium

The study team met with representatives of the Southern Arc Consortium on 8 January 2008. The study team presented the emerging findings of the Infrastructure Study. A number of initial comments were made, as follows:

� Need for clarification on the significance of the potential cashflow gap and whether it necessitate the need for forward funding. If so how could forward funding be secured, and which organisation would take on the role of banker (as English Partnerships have done in Milton Keynes)?

� The need for an Area Action Plan for the Southern Arc was questioned. A Supplementary Planning Document would be the preferred process providing greater speed and enhanced flexibility.

� The LDF Core Strategy will need to include sufficient detail off which an SPD can hang. A strategic business plan in itself will not be sufficient.

� There is a need to differentiate between costs for the Southern Arc and the rest of Aylesbury.

� Clarification sought as to whether developer charges would apply to retail and employment uses.

� Confirmation that that infrastructure costs for the Arc will need to be known in full upfront to enable gross to gross equalisation between landowners.

� Support for a Section 106 based approach that would allow for different solutions to infrastructure provision (i.e. in-kind versus pooled contributions).

� Support for the need for any approach to be flexible enough to deal with the transition towards a Community Infrastructure Levy.

Colin Buchanan45 Notting Hill GateLondonW11 3PBT 020 7309 7000E [email protected]

LONDON BRISTOL CARDIFF EDINBURGH GLASGOW MANCHESTER NEWBURY BELFAST DUBLIN GALWAY

November 2007

Buckinghamshire. . .

Buckinghamshire infrastructure study

TRANSPORT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING URBAN DESIGN ECONOMICS MARKET RESEARCH

Buckinghamshire County Council

Interim report

Documents

Aylesbury Vale District Council Buckinghamshire ...old.buckscc.gov.uk/media/136833/Buckinghamshire_Infrastructure... · Appendix 1: Responses from service providers Service provider