LB Barking & Dagenham Social Infrastructure Needs Assessment · a Social Infrastructure Needs Assessment for development proposals across the Borough between 2006 and 2027. The work

LB Barking & Dagenham Social Infrastructure Needs Assessment

FINAL REPORT

NOVEMBER 2006

LB Barking & Dagenham Social

Infrastructure Needs Assessment

Final Report

November 2006

Prepared by EDAW & Bevan Brittan

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

2 Policy Context

3 Evaluation of current commercial and legal landscape and scope for cooperation

4 Analysis of Housing & Population Growth

5 Analysis of Future Social Infrastructure Requirements

6 Mapping & Analysis

7 Analysis of Co-location and Integration Potential

8 Recommendations with regard to Delivery Mechanisms

Appendices

A1 Development Sites Included within Study

A2 Demographic Impact Methodology Assumptions

A3 Ethnicity & Religious Profile

A4 Co-location Matrix & Conclusions

A5 Existing Partnership Arrangements

A6 Facilities Database

A7 List of Consultees

A8 Revenue Assumptions

A9 Land Value Assumptions

A10 Social Infrastructure Facility Build Costs – Gardiner & Theobald Analysis

A11 Assumptions and Exclusions for the Social Infrastructure Budget Works

A12 Sources of Data & Associated Validators

LB Barking and Dagenham Social Infrastructure Needs Assessment



Glossary of Acronyms & Abbreviations

BOCUs Borough Operational Command Units

BSF Building Schools for the Future

CABE Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

CAMHS Child and Adolescent Mental Heath Services

CAMV Community Asset Management Vehicle

CAP

CPA Comprehensive Performance Assessment

CPO Compulsory Purchase Order

DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sports

DETR Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

DfES Department for Education and Skills

FAMV Facilities Asset Management Vehicle

FE Form Entries

GLA Greater London Authority

GP General Practitioner

GPwSI GPs with a Specialist Interest

ha. hectare

LA Local Authority

LAA Local Area Agreement

LB London Borough

LBBD London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

LDF Local Development Framework

LEGI Local Enterprise Growth Initiative

LEP Local Education Partnership

LHCS London Housing Capacity Study

LIFT Local Improvement Finance Trust

LiftCo. Local Improvement Finance Trust Company

LINks Local Involvement Networks

LLV Lower Lea Valley

LSP Local Strategic Partnership

LTG London Thames Gateway

MLSOA Middle Level Super Output Area


MPA Metropolitan Police Authority

N/A Not Applicable

NHS National Health Service

NPFA National Playing Field Association

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

OJEU Official Journal of the European Union

ONS Office of National Statistics

OSPCC One Stop Primary Care Centres

PCC Primary Care Centre

PCDTC Primary Care Diagnostic & Treatment Centres

PCT Primary Care Trust

PFI Private Finance Initiative

PPG Planning Policy Guidance

PPP Public Private Partnership

RAF Resource Allocation Formula

SASP Significant Area for Sport

SCA Stakeholder Co-operation Agreement

SEERA South East England Regional Assembly

SHA Strategic Health Authority

SI Social Infrastructure

SIF Social Infrastructure Framework

sq.m. square metre

UDP Unitary Development Framework

VCOs Voluntary and Community Organisations

VCS Voluntary and Community Services

VFM Value for Money


Executive Summary

Introduction

In June 2006, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham commissioned EDAW and Bevan Brittan to prepare a Social Infrastructure Needs Assessment for development proposals across the Borough between 2006 and 2027. The work was initiated to provide the Council with a clear strategy for the development of social infrastructure in the Borough by undertaking a review of the local issues relating to the supply of and future demand for a range of social infrastructure services, and subsequently inform the approach to the delivery of the social infrastructure required and the approach to S106/capital receipts related to the programme of development.

As part of the London Thames Gateway, LB Barking and Dagenham (LBBD) is undergoing a period of significant development and growth envisaged by the LBBD Regeneration Strategy as ‘An Urban Renaissance for East London’. One of the main aims of the LBBD Community Strategy is to ‘Build Sustainable Communities’ and so, subsequently, LBBD is working with partners to ensure that the social infrastructure - schools, health facilities, children’s centres and public spaces – is planned into the new developments form the outset1.

Current housing capacity for LBBD provides for just under 30,000 net new homes by 2027, representing a significant increase to the Borough’s population and, therefore, a huge impact on existing resources. With development of this scale, it is unlikely that the needs of the new population could be provided for by existing services and facilities. It is vital, therefore, that the additional social infrastructure needs are recognised at this early stage to enable them to be planned into any new development.

To ensure that the regeneration vision is delivered effectively and comprehensively across LB Barking and Dagenham:-

(i) a social infrastructure needs analysis has therefore been undertaken to assess the demand for services and facilities, identify current shortfalls and service delivery ‘pressure points’, and cater for 44% increase in the resident population by 2027; and

(ii) a review of existing delivery arrangements has been carried out with a view to developing an overall integrated and co-ordinated approach to delivery which maximises efficient use of the resources available and optimises the service delivery format for the end users.

The services considered in this analysis include:

• Primary, Mental and Acute Healthcare Services;

• Community facilities including Libraries and Adult Learning, Local Service Centres, and Youth services/facilities for young people;

• Education (early years, primary and secondary);

• Leisure, recreation and open space/green spaces;

• Emergency & Essential Services.

The Project has overall objectives to:

• help underpin a crucial element in creating new sustainable communities in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham;

• promote the health and well-being of both new and existing populations across the local area;

• enable service delivery agencies to better manage uncertainties in the development and forecasting process;

• provide a mechanism that identifies the social infrastructure required alongside new population growth;

• draw together a range of key stakeholders to work together to evolve joined up solutions to address future social infrastructure needs; and

LBBD (2004) 2016 and Beyond: Meeting the changing needs of Barking and Dagenham, p.3


1

• provide opportunities (where appropriate) for the creation of joint delivery vehicles based upon models of best practice, promote the efficient use of resources and provide opportunities for convenient co-location and integrated service delivery.

Policy Review

A full policy review was carried out as part of the assessment focussing on the following policy areas:

• Planning and Growth

• Children, Young People, Education and Learning

• Health and Social Care

• Leisure and Recreation

• Emergency and Essential Services

Given the emerging focus that is being placed upon providing ‘joined up’ social, community, health and education services and also an increased emphasis on preventative rather than a reactive emergency service with more direct community involvement, it is likely that the distinction between the above five separate components will become increasingly blurred.

Calculating Future Population Yields

Using a combination of the most appropriate data sources, an understanding of the cumulative gross new housing proposals and total existing properties that will be replaced have together established the scope and scale of housing and population change. These figures, combined with 2004-based ONS projections of population growth (without new housing development) have formed the base data required in the demographic impact assessment and associated social infrastructure assessment carried out in this report. Based on the ONS 2004-based population projections, the Borough as a whole, not taking into account new housing growth, could see an increase in the existing baseline population of approximately 10,150, rising from 164,875 to 175,018 in 2027. By 2016, however the population projections suggest the increase would be as little as 3,500.

In an innovative approach towards demographic impact assessments, this report has brought together a host of alternative population forecasting methodologies for consideration and tested the future housing growth against a wide range of alternative data sources. Added to the baseline population figures provided by ONS data, these alternative methodologies indicated that the cumulative growth of the population across the Borough by 2027 would result in approximately 238,096 people. This figure suggests a net new population increase of 73,221 people, and this number was chosen as the basis for visually modelling the local social infrastructure needs across the area.

In addition to total population impacts, the analysis has also looked at likely child yield impacts from the planned developments. This analysis was carried out in the same technique as that described above forecasting a cumulative population growth to 49,629 children (aged 0-15 years) by 2027, which represents a net child population growth of 10,506 children.

Assessment of Social Infrastructure Requirements

The adjusted number of early year places required across the borough was calculated to be approximately 756 by 2016; the associated impact on the workforce is a need for 181 early years staff. In the event of a full build out of all housing capacity sites, however, this demand would equal 1,355 early year places by 2027. Across the four sub-areas of the LB Barking and Dagenham area there is a total of 274 child-minders, 6 crèches, 2 family centres, 19 full day care providers, 37 nursery schools within schools and 17 pre-school nurseries. Overall access to early year’s childcare provision is reasonably good across the entire Borough with the clear exception being in the South Riverside Area where strong levels of demand anticipated are not met at all by existing supply. Relatively high levels of demand expected in the Barking Area and in the East are also unlikely to be met by existing supply, suggesting that additional facilities may need to be provided.

Demographic analysis work estimated that the child yield anticipated from the new housing growth, cumulated with anticipated normal population growth in the study area had the potential to require approximately 2,589


additional primary school places (or 12.3 form entries). This analysis has applied a 7% reduction for the proportion of children from new market housing who were likely to attend private schools and also takes into account surplus capacity in existing or planned primary schools in each of the sub-areas of assessment. Across LB Barking and Dagenham there are 22 primary schools, 13 junior schools and 14 infant schools. Of the 22 primary schools within LB Barking and Dagenham, the capacity exists for approximately 17,466 places to be provided with approximately 1,216 surplus spaces currently. There is a relatively good level of school accessibility in the majority of the Borough with the clear exception once again being the South Riverside Area which, in line with childcare places, has been identified as a site producing significant new primary school place requirements in the future. Despite having reasonably good access currently, the Barking sub-area is also anticipated to create significant demand for primary school places throughout the development period which will not be met in full by current provision.

In relation to secondary school places, demographic analysis work estimated that the child yield anticipated from the new housing growth, cumulated with anticipated normal population growth in the study area, had the potential to require approximately 639 additional secondary school places (or 3 form entries). As mentioned in the case of primary school demand, this analysis has applied a 7% reduction for the proportion of children who were likely to attend private schools and also takes into account and surplus capacity in existing or planned secondary schools in each of the sub-areas of assessment. Across LB Barking and Dagenham there are 9 secondary schools which have the capacity for 11,330 places with a current surplus of 439 places. In line with the patterns for childcare and primary school provision, the South Riverside and Eastern area have particularly poor provision with no secondary school currently located within the South Riverside area. Again, this creates a significant concern when considering the strong levels of demand for additional provision that proposed new development would create. There is one 8FE secondary school currently proposed for the South Riverside Area, however, which will help to absorb a significant level of the potential demand.

There is relatively good access to GP facilities across the Borough with the exception, once again, being the South Riverside Area. Two new facilities are already proposed for this area, however, which should help to absorb a great deal of demand, particularly in the short term. A few other hotspots of demand that are not met by current or proposed facilities are also identified in the Eastern and Barking areas. The demographic analysis work estimated that the population growth associated with natural trends and new housing in the study area had the potential to require approximately 43 additional GPs and approximately 4,068 sq.m of primary care facility floorspace, by 2027, representing a significant increase in primary care provision that will be required across the Borough over the development period.

Analysis has found poor accessibility to dental care facilities across LB Barking and Dagenham with the majority of the Borough not within a 10 minute walk of an existing facility. The South Riverside Area has particularly poor accessibility matched by a significant level of demand anticipated across the development period, indicating the need for additional provision to be developed in the area. A significant increase in demand in the Barking area is also unlikely to be met by current provision, therefore requiring additional provision to be incorporated into the area. The demographic analysis indicated a need for approximately 37 dentists to meet the population growth requirement. Although some of this demand may be absorbed by boosting the capacity of existing facilities, it is likely that some additional provision will also be needed as the different phases of development are realised.

In terms of Community related facilities, there is a clear concentration of provision in the North and Central and Barking areas with a significant lack of facilities across the South Riverside and Eastern areas. The demographic analysis identified a potential demand for approximately 4,466sq.m of community space provision across the Borough over the development period.

The Borough contains 11 libraries with the greatest concentration of these being in the North and Central Area. Analysis of projected demand for library space arising from the projected population growth indicates a demand for approximately 1,937 sq.m. of library space by 2027. Accessibility to existing library facilities has been calculated using a 1 mile walking radius of each library in order to compare against Government policy requirements which require at least 99% of an Outer London Borough’s population to be within 1 mile of a static library. Current provision in the Borough appears to exceed this target with the majority of the population within a 1 mile walk of an existing facility. LB Barking and Dagenham is also currently reviewing its library provision which will potentially involve the consolidation of some smaller facilities into new larger facilities that could provide a better service for a larger catchment area, therefore, helping to absorb some of the future demand that is being anticipated.


In line with current Government policy, future library provision may be integrated into other community facilities to maximise efficiency and accessibility. With regard to this, the cumulative demand for community space with library space provides a total of 6,403 sq.m. of multipurpose community space that would be needed over the development period. This figure is a cumulative figure, however, and does not take into account any space savings that could potentially involve co-location and/or integration of community and library facilities.

Despite the eight leisure centres within LB Barking and Dagenham, analysis found a significant lack of accessibility to existing facilities across the Borough with some exception in the Barking and Central areas. The demographic analysis anticipates a demand arising from development proposals which would require the equivalent of approximately 5 sports halls and 15 swimming pool lanes across the development period.

There is currently a relatively high quantity of open space within the Borough (417 ha), representing approximately 25.3 sq.m per person which falls short of the national standard of 26.5 sq.m. In order to maintain the Borough average, analysis identified a need to provide an additional 185 ha by 2027. Following national standards, this figure rises to 194 hectares. Both figures represent a significant level of additional provision which will be challenging to achieve. There are still some areas of low accessibility to open space within the Borough, particularly within the South Riverside Area, where current development proposals would also create the most significant levels of demand. Current Grampian conditions for the Barking Riverside area, however, do require a significant amount of open space to be provided before any significant level of residential development.

Police stations are located within the East, West and Northern areas of the Borough with an obvious lack of accessibility within the South. Safer Neighbourhood Teams, however, have a wider coverage across the North and Central, East and Barking Areas although, once again, lacking facilities within the South Riverside Area.

The two fire stations and one ambulance station that currently exist in the Borough are suitably located to ensure target response times to the majority of areas in the Borough. The exception of this is parts of the South Riverside and Eastern areas that currently contain obstacles that prevent the emergency services from responding in the target time of 8 minutes. It is important, therefore, that the proposed developments in these areas are carefully planned to ensure that the new development is designed in a way that not only enables the new housing to be reached within the target response time but also removes the existing barriers to access that currently prevent these target times from being achieved.

Co-location and Integration Potential

The analysis of demand by phase and sub-area enabled an analysis of the potential for some facilities to be provided in a co-located and/or integrated manner with some facilities having greater potential than others as well as informing the overall approach to delivery

Centres which provide natural hubs for service provision were found to include schools, health centres and leisure centres. Analysis of need across the four sub-areas came to the following conclusions of potential co-location and/or integration options:

The Barking sub-area has the potential for the co-location of an early years facility within a primary school, with some integrated facilities, and a multipurpose community space by 2011; early years facilities provided in a new primary school and new health centre by 2016; and a large primary care centre and small sports centre either colocated with each other or with other community facilities.

In the South Riverside area, demand could give rise to a co-located early years and primary school facility and a new 6FE secondary school containing a number of other facilities, such as a library and Safer Neighbourhood Team facility, by 2011; two early years facilities located within two new primary schools, a new sports centre located together with, or in close proximity to, a new Primary Care Centre and one or more of the new Safer Neighbourhood Teams to be co-located within an integrated facility accommodating a medium sized community hall & small community library, sharing a number of facilities, by 2016; and a new early years facility (or Children’s Centre) located within one of the new 2FE Primary Schools and a new 6FE Secondary School containing a large-sized hall, district-sized library, new 6-Lane swimming pool, and a new large 4-Sports Court facility all designed in a way to make them appropriate for use by the wider community.

Anticipated demand within the Eastern sub-area suggests the potential for a new early years facility (or Children’s Centre) co-located within a new neighbourhood health facility sharing a number of facilities by 2016; and a new early years facility (or Children’s Centre) located within a new 2FE Primary School sharing a number of facilities


and one small community hall & small library co-located with a Police Shop or Safer Neighbourhood Unit, sharing facilities.

Finally, demand within the North and Central Area by 2011, suggests the potential for a new Early Years (or Children’s Centre) facility located within a new 2FE Primary School, sharing facilities, and a new Early Years (or Children’s Centre) facility co-located within the new neighbourhood health centre, sharing a number of facilities such as treatment and consultation rooms; staff, toilet and catering facilities; by 2027 further potential for colocation and/or integration could be provided through a small community hall and library facility co-located with a Police Shop or Safer Neighbourhood Unit sharing certain facilities.

Recommendations for Delivery

As outlined in the LTG SIF Case For and Toolkit documentation, the overall approach to delivery is likely to operate at a number, if not all, of the three levels of the delivery chain i.e. at policy, stakeholder and project level.

Our recommendations for delivery are:-

− Alignment of Asset Disposal and Acquisition protocols – in order to make best use of the asset base available to stakeholders across the Borough, asset disposal and acquisition protocols between stakeholders need to be aligned;

− Using and Extending Existing Mechanisms - the existing delivery mechanisms of NHS LIFT and the proposed DfES BSF programme ought to be embraced, and where possible extended, for the delivery of single use health, social care, third party income, educational and leisure facilities respectively;

− Stakeholder Co-operation Agreement (‘SCA’) – a SCA ought to be implemented by stakeholders for the identification needs, design and delivery of joint service provision facilities as well as co-ordinating the use of new mechanisms with the existing LIFT and proposed BSF schemes so that potential cost savings of up to 33% can be achieved. In addition the SCA can be used to co-ordinate and increase access to both public and private sector funding streams as well as more efficient new delivery mechanisms which realise for stakeholders the full extent of the benefits available through PPP/ PFI delivery arrangements;

− Facilities Asset Management Vehicle (‘FAMV’) – a family of FAMVs ought to be created to hold all joint service provision facilities within the Borough on behalf of stakeholders and to act as a common landlord for stakeholders across the Borough in respect of such facilities so that their changing needs for the optimal location of their services can be accommodated as well as creating the potential to raise additional public and private sector finance from its asset base; and

− Community Asset Management Vehicle (‘CAMV’) – a family of CAMVs ought to be created to allow facilities to be made available to local communities in appropriate circumstances for the delivery of community services and to encourage wider engagement with community and independent sector groups.

− Planning Contribution Strategy – a transparent planning contribution strategy which engages with the private sector and is backed up by a commitment from stakeholders (through the SCA) to deliver the identified social infrastructure needs to a specified programme.



1. Introduction 1.1.1. In June 2006, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham commissioned EDAW and Bevan Brittan to

prepare a Social Infrastructure Needs for development proposals across the Borough between 2006 and 2027. The work was initiated to provide the Council with a clear strategy for the development of social infrastructure in the Borough by undertaking a review of the local issues relating to the supply of and future demand for a range of social infrastructure services, and subsequently inform the approach to S106/capital receipts related to the programme of development.

1.1.2. As part of the London Thames Gateway, LB Barking and Dagenham (LBBD) is undergoing a period of significant development and growth envisaged by the LBBD Regeneration Strategy as ‘An Urban Renaissance for East London’. One of the main aims of the LBBD Community Strategy is to ‘Build Sustainable Communities’ and so, subsequently, LBBD is working with partners to ensure that the social infrastructure - schools, health facilities, children’s centres and public spaces – is planned into the new developments form the outset2.

1.1.3. Current housing capacity for LBBD provides for just under 30,000 net new homes by 2027, representing a significant increase to the Borough’s population and, therefore, a huge impact on existing resources. With development of this scale, it is unlikely that the needs of the new population could be provided for by existing services and facilities. It is vital, therefore, that the additional social infrastructure needs are recognised at this early stage to enable them to planned into any new development and that an overall approach to delivery is implemented in order to maximise the efficient use of existing resources as well as accessing new resources to bridge any shortfalls.

1.2. SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND REVIEW OF DELIVERY ARRANGEMENTS

1.2.1. To ensure that the regeneration vision is delivered effectively and comprehensively across LB Barking and Dagenham, a social infrastructure needs analysis has therefore been undertaken to assess the demand for services and facilities, identify current shortfalls and service delivery ‘pressure points’, and cater for a 44% increase in the resident population by 2027

1.2.2. The services considered in this analysis include:

• Primary, Mental and Acute Healthcare Services;

• Community facilities including Libraries and Adult Learning, Local Service Centres, and Youth services/facilities for young people;

• Education (early years, primary and secondary);

• Leisure, recreation and open space/green spaces;

• Emergency & Essential services.

1.2.3. The study explores the predicted population growth of the area, clarifying population projections and future changing demographics over time. The study also looks at current and planned service provision addressing levels of supply against demand and enabling local stakeholders to evolve potential solutions for future provision.

1.2.4. As part of this review of the quantitative elements of supply and demand, this report will also explore current delivery chains and mechanisms to investigate methods of more effective and efficient delivery arrangements in order to ensure adequate provision of community services in order to meet anticipated demand. This element will, necessarily, involve an exploration of any barriers and hurdles, at national, regional, sub-regional and local level, to implementing the recommendations for the delivery of social infrastructure to enable these to be overcome at an early stage.

LBBD (2004) 2016 and Beyond: Meeting the changing needs of Barking and Dagenham, p.3


1

2

1.3. AIMS & OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 1.3.1. The key aim of the study is to identify and plan for the provisions of the social infrastructure that would

be required to support the LB Barking and Dagenham regeneration agenda, and therefore assist in the creation of healthy sustainable communities across the area.

1.3.2. The Project has overall objectives to:

• help underpin a crucial element in creating new sustainable communities in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham;

• promote the health and well-being of both new and existing populations across the local area;

• enable service delivery agencies to better manage uncertainties in the development and forecasting process;

• provide a mechanism that identifies the social infrastructure required alongside new population growth

• draw together a range of key stakeholders to work together to evolve joined up solutions to address future social infrastructure needs; and

• provide opportunities (where appropriate) for the co-ordination of existing delivery mechanisms as well as the creation of joint delivery vehicles based upon models of best practice, to promote the efficient use of resources and provide opportunities for convenient co-location and integrated service delivery.

1.3.3. The project provides the opportunity for stakeholders to develop a series of best practice models for integrated social facilities delivery and operation. It builds upon current and emerging Government guidance, local experience, and successful models that have been developed nationally and internationally.

1.4. STRUCTURE OF THIS DOCUMENT 1.4.1. The information contained in this document presents the outcomes from applying social infrastructure

demand and supply analysis across LB Barking and Dagenham based on current and future development scenarios. The report also contains high level costs analysis before going some way towards making recommendations for potential delivery mechanisms.

1.4.2. This report contains a series of chapters covering the following elements:

• Chapter 1: Introduction: An introduction to the project and this document;

• Chapter 2: Policy Context: Providing a brief summary of national, regional, sub-regional and local policy objectives in relation to the planning for , service format and delivery of social infrastructure facilities and services across LB Barking and Dagenham;

• Chapter 3: Evaluation of current commercial and legal landscape and scope for co-operation: The third chapter of this report summarises the audit of existing delivery chains and partnership arrangements undertaken as part of this analysis in order to establish any existing legal barriers or hurdles that may need to be overcome as well as to beginning to recommend potential mechanisms for delivery.

• Chapter 4: Housing and Population Growth Forecasts. This includes a review of the approach towards understanding the forecasting of future population demographics associated with housing developments;

• Chapter 5: Social Infrastructure Needs Analysis. This identifies the subsequent service and facility requirements associated with the population growth forecasts; and also looks at the requirements and provision associated with the existing population.

• Chapter 6: Analysis & Mapping. This includes a thorough understanding of the current scope and scale of social infrastructure across the LB Barking and Dagenham area including a review of


2

accessibility, capacity and future development proposals. A series of map outputs are presented that illustrate the geographical relationship between social infrastructure supply and demand.

• Chapter 7: Analysis of Co-location and Integration Potential. This section includes a consideration of the potential for the co-location and integration of facilities and services using a specifically designed matrix and informs the overall approach to delivery.

• Chapter 8: Recommendations for Delivery: The final chapter of this report summarises the recommended overall approach to delivery and includes specific mechanism which need to be implemented to achieve this.

1.4.3. This report is also supported by the following appendices

• Appendix A1: Development Sites Included within Study

• Appendix A2: Demographic Impact Methodology Assumptions

• Appendix A3: Ethnicity and Religious Profile

• Appendix A4: Co-location Matrix Conclusions

• Appendix A5: Existing Partnership Arrangements

• Appendix A6: Facilities Database

• Appendix A7 : List of Consultees

• Appendix A8: Revenue Assumptions

• Appendix A9: Land Value Assumptions

• Appendix A10: Social Infrastructure Facility Build Costs – Gardiner & Theobald Analysis

• Appendix A11: Assumptions and Exclusions for the Social Infrastructure Budget Works


3


4

2. Policy Context

2.1. INTRODUCTION

2.1.1. This chapter considers the key current and emerging policy framework, that will guide the planning, service format and the approach to the delivery of social infrastructure within LB Barking and Dagenham and the wider London Thames Gateway that is required in order to meet the demands arising from new residential development.

2.1.2. The review summarises the current policy position across national, regional and local levels which are influencing the planning for, and delivery of, social infrastructure. The review will pay particular emphasis on the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham area.

2.1.3. The following types of policy areas have been considered within this section:

• Planning and Growth;

• Children, Young People, Education and Learning;

• Health and Social Care;

• Leisure and Recreation; and

• Emergency and Essential Services.

2.1.4. Given the emerging focus that is being placed upon providing ‘joined up’ social, community, health and education services and also an increased emphasis on preventative rather than a reactive emergency service with more direct community involvement, it is likely that the distinction between these five separate components will become increasingly blurred.

2.2. NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SUB-REGIONAL POLICY GUIDANCE

Planning and Growth 2.2.1. The Consultation Paper on New Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing (DCLG; 2006) has the

objective of delivering the right homes in the right place with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. The impact of new builds on existing and planned infrastructure should be taken into account by the regional planning bodies.

2.2.2. Similarly, the Sustainable Communities Plan (ODPM, 2003) which identifies the Thames Gateway as a key area for population growth, emphasises the need for good quality public services including education and training opportunities, health care and community facilities.

2.2.3. At a regional and sub-regional level, the theme of partnership in the delivery of the growth agenda is central to The London Plan (GLA, 2004) which seeks to ensure equal and easy access to jobs, schools, shops and public transport.

2.2.4. The Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London) (GLA, 2006) adds the following points to the original document:

• Increased provision to meet existing and future demand;

• New models of NHS care (primary care facilities) should be expanded;

• Schools acting as venues for children’s’ centres and one stop health centres;

• Schools using external sport, training and meeting facilities;

• Ensuring communities have access to a full range of social infrastructure and community facilities as a key consideration of community strategies.

2.2.5. The London Plan Sub-Regional Development Framework: East London (GLA, 2006) sets the vision for East London and the Thames Gateway for 2020. The vision concerns diversity, a location for both living and working, a range of housing stock and job opportunities, excellent social and cultural infrastructure


5

and an environment incorporating the ‘Green Grid’ concept. It emphasises the need to co-ordinate provision of housing, transport infrastructure, schools and local shops, and new or enhanced green spaces and therefore recognises the London Thames Gateway Social Infrastructure Framework [NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit and Partners, 2006]. Growth must occur in the right place and at the right time in a sustainable manner. Social infrastructure developments must involve integrated planning and early identification to accommodate demand. Healthcare, education, community facilities and childcare are identified as principal needs. The SRDF states that:

• Expansion or upgrading of primary care services in the Opportunity Areas will need to be planned carefully in light of forecast communities;

• Higher and Further Education institutions need to expand in order to meet demand;

• An appropriate range of community facilities to meet the diverse needs of the local population.

• Childcare provision needs to increase substantially to meet current and future demands;

• The Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire Emergency Planning Authority are both restructuring their service delivery.

2.2.6. The South East Plan, published by the South East England Regional Agency [SEERA] in March 2006, effectively replaced the Regional Planning Guidance 9 (RPG9; GOSE, 2001). The vision of the Plan is to work towards a healthy and socially inclusive region, including partnership working in health care and the promotion of mixed use of community facilities.

2.2.7. Similarly, the London Thames Gateway Development and Investment Framework (GLA, 2004) established a vision for the Thames Gateway that by 2020 it will become ‘a destination of choice for living and working’ through a well-designed mix of houses, a range of job opportunities, excellent social and cultural infrastructure and good transport connections, including an aim for local services to be located within walking distance of homes and workplaces, retail centres and cultural/leisure facilities easily accessible by public transport.

2.2.8. The London Thames Gateway Social Infrastructure Framework [NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit and Partners, 2006] also places the provision of social infrastructure high on the London Thames Gateway development agenda.

2.2.9. The Framework establishes the overall methodology through which social infrastructure needs and the delivery of new facilities can be considered as part of the process to create new ‘sustainable communities’. It is anticipated that the Framework will guide and inform the planning and delivery of social infrastructure at a ‘strategic’, local ‘strategic’ and project specific level, and will feed into the broader evolution of the Thames Gateway Strategic Framework currently being evolved by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG, formerly ODPM).

2.2.10. Rethinking Service Delivery: Volume Three, Shared Service and Public/Public Partnerships (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006) discusses service providers promoting economies of scale through partnerships.

2.2.11. Consultation with LBBD’s Community Services department highlighted the importance of historic environment within Barking and Dagenham. In relation to this, a number of CABE documents have been reviewed that present best practice examples of delivering development whilst respecting the existing built environment. In summary, CABE and the Historic Environment (CABE, November 2004) states that developments should offer a positive response to historic context alongside other important issues such as accessibility and how it will compliment other facilities around it. In terms of realising this in practice, however, Building in Context: New Development in Historic Areas (CABE & English Heritage, 2001) recognises that all successful design solutions depend on allowing time for a thorough site analysis and careful character appraisal of the context.


6

Children, Young People, Education and Learning 2.2.12. The Government has a vision to increase the access, quality and range of childcare and is committed to

delivering a Sure Start Children’s Centre for every community by 2010. ‘The London Childcare Strategy: Towards Affordable Good Quality Childcare For All’ (GLA, 2003) also outlines a number of proposals to increase the availability of quality childcare provision in London.

2.2.13. The Government’s Extended Schools policy aims to maximise the potential of schools and their community settings by providing a range of services and activities outside of the statutory school day to serve pupils, their families and the wider community.

2.2.14. The Government has also published a new White Paper on education: ‘Higher Standards, Better Schools for All: More Choice for Parents and Pupils’ (DfES, October 2005). This supports the further development of the extended school offer, and the co-location of social infrastructure provision in particular, through innovative modern approaches in school design, incorporating flexibility for future expansion (or restructuring) to meet the changing needs of future populations. These school facilities will also need to be fully accessible to people of all physical capacities and inclusive of pupils with SEN (special education needs).

2.2.15. The Building Schools for the Future [BSF; DfES] programme has committed £2.2 billion in funding to transform the infrastructure of every London school including more investment in extended schools operating outside the traditional school day and term.

2.2.16. The Government has also announced the capital strategy for primary schools, a new long term commitment to rebuild, refurbish and upgrade the fabric of at least half of all primary schools in England, starting in 2008 and lasting for around 15 years. An essential element of this will be ensuring that they support the delivery of extended services.

2.2.17. The DfES London Challenge ties closely with the BSF programme through significant capital investment to improve school buildings, including new academies and other investment in ‘extended schools’, with an overall objective to create a diverse range of exciting new schools.

2.2.18. The Government’s vision to ensure child equality through the best start in life for all is set out in the Ten Year Strategy for Childcare ‘Choice for Parents, the Best Start for Children’ (December 2004) through:

• joined up services;

• community Children’s Centres providing an integrated service of information, health, family support, childcare and more. 2500 Children’s Centres will be in place by 2008 and a further 10,000 by 2010; and

• by 2010, out of school childcare places between 8am and 6pm available every weekday for all children from the ages of 3-14. From April 2006 a Transformation Fund of £125 million per annum was made available to invest in high quality, sustainable, affordable provision of childcare.

2.2.19. Every Child Matters (September 2003) is the Government Green Paper, from the Department of Education and Skills which documents the proposals for reforming the delivery of services for children, young people and families including:

• Sure Start Children’s Centres in all of the 20% most deprived neighbourhoods.

• Extended schools

• Young People’s fund to focus on out-of-school activities for children.

• child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) in every area by 2006.

• Improving speech and language therapy through service improvement.

• Children’s Trusts, bringing together LA education and children’s social services, children’s health services, Connexions and others if necessary. To ease local joined-up working performance targets, plans, funding streams, financial accountability and indicators will all be rationalised.


7

2.2.20. The Association of London Government study findings entitled Childcare Partnership Working in London (July 2004) highlights that effective inter- and intra-borough partnership working requires a thorough understanding of the interests of all participating groups; appreciation of possible models; the knowledge that different stakeholders will be involved to different degrees; and, must reflect the portfolio of childcare provision across the Borough.

2.2.21. Putting People at the Heart of Public Services (Department for Education and Skills, July 2004) is a Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, focusing on step changes in children’s services, education and training to improve provision. The key principles of reform include:

• Personalisation and choice of children and parents.

• Increasing quantity and style of service provision by opening up delivery to new providers.

• Greater independence for head teachers, governors and managers supported by simple accountabilities and more secure and streamlined funding arrangements.

Early years policy includes:

• Children’s Centres providing local one-stop support to all parents, providing childcare, education, health, employment and parenting support.

• Flexible ‘educare’ that unites education and childcare while providing 12 ½ hours free support per week for children aged 3-4 years.

• Dawn to dusk schools providing breakfast and homework clubs.

• Children’s Trusts bringing together children service providers.

Key reforms at secondary school level include:

• Independent specialist schools will replace the traditional comprehensive.

• Refurbishment or rebuilding of every secondary school over the next 10 to 15 years.

• 200 academies and more new schools by 2010, including 60 in London.

• From 2006, three-year budgets geared to pupil numbers for every school.

• The ability of every school to become a specialist school.

• Freedom of all secondary schools to have control of all their assets.

• Additional space in popular schools through capital funding.

2.2.22. The White Paper entitled Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances (March 2006) establishes a number of reforms to secondary school education including increasing diversity and quality of provision, encouraging choice for the learner, reducing bureaucracy and ensuring clarity of role between commissioners, providers and regulators.

2.2.23. The London Thames Gateway Education Infrastructure Assessment (URS, December 2003) found that, within the Thames Gateway, the preferred option for new provision would involve two-form entry primary schools with integrated nursery facilities and six form entry secondary schools with integrated sixth form facility. The study places emphasis on the need to look at best practice examples of restricted school provision and innovative ways of using space.

2.2.24. Building World-Class Childcare in the Thames Gateway (Thames Gateway London Partnership, March 2006) includes the following aims:

• To ensure inclusion of adequate physical build for the delivery of new childcare provision.

• To ensure that resources for childcare are built into the planning process.

• To ensure that adequate and appropriate childcare is available to meet increased demand

• To increase the quantity of qualified childcare workers and diversity of the childcare work force to underpin new, high quality childcare provision and support local people to access employment opportunities.


8

2.2.25. The study states the forecast need for new schools across the London Thames Gateway by 2016 as being for 63 new nurseries, 56 new primary schools and 19 secondary schools (URS, 2005); and by 2008, extended schools provision will be required in at least 343 primary schools.

2.2.26. In relation to libraries, the Department of Culture, Media and Sports [DCMS] has published a strategic framework, Framework for the Future: Libraries, Learning and Information in the Next Decade (April 2003), for the public library service that enables them to position themselves at the heart of the communities they serve, through a modernised library network re-equipped to be more responsive to local needs, potentially offering a point of exchange for a range of services including social services, voluntary sector service and lifelong learning facilities.

2.2.27. Government policy seeks to ensure that at least 99% of the population in Outer London Boroughs live within one mile of a static library and 100% live within two miles. The [DCMS] has also provided a standard of 30 sqm of library space per 1,000 population and 2,000 – 3,000 sqm for a new facility.

Health and Social Care 2.2.28. Health and Social Care is a large subject area covering numerous sub elements including GP surgeries,

healthcare centres, dentists, pharmacies, optometrists, hospitals, care homes and day care centres.

2.2.29. The NHS Plan: A Plan for Investment. A Plan for Reform (Department of Health; 2000) has a vision to create a more patient-centred service located and delivered at times and locations convenient to its patients. Increased investment will allow for a range of new types of NHS facilities, bringing primary and community services, and where possible social services, together under one roof to make access more convenient for patients.

2.2.30. In terms of planning for new health facilities, the core of the basic primary care model is the One Stop Primary Care Centre (OSPCC) which incorporates core GP, specialist local health services and community outreach, potentially also incorporating activities such as dentistry and pharmacies. The physical planning of new facilities and health policy at the regional level is currently promoting a range of primary care and community facilities such as Primary Care Diagnostic & Treatment Centres [PCDTCs] which combine the above facilities with outpatient, clinical and diagnostic services, offering walk-in and minor treatments.

2.2.31. Policy guidance ensures that adequate land is safeguarded for the provision of health facilities. Sites must be accessible, suitably located in areas with good access to public transport and adequately distributed across boroughs.

2.2.32. Similar to other social infrastructure providers, health policies also promote the combining of health facilities with other community facilities where possible. For example, ‘healthy living centres’ which combine educational, health and community services.

2.2.33. The Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: A New Direction for Community Services White Paper issued by Department of Health in November 2005 promotes a radical and sustained shift in the way in which services are delivered, ensuring that they are more personalised, easy to access and community based.

2.2.34. The London Plan together with the Boroughs’ Unitary Development Plans identify the use of Section 106 planning contributions as a means to help address the disparities in access to primary healthcare across London and ensuring primary care facilities are provided to meet the needs of new residential communities.

2.2.35. The London Plan also makes specific reference for boroughs to have regard for health impacts of developments proposals.

2.2.36. Local Improvement Finance Trusts (LIFTs) are a public private joint venture partnership promoted by the NHS which aims to build and renovate primary care premises, then lease them on favourable terms to GPs and Primary Care Trusts (PCT). The Barking and Havering LIFT is already investing in the health estates across the area.


9

2.2.37. London Thames Gateway Health Services Agreement (Stage 1, Final Report, October 2003) outlines future health service provision requirements including:

• More elective day care, intermediate care facilities and increased home care underpinned by patient choice - achieved through making the most of available facilities.

• Significant expansion of primary care and community facilities through LIFT, and other investment, including Diagnostic and Treatment Centres and multi-skilled teams of health care professionals.

• Integrated health care systems in a wide range of settings with the ability to manage chronic disease with patient needs as the focus.

2.2.38. The Primary Care Model set out in this agreement relates primarily to the One Stop Primary Care Centres (OSPCC) which will house 8-10 GPs and offer an extended range of services than at present within up to three integrated modules:

• A core Primary Care Centre providing GP and practice nurse services.

• A specialist module meeting a local health need and using the services of GPs with a Specialist Interest (GPwSI), such as, pharmacy, dentistry, diagnostic facilities, integrated elders services, children’s health centre and renal services.

• A locally specific community initiative/outreach module such as community mental health teams, physical disabilities or learning disabilities teams or Sure Start projects.

2.2.39. Linked by a hub and spoke model to the OSPCC will be smaller neighbourhood facilities (3-7 GP Primary Care Centres) delivering a broader service, with larger PCCs housing dentistry and pharmacy provision, potentially located in community buildings alongside libraries, schools or community centres.

2.2.40. An expanded OSPCC will also exist as a Primary Care Diagnostic Treatment Centre (PCDTC) which will include substantial outpatient services, clinic space and diagnostic facilities (X-ray or endoscopy) and may be in the form of Diabetes Centres, a Walk-In-Centre, or a Minor Injuries Unit dependent on local need. These will typically be located in modernised town centres.

2.2.41. Intermediate Care Centres will also be introduced, providing intermediate care beds, managed by specialist GPs (GPwSI). The larger PCCs will provide supporting services such as optometrist, osteopaths, complementary therapies, crèche facilities and self-funded cafes or even community spaces or employment initiatives (e.g. Citizen’s Advice Bureau).

2.2.42. The Acute Sector model responds to the requirement of over 1000 additional hospital beds across the two SHAs. While there is no intention to build a new hospital there will be extensions to planned or existing hospital to satisfy this demand.

2.2.43. A Stronger Local Voice (Department of Health, 2006) focuses on community involvement in decisions concerning health and social care through local involvement networks (LINks) and overview and scrutiny committees (OSCs).

2.2.44. The Health Reform in England: Update and Commissioning Framework (Department of Health, 2006) details key changes which aim to strengthen commissioning and improve health and healthcare as well as the financial health of the NHS. The aim is to:

• Increase patient choice and voice;

• Make service provision increasingly responsive to local need;

• Promote PCTs and practices to obtain the best value through commissions;

• NHS partnership working with local authorities and other local services;

• Expand NHS Foundation Trusts and PCT direct provision and increase voluntary sector, social enterprise and private sector provider service delivery where appropriate.


10

Leisure and Recreation 2.2.45. The Urban White Paper: Our Towns and Cities: the Future. Delivering an Urban Renaissance [2000;

DETR] acknowledged that sports and recreation facilities can assist in creating sustainable communities and sports facilities can make an important contribution to the physical infrastructure of communities.

2.2.46. Planning Policy Guidance 17: Sports and Recreation (PPG17; ODPM, 2002) outlines the use of planning obligations to secure sports and recreation facilities to meet the requirements of new residential communities.

2.2.47. Furthermore, as part of the Sustainable Communities Plan, the Greening the Gateway (ODPM; 2004) document establishes the positive contribution that the network of green open spaces should make to the quality of life for all those who live and work there.

2.2.48. The Green Grid has taken forward the aims of the London Plan across the Thames Gateway by bringing forward a sub-regional framework for open space enhancement across East London.

2.2.49. Sport England’s Interim Statement for Planning for Sport and Active Recreation: Objectives and Opportunities (2005) is based on Land Use Planning Policies for Sport (1999):

• The needs of the local community must be taken into account when planning provision as well as taking account of wider than local requirements for strategic of specialist facilities.

• The loss of facilities or natural resources must be prevented or replaced equivalently, or better, in a suitable location.

• Any Significant Area for Sport (SASP) will be supported in improving facilities and must not be lost unless it can be replaced in improved condition.

• Current and future demand for local, quality playing fields must be met (ie. no loss in supply).

• New facilities and the improvement of the existing provision and the natural environment will be supported in a way that meets sustainable development objectives and increases opportunities to be involved in sport.

• Shared use sites will be promoted to increase provision in appropriate locations.

• The urban fringe will be utilised for sporting opportunities requiring larger areas such as golf courses and pitches and for built facilities which helps to maintain the identity of this resource.

• Outdoor Green Belt facilities will be promoted including ancillary built facilities.

• Participation in Community Forests will be supported, as well as use of other woodlands near to major population centres.

• Floodlit synthetic turf pitches and hard-surfaced multi-use games areas will be promoted as an integral part of community sports provision.

• Water-based sports provision will be advanced while reducing conflicts with the environment through management practice and codes of conduct.

Emergency and Essential Services 2.2.50. The recent government White Paper, Building Communities, Beating Crime – A Better Police Service for

the 21st Century (Home Office, 2004) promotes the expansion of neighbourhood policing.

2.2.51. Planning for Future Police Estate Development (May 2005) established the new types and additional existing facilities the Metropolitan Police Service is seeking to provide, namely:

• Police ‘shops’ in retail frontages in areas that have high-footfall;

• Police patrol bases in warehouse units, potentially in employment areas;

• Safer neighbourhood teams;


11

• Custody suite clusters serving one or more Boroughs and which also accommodate associated legal and police facilities; and

• Other specialist operational requirements (e.g. open land for training purposes).

2.2.52. The Fire Service is going through significant change with the Government White Paper Our Fire and Rescue Service 2003. There is increased focus on embedding fire prevention in local community life, such as through the provision of community fire stations.

2.2.53. Taking Healthcare to the Patient: Transforming NHS Ambulance Services (DOH, 2005) sets out how the service can be transformed from a service focusing on acute care towards becoming a mobile health resource for the whole community, including primary care, diagnostics and health promotion.

2.3. LOCAL POLICY GUIDANCE COVERING SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE THEMES

Planning and Growth 2.3.1. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham is currently proceeding under the provisions of the new

Planning Act to prepare a ‘Local Development Framework‘(LDF), by 2008, which will replace the existing 1996 Unitary Development Plan [UDP]. The long-term sustainable vision will be centred around:

• Easy access to excellent services.

• A range of living accommodation to enable all aspirations to be met.

• A local environment with excellent cultural, leisure and entertainment activities.

• A sense of community spirit where everyone can participate in improving opportunities for living, working and playing.

2.3.2. The Borough’s Local Development Framework Issues and Options Paper on Community (Paper 4 – March 2005) notes that it is vital that the Borough’s planning policies regarding the delivery of education, health, leisure and other community facilities reflect local needs within the Borough as well as meeting demand predicted by an increase in population.

2.3.3. The UDP (1996), which precedes the forthcoming LDF, prioritises proximity to good public transport facilities for local job opportunities; a full range of shopping and other appropriate facilities to meet the requirements of the Borough’s residents; investment in market, cultural, recreational and entertainment activities within Barking Town Centre (which was identified as a strategic centre); recycling of brown field land; development of community and cultural facilities which meet the needs of the Borough’s population, especially disadvantaged groups, in locations close to or within existing residential neighbourhoods; improvement of pedestrian amenity and facility access and increased use of cycling.

2.3.4. The Borough’s ‘Corporate Plan’ – Futures 2006/2007, sets the ambition of the Council receiving an excellent rating from the Audit Commission by 2008 for providing first class and value for money services of clean streets, good schools, decent homes and effective service administration, and by adding value to the area through economic development.

2.3.5. The LDF Annual Monitoring Report 2004/2005 cites that ‘in the longer term, the Council seeks to provide suitable development sites for approximately 30,000 potential homes in the next 20-25 years’. This projection is, however, subject to social and physical infrastructure developments keeping a pace with increases in population.

2.3.6. Barking and Dagenham’s Economic Development Strategy (Economic Development in Barking and Dagenham, July 2004) looks at ways to achieve their 2020 Vision of a vibrant local economy, with a variety of local retail, leisure and cultural facilities, together with a well-educated and highly skilled population able to compete for new jobs in the borough as well as surrounding areas and London.

2.3.7. Barking and Dagenham’s regeneration strategy, entitled An Urban Renaissance in East London, identifies that ‘closer and better partnerships with the private sector, public agencies, the voluntary sector and the local community across the Borough’ (pg. 9) are essential to achieve Barking and Dagenham’s 2020 Vision and Community Priorities. Four areas are identified as providing major development opportunities:


12

• Barking Reach for housing with a community school as the focus.

• South Dagenham to provide the new heart for the Borough with transport improvements supporting a major, high-density, mixed-use development

• Dagenham Dock for green industrial and commercial business park development;

• Barking Town Centre for urban renaissance with a dual (day and night time) economy.

2.3.8. Barking and Dagenham’s First Choice for the Future (September 2005) document details current developments within the borough and states what these plans will mean:

• Greater housing choice in the town centre;

• New bars, cafes, restaurants and shops;

• New employment opportunities for local people;

• Improvements to the town centre’s roads, pedestrian areas and green spaces;

• New transport links with Ilford and Barking Riverside.

2.3.9. The Barking and Dagenham Partnership Community Cohesion Strategy, One Community 2004-2007, aims to make services available to all living and working in the borough and to respond to changing community needs over the 2004/2007 period. The Partnership also plans to launch a new, challenging strategy for community cohesion in April 2007.

2.3.10. Barking and Dagenham’s Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI) bid includes plans to develop a 30,000 sqft managed workspace within Dagenham for youth enterprise purposes for March 2008, as well as a general mixed use workspace/office development as the enterprise flagship in the community for January 2009.

2.3.11. The Older People’s Strategy for Barking and Dagenham (July 2006) unites a range of services catering for older people in the borough and ‘sets out the key proposals for the aspirations, needs and service requirements for older people over the next five years’ (pg. 33). It proposes that:

• Population projections and Geographical Information Systems are used to plan services relevant for current and future older people and their location;

• Service providers should be encouraged to respect older people’s rights to determine how services are provided;

Children, Young People, Education and Learning 2.3.12. The Children and Young People’s Plan 2006-2009 (LLBD) states that Barking and Dagenham is radically

redesigning its services including mental health services, 14 new children’s centres and associated extended schools (3 children’s centres and 26 extended schools by 2008, 469 new childcare places in 2006, and a further 260 in 2007); two new sites for Children’s Health Services; three walk in centres; and parks and open spaces (full details are given in Appendix A6).

2.3.13. Barking and Dagenham’s ‘Corporate Plan’ – Futures 2006/2007, sets the aim of 75 percent of schools achieving ‘Healthy School’ status by 2008 as well as:

• Increasing the number of childcare places;

• Widening the use of early years services;

• Developing a multi-agency approach to the package of services for children and parents

2.3.14. Barking and Dagenham’s regeneration strategy, entitled An Urban Renaissance in East London, covers education and skills and young people including:

• Encouraging learning facilities throughout the Borough in a wide variety of places and buildings in accessible locations;

• Drop-in centres within each community forum area including 6 established with young people involved in the management arrangements; and


13

• Provide play schemes within all neighbourhoods in the Borough where required.

2.3.15. It is stated in the LB Barking and Dagenham Local Development Framework Issues and Options Paper on Communities (March 2005) states that new developments and the resultant increase in school place demand should be met by timely and adequate provision.

2.3.16. The paper also identifies the need for fourteen new children’s centres across the Borough to reach all the children living in the 20% most disadvantaged wards by 2010.

2.3.17. Further to this it emphasises the need to better integrate children’s, health and education services in order to improve the service available to children. Services to be delivered from children’s centres are:

• Full day care integrated with early years education.

• Family support and parental outreach.

• Child and family health services.

• Access to Children’s Information Service.

• Access to employment and training providers to support parents.

2.3.18. Building Communities, Transforming Lives: A Community Strategy for Barking and Dagenham (London Borough of Barking and Dagenham) set the target of 6 Children’s Centres to be fully operational by March 2006, to provide comprehensive, accessible, child and parent friendly services. Education and training are recognised as the cornerstones to supporting higher resident aspirations and raising employability and earning power. As part of this the outcomes set relating to service provision are:

• High quality accessible locations for learning.

• More schools developed as community based learning centres.

• More opportunities for families to learn together.

• Easier access to services supporting young parents and children in their early years.

2.3.19. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Children’s Centres Strategy ‘Creating Children’s Centres in Barking & Dagenham’ (January 2006) commits, where possible, to locate children’s centres:

• where there is a high density of children under five;

• where there is a lack of services and childcare;

• on primary school sites;

• in easily accessible locations, requiring no more than a 20 minute walk from home.

2.3.20. Each children’s centre will provide full daycare for 50 weeks a year, 5 days a week, 10 hours a day for children aged 0 to 5 years of age. The provision of early education places for 3 and 4 year olds will be integrated with the childcare.

2.3.21. According to the strategy, the Council is expected to reach 12,494 children under five and their families through children’s centres by 2010. It is expected that this will be achieved by the creation of 14 children’s centres by 2008. Phase 1 (2004-06) has seen the creation of 8 children’s centres which will provide 433 new, centre based, full day childcare places in the most disadvantaged wards. Phase 2 will provide another 6 centres, offering 293 additional childcare places. Details of Phase 1 and 2 centres’ locations are given in Appendix A6.

2.3.22. An Education Planning Research Study commissioned by LB Barking and Dagenham and English Partnerships (April 2005) asserts that once all major development sites are exploited they are likely to account for over 90% of additional school place demand in the Borough. These are primarily in Barking Reach, London Riverside/South Dagenham and Barking Town Centre. The report identifies various potential locations for additional primary and secondary provision and concludes that virtually all of the additional secondary demand will be in the south and in Barking Town Centre.

2.3.23. The School Organisation Plan for School Places (Barking and Dagenham, 2003) states that the Council’s Capital Programme will contribute to funding the provision of new school accommodation; 8 primary


14

schools have agreed to increase their admission quota; design, layout and accommodation adequacy in new buildings are being used to focus on classrooms, facilities and school layout to support Government objectives; and an extended schools model is planned for all new schools and those receiving intensive capital investment, with the aim of enforcing a cohesive community and strengthening local partnership initiatives.

2.3.24. The Public Library Standards Report (Barking and Dagenham, 2004) describes the two new libraries that were opened in 2003 to replace existing service points. Both co-located with other services including the PCT, Sure Start, Youth Services and the Adult College. The Central Library is currently in the process of being replaced by the Barking Learning Centre, which is scheduled to open in April 2007 and will provide integrated FE and HE provision, crèche facilities, a café and Information, advice and guidance services. In addition a new community library was built in 2005 as part of the Jo Richardson Community School (PFI funded). All libraries have a broadband connection.

2.3.25. The 2006 Libraries Self-Assessment document sets a number of aims for the Barking and Dagenham libraries service including:

• UK-Online centres in all libraries;

• Partnership working with SureStart, adult and further education, health trust and commercial interests, to give value for money.

2.3.26. Future developments are identified as ‘a new library and community centre as part of the regeneration of Dagenham Heathway corridor’ (pg. 3).

2.3.27. The ‘First Choice Futures’ (September 2005) document identifies that several initiatives have been progressed to aid lifelong learning and skills development within the borough. These include Learn Direct and Welfare to Work.

2.3.28. Barking and Dagenham’s Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI) bid detailed elements of developing an enterprise culture through assisting a local school to achieve Business and Enterprise status within two years and through the enterprise in schools programme which will include an Education Resource Centre for CPD in Enterprise for the relevant staff.

2.3.29. The Older People’s Strategy for Barking and Dagenham (July 2006) proposes that awareness and access to training opportunities should be improved for older people and that the Skills for Life initiative should be expanded to encourage older employees to take up training opportunities, especially through the LEGI areas work.

Health and Social Care 2.3.30. Barking and Dagenham’s ‘Corporate Plan’ – Futures 2006/2007, identifies improving access to integrated

services for older people as a priority and also states that the Council is committed to allocating financial resources to both children’s and adults services in the medium term, with the aim of improving the standard of social care.

2.3.31. Barking and Dagenham’s regeneration strategy, entitled An Urban Renaissance in East London, looks at health and social care and includes the following aims for development:

• High quality accessible, integrated health and social care;

• No part of the Borough to be over 15 minutes walk from a modern Health Centre/GP facility.

2.3.32. According to the ‘Local Health Services Assessment’ (Barking and Dagenham PCT, January 2006), the majority of healthcare in Barking and Dagenham is provided in GP surgeries and health centres, many of which are in need of modernisation. There is a need to change the provision of service so that the majority of people will be diagnosed and treated in primary care locally. Further transition is also planned in mental health care with new types of community team in community settings.

2.3.33. The LB Barking and Dagenham Local Development Framework Issues and Options Paper on Communities (March 2005) recognises that the Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) will provide new primary care centre hubs or new, refurbished or upgraded GP premises. A network of health and social care premises, including resource centres, will be developed, focusing on local community needs.


15

2.3.34. Improving local health service delivery in Barking and Dagenham is covered in the North East London SHA Local Service Delivery Plans 2005-2008. It states that Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Redbridge PCTs will need to work with Barking Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust to manage loss of capacity associated with the commissioning of the new Oldchurch hospital in 2006-7. The secondary care strategy is to reduce the number of sites from which it is provided.

2.3.35. Building Communities, Transforming Lives: A Community Strategy for Barking and Dagenham (London Borough of Barking and Dagenham) sets a target to ensure that within 5 years of the strategy being published there will be a considerable improvement in the delivery of primary care services, including a seamless services for vulnerable children and adults; six modernised primary care premises containing a variety of health and community services by March 2007; and empowerment of the voluntary sector to deliver excellent services for children, young people and adults.

2.3.36. The Barking and Dagenham Local Improvement Finance Trust (NHS LIFT) Strategic Services Development Plan establishes a model which includes:

• Larger, primary care resource centres located throughout the two PCT areas, centralising the role of dentists, opticians and community pharmacist within primary care provision.

• High accessibility of services by all residents.

• Improved GP premises providing core GMS services and extended models of primary care.

• The use of a ‘hub and spoke’ model, in some places, where a larger centre is connected to smaller facilities for managerial and operational purposes.

2.3.37. The Children and Young People’s Plan 2006-2009 (LBBD) notes that midwife to patient ratios must be decreased, teenage pregnancy needs to be tackled, post-natal depression identified through screening, access to drug treatment encouraged and adequate child and adolescent mental health services provided. It also states that in terms of domestic violence, ser vices should be targeted in areas currently without provision as well as linked to, and located within, children’s centres and extended schools.

2.3.38. The Older People’s Strategy for Barking and Dagenham (July 2006) proposes that the Council and its partners should work together to reduce residential or nursing care through improvement of intensive home and community support, that a variety of approaches should be developed in terms of sheltered accommodation, that support services should be joined-up and more easily accessible, that linkages between delivery support services and the voluntary and community sectors should be fostered.

Leisure and Recreation 2.3.39. The LB Barking and Dagenham Local Development Framework Issues and Options Paper on

Communities (March 2005) identifies that the leisure and recreation needs of both the current and future population must be planned for. Opportunities whereby sports and leisure facilities can be linked with other community facilities should be sought.

2.3.40. In addition, this paper states that a substantial land requirement is proposed for sports pitches according to their sports facilities standards, therefore requiring decision over whether these standards should be applied to new development, whether a lower rate of provision should be allowed, or whether existing facilities should be relied upon.

2.3.41. A Strategy for Parks and Green Spaces (LBBD, March 2004) identified that there was too much emphasis on active sports while the LB Barking and Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy 2005-2011 (June 2005) noted a deficit in provision of space for certain sports. In light of this they recognise that one option would be to cluster better quality sports facilities within a limited number of parks. However, such concentration of services should not remove local access to sporting facilities.

2.3.42. The Borough’s Community Strategy: Building Communities, Transforming Lives (Barking and Dagenham) sets out clear direction for partners, including communities, working with the area in mind. The key priorities include:

• Excellent services which are easily accessible.


16

• A local environment providing excellent, accessible, cultural, leisure and entertainment facilities and activities.

2.3.43. The strategy recognises that any major developments should reflect the needs and aspirations of the existing residents and those communities moving into the area in order to create sustainable communities. Key related targets are to:

• Develop 5 quality landmark projects in Barking Town Centre, including housing, cultural, public space and commercial development.

• Improve transport links, access to employment opportunities, the range of housing, open spaces and cultural and entertainment facilities, including purpose built cultural premises and a venue in the town centre for different cultures to share experiences.

2.3.44. East London Green Grid: Framework Report (August 2005) states that the majority of Opportunity Areas to create a ‘living network of parks, green spaces, river and other corridors’ in East London are close to the River Thames such as Barking Reach which is located in the zone of change proposed by the ODPM.

2.3.1. Barking and Dagenham’s Sports Development Plan (2004-2007) states aims and objectives for provision of sport and recreational facilities in the Borough including:

• Access to appropriate forms of sport and active recreation and positive social experiences for the variety of local community groups.

• Engaging in partnerships with local and national agencies and associations to provide a well managed, higher performing quality service.

• Attracting external funding to enhance the service and support local clubs and groups.

2.3.2. Provision of new community facilities is outlined in the LB Barking and Dagenham Local Development Framework Issues and Options Paper on Communities (March 2005) where it states priorities of planning for community facilities including to:

• Ensure that supply meets demand in new development areas and easy accessibility to facilities

• Ensure a social impact assessment is carried out for each new development in order to identify where social facilities will be required.

• Ensure traffic generating facilities are near town centres or public transport.

• Seek to link community facilities to complementary uses to maximise use (e.g. extended schools).

• Ensure that facilities fit in with the locale.

• Protect or replace facilities threatened by new development.

2.3.3. The Children and Young People’s Plan 2006-2009 (LLBD) notes that use of leisure centres and secondary school centres must be capitalised on as part of the Olympic success and that there should be investigation into how to make leisure facilities affordable and accessible to young people.

2.3.4. The Older People’s Strategy for Barking and Dagenham (July 2006) proposes that the use of parks and green spaces by older people should also be encouraged as should involvement in the Healthy Walks Programme and they should be offered more engagement in the development of local public spaces and environmental improvements.

2.3.5. Barking and Dagenham’s regeneration strategy, entitled An Urban Renaissance in East London, identifies action points for improvement of recreational facilities:

• Ensuring all park playgrounds meet the Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play standards;

• Increase the percentage of woodland cover to 10% by 2010 and 15% by 2020;

• Improve quality of parks and open spaces through 5 schemes;

• 10 new pieces or areas of public art.


17

2.4. VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY SECTOR

2.4.1. A recent report by the Barking and Dagenham Faith Forum for the Barking & Dagenham Partnership, Corporate Equalities Board and Local Development Framework ‘Sustainable Communities, Regeneration, and Urban Spirituality’ (July 2006) emphasises the importance of considering the needs of the faith communities in planning and development. In particular, in relation to eco-spirituality (the need for environmental sustainability and care for the earth), there is a need to preserve, enhance and ensure accessibility to green and/or open spaces in the Borough and to ensure that community facilities, including the provision of faith centres and spiritual spaces (e.g. for multi-faith prayer rooms), are incorporated into any development plan.

2.4.2. The report also recognises that the spiritual needs of the commuter community in Barking also need to be considered including issues of access, designing for interaction, space for expressions of urban spirituality, public art, and Town Centre chaplaincy, among others and the report requests space for this to be incorporated into redevelopment and regeneration planning so as to encourage urban spirituality.

2.4.3. According to the report, the number and variety of Faith Communities in the borough has increased significantly in recent years leading to faith groups experiencing difficulty in identifying and obtaining appropriate premises within the borough. Some Faith Communities, such as the Hindu community, have no premises within the borough. Some meet in private homes, some rent multi-use facilities at Community Halls or Schools, while others rent facilities from faith groups which have their own premises. Some faith groups rent commercial or industrial premises and seek planning permission for change of usage, while others purchase land or properties.

2.4.4. Furthermore, the report recommends that locating worship and community centres at the heart of residential communities can be a key factor in ensuring that new and existing communities are not ‘soulless’ or unfriendly places, due, in part, to the range of community services that faith communities provide. Worship Centres are often also centres of volunteering, community/education centres and even, in some instances, business hubs.

2.4.5. ChangeUp: The 10-year Infrastructure Development Plan for Barking and Dagenham (Barking and Dagenham VCS, April 2006) recognises that the vast majority of VCOs deliver services and support throughout the whole of the borough, not necessarily in specific wards or only in the areas where their office is based. The report recommends, therefore, that additional analysis is required to identify specific areas of service delivery and that further work will need to be done to define whether there will be pockets of need in the future and how infrastructure support will enable Voluntary and Community Organisations to meet these needs.

2.4.6. In relation to the physical infrastructure needs of Barking and Dagenham’s VCS, the Change Up Plan highlighted the lack of appropriate accommodation in Barking & Dagenham for VCOs, with several operating from home premises. Start up accommodation was also found to be difficult to locate, as has the identification of larger office space for developing organisations. A lack of venue space was also identified as a problem for VCOs who need space for meetings, training, events, workshops and seminars. The report list incubation programmes, hot desking and office sharing facilities as possible ways forward for meeting the shortage of premises.

2.5. EXISTING SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSALS

Planning and Growth 2.5.1. Barking and Dagenham’s ‘Corporate Plan’ and First Choice for the Future (September 2005) documents

detail current developments within the borough as given in Table 2.1 overleaf:


18

Table 2.1: Summary of Current Development Proposals

Development Area

Proposals

Barking Riverside 10,800 new mixed-tenure homes including key worker homes; affordable homes; housing association. Two primary schools and one secondary school. A range of community facilities 40% of the site will be open space Developed in three interlinked quarters (Eastern, Western and Riverside), with the Western Quarter being developed first and including a new primary school, doctor’s surgery, day nursery and play space, local shops and homes. The Eastern and Western Quarters will provide 1 to 4 bedroom accommodation in houses and apartments. The Riverside Quarter will provide apartments only.

Town Centre Barking Learning Centre’ on old library site, offering One-stop Shop, library, educational, employment and IT services – due for completion in 2007

A ‘Garden Housing Scheme’ above this, providing 200 one and two bedroom flats.

Barking Child and Family Health Centre building to commence late 2006.

‘The Arc’ constituting new offices, shops and leisure facilities.

‘The Lighthouse’ providing new housing for sale and rent.

Area near River Roding will be converted into an attractive part of Barking Town Centre, with leisure facilities and riverside walks. The Malthouse will provide workshop and exhibition space.

Station Quarter Better access to transport, new homes (including key worker homes), offices and shops.

Tanner Street Gateway – old flats next to Barking station will be replaced with 154 mixed tenure (flats/four bed houses) affordable homes and another 46 for sale. To be completed in 2006.

Dagenham Heathway

One-stop Shop containing library

Local shopping centre

South Dagenham 5,000 homes on land previously owned by Ford

Abbey Road site 37 affordable homes - 149 for private sale (ready in 2006). Recreational facilities including: canoe clubhouse, riverside walkway & improved public square.

London Road/ North Street Transformed to offer new shops, homes and leisure facilities

Barking Foyer A special centre and hostel called the Barking Foyer will be built to provide secure accommodation for 16 to 25 year olds experiencing homelessness. It will provide basic skills training, help finding work and permanent accommodation as well as ongoing support for the future.

Gascoigne Estate Refurbished as well as new homes developed for sale and rent. The St Anns development at the edge of the estate will provide 125 new homes.

Freshwharf (along River Roding)

Redeveloped to provide 1000 new homes with transport links to the town centre. New leisure and community facilities and a riverside walk will also feature.

2.5.2. Future plans for development include: Lymington Fields; Aventis; Marks Gate and Becontree Heath.


19

Education and Learning 2.5.3. Barking and Dagenham’s ‘Corporate Plan’ – Futures 2006/2007 states that 13 schools have agreed to be

in the first phase of extended schools. These schools will receive support to develop extended services including before and after school care.

2.5.4. The ‘Corporate Plan’ also identifies that five venues have been formally designated as children’s centres. The Becontree, Gascoigne and William Bellamy Children’s Centres are expected to be operational by the start of September 2006. It also comments that a network of 14 children’s centres providing integrated services to children under five, and their families, will be complete by March 2008.

Health and Social Care 2.5.5. According to the ‘Local Health Services Assessment’ (Barking and Dagenham PCT, January 2006),

improvements to the stock of health facilities are planned over the next three years, including a new minor surgery centre, walk in centre and musculoskeletal triage service. The LIFT will be central to developing new buildings to provide the PCT with the additional capacity to deliver according to the new local role. There will be a ‘hierarchy’ of services to meet the needs of progressively large populations (Core Primary Care Centre Æ Expanded Primary Care Centres Æ Children’s Centres Æ ‘Clinical Assessment Centre’ Æ ’24 Hour Hub’ Æ Children and Young People’s Health Centre).

2.5.6. The North East London SHA Local Service Delivery Plans 2005-2008 identify the planned closures or cease in provision of Barking and Dagenham secondary care site at Oldchurch in 2006. Further work is required to rationalise the use of Barking hospital.

2.5.7. London Thames Gateway Health Services Agreement (Stage 1, Final Report, October 2003) stated that a large Primary Care Centre was projected for Barking Town in 2005. It also presents that London Riverside and Barking Town Centre will have a 5 GP Primary Care Centre in 2003-6, a further three 4 GP Primary Care Centres in 2007-11 and a Primary Centre Diagnostic and Treatment Centre and a 10 GP PCC in 2012-16.

2.5.8. The LB Barking and Dagenham Local Development Framework Issues and Options Paper on Communities (March 2005) states that the Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) programme will be rolled out in stages. The first of which are proposed by Barking and Dagenham Primary Care Trust who will be responsible for providing the services to meet need in proximity to where it is required. The seven schemes are Thames View Health Centre, Julia Engwell Health Centre, Porters Avenue Clinic, Ford Road Clinic, Morland Road Day Hospital, Annie Prendergast Health Centre and Marks Gate Health Centre.

2.5.9. Barking and Dagenham’s First Choice for the Future (September 2005) document states that LIFT will provide health care and GP facilities in the Borough. Schemes are being built at Church Elms Lane, Marks Gate and Chadwell Heath.

Community, Leisure & Recreation and Open Space 2.5.10. The LB Barking and Dagenham Local Development Framework Issues and Options Paper on

Communities (March 2005) states that a sports hub is being considered for Parsloes Park.

2.6. SUMMARY

Policy Context

2.6.1. In summary, the key policy direction to note in relation to this work is the emphasis on good quality physical and social infrastructure provision to meet the needs of the expanding populations in key areas of population growth - good access to jobs, key services (childcare, education, health), community facilities and infrastructure, including high quality green space.


20

2.6.2. Within Barking and Dagenham, more specifically, the UDP (1996), which precedes the forthcoming LDF, prioritises proximity to good public transport facilities for local job opportunities; a full range of shopping and other appropriate facilities to meet the requirements of the Borough’s residents; investment in market, cultural, recreational and entertainment activities within Barking Town Centre (which was identified as a strategic centre); recycling of brown field land; development of community and cultural facilities which meet the needs of the Borough’s population, especially disadvantaged groups, in locations close to or within existing residential neighbourhoods; and improvement of pedestrian amenity and facility access and increased use of cycling.

2.6.3. On a local and national basis, emphasis is also placed on partnership working in the delivery of services using new models of service delivery such as:

• mixed use community facilities;

• extended schools with innovative, modern approaches in school design, incorporating flexibility for future expansion (or restructuring) –all facilities to be accessible to all including those with physical disabilities;

• community Children’s Centres – with Sure Start Children’s Centres in all of the 20% most deprived neighbourhoods; and

• Children’s Trusts, bringing together local authority education and children’s social services, children’s health services, Connexions and others if necessary. To ease local joined-up working performance targets, plans, funding streams, financial accountability and indicators will all be rationalised.

2.6.4. Health services, in particular, are facing an overhaul, moving away from the emphasis on acute care in hospital settings towards a focus on expanding primary care services within community settings, through the LIFT scheme and other investment. The core elements of the primary care model are:

• a One Stop Primary Care Centre (OSPCC) which incorporates core GP, specialist local health services and community outreach, potentially also incorporating activities such as dentistry and pharmacies;

• an expanded OSPCC creating a Primary Care Diagnostic Treatment Centre (PCDTC) which will include substantial outpatient services, clinic space and diagnostic facilities (X-ray or endoscopy) and may be in the form of Diabetes Centres, a Walk-In-Centre, or a Minor Injuries Unit dependent on local need. These will typically be located in modernised town centres;

• smaller neighbourhood facilities (3-7 GP Primary Care Centres), linked by a hub and spoke model to the OSPCC, delivering a broader service, with larger PCCs housing dentistry and pharmacy provision, potentially located in community buildings alongside libraries, schools or community centres;

• more elective day care, intermediate care facilities and increased home care underpinned by patient choice - achieved through making the most of available facilities; and

• multi-skilled teams of health care professionals.

2.6.5. Furthermore, Intermediate Care Centres will also be introduced, providing intermediate care beds, managed by specialist GPs (GPwSI). The larger PCCs will provide supporting services such as optometrist, osteopaths, complementary therapies, crèche facilities and self-funded cafes or even community spaces or employment initiatives (eg.CAB). Within the Acute Sector, the requirement of over 1000 additional hospital beds across the two SHAs, will be met through extensions to planned or existing hospitals.

2.6.6. Barking and Dagenham’s Community Strategy sets a target to ensure that within 5 years of the strategy being published there will be a considerable improvement in the delivery of primary care services, including a seamless service for vulnerable children and adults; six modernised primary care premises containing a variety of health and community services by March 2007; and empowerment of the voluntary sector to deliver excellent services for children, young people and adults.


21

2.6.7. Furthermore, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham aims to work with its partners to reduce residential or nursing care through the improvement of intensive home and community support, employing a variety of approaches in terms of sheltered accommodation and ensuring that support services are joined-up and more easily accessible, establishing linkages between delivery support services and the voluntary and community sectors.

2.6.8. Barking and Dagenham are also radically redesigning its children’s services including mental health services, with: 14 new children’s centres and associated extended schools (3 children’s centres and 26 extended schools by 2008, 469 new childcare places in 2006, and a further 260 in 2007); two new sites for Children’s Health Services; three walk in centres; drop-in centres within each community forum area (including 6 established with young people involved in the management arrangements); play schemes provided within all neighbourhoods in the Borough where required; and parks and open spaces.

2.6.9. Children’s centres will be located, where possible, where there is a high density of children under five; where there is a lack of services and childcare; on primary school sites; and in easily accessible locations, requiring no more than a 20 minute walk from home.

2.6.10. Reforms to education and skills include:

• by 2010, out of school childcare places between 8am and 6pm available every weekday for all children from the ages of 3-14;

• from 2006, three-year budgets geared to pupil numbers for every school;

• the ability of every school to become a specialist school;

• freedom of all secondary schools to have control of all their assets; and

• additional space in popular schools through capital funding.

2.6.11. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, more specifically, has set aims to encourage learning facilities throughout the Borough in a wide variety of places and buildings in accessible locations and for 75 percent of schools achieving ‘Healthy School’ status by 2008.

2.6.12. Nationally, a standard for library services is set as 30 sqm of library space per 1,000 population and 2,000 – 3,000 sqm for a new facility. Within Barking and Dagenham, two new libraries that were opened in 2003 to replace existing service points were co-located with other services including the PCT, Sure Start, Youth Services and the Adult College and the 2006 Libraries Self-Assessment document sets a number of aims for the Barking and Dagenham libraries service including UK-Online centres in all libraries and partnership working with SureStart, adult and further education, health trust and commercial interests, to give value for money

2.6.13. Planning Policy Guidance 17: Sports and Recreation (PPG17; ODPM, 2002) outlines the use of planning obligations to secure sports and recreation facilities to meet the requirements of new residential communities. Furthermore, the LB Barking and Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy 2005-2011 (June 2005) noted a deficit in provision of space for certain sports. In light of this they recognise that one option would be to cluster better quality sports facilities within a limited number of parks. However, such concentration of services should not remove local access to sporting facilities.

2.6.14. East London Green Grid: Framework Report (August 2005) states that the majority of Opportunity Areas to create a ‘living network of parks, green spaces, river and other corridors’ in East London are close to the River Thames such as Barking Reach which is located in the zone of change proposed by the ODPM.


22

2.6.15. The LB Barking and Dagenham Local Development Framework Issues and Options Paper on Communities (March 2005) states priorities for planning of community facilities including to:

• ensure that supply meets demand in new development areas and easy accessibility to facilities;

• ensure a social impact assessment is carried out for each new development in order to identify where social facilities will be required;

• ensure traffic generating facilities are near town centres or public transport;

• seek to link community facilities to complementary uses to maximise use (e.g. extended schools);

• ensure that facilities fit in with the locale; and

• protect or replace facilities threatened by new development.

2.6.16. Within the Police Service, there is an emphasis on the expansion of neighbourhood policing with:

• Police ‘shops’ in retail frontages in areas that have high-footfall;

• Police patrol bases in warehouse units, potentially in employment areas;

• Safer Neighbourhood teams;

• custody suite clusters serving one or more Borough(s) and which also accommodate associated legal and police facilities; and

• other specialist operational requirements (e.g. open land for training purposes).

2.6.17. The Fire Service is also placing an increased focus on embedding fire prevention in local community life, such as through the provision of community fire stations.

Delivery Mechanisms

2.6.18. In addition to the audit of policies and strategies insofar as they reflect future Social Infrastructure (SI) proposals, they have also been reviewed to establish:

• the extent to which joined up government has been considered;

• the positioning of individual service providers within the SI Delivery Chain and how barriers to cooperation might be overcome;

• whether future strategies could be informed by a more co-ordinated approach.

2.6.19. The primary benefit of addressing the SI Delivery Chain is to seek to bring policy and delivery together so that target outputs are achieved. The Chain can be expressed as a “Policy Map” describing the links between the different levels of public intervention.

2.6.20. The primary government policy drivers within which this SI evaluation sits include:

• Costs and Value for Money (VFM):

− increased efficiency, efficiency savings and public VFM;

− reducing the democratic deficit in particular by increasing the roles of local authorities and councillors;

− more joined up government.

• Democratic Deficit:

− a “new localism” in community governance - greater “customer” and community engagement in both defining needs (focussed services) and scrutinising service quality;

− persuading local communities and individuals to take more responsibility for their health, security, education and other services, generally investing in awareness and prevention rather than cure;

− more transparent government with improved access to services;


23

− considering different forms of local governance (Kelly/Woolas/Andrews)

• Planning

− a spatial plan making system that requires evidence of “health impact” alongside environmental impact assessments and delivery capability as well as other public policy aspirations;

− designing for a healthier and more secure environment;

− increasing the planning contributions from new development to include all derived SI needs.

• Regeneration and Renewal

− focussing public SI investment on areas of greatest deprivation, seeking greater integration of economic development, social investment and neighbourhood renewal initiatives;

− “place” making;

− integrating new development with existing to reduce social exclusion and share benefits of growth;

− securing a public share in value uplift following development.

• Non public sector delivery

− transferring suitable procurement and management responsibilities to the non-public sector (voluntary and private) and thus reducing public capital expenditure.

2.6.21. The LBBD Local SIF policy review illustrates an increasing government policy requirement to consider partnerships or consultative arrangements, in particular between public bodies, to address the coordinated, co-located and integrated provision of facilities not always for social reasons. Examples include:

• improving women’s employability by increasing childcare support located at schools;

• joint community consultation on Local Development Frameworks and Local Community Strategies;

• library facilities alongside centres of learning and in association with skills development programmes;

• increasing adult access and learning provision and Children Centres alongside or within secondary schools;

• closer links between LA residential care facilities with health facilities;

• expansion of primary care centres to include associated care facilities and services, education, library and other community facilities;

• appointing joint LA NHS “ Directors of Children’s Services”;

• Local Area Agreements requiring a more co-ordinated approach to police, leisure, education and health services for grant to be provided;

• ODPM (now DCLG) offering extra finance for more co-ordinated provision to achieve sustainable community or neighbourhood renewal objectives;

• The Thames Gateway Strategic Framework seeking to bring government departments together in addressing growth and public intervention.

2.6.22. However the conclusions reached in the London Thames Gateway SIF Hurdles and Barriers report are further evidenced by a review at local level:

• Inevitable focus by individual public service providers on their own responsibilities;

• Resistance to “partnership” arrangements from a public sector unwilling or unable to “take risks;”

• Financial and PFI rules effectively prohibiting joined up approaches;


24

• Inadequate incentives (or penalties) to operate in a joined up manner;

• Where the private sector are engaged or where they are invited to contribute, a lack of a clear exposition of SI needs;

• Inadequate resources to do more than manage existing responsibilities let alone embrace a more co-ordinated approach.

• A shortage of publicly owned assets or the capital to acquire them.

• Genuine concerns about whether long term partnership arrangements can be both flexible to allow for changing requirements and still ensure public vfm and accountability through competition.


25


26

3. Evaluation of current commercial and legal landscape and scope for co-operation

3.1. INTRODUCTION

3.1.1. On the basis of the information provided by the stakeholders within the Borough there are very few restrictive or otherwise legally constraining structures in existence within the Borough which would have an impact on either the development of the LBBD Local SIF or the opportunities for colocation/integration and the recommendations for delivery set out in Chapters [7 and 8].

3.1.2. Currently, there are a number of emerging proposals for new structures and vehicles which may be adopted within the Borough in the future and which are under consideration by the stakeholders. The stakeholders have, during our discussions with them, outlined the general principles and aims for these new structures and vehicles and we have set out a summary of these in this section. However, as the proposals are at preliminary stages the stakeholders have not been in a position to provide any specific legal documentation for review.

3.1.3. The proposed recommendations for delivery set out in Chapter [8] either:-

• do not affect these emerging proposals or

• where appropriate we have set out recommendations in this Chapter [8] as to how these emerging proposals ought:-

o to be varied to take account of the proposed recommendations or

o to be embraced to form an integral part of the proposed delivery mechanisms.

3.2. THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (“LDF”)

3.2.1. The Local Authority is in the process of creating the LDF for the Borough and published in July of this year the Local Development Scheme. The Local Development Scheme sets out the documents to be produced by the Local Authority as part of the LDF and the timetable for the production of those documents over the next three years.

3.2.2. We see the LBBD SIF as informing and providing an important evidence base for the creation of the LDF. In particular we see the delivery mechanisms developed as part of LBBD SIF as linking into the LDF and delivering the priorities relating to social infrastructure requirements as set out in the LDF.

3.2.3. We see both the LSP and LAA as central to the development and implementation of the delivery mechanisms recommended as part of the LBBD SIF.

3.3. THE LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP (“LSP”) AND THE LOCAL AREA AGREEMENT (“LAA”)

3.3.1. The LSP includes a number of the key stakeholders involved in social infrastructure delivery within the Borough.

3.3.2. The LAA provides an existing backdrop to the aspirations of the LSP and how they can be realised. In particular the LAA aims to rationalise funding streams and to develop measurable targets for key improvements and regeneration in the widest sense.

3.3.3. We see both the LSP and LAA as central to the development and implementation of any delivery mechanisms produced as part of the LBBD SIF.

3.4. NHS LOCAL INVESTMENT FINANCE TRUST (“LIFT”)

3.4.1. Barking and Havering LIFT was the third NHS LIFT scheme nationally to close in December 2003 (one of 51 NHS LIFT schemes throughout England) and covers the geographical areas of the London Boroughs of (a) Barking and Dagenham and (b) Havering. The selected private sector partner, Primaria, is a consortium comprising Miller Construction and Barclays, with the principal public sector stakeholders


27

being the London Boroughs of Barking & Dagenham and Havering, and the two Primary Care Trusts covered by the same geographical areas (also called Barking & Dagenham PCT and Havering PCT). The NHS LIFT scheme has, since it inception, been responsible for the building of eight new health and social care facilities throughout the two Boroughs.

3.4.2. NHS LIFT is a complex procurement, but key to an understanding of how it works is the role of “LiftCo”. LiftCo is a public/private joint venture company. Although 60% is owned by the private sector – in this case Primaria – the Shareholders Agreement gives significant control over key decision making to the public sector (including the two PCTs), who between them have a 40% stake. LiftCo has two distinct roles. First, it is a strategic partner to the public sector stakeholders. In a 20 year Strategic Partnering Agreement it agrees to work with the public sector stakeholders to agree how to deliver their community based health and social care facilities. Secondly, LiftCo is a landlord which builds and leases the new facilities to the public sector stakeholders (including LBBD) pursuant to Lease Plus Agreements: special types of leases which require Liftco as landlord to build and maintain throughout their 25 year term the new facilities.

3.4.3. NHS LIFT schemes are particularly relevant when considering the provision of co-ordinated and/or colocated social infrastructure, because of one of the key underlying concepts of NHS LIFT, namely the principle of exclusivity. Due to the set up costs of NHS LIFT being high but the cost of individual schemes being comparatively low (when compared with single large acute hospital facilities more usually procured through health PFIs) each selected private sector partner (here Primaria) is given a right of first refusal by the two PCTs in relation to any new schemes within the two boroughs which provide community based health and social care facilities. However, the two boroughs (including the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham) do not give exclusivity. This means that the PCTs must use NHS LIFT for health facilities but the Borough is not obliged to do so (though it can if it wishes, for social care facilities).

3.4.4. The other key reasons which affect the way NHS LIFT can be used to deliver social infrastructure, as opposed to purely health or social care facilities, are the need for public sector bodies to demonstrate that any new scheme carried out by LiftCo (a) falls within the original NHS LIFT procurement (the principle of procurement) and (b) is permitted by the terms under which LiftCo is set up (the principle of proportion). Dealing with these in turn, Barking & Dagenham PCT and the Borough can only procure through NHS LIFT facilities which broadly comprise community based health and social care facilities. Social housing, education and leisure facilities were all excluded from the original procurement and generally can not be provided by LiftCo. (In practice, in a number of cases across the country NHS LIFT schemes have delivered health facilities with a leisure element, for example, but these are normally justified on scheme specific grounds – often because the leisure (or other) element is smaller than the health and social care element).

3.4.5. Turning to the “proportion” principle, LiftCos are fundamentally property development companies but they cannot carry out any sort of property development – the basis of any development a LiftCo carries out must be to provide new health and social care facilities. LiftCos can and do carry out additional development to make the health and social care elements more affordable (indeed this is a fundamental aspect of NHS LIFT schemes) but if LiftCo becomes in effect a “pure” property developer then this would cause difficulties because Barking & Dagenham PCT is only allowed to hold shares in LiftCo for the purpose of developing health and social care schemes.

3.4.6. The benefits of NHS LIFT in providing social infrastructure are:

• There is already an entity in place ready to deliver new facilities without the need for a new, lengthy and expensive procurement

• Standard documentation reduces the time and cost of delivering new schemes

• The public sector passes all risk for the construction and maintenance of the new facilities to the private sector

3.4.7. The disadvantages of NHS LIFT in providing social infrastructure are

• Combined heath/social care and other social infrastructure schemes cannot be delivered outside NHS LIFT because of the exclusivity principle, but cannot always be delivered within NHS LIFT


28

because of the procurement principle (or less frequently the proportion principle) unless there are appropriate scheme specific reasons

• The passing of more risk to LiftCo than would normally be passed to a commercial landlord means that LIFT schemes are more expensive than self-build or commercial leases (albeit that arguably value for money is not affected)

• The number of stakeholders and the complexity of the structure means that for NHS LIFT schemes to work most effectively there needs to be good partnering relationships between the public sector and private sector, and between public sector bodies.

3.4.8. In summary therefore,

• NHS LIFT should (indeed has to) be used to deliver social infrastructure facilities where stand-alone health facilities are required

• Provided the benefits of using NHS LIFT outweigh the disadvantages (see above) then NHS LIFT should be used to deliver combined health and social care schemes

• Where health/social care facilities can advantageously be co-located with non- health/social care social infrastructure (say, for example that it is decided that modestly sized Local Authority owned/operated gym facilities should be located at all new health facilities) then NHS LIFT should be given serious consideration because it may be possible to overcome procurement issues depending on the size and extent of the non-health/social care elements

• NHS LIFT can be used for schemes where there is an element of commercial or residential development – including community facilities - that can reduce the cost of the health/social care element. However, if the health/social care element is very small it might offend against the proportion principle. In addition, if the land upon which the development is being carried out is owned by the public sector there would need to be clear justification as to why the land is being sold to and developed by LiftCo rather than put out to open tender.

• Where it is recommended that health/social care facilities be sited alongside significant elements of non health/social care – for example, a new school – then assuming that (a) LiftCo wants to build the new health element and (b) can demonstrate value for money and that it can do so affordably (which it is required to do under the Strategic Partnering Agreement), it will be necessary to deliver a colocated rather than integrated scheme. Even here, however, there may be scheme specific ways in which a more integrated solution can be achieved (if that is desired). This may be by requiring LiftCo to deliver an element of shared infrastructure in advance of the non-health facilities being built, or by giving LiftCo the opportunity to tender for and win the non- health care element.

3.5. BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE (“BSF”)

3.5.1. We understand that the Local Authority is currently bidding to central government to move forward in wave 4 of the Building Schools for the Future (“BSF”) programme. It is envisaged that BSF will be used to procure the extension of 8 out of the 9 secondary schools within the Borough by use of a Local Education Partnership (LEP) structure.

3.5.2. The role of the LEP is to act as strategic partner to the Local Authority to support the Local Authority in relation to the long-term investment programme for its secondary schools estate by providing “Partnering Services”. The nature and extent of the Partnering Services would be set out in detail in the Strategic Partnering Agreement that the Local Authority would enter into and would depend on local circumstances and requirements, as well as the Local Authority’s particular views as to how the respective roles of the parties should work. We understand that a 100% Local Authority owned ‘proto’ LEP is also under consideration by the Local Authority as preparation for, and to assist the procurement of, the actual LEP.

3.5.3. We recommend that the role of the LEP is embraced and enhanced in the delivery of social infrastructure within the Borough and that it is linked closely into the delivery mechanisms developed as part of the LBBD SIF. It will therefore be necessary for the Local Authority to consider carefully the remit


29

for the LEP and factor in the role of the LEP with its wider plans for social infrastructure delivery across the Borough.

3.5.4. In particular, Partnership for Schools, the body responsible for delivering the BSF programme has recently backed the use of BSF to provide leisure facilities for community use. This route has also been recognised by a number of councils seeking to relocate or re-provide leisure centres on existing or adjacent school campuses.

3.5.5. A national agency in partnership for schools has been created to drive forward the programme to combine community sports with school leisure provision and both Sport England and the Youth Sports Trust are working closely with them.

3.5.6. The LEP can therefore act as a vehicle to deliver leisure facilities generally as part of the Local Authority’s broader programme of investment and modernisation in leisure in addition to provision on school sites.

3.5.7. The Local Authority intends that the LEP will have exclusivity for a period of time (usually 10 years with the ability to extend for a further 5 years) with regard to the provision of secondary school facilities within the Borough and in addition that it will be able to deliver, on a non-exclusive basis, primary school facilities and other children’s services within the Borough. As a consequence, careful consideration needs to be given to the leisure trust arrangements currently under consideration and discussed below and how those arrangements should link into any wider role for the LEP.

3.5.8. One of the key issues within leisure schemes is management of demand risk and Leisure PFI has established a solution to effectively share this risk between public and private sector. Such solutions can be used as part of the standardised Public Private Partnership Programme (4Ps) leisure documentation to facilitate leisure provision as part of the BSF model.

3.5.9. We recognise that the role of BSF is to deliver high quality secondary school educational facilities with a view to raising the educational standards attained within the Borough. However, we also see the opportunity of BSF as extending to much more than simply a building programme for the school estate. The development in due course of a strategic business case which takes on board the wider community needs and the possibilities of collaboration with other stakeholders can have real impact. This is particularly so in the case of the inclusion of children’s centre, extended schools, further education and leisure in the vision for new campus structures and we understand that the Local Authority is already routinely reviewing every school site within the Borough to assess whether facilities could be co-located or hours of use extended to encompass the wider services included under the children’s services umbrella.

3.6. LEISURE TRUST

3.6.1. LBBD is currently considering the possibility of entering into a new leisure trust into which its swimming pool and leisure facilities will be transferred. Similar trusts have been adopted by a number of other Councils.

3.6.2. The primary issues encountered by such leisure trusts are whether they will be able to address issues around capital investment in the facilities in the future to maintain them as well as upgrading them over time. Councils are often expected to heavily subsidise such trusts and any improvements to such facilities.

3.6.3. It may be better use of the Local Authority’s resources to look at investing in new or major refurbishment of key facilities by way of PPP vehicles which can also work alongside the LBBD SIF programme. Such vehicles can harness trust savings and many of the benefits associated with trusts (by use of hybrid trusts) whilst generating more aggressive income projections and more desirable facilities.

3.6.4. There has, in the last few years, been a great deal of interest in such organisations which are set up on a not-for-profit basis. They are being used to deliver public services but are legally independent from the Government and usually not owned or controlled by private, external shareholders. Any surpluses are reinvested in the organisation and are not distributed to shareholders as dividends. Due to the non-profit motivation their purposes are usually service focussed and social or welfare orientated.


30

3.6.5. The prime benefits of using such trusts in leisure are:

• New leisure trusts can make the provision of the service less expensive through tax advantages and savings on national non domestic rates. This provides greater security for service delivery – particularly where savings are reinvested.

• The partnership approach to investment is advantageous and the not-for-profit motive is often seen as desirable - certainly Government appears to be moving more towards public private partnerships with voluntary organisations by introducing legislation, introducing community interest companies and prudential borrowing.

• There are examples of not-for-profit vehicles which have been successful and surplus generating, such as Greenwich Leisure.

• Not-for-profit vehicles offer great financial and managerial autonomy.

• There is a single purpose focus as the trusts are free from local government decision making process and capital controls and able to raise funds independently without borrowing counting as public expenditure (but see below on ability to borrow and hybrid trusts).

• Such vehicles could be favourably treated by grant funding organisations and able to benefit from charitable donations.

• Community members can be involved in such trusts

3.6.6. There are of course disadvantages with regard to such structures, such as the following:

• The Authority loses direct control over the services.

• The Authority retains responsibility if the trust fails and requires rescue (unless a hybrid trust in which case the private sector contractor takes such risk).

• The Authority may lose its ability to plan strategically for the needs of the whole area although this can, contractually, be mitigated.

• There are no guarantees about the future availability of the financial advantages that are obtained from day one by the trust.

• There are concerns on behalf of the new trust over the future availability of revenue funding. Clearly, this can usually only be permitted by an authority one year in advance and may be reduced or removed without adequate notice.

• Such not-for-profit organisations are not as likely to raise capital finance independently without authority covenants.

• There are often concerns expressed as to the loss of jobs for in-house, central services. Alternatively, there may be a Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) transfer which has its own issues for employees and unions.

• In addition where existing management move to a new trust there is a concern that innovation and business expertise may not be harnessed – it may be “same failing service, different label”. This should not be the case for hybrids which should be by way of Public Private Partnership (PPP) and involve private sector innovation.

• Attracting and retaining quality management can be difficult but crucial to a trust’s success although this should not be a problem for hybrids which are used by private sector contractors.

• The loss of in-house service to the authority means an increase in cost for the authority as overheads are spread over fewer in-house services. Small trusts have limited ability to make support cost savings (although, for hybrids, private contractors can still make savings by running a portfolio of projects).

• Perception that there is an erosion of “public service orientation”.

• Politically, not-for-profit organisations may also be regarded as unwelcome due to the lack of direct democratic accountability.


31

• Set up costs may be significant.

• Hybrid trusts have in the past been treated with some scepticism by the leisure market as to their legality and acceptance by government policy makers in the future. There is no indication, however, which gives credence to these concerns and the recent audit commission appears to accept such structures as one of the legitimate options available to authorities.

3.6.7. In conclusion our recommendation is for the Local Authority to use the development of the LBBD SIF as an opportunity to take a strategic view in its leisure provision and to review its current leisure facilities across the Borough to decide where investment is needed both short and long term. In our experience most standard leisure trusts (rather than PPP hybrid trusts) offer only short term solutions with many councils looking, long term, at how they can lever in funding in a more effective way to save failing or inefficient trusts and to reduce their reliance on subsidies from the local authority.

3.6.8. As discussed above trust structures can be utilised and can address some of the disadvantages listed above by way of PPP whereby the private contractor incorporates a hybrid trust within its delivery structure. This secures capital investment for a project and savings which can be used by the authority to upgrade and reduce the cost of the service.

3.7. CHILDREN’S CENTRES

3.7.1. We understand from our review of current initiatives for the Local Authority that it is intended that 14 new children’s centres (with family support services, full day care and health services) are to be provided within the Borough as part of the capital programme.

3.7.2. We understand that discussions with regard to the creation of a Children’s Trust within the Borough are at a very early stage. The Children's Policy and Trust Commissioning Division has been created and is responsible for:

• developing strong performance management and management information for the Children's Service directorate

• leading the development of Children's Trust arrangements, and as part of this leading the department's strategy to build effective partnership working with other agencies and the voluntary sector

• leading the arrangements for the joint planning and commissioning of services

• managing the arrangements for the delivery of support services to the Corporate Director of Children's Services and schools

• maintaining strong links with corporate functions and Community Priorities

• leading the development and arrangements for monitoring the Children and Young People’s Plan

3.7.3. The Children’s Trust will feed into and draw upon existing initiatives in the area to avoid duplication of effort for stakeholders and to ensure sound governance and monitoring against the five Every Child Matters outcomes.

3.7.4. The joint commissioning strategy and work which is necessitated in developing a Children’s Trust will also be informed by the partnership working review which should include any existing health/ social work partnerships and specifically budget pooling arrangements within the Borough.

3.7.5. We see real scope for the Children’s Trust (when created) to link into the delivery mechanisms developed as part of the LBBD SIF and therefore discussions with regard to the development of the SIF delivery mechanisms and the Children’s Trust should be progressed early on in the overall process.


32

3.8. ASSET INVESTMENT VEHICLE

3.8.1. We understand that the Local Authority is considering how it can better make use of its asset base (beyond generating receipts for its capital programme from land disposals) to meet the costs associated with the emerging housing and social infrastructure needs facing the Borough. As part of this review the Local Authority is at the very early stages of considering the setting up of a family of asset investment vehicles for the holding of parts of the Local Authority’s land with a view to generating additional returns.

3.8.2. No binding commitments have been entered at this stage. We have very little information on this and have not reviewed any paperwork with regard to the proposed structure.

3.8.3. We believe that a Borough wide asset management strategy is likely to form an integral part of the recommendations of the LBBD SIF delivery mechanisms both in terms of the potential for aligning the disposal protocols developed by such a vehicle to the possibility of joint provision of services as well as ongoing asset management issues. We recommend that the current status of the asset investment vehicle structure is reviewed in conjunction with the emerging delivery mechanisms from the LBBD SIF.

3.9. COUNCIL OFFICE SPACE RATIONALISATION PROGRAMME

3.9.1. The Local Authority’s office space rationalisation programme, and in particular any surplus assets which are identified, need to be considered in the light of the recommendations set out in the Asset Investment Vehicle section above with regard to the alignment of asset disposal protocols.

3.10. FRAMEWORK PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

3.10.1. The Local Authority is at the final stages of a procurement process for the creation of a framework for procuring future construction work within the Borough. The Local Authority hopes to be in a position to appoint the successful bidder shortly.

3.10.2. A joint approach to the procurement of social infrastructure facilities across stakeholders is likely to emerge as part of the LBBD SIF delivery mechanisms. It is therefore extremely important that the terms of this current procurement undertaken by the Local Authority are reviewed as soon as possible and considered carefully in conjunction with the emerging delivery mechanism recommendations as part of LBBD SIF.

3.11. GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS IN PARTNERSHIPS REVIEW

3.11.1. As part of an internal audit of the procedures and controls in place over governance arrangements in partnerships, an extensive review has been carried out by the Local Authority of the various partnership arrangements which currently exist between departments within the local authority or between the local authority and other stakeholders within the Borough. A table summarising the partnership arrangements currently in place within the Borough is set out in Appendix A5. As this table has been produced internally for the Local Authority it only refers to Local Authority officers as principal points of contact. We recognise that in certain cases members of the voluntary and community sector will also be integrally involved in taking forward such arrangements and therefore should be consulted for further information in respect of such arrangements.

3.11.2. Each of the partnerships has been set up under different governmental initiatives and has its own particular purpose. The list of such partnerships which operate within the Borough and involve multiple stakeholders is extensive.

3.11.3. The partnerships’ aims range from:-

• providing a forum for consultation to take place between stakeholders

• acting as facilitators for partnership working and where appropriate achieving the alignment or pooling of funding streams

• overseeing delivery of programmes

• operating within specific areas within the Borough either on a ward or smaller estate by estate basis


33

3.11.4. However, the multiplicity of partnerships with overlapping remits is reducing the effectiveness of the partnership arrangements and their ability to deliver against the desired aims.

3.11.5. The partnerships do not constrain or restrict the development of a LBBD Local SIF. However, taking account of the fact that there is scope to rationalise the existing arrangements, there appears to be clear scope for any delivery mechanisms and recommendations which are adopted within the Borough to link into those existing partnership arrangements which provide ideal opportunities for achieving cooperation between stakeholders and also allow for alignment or pooling of funding streams.

3.11.6. A process is currently underway within the local authority to assess and, if necessary, to improve the governance arrangements with regard to the partnerships which are identified as “significant” for the purposes of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (“CPA”) requirements. The requirement to have adequate governance arrangements in place for all significant partnerships and the ability to show that key lines of enquiry have been followed with regard to these significant partnerships will become a mandatory requirement of the CPA procedure from next year.

3.11.7. In order to facilitate the process to improve governance arrangements and to optimise compliance with the upcoming mandatory CPA requirements as well as strengthening those existing partnership arrangements which provide ideal opportunities for achieving co-operation between stakeholders, there may be scope to align or rationalise the existing partnership arrangements.

3.11.8. The criteria for identifying which partnerships ought to be rationalised or aligned are:-

• identification of those partnerships which have similar or overlapping remits

• achievement of a clear focus amongst stakeholders on the desired outcomes

• avoidance of duplication of effort and the avoidance of multiple meetings for the representatives of various stakeholders

• clear and transparent reporting lines with clear accountability and delegation of authority

• achievement of commitment at senior levels of each stakeholder to these significant partnerships

• the harnessing of best practice models in particular where joint working has led to efficiencies and service improvements.

3.12. NEIGHBOURHOOD MANAGEMENT

3.12.1. The Local Authority has recently piloted potential models for implementing neighbourhood management structures within the Borough to reach key target groups within the Borough.

3.12.2. As part of the emerging LBBD SIF delivery mechanisms, we believe that structures for achieving wider community engagement will be relevant and therefore it is recommended that the current strategy of the Local Authority for neighbourhood management structures is reviewed and considered in the light of these emerging recommendations.


34

4. Population Growth & Social Infrastructure Need

4.1. INTRODUCTION 4.1.1. This report aims to assess the demographic impacts and infrastructure requirements associated with

the wide spread housing proposals currently taking place within Barking and Dagenham and planned into the future. The study looks at change in the borough across a number of sub areas and also a number of points in time between 2006 and 2027.

4.1.2. Due to the significant change currently taking place within the Barking Town Centre area, this has been treated as a separate sub area for assessment, in addition to this the remainder of the Borough has been spatially divided to create a further three sub-areas of analysis, As illustrated in Figures 4.1 to 4.4 ,the areas for analysis are therefore:

• The Barking Town Centre Area

• The South Riverside Area

• The Eastern Area

• The North and Central Area

4.1.3. The sub-areas used in this analysis are illustrated in detail in Figures 4.1 to 4.4 below. For more detailed listings of all sites included in these four areas (including the gross new homes planned; existing number of homes planned for demolition; net number of new homes; tenure mix; and phasing and sources) refer to Appendix A1. It should be noted that the development sites in this report have not been assessed simply at one point in time but between the present (2006) and the future (2027). Housing has been phased in conjunction with detailed guidance by the borough (in the case of current and recent proposals, applications and developments) and through the LBBD Annual Monitoring Report Appendices (in the case of LHCS capacity sites). The four points in time where cumulative impacts have been assessed are as follows:

• 2006

• 2011

• 2016

• 2027


35

Figure 4.1: Existing and Future Plausible Housing Delivery sites – Barking Town Centre Area


36

Figure 4.2: Existing and Future Plausible Housing Delivery sites – South Riverside Area


37

Figure 4.3: Existing and Future Plausible Housing Delivery sites – Eastern Area


38

Figure 4.4: Existing and Future Plausible Housing Delivery sites – North and Central Area


39

4.2. THE EVOLVING BASELINE 4.2.1. Before any analysis of the impact that new housing development will have on the Borough can take

place, it is essential to first establish the current baseline position with regard to population and demographics. Equally important is the need to create an evolving baseline which looks at how this baseline population will change over time irrespective of new housing developments taking place across the borough.

4.2.2. Age specific, Super Output Area Level population figures for LBBD, based on 2004 mid year population estimates, have been provided by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). This has formed the existing baseline for analysis. To then calculate the anticipated population growth and associated demographics that would occur without any of the development proposed, the Office of National Statistics have also provided ‘2004 based sub national population projections’. These projections forecast the change in population to 2028 at a borough level by each year group based on a combination of birth rates, death rates and inward/outward migration levels.

4.2.3. Because these population projections are not available at a lower geographical level than the entire borough an exercise was required to apportion the population change into each of the 4 Sub Areas in this study. Each of the 4 sub areas are an aggregation of Middle Level Super Output Areas (MLSOA). Using a combination of the MLSOA detailed baseline population structure and the Borough wide population projections, the age specific population change was pro-rated to each MLSOA in relation to its age structure. Until the ONS produce population projections of this kind at a geographical level lower than Borough-wide, this method is seen as the most effective.

4.2.4. It should be noted that this report has used the ‘2004-based sub national population projections’ which were recently released on the 12th October 2006. These projections are markedly different from the same 2003 based population projections released in 2005. The graph below illustrates the difference between these 2 sets of projections.

Figure 4.5: ONS Population projections – Difference between 2003 and 2004 based projections

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

2004

20

06

2008

20

10

2012

20

14

2016

20

18

2020

20

22

2024

20

26

2028

Popu

latio

on (0

00's

2003 based projections 2004 based projections

4.2.5. The significant decrease in population projections for the Borough presented in the 2004-based population data is currently being discussed between LBBD officers and the Office of National Statistics. The importance of presenting this difference relates to the current use of the 2003-based population projections in numerous existing pieces of work and, subsequently, why the findings of this report are likely to substantially differ from existing work. The ONS has, however, recommended that only 2004


40

based population projections should be used for demographic analysis work as the methodology for projecting growth has been altered (and improved) since the previous 2003-based projections3.

4.2.6. The 2006 mid-year estimates will, however, be subject to a new methodology that will then be applied back to 2001 data. It is anticipated that the new results will be published in August 2007. It is recommended that the following population projections be re-calculated through the SIF model once this data is available.

4.2.7. Table 4.1 below, details the anticipated population growth for the entire borough followed by Tables 4.2 to 4.5 which detail this population growth by sub-area and age group. Figures 4.6 and 4.7 also illustrate the change in age structure between 2004 and 2016 and also between 2004 and 2027. The green bars in these figures represent an increase in particular age bracket whilst the red bars represent a fall.

4.2.8. As can be seen by the change in age structure diagrams, the borough as a whole will experience a noticeable increased proportion of 20 to 30 year olds and 40 to 70 year olds. Between 2004 and 2027 however, the Borough will actually see a smaller proportion of ‘under 45 year olds’. It should be noted that this is the borough as a whole and these changes will differ across the Borough, with, for example, an increase in under 30 year olds in the Barking Town Centre area and Riverside areas.

Table 4.1: 2004 Based Population Projections for LB Barking and Dagenham (no new housing)

LBBD Borough Wide Population

Age Group 2006 2011 2016 2027

0 - 3' 10,186 9,805 9,901 9,967

4 - 10' 16,588 16,717 16,899 17,200

11 - 15' 11,702 11,404 11,193 11,565

16 - 17 4,350 4,494 4,223 4,497

18 - 24 15,815 16,273 16,334 16,192

25 - 29 11,819 12,518 12,887 11,933

30 - 34 12,359 12,004 12,639 12,716

35 - 39 14,031 12,169 11,921 13,033

40 - 44 12,947 13,405 11,935 12,513

45 - 49 10,671 12,282 12,756 11,483

50 - 54 8,392 9,964 11,450 10,687

55 - 59 8,344 7,678 9,108 10,751

60 - 64 6,359 7,316 6,797 9,530

65 - 69 5,126 5,380 6,217 7,126

70 - 74 4,776 4,313 4,555 5,128

75 - 79 4,699 3,797 3,540 4,300

80 - 84 3,901 3,349 2,856 3,234

85 + 2,810 3,127 3,153 3,163

Total Population 164,875 165,995 168,364 175,018

Source: ONS 2004-based Population Projections

4.2.9. Based up ONS 2004-based population projections, the Borough as a whole, not taking into account new housing growth, could see an increase in the existing baseline population of approximately 10,150, rising from 164,875 to 175,018 in 2027. By 2016, however, the population projections suggest the increase would be as little as 3,500.

For more information on how this methodology has been changed refer to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/2004_Methodology_Guide.pdf


41

3


42

Figure 4.6: Anticipated change in existing population age structure between 2004 and 2016

Change in Population Age Structure 2004 - 2016

1.5%

2.5%

3.5%

4.5%

5.5%

6.5%

7.5%

8.5%

0 - 4 5 - 9 10 -14

15 -19

20 -24

25 -29

30 -34

35 -39

40 -44

45 -49

50 -54

55 -59

60 -64

65 -69

70 -74

75 -79

80 -84

85 +

Age Groups

% o

f Tot

a

2004 2016


Figure 4.7: Anticipated change in existing population age structure between 2004 and 2027

Change in Population Age Structure 2004 - 2027

1.5%

2.5%

3.5%

4.5%

5.5%

6.5%

7.5%

8.5%

0 - 4 5 - 9 10 -14

15 -19

20 -24

25 -29

30 -34

35 -39

40 -44

45 -49

50 -54

55 -59

60 -64

65 -69

70 -74

75 -79

80 -84

85 +

Age Groups

% o

f Tot

a

2004 2027



43

Table 4.2: 2004 Based Population Projections for Barking Area (no new housing)

Barking Area Population

Age Group 2006 2011 2016 2027

0 - 3' 1,843 1,775 1,792 1,804

4 - 10' 2,393 2,427 2,446 2,490

11 - 15' 1,528 1,489 1,463 1,511

16 - 17 672 692 650 693

18 - 24 2,595 2,670 2,682 2,657

25 - 29 2,255 2,388 2,459 2,277

30 - 34 2,217 2,155 2,269 2,283

35 - 39 2,035 1,764 1,733 1,892

40 - 44 1,794 1,855 1,650 1,733

45 - 49 1,424 1,639 1,701 1,532

50 - 54 1,084 1,291 1,482 1,378

55 - 59 959 879 1,041 1,233

60 - 64 689 796 738 1,034

65 - 69 487 506 589 674

70 - 74 448 402 429 483

75 - 79 391 316 295 359

80 - 84 325 278 237 269

85 + 260 289 292 293



Table 4.3: 2004 Based Population Projections for South Riverside (no new housing)

South Riverside Area Population

Age Group 2006 2011 2016 2027

0 - 3' 976 939 949 955

4 - 10' 1,210 1,226 1,235 1,258

11 - 15' 830 811 794 820

16 - 17 304 315 296 315

18 - 24 1,229 1,262 1,267 1,256

25 - 29 1,049 1,112 1,145 1,062

30 - 34 1,097 1,070 1,126 1,131

35 - 39 1,082 938 919 1,005

40 - 44 932 964 858 901

45 - 49 712 820 849 766

50 - 54 543 644 739 690

55 - 59 468 431 511 603

60 - 64 315 365 338 473

65 - 69 285 300 345 398

70 - 74 282 254 268 302

75 - 79 268 217 203 246

80 - 84 230 197 168 191

85 + 117 130 131 132




44

Table 4.4: 2004 Based Population Projections for Eastern Area (no new housing)

Eastern Area Population

Age Group 2006 2011 2016 2027

0 - 3' 2,201 2,119 2,140 2,154

4 - 10' 3,879 3,898 3,947 4,017

11 - 15' 2,636 2,568 2,519 2,604

16 - 17 968 1,000 940 1,001

18 - 24 3,637 3,740 3,755 3,722

25 - 29 2,424 2,567 2,645 2,452

30 - 34 2,508 2,429 2,559 2,576

35 - 39 3,338 2,895 2,834 3,099

40 - 44 3,064 3,170 2,821 2,961

45 - 49 2,534 2,917 3,034 2,729

50 - 54 2,004 2,377 2,732 2,553

55 - 59 2,061 1,900 2,257 2,658

60 - 64 1,641 1,881 1,751 2,456

65 - 69 1,285 1,347 1,558 1,786

70 - 74 1,214 1,099 1,154 1,301

75 - 79 1,178 952 886 1,077

80 - 84 987 848 723 818

85 + 702 781 787 790



Table 4.5: 2004 Based Population Projections for North and Central Area (no new housing)

North & Central Area Population

Age Group 2006 2011 2016 2027

0 - 3' 5,166 4,972 5,020 5,054

4 - 10' 9,106 9,165 9,271 9,435

11 - 15' 6,707 6,536 6,418 6,630

16 - 17 2,406 2,487 2,337 2,488

18 - 24 8,354 8,601 8,631 8,557

25 - 29 6,091 6,452 6,638 6,142

30 - 34 6,537 6,350 6,685 6,726

35 - 39 7,576 6,571 6,435 7,037

40 - 44 7,156 7,417 6,606 6,918

45 - 49 6,001 6,906 7,171 6,456

50 - 54 4,761 5,652 6,496 6,065

55 - 59 4,856 4,468 5,299 6,257

60 - 64 3,714 4,275 3,970 5,567

65 - 69 3,068 3,226 3,725 4,269

70 - 74 2,833 2,558 2,704 3,043

75 - 79 2,862 2,312 2,156 2,618

80 - 84 2,360 2,026 1,728 1,956

85 + 1,731 1,927 1,943 1,949




45

4.3. BARKING AND DAGENHAM HOUSING GROWTH 4.3.1. In reality, LB Barking and Dagenham is set to undergo a period of significant housing growth over the

next two decades which will have an enormous impact on the actual population growth experienced in the Borough. The following section details the housing growth proposed.

4.3.2. The core data source for housing sites used for this piece of analysis has been the London Housing Capacity Survey (LHCS). This piece of work carried out by the Greater London Authority has subsequently been scrutinised by LBBD officers and adapted due to local circumstances and where necessary to fit with borough aspirations for certain sites (whether for employment retention or for housing of a certain density). This report has, however, superseded the LHCS details for particular sites where more recent or reliable information was made available. The list below includes these information sources which overruled the LHCS:

• Detailed Barking Town Centre schemes provided by the LBBD Housing Regeneration Team.

• London Development Agency – London Housing Capacity Site Database

• Barking Riverside scheme details from LBBD Regeneration Team

4.3.3. While the details of each site is available in the Appendices to this report, Tables 4.6 to 4.9 summarise the total number, tenure and anticipated delivery date of housing across the four areas of analysis and in the Borough as a whole.

Table 4.6 Summary of possible New Housing Numbers

Area Specific Housing Gross New housing

by 2027

Existing Housing for

Decant

Net New Homes by

2027

Barking Town Centre Area 7,539 2,022 5,517

South Riverside Area 16,970 240 16,730

Eastern Area 2,717 44 2,673

North and Central Area 4,270 0 4,270

Borough Wide Total 31,496 2,306 29,190

Table 4.7 Summary of possible Tenure of Net New Homes

Area Specific Housing % of Net Housing as

Market Units

& of Net Housing as

Intermediate Units

% of Net Housing as

Social Rented Units

Barking Town Centre Area 61% 30% 9%

South Riverside Area 62% 23% 15%

Eastern Area 64% 10% 25%

North and Central Area 65% 10% 25%

Borough Wide Total 62% 21% 16%

Table 4.8 Summary of possible net New Homes delivered by Phase

Area Specific Housing By 2006 2006 - 2011 2012 - 2016 2017 - 2027

Barking Town Centre Area 442 3,217 1,410 448

South Riverside Area 0 3,090 4,525 9,115

Eastern Area 425 272 1,066 910

North and Central Area 760 2,024 811 675

Borough Wide Total 1,627 8,603 7,812 11,148


46

Table 4.9 Summary of possible net New Homes cumulative by Phase

Area Specific Housing By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Barking Town Centre Area 442 3,659 5,069 5,517


Eastern Area 425 697 1,763 2,673

North and Central Area 760 2,784 3,595 4,270

Borough Wide Total 1,627 10,230 18,042 29,190

4.4. DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACT OF NEW HOUSING GROWTH 4.4.1. The approach to projecting future populations and child yields of new housing developments has been

the subject of much debate and analysis, and a wide range of alternative approaches are used by various stakeholders to guide the demographic analysis process. As agreement between different stakeholders and policy makers on preferred standards and assumptions can prove difficult for a number of reasons, this chapter illustrates the effect of using combinations of different standards and assumptions to provide a more robust demographic picture from which to work from. This chapter presents a number of alternative methodologies that have been adopted by both the public and private sector to assess ‘who’ will be living in new housing developments.

4.4.2. Any methodology that attempts to make projections about future housing growth will be influenced by an understanding of the ’type’ of new residential growth, as different styles of housing will affect the social and demographic profile of potential occupiers. The key determinants of household size and profile are tenure (i.e. private sector or affordable - social rented housing having the highest rates of occupancy), the number of bedrooms and whether the units are houses or flats. All these factors can have significant impacts both on the total population and associated child yields.

4.4.3. For the purpose of assessing the population and child yields associated with new housing development, it is considered most appropriate to assess this based upon applying demographic standards to specific breakdowns of units such as the number of 1, 2, 3, 4 or more bedrooms and the breakdown between how many of each would be affordable/social rented as opposed to private/intermediate housing.

4.4.4. These alternative approaches can be applied to the unit breakdown of any given housing development to test the overall sensitivity of using different approaches. The background of these various methodologies is discussed in more detail in the Appendices of this document. Rather than simply selecting one preferable methodology it is more valuable to present a number of outputs based on combinations of the various approaches.


47

Table 4.10 Household size data sources applicable to test demographic impacts of new housing

Approach Data Source Details

Approach 1 Census 2001 London average

Approach 2 Census 2001 LBBD average

Approach 3 Census 2001 Thames Gateway average

Approach 4 London Household Survey 2002 London average

Approach 5 London Household Survey 2002 LBBD average

Approach 6 London Household Survey 2002 Thames Gateway average

Approach 7 Wandsworth Housing Survey 2004 LB Wandsworth new housing developments

Approach 8 CORE Lettings Analysis London average

Approach 9 CORE Lettings Analysis LBBD average

Approach 10 CORE Lettings Analysis Thames Gateway average

Approach 11 East London Affordable Housing Survey Policy steer on social rented occupancy levels

4.4.5. In the following set of matrices each possible approach has been tested applying average household sizes separately to both the market and intermediate housing units (presented along the grey upper horizontal bar) and the social rented housing units (presented down the grey vertical column). The combined populations are then presented in the central section of the matrix.

4.4.6. It should be noted that intermediate housing units have not been tested separately due to the lack of specific average household data for intermediate units and instead these units have been tested using the same assumptions as for market units. This is because intermediate housing units contain household characteristics closer to that of market units and less in common with social rented units.

4.4.7. As can be seen by the hatching across one row of the matrix below, Approach 7 has been partially discounted from the analysis. This is because the data sources in Approach 7 (The Wandsworth Housing Survey 2004) contain predominantly market and intermediate properties and the social rented sample size is too small to be seen as a reliable data source.

4.4.8. In addition to this, Approach 11 is also discounted. The East London Affordable Housing Framework sets a target policy for occupation levels in social rented units requiring the full occupation of 3 and 4 bedroom units with 5 and 7 persons respectively. The inclusion of such a policy based approach is useful to illustrate the impacts of such a policy on population numbers but against real data sources, should be discounted as it is not directly comparable.


48

Table 4.11: Barking Town Centres Area Net Population Growth – Range of possible outcomes at 2027

Barking Town Centre Area

Market & Intermediate Housing Units

Approach

1

Approach

2

Approach

3

Approach

4

Approach

5

Approach

6

Approach

7

Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

10,124 11,027 9,870 9,881 10,851 10,205 10,660

Approach 1 1,083 11,207

11,144

11,133

11,064

11,195

11,227

12,110 10,953 10,965 11,935

12,047 10,890 10,901 11,872

12,036 10,879 10,890 11,861

11,967 10,810 10,821 11,791

12,098 10,941 10,952 11,923

12,130 10,973 10,985 11,955

11,288

11,225

11,214

11,145

11,276

11,308

11,743

11,680

11,669

11,600

11,731

11,763

Approach 2 1,020

Approach 3 1,009

Approach 4 940

Approach 5 1,071

Approach 6 1,103

Approach 7 1,483 11,607 12,510 11,353 11,364 12,335 11,688 12,143

Approach 8 1,144 11,268

11,285

11,281

12,171 11,014 11,025 11,995

12,188 11,031 11,042 12,012

12,184 11,027 11,038 12,008

11,349

11,366

11,361

11,804

11,821

11,817

Approach 9 1,161

Approach 10 1,157

Approach 11 1,442 11,566 12,469 11,312 11,323 12,294 11,647 12,102

Source: EDAW Analysis

Table 4.12: South Riverside Areas Net Population Growth – Range of possible outcomes at 2027

South Riverside Area


Approach

1

Approach

2

Approach

3

Approach

4

Approach

5

Approach

6

Approach

7

Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

29,200 31,697 28,228 29,135 33,199 30,057 30,716

Approach 1 6,028 35,228

34,893

34,790

34,422

35,499

35,420

37,725 34,257 35,163 39,227

37,390 33,922 34,828 38,892

37,287 33,818 34,725 38,789

36,919 33,450 34,357 38,421

37,996 34,527 35,434 39,498

37,917 34,448 35,355 39,419

36,085

35,750

35,647

35,279

36,356

36,277

36,745

36,409

36,306

35,938

37,015

36,936

Approach 2 5,693

Approach 3 5,590

Approach 4 5,222

Approach 5 6,299

Approach 6 6,220

Approach 7 8,369 37,569 40,066 36,597 37,504 41,568 38,426 39,085

Approach 8 6,419 35,619

35,779

35,671

38,116 34,647 35,554 39,618

38,276 34,808 35,714 39,778

38,168 34,700 35,606 39,670

36,476

36,636

36,528

37,135

37,296

37,187

Approach 9 6,579

Approach 10 6,471

Approach 11 7,945 37,145 39,642 36,174 37,080 41,144 38,002 38,661



49

Table 4.13: Eastern Areas Net Population Growth – Range of possible outcomes at 2027

Eastern Area Market & Intermediate Housing Units

Approach

1

Approach

2

Approach

3

Approach

4

Approach

5

Approach

6

Approach

7

Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

4,064 4,413 3,953 4,020 4,426 4,142 4,276

Approach 1 1,571 5,635

5,542

5,528

5,431

5,621

5,670

5,984 5,524 5,591 5,997

5,891 5,431 5,498 5,904

5,877 5,417 5,484 5,889

5,781 5,321 5,388 5,793

5,971 5,510 5,578 5,983

6,019 5,559 5,626 6,032

5,713

5,620

5,606

5,510

5,700

5,748

5,847

5,754

5,739

5,643

5,833

5,882

Approach 2 1,478

Approach 3 1,463

Approach 4 1,367

Approach 5 1,557

Approach 6 1,606

Approach 7 2,154 6,218 6,567 6,107 6,174 6,580 6,296 6,430

Approach 8 1,673 5,737

5,761

5,757

6,086 5,626 5,693 6,099

6,110 5,650 5,717 6,122

6,106 5,646 5,713 6,118

5,815

5,839

5,835

5,948

5,972

5,968

Approach 9 1,696

Approach 10 1,692

Approach 11 2,112 6,176 6,526 6,066 6,133 6,538 6,255 6,388


Table 4.14: North and Central Areas Net Population Growth – Range of possible outcomes at 2027

North and Central Area


Approach

1

Approach

2

Approach

3

Approach

4

Approach

5

Approach

6

Approach

7

Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

6,525 7,086 6,347 6,455 7,106 6,651 6,865

Approach 1 2,472 8,997

8,851

8,828

8,677

8,976

9,053

9,558 8,819 8,927 9,578

9,412 8,673 8,781 9,432

9,389 8,650 8,758 9,409

9,237 8,499 8,606 9,258

9,536 8,798 8,905 9,557

9,613 8,875 8,982 9,633

9,123

8,977

8,954

8,802

9,101

9,178

9,337

9,190

9,168

9,016

9,315

9,392

Approach 2 2,326

Approach 3 2,303

Approach 4 2,152

Approach 5 2,451

Approach 6 2,528

Approach 7 3,390 9,915 10,476 9,737 9,845 10,496 10,041 10,254

Approach 8 2,632 9,157

9,195

9,189

9,718 8,979 9,087 9,738

9,756 9,017 9,125 9,776

9,749 9,011 9,118 9,770

9,283

9,321

9,314

9,497

9,534

9,528

Approach 9 2,670

Approach 10 2,664

Approach 11 3,324 9,849 10,410 9,671 9,779 10,430 9,975 10,189



50

4.4.9. The purpose of presenting such detailed matrices of population outputs is to demonstrate the wide variation of possible outcomes depending on which data source is deemed the most appropriate. For the purpose of future social infrastructure planning in Barking and Dagenham and the more detailed mapping and analysis presented later in this report, a middle ground singular output is required and so a median calculation has been used to combine the numerous outputs above to reach a reasonable middle ground from which to base the analysis.

Table 4.15: Summary of possible population outcomes at 2027

Range in Net Population Increase Minimum Yields Maximum Yields Median Yields

Barking Town Centre Area 10,810 12,188 11,600

South Riverside Area 33,450 39,778 36,636

Eastern Area 5,321 6,122 5,717

North and Central Area 8,499 9,776 9,125

Barking And Dagenham Total 58,080 67,864 63,078


4.4.10. The analysis above suggests that the Barking Town Centre Area has the potential to increase its existing population by approximately 11,600 people in the next 20 years. The South Riverside area will see the largest growth in population with approximately 36,600 people by 2027. The Eastern Area of the borough will see the least development taking place and, subsequently, has a relatively small, yet still significant, population increase of approximately 5,700 people. Across the largest area covering the North and Central part of the borough an additional 9,100 people could be expected by 2027.

Table 4.16: Summary of possible population outcomes

Net Population Increase By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Barking Town Centre Area 916 7,637 10,654 11,600


Eastern Area 909 1,491 3,771 5,717

North and Central Area 1,624 5,949 7,682 9,125

Barking And Dagenham Total 3,449 22,243 39,117 63,078

4.4.11. In total the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham could see a housing growth-related population increase of approximately 63,000 people. This requires the entire quantity of housing sites identified across the borough to be utilised and would not reach this level until 2027. By 2016, if all proposed housing developments and a number of capacity sites are carried forward the increase in population could be approximately 39,100 people. In the shorter term the borough could see an increase of 22,200 people within the next 5 years by (2011).


51

Figure 4.8 Net new population associated with new housing development.


52

4.5. ANALYSIS OF CHILD YIELDS 4.5.1. To effectively plan educational requirements for this new population growth a more in-depth

understanding of the future child population is also required. This requires the application of specific child yield ratios based upon the planned housing units as outlined in the previous section. In the following matrices for nursery, primary and secondary school aged children, a number of alternative approaches have been tested.

4.5.2. In a similar way to the previous matrices illustrating the net population growth, these matrices apply child yield ratios and present the results in relation to market/intermediate units along the upper horizontal grey bar and the social rented units down the vertical grey column. The combined results and presented in the centre of the matrix. The various approaches in the matrix are as follows:

Table 4.17 Child yield data sources applicable to test child yield impacts of new housing

Approach Data Source Details

Approach 1 1991 Labour Force Survey Original GLA Analysis

Approach 2 1991 Labour Force Survey Scaled Up GLA Analysis

Approach 3 Census 2001 Analysis Inner London Average

Approach 4 London Household Survey 2002 London Average

Approach 5 CORE Letting Analysis London Average

Approach 6 CORE Letting Analysis LBBD Average

Approach 7 CORE Letting Analysis Thames Gateway Average

Approach 8 Oxfordshire New Housing Survey 2004 Oxfordshire new housing developments

4.5.3. The matrices again illustrate a wide variation in possible net child yields, but not all the associated approaches can be applied to Barking and Dagenham and therefore a number have been discounted from the analysis.

4.5.4. In Approaches 1 and 2, the GLA’s methodology analysing the 1991 Labour Force Survey has been discounted as it is widely acknowledged to be outdated and over predicts the child yields in comparison with the other approaches. Approach 8 has also been discounted due to its reflection of ‘outer London’ and predominantly rural housing developments, uncharacteristic of the Barking and Dagenham area. The results produced through these approaches are still presented below but have been hatched over.


53

Barking Town Centre Area

Table 4.18: Net Child Aged population Increase

Nursery (0-3 years)


Option Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Approach 4 Approach 8

Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

Option 350 730 374 434 819

Approach 1 73 422 803 447 507 892

Approach 2 152 502 883 526 586 971

Approach 3 66 415 796 440 500 885

Approach 4 110 460 840 484 544 929

Approach 5 162 511 892 536 596 981

Approach 6 167 516 897 541 601 985

Approach 7 154 504 885 529 589 973

Primary (4-10 years)



Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

Option 612 1,278 600 529 533

Approach 1 127 739 1,406 727 656 661

Approach 2 266 878 1,545 866 795 800

Approach 3 100 712 1,378 700 628 633

Approach 4 156 768 1,434 756 685 689

Approach 5 190 802 1,469 790 719 723

Approach 6 241 853 1,520 841 770 774

Approach 7 196 808 1,475 796 725 730

Secondary (11-16 years)



Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

Option 437 913 335 354 329

Approach 1 91 528 1,004 426 445 420

Approach 2 190 627 1,103 526 544 519

Approach 3 64 501 977 399 417 392

Approach 4 114 551 1,027 449 468 443

Approach 5 102 539 1,015 438 456 431

Approach 6 125 562 1,038 460 478 453

Approach 7 121 558 1,034 457 475 450


54

South Riverside Area


Nursery (0-3 years)



Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

Option 1,156 2,416 1,197 1,413 2,610

Approach 1 384 1,540 2,800 1,581 1,797 2,995

Approach 2 803 1,959 3,219 1,999 2,215 3,413

Approach 3 381 1,537 2,797 1,577 1,793 2,991

Approach 4 628 1,784 3,044 1,825 2,041 3,239

Approach 5 981 2,137 3,397 2,177 2,393 3,591

Approach 6 980 2,136 3,396 2,177 2,393 3,591

Approach 7 935 2,091 3,351 2,131 2,347 3,545




Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

Option 2,023 4,228 1,880 1,542 1,599

Approach 1 672 2,695 4,900 2,553 2,214 2,271

Approach 2 1,405 3,428 5,633 3,285 2,947 3,004

Approach 3 573 2,596 4,801 2,454 2,115 2,172

Approach 4 905 2,928 5,133 2,785 2,446 2,504

Approach 5 1,085 3,108 5,313 2,966 2,627 2,684

Approach 6 1,429 3,452 5,657 3,309 2,970 3,028

Approach 7 1,122 3,145 5,350 3,002 2,663 2,721




Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

Option 1,445 3,020 1,077 1,061 916

Approach 1 480 1,925 3,500 1,557 1,541 1,396

Approach 2 1,004 2,448 4,024 2,080 2,064 1,919

Approach 3 371 1,816 3,391 1,448 1,432 1,287

Approach 4 644 2,089 3,664 1,721 1,704 1,559

Approach 5 555 2,000 3,575 1,632 1,615 1,470

Approach 6 699 2,144 3,719 1,776 1,760 1,615

Approach 7 658 2,103 3,678 1,735 1,719 1,574


55

Eastern Area


Nursery (0-3 years)



Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

Option 159 332 159 182 345

Approach 1 98 257 430 258 280 444

Approach 2 206 364 537 365 388 551

Approach 3 97 255 428 256 279 442

Approach 4 160 319 492 319 342 505

Approach 5 235 394 567 395 417 580

Approach 6 244 402 575 403 426 589

Approach 7 225 383 556 384 407 570




Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

Option 278 580 253 222 228

Approach 1 172 450 752 426 395 401

Approach 2 360 638 940 613 583 589

Approach 3 146 424 727 400 369 375

Approach 4 229 507 809 482 452 458

Approach 5 283 560 863 536 505 511

Approach 6 357 635 938 611 580 586

Approach 7 292 569 872 545 514 520




Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

Option 198 414 145 155 142

Approach 1 123 321 537 268 278 265

Approach 2 257 455 672 402 412 399

Approach 3 94 292 508 239 248 235

Approach 4 169 367 584 314 324 311

Approach 5 154 352 568 298 308 295

Approach 6 186 384 601 331 341 328

Approach 7 182 380 596 327 337 324


56



Nursery (0-3 years)



Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

Option 255 532 256 291 554

Approach 1 155 410 687 411 446 709

Approach 2 324 579 856 580 615 878

Approach 3 152 407 684 408 443 706

Approach 4 252 507 784 508 543 806

Approach 5 370 625 902 626 662 924

Approach 6 383 638 916 639 675 937

Approach 7 354 609 886 610 645 908




Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

Option 446 931 407 357 367

Approach 1 271 717 1,203 678 628 638

Approach 2 567 1,012 1,498 973 924 933

Approach 3 230 676 1,162 637 587 597

Approach 4 361 806 1,292 767 718 728

Approach 5 445 890 1,376 851 802 812

Approach 6 563 1,008 1,494 969 920 929

Approach 7 459 905 1,391 866 816 826




Soci

al R

ente

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

Option 318 665 232 248 227

Approach 1 194 512 859 426 442 421

Approach 2 405 723 1,070 637 653 632

Approach 3 148 466 813 380 396 375

Approach 4 266 585 932 499 515 494

Approach 5 242 560 907 474 490 469

Approach 6 293 611 958 525 541 520

Approach 7 286 605 952 519 535 514


57

4.5.5. In a similar fashion to the previous population growth analysis, from this point on the requirements of Barking and Dagenham’s Child Population will be based on the median yield figures as presented in the tables below.

Tables 4.22-4.26: Possible child yield variations from new housing growth at 2027

Barking Town Centre Minimum Yields Maximum Yield Median Yield

Nursery School Aged Children 440 601 529

Primary School Aged Children 628 841 725

Secondary School Aged Children 399 478 438

South Riverside Area Minimum Yields Maximum Yield Median Yield

Nursery School Aged Children 1,577 2,393 2,041

Primary School Aged Children 2,115 3,309 2,663

Secondary School Aged Children 1,432 1,776 1,615

Eastern Area Minimum Yields Maximum Yield Median Yield




North and Central Area Minimum Yields Maximum Yield Median Yield




Barking and Dagenham Total Minimum Yields Maximum Yield Median Yield

Nursery School Aged Children 2,681 4,094 3,455

Primary School Aged Children 3,700 5,730 4,637

Secondary School Aged Children 2,449 3,136 2,825

4.5.6. The above analysis suggests that approximately 10,900 extra children could be residing within Barking and Dagenham as a result of new housing growth by 2027. Of these children, approximately 3,450 will be between the ages of 0 and 3-4 years requiring early year childcare, 4,600 will be between the ages of 4 and 10-11 years, requiring primary school provision, and 2,800 will be between the ages of 11 and 16 years, requiring secondary school provision.

4.5.7. As can be clearly seen in the above tables, the South Riverside area, due to its significant house building plans will produce the majority of new childcare demand in the borough between 2006 and 2027. These child yields and their associated requirements will be looked at in more detail in the following chapter.


58

4.5.8. The following tables present phased cumulative summaries of the likely school aged population increase as generated by the growth in new housing.

Table 4.27: Cumulative change in 0 – 3 year old population as generated by new housing

0 – 3 year olds By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Barking Town Centre Area 48 341 465 529

South Riverside Area 0 397 957 2,041

Eastern Area 54 89 226 342

North and Central Area 97 354 457 543

Barking And Dagenham Total 199 1,180 2,104 3,455

Table 4.28: Cumulative change in 4 -10 year old population as generated by new housing

4 - 10 year olds By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027


South Riverside Area 0 558 1,338 2,663




Table 4.29: Cumulative change in 11 – 15 year old population as generated by new housing

11 - 15 year olds By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027







59

4.6. COMBINED IMPACTS OF EVOLVING BASELINE AND HOUSING GROWTH 4.6.1. For the purposes of the next chapter the impacts of the change in population resulting from births,

deaths and migration will need to be combined with the population change generated through the building of new housing. The following tables below present the combined change in population and more specifically child aged population across the borough and four sub areas.

Table 4.30: Cumulative change in Total Population (Evolving Baseline & New Housing combined)

Total Population By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Barking Town Centre Area 24,316 31,249 34,605 36,195

South Riverside Area 11,929 19,161 29,150 49,138

Eastern Area 39,169 39,979 42,812 46,470



Table 4.31: Cumulative change in 0 – 3 year old population (Evolving Baseline & New Housing)

Total 0 – 3 year olds By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



Eastern Area 2,256 2,208 2,365 2,496



Table 4.32: Cumulative change in 4 -10 year old population (Evolving Baseline & New Housing)

Total 4 - 10 year olds By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027


South Riverside Area 1,210 1,784 2,573 3,921

Eastern Area 3,956 4,024 4,265 4,499



Table 4.33: Cumulative change in 11 – 15 year old population (Evolving Baseline & New Housing)

Total 11 - 15 year olds By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



Eastern Area 2,684 2,646 2,715 2,902




60

4.7. ETHNIC & RELIGIOUS PROFILE 4.7.1. A further influence on the demand for social infrastructure arises from the ethnic and religious profile of

an area. Different ethnic groups, for example, have statistically been shown to have different health service needs whilst different religious groups will require differing needs for community and worship space.

4.7.2. Whilst statistics are not available to enable an accurate analysis of the likely ethnic and religious profile of the incoming residents to the new housing developments, Appendix A3 establishes the current baseline position for the Borough in order to begin to make some assumptions on the likely impact that the ethnic and religious profile of the Borough may have on social infrastructure needs.

4.7.3. The data assumptions underlying the calculations of social infrastructure need contained within this report have drawn from a number of sources across the Thames Gateway. In order to ensure that these assumptions will reflect the level and type of diversity experienced in LB Barking and Dagenham, the ethnic and religious profiles of these boroughs has been explored to ensure the relevant level of sensitivity – see Appendix A3.


61

5. Analysis of future Social Infrastructure requirements

5.1.1. Based upon the housing and population forecasts identified in the previous chapter, this chapter translates this growth into specific social infrastructure needs across a series of topic areas including education, health, leisure & recreation and emergency services. The social infrastructure requirements are analysed both at a borough wide scale and broken down into four manageable areas, those being the Barking Town Centre Area, the South Riverside Area, the North and Central Area and the Eastern Area. The requirements are also presented at different points in time to correspond with the housing delivery phases adopted in the LBBD LDF Annual Monitoring Report 2004/2005, these are 2006, 2006 to 2011, 2012 to 2016 and 2017 to 2027.

5.1.2. In order to get a full appreciation of the actual impact of the new housing development, the social infrastructure requirements resulting from natural population growth (i.e. no development scenario) are explored first, for each theme, before detailing the additional demand that will arise as a result of the housing growth proposed.

5.1.3. The baseline demand figures (i.e. natural population growth with no development) have been calculated from the evolving baseline given in the previous section. Figures relating to the increase in demand arising from housing growth are based on housing quantities and associated population growth figures also given in the previous section.

5.2. EDUCATION IMPACTS 5.2.1. Through the stated child yield analysis a clear picture of demand can be ascertained by taking the likely

child population applying a further set of assumptions, such as a detailed age breakdown, private education uptake and the size of classes, and create a review of likely education requirements.

Early Year Requirements

5.2.2. An important element that must be accounted for is the variation in day care needs depending on the age of a child. While the previous demographic impact analysis gave a total number of children between the age of 0 and 4 years, further analysis based on the assumptions in Table 5.1 allow a more refined analysis of actual requirements to be calculated. This assumption breaks the early year age groups into individual years and then applies an assumed proportion requiring actual care by year group, taking into account parental choice of alternative forms of child care and the ability to care for children at home.

Table 5.1: Early Year Demand Adjustment Ratios

Early Year Group Further age Breakdown *Proportion of age group

requiring day care

**Number of children

per staff member

0 -1 year olds 25% 20 % 3

1 -2 year olds 25% 20 % 3

2 - 3 year olds 25% 45 % 4

3 - 4 year olds 25% 80 % 8

Source: * LLV Regeneration Strategy Social Infrastructure Paper ** www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/

extendedschools/childcare/people


62

Existing Capacity

5.2.3. Table 5.2 below outlines the existing level of early year capacity currently available across the 4 sub areas. This capacity is provided by a number of different service providers including child minders, crèches, day nurseries, school nurseries, family centres, and pre schools. As can be seen from the table below, this report has not taken into account any planned capacity increases. The 2006 capacity has been projected forward as a no change baseline. If the reader is aware of specific early facility developments, the additional capacity provided by these can be added onto this baseline position.

Tables 5.2 Existing Provision of Early Places

2006 Early Year Capacity

Barking Town Centre Area 635

South Riverside Area 257

Eastern Area 1312

North and Central Area 2466

Borough Wide Area 4670

Source LBBD CIS

Evolving Baseline Demand

5.2.4. Using the 2004-based population projections, Tables 5.3 to 5.5 show the anticipated increases in demand for Early Years facilities by phase and area. The first table outlines the estimated change in the existing Early Year population in accordance with the evolving baseline. The second table attempts to calculate the likely demand this population equates to through the demand adjustment calculation discussed above. The third table then compares the likely demand with the existing capacity to understand whether there is an existing surplus or deficit in capacity.

Tables 5.3 Change in number of 0 to 3 year olds in evolving baseline

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027


South Riverside Area 976 939 949 955

Eastern Area 2,201 2,119 2,140 2,154


Borough Wide Area 10,186 9,805 9,901 9,967

Source LBBD CIS

Table 5.4 Change in Demand from evolving baseline population (after demand adjustment – see Table 5.1)

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



Eastern Area 915 885 891 900



Source EDAW Analysis


63

Tables 5.5 Demand from evolving baseline after existing Capacity is taken into account

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



Eastern Area -397 -427 -421 -412

North and Central Area -329 -399 -386 -365

Borough Wide Area -475 -611 -587 -545


Demand Generated by Housing Development

Table 5.6: Borough Wide Early Year requirements generated by New Housing

Borough wide Cumulative Build up of Demand By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

0 – 3 year olds from new housing 199 1,180 2,104 3,455

Places required after demand adjustment 82 487 868 1,425

Associated Early Year Staff 17 101 181 299


Table 5.7: Early Year requirements generated by New Housing after demand adjustment calculation

Area Specific Nursery Places By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027





Borough Wide Area 82 487 868 1,425


Table 5.8: Early Year Requirements from New Housing after Evolving Baseline demand is included

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



Eastern Area -374 -390 -328 -271


Borough Wide Area -393 -125 281 880

5.2.5. The adjusted number of early year places required, after absorbing existing surplus capacity, across the borough is calculated to be approximately 281 by 2016. In the event of a full build out of all housing capacity sites, however, this demand would equal 880 early year places by 2027. The important element to note however is the surplus capacity and subsequent lack of demand in the Eastern, North and Central Areas. However the Barking Town Centre and South Riverside areas will see significant demand even from 2006.


64

Primary and Secondary School Requirements

5.2.6. The actual school requirements for children between the ages of 4 and 16 years tend to vary depending on a number of factors. Particularly important would be the amount of children in a given area that are not educated by Local Education Authority (LEA) run schools but instead private educational institutions. The UK figure for independent school attendance is given as 7% (by the Independent Schools Council) and studies in London indicate that many new Inner London communities are highly polarised (with market sector homes being occupied by people with above average incomes). Independent school take-up rates can, therefore, be expected to be at least equivalent to national take up rates with children in market sector homes attending between 10 and 15%. In addition to this research, the 2004 LBBD School Places Planning Information (submitted by the borough to the DfES) states the level of secondary school aged children attending private schools in the borough is approximately 7%. Therefore this report has reduced the level of primary and secondary school demand by 7%.

5.2.7. In addition to private education a significant proportion of children now attend schools outside the traditional walk-based catchment area, this is particularly the case for secondary education. However, this analysis has not taken this factor as a figure to discount for two reasons. Firstly, the fact that a child may not attend their local school is countered by the fact that the local school place could quite possibly be filled by a child from a neighbouring area. Secondly, a best practice education provision would still need to demonstrate the capacity to provide ample school places for its local population if they wished to attend that school. This is particularly important for primary school provision which should ideally be located within easy walking distance from home.

Primary Requirements

Existing Capacity

5.2.8. Table 5.9 below outlines the existing level of primary school capacity across the borough. This capacity data does take into account the 3 proposed Primary Schools planned in the Barking Riverside Masterplan, this can be seen as an increasing capacity in the South Riverside area between 2006 and 2027.

Tables 5.9 Existing and planned Provision of Primary School Places

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



Eastern Area 4,195 4,195 4,195 4,195



Source LBBD LEA


5.2.9. Using the 2004-based population projections, Tables 5.10 to 5.12 show the anticipated increases in demand for primary school facilities by phase and area. The first table outlines the estimated change in the existing primary aged population in accordance with the evolving baseline.

5.2.10. The level of children attending the schools in each sub area is accurately known for 2006 through PLASC returns. After apportioning these exact school roles to each area depending on which schools lie within which sub areas, the number on role can be projected forward using that sub areas evolving baseline projections. It was seen as more accurate to project forward known 2006 role numbers than Census based population projections.

5.2.11. The third table then compares the likely demand with the existing and planned capacity to understand whether there is an existing surplus or deficit in capacity.


65


2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Barking Town Centre Area - 1.4% 2.2% 4.1%

South Riverside Area - 1.4% 2.1% 4.0%

Eastern Area - 0.5% 1.8% 3.5%

North and Central Area - 0.6% 1.8% 3.6%

Borough Wide Area - 0.8% 1.9% 3.7%

Source LBBD CIS

Tables 5.11 Change in number of children requiring Primary Education (based on Evolving Baseline Growth)

2006 PLASC

return role By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



Eastern Area 3,839 3,858 3,906 3,975




Tables 5.12 Surplus capacity in Primary schools after evolving baseline growth is included

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027


South Riverside Area -12 607 1,232 1,158

Eastern Area 356 337 289 220





5.2.12. Tables 5.13 to 5.15 outline the range of school places requirements likely across the study area as a result of new housing developments and translate these numbers into school ‘form entries’. Table 5.14 reduces the number of children requiring primary aged education to take into account private education uptake.


66

Table 5.13: Primary School requirements generated by New Housing (reduced for private uptake)

Borough Wide build up of Demand By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Primary School Places 278 1,652 2,941 4,637

Places after private leakage 259 1,536 2,735 4,313

Primary School Form Entries

(210 pupils per form entry) 1.2 7.3 13 20.5

Table 5.14: Area Specific Primary requirements generated by New Housing (reduced for private uptake)

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027





Borough Wide Area 259 1,536 2,735 4,313

Table 5.15: Total Primary School place demand after Evolving Baseline Capacity is included

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Barking Town Centre Area -72 339 518 646

South Riverside Area 12 -88 12 1,319

Eastern Area -285 -220 7 228

North and Central Area -522 -124 117 395

Borough Wide Area -867 -94 655 2,589

Table 5.16: Total Primary School FE demand after Evolving Baseline Capacity is included

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Barking Town Centre Area -0.3 1.6 2.5 3.1

South Riverside Area 0.1 -0.4 0.1 6.3

Eastern Area -1.4 -1.0 0.0 1.1

North and Central Area -2.5 -0.6 0.6 1.9

Borough Wide Area -4.1 -0.4 3.1 12.3

5.2.13. Based upon the above analysis, the number of primary school places likely to be required across the borough by 2016 is 655, this equates to approximately 3 form entries of new provision. When considering the longer term plans for growth, the above analysis anticipates primary school demand to reach 2,589 places or, approximately, 12 form entries of new provision.

5.2.14. Due to the phasing of development, demand for primary school places varies both spatially and temporally. In the short term, demand is relatively evenly split across the development areas; however, between 2016 and 2027, development in the South Riverside Area will create demand for a significant increase in primary school places equating to 6.2 form entries.


67

5.2.15. Following the findings of the London Thames Gateway Education Infrastructure Assessment (URS, December 2003) the preferred option for new primary school provision within the Thames Gateway would involve two-form entry primary schools with integrated nursery facilities. The cumulative demand represented in Table 5.16, therefore, suggests a need for the equivalent of approximately six 2FE primary schools across the Borough, by 2027. Approximately half of this demand is required in the South Riverside Area, this is in addition to the two 3 FE primary schools already planned in the Barking Riverside project which have been included in the existing capacity of Table 5.9.

Secondary Requirements

Existing Capacity

5.2.16. Table 5.17, below, outlines the existing level of secondary school capacity across the borough. This capacity data does take into account the anticipated growth in capacity at Joe Richardson by 2011 to its full capacity and also the proposed 8FE Secondary Schools planned in the Barking Riverside Masterplan, this can be seen as an increasing capacity in the North and Central Area and the South Riverside area between 2006 and 2027.

Tables 5.17 Existing and planned Provision of Secondary School Places

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



Eastern Area 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600



Source LBBD LEA


5.2.17. In a similar method to that explained for primary school education, Tables 5.18 to 5.20 show the anticipated increases in demand for secondary school facilities by phase and area. The first outlining the estimated change in the existing secondary aged population in accordance with the evolving baseline, the second using this projected change to adjust the number of children on role and the third table comparing the likely demand with the existing and planned capacity to understand whether there is an existing surplus or deficit in capacity.


2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Barking Town Centre Area - -2.6% -4.3% -1.2%

South Riverside Area - -2.4% -4.4% -1.2%

Eastern Area - -2.6% -4.5% -1.2%

North and Central Area - -2.5% -4.3% -1.2%

Borough Wide Area - -2.5% -4.3% -1.2%

Source LBBD CIS


68

Tables 5.19 Change in children requiring Secondary Education (based on Evolving Baseline Growth)

2006 PLASC

return role By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



Eastern Area 2,370 2,309 2,264 2,341



Source Edaw Analysis

Tables 5.20 Surplus capacity in Secondary schools after evolving baseline growth is included

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



Eastern Area 230 291 336 259



Source EDAW Analysis,


5.2.18. Tables 5.21 to 5.23 outline the range of secondary school places requirements likely across the study area as a result of new housing developments and translate these numbers into school ‘form entries’. Table 5.22 adjusts the total number of children of secondary school age to take into account private school uptake and tables 5.23 and 5.24 then total the secondary school demand taking into account the existing levels of surplus capacity across the borough.

Table 5.21: Secondary School requirements generated by New Housing (reduced for private uptake)


Secondary School Places 170 1,007 1,795 2,825

Places after private leakage 158 937 1,669 2,627

Secondary School Form Entries

(150 pupils per form entry) 1.1 6.2 11.1 17.5

Table 5.22: Area Specific Secondary requirements generated by New Housing (reduced for private uptake)

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027





Borough Wide Area 158 937 1,669 2,627


69

Table 5.23: Total Secondary School place demand after Evolving Baseline Capacity is included

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Barking Town Centre Area -27 160 237 328


Eastern Area -183 -213 -139 39


Borough Wide Area -272 -150 436 608

Table 5.24: Total Secondary School FE demand after Evolving Baseline Capacity is included

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Barking Town Centre Area -0.2 1.1 1.6 2.2

South Riverside Area 0.0 2.3 5.4 2.8

Eastern Area -1.2 -1.4 -0.9 0.3

North and Central Area -0.4 -2.9 -3.2 -1.2

Borough Wide Area -1.8 -1.0 2.9 4.1

5.2.19. By 2016, the analysis anticipates a demand for 436 new places of secondary school provision or, approximately, 3 form entries of provision. When considering the longer-term, development up to 2027 is likely to produce a demand for 608 new secondary school places or, approximately, 4 form entries of new provision.

5.2.20. Following the trend for new primary school demand, future demand for secondary school places varies both temporally and spatially with the greatest focus of demand being in the South Riverside Area between 2011 and 2016 – equating to 811 new secondary school places or, approximately, 5 and a half form entries of new provision.

5.2.21. Following the findings of the London Thames Gateway Education Infrastructure Assessment (URS, December 2003) the preferred option for new secondary school provision within the Thames Gateway would involve six form entry secondary schools with integrated sixth form facility. The cumulative demand represented in Table 5.24, therefore, suggests a need for the equivalent of approximately two thirds of a new secondary school across the Borough.

5.3. HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE 5.3.1. As outlined in chapter 2 of this paper, Health and Social Care services have a fundamental role in the

development of healthily sustainable communities and this area of social infrastructure will play an increasingly important role in the provision of neighbourhood focused healthcare services through facilities such as the new wave of Primary Care Centres, intermediate Care Centres and an increasingly joined up and integrated approach to community services

5.3.2. The table below sets out the assumptions adopted into this paper to forecast future healthcare requirements which are based upon an initial research process, informed further through the consultation process.


70

Table 5.25: Primary and Acute Care Requirement Assumptions

Population required Sources

No. of General Practitioners 1,700 pop ODPM Reforming Planning Applications: he Use of Standard

Charges - Appendices- Nov 2004 - Page 8 (DOH & NHS used)

Primary care facility floorspace

required per person 0.056 sq.m

Newham SSDP 2006-16 - provided base requirement (increase by

50% for OSPCC & 20% for PCC)

Dentists 2,000 pop Traffic light' maps of dentists distribution in England and Wales."

May 2004 - School for Health, University of Bath

Mental Health Beds Calculated using HUDU Planning Contribution Tool (projecting forward existing service activity)

Acute Care Beds Calculated using HUDU Planning Contribution Tool (projecting forward existing service activity)

5.3.3. Applying the standard population requirements in Table 5.25 to the combined population growth associated with both the growth in new housing but also the change in the evolving baseline population, the following key healthcare requirements are generated.

Table 5.26-31: Primary and Acute Care Requirements

Borough-wide Demand By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Primary Care GPs 2 14 25 43

Primary Care Facility Floorspace (min

sq.m) 192 1,298 2,367 4,068

Primary Care Dentists 2 12 21 37

Acute Care Beds 7 49 89 153

Other Beds 2 16 30 51

Barking Sub-Area Demand By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



sq.m) 51 436 623 711



Other Beds 1 5 8 9

South Riverside Sub-Area Demand By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



sq.m) 0 402 957 2,067





71

Eastern Sub-Area Demand By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



sq.m) 50 95 253 456



Other Beds 1 1 3 6

North & Central Sub-Area Demand By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027



sq.m) 90 365 535 834



Other Beds 1 5 7 10

Area Specific Primary Care

Floorspace Demand (sq.m) By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027







5.3.4. The healthcare requirements identified in this paper do not imply that they cover the entire and ever expanding scope of healthcare services, facilities and other requirements. What these figures allow instead is a broad overview of the likely scale of healthcare requirements that will emerge to inform and assist healthcare practitioners to respond appropriately.

5.3.5. The identified requirement for 43 more GPs, or 4,068 sq.m of new primary care facility basic floorspace and 37 more Dentists illustrates a clear requirement for the development of primary healthcare facilities across the Borough. The future requirement for 153 acute care beds will could point towards the need for a specific new acute facility, but due to a change in healthcare policy putting more services into community-based facilities, it is more likely to be met through expansion or restructuring of existing or potential facilities. This is particularly the case in light of the NHS strategy to bring non-emergency and specialist services to the patient, located in a combination of Primary Care Diagnosis and Treatment Centres, One Stop Primary Care Centres and small-scale Primary Care Centres. The analysis has also identified the requirement of between 51 additional beds (i.e. Mental Health beds, etc.) in addition to Acute Care beds which represents a demand of significant magnitude that may require the provision of a new facility or considerable expansion of existing facilities.


72

5.3.6. With the exception of Barking Town Centre, the most significant demand does not arise until 2016 when the anticipated floorspace requirements across the four development areas signifies need on a scale that would perhaps require the provision of new facilities. Once again, greatest demand for healthcare provision is in the South Riverside Area which would require approximately 2,067 sq.m. of Primary Healthcare Floorspace provision.

5.3.7. This does not take into account, however, the emerging healthcare policy which places emphasis on primary health care delivery and the development of one-stop Primary Care centres and associated facilities.

5.3.8. Table 5.32 gives a summary of existing primary health care provision in the Borough, based on the information available.

Table 5.32: Existing healthcare facilities in LBBD

Existing Capacity (2006) Barking South

Riverside Eastern

North &

Central Borough Wide

Primary Care GPs 16 2 13 58 89

Primary Care Dentists 15 2 8 20 45

Acute Care Beds 0 0 0 86 86

Acute Care Beds in Hospital Trust

Area (inc. above) N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,398

2006 Occupancy of Acute Beds

surrounding (inc. above) N/A N/A N/A N/A 91.8%

Mental Health Beds 0 0 0 0 0

Mental Health Beds surrounding Trust (inc. above)

N/A N/A N/A N/A 72

Source: Barking and Dagenham PCT and EDAW analysis

5.3.9. Inconsistency in this data collection prevents a thorough analysis of how well this existing capacity meets current demand, however, calculating the comparing the current number of GPs against the 2006 total population suggests a level of demand that surpasses the recommended level of provision. Currently, there are 89 GPs serving a total population of 164,875 people. This implies a ratio of approximately 1,900 people per GP, far higher than the national recommended level. This under-provision is of even greater concern as the ratio of provision varies across the Borough to the extent that some areas are facing GP list sizes of between 2,000 and 2,500 patients. This current under-capacity will need to be addressed in the planning of any new provision.

5.4. COMMUNITY, LEISURE AND RECREATION

Community Requirements

5.4.1. In a similar fashion to the Health and Social Care assumptions set out above, the figures outlined in Table 5.33 are based upon assumptions obtained through the London Thames Gateway Social Infrastructure Tool Kit research process.

Table 5.33: Community Requirement Assumptions

Space per 1000 persons Sources

Community Space 61 sq.m Milton Keynes SPG – Social Infrastructure Planning obligations

Library Space 26.5 sq.m DCMS 2000 Standard (23sq.m) with EDAW assumption to uplift


73

5.4.2. Applying the standard population requirements in Table 5.33 to the combined population growth associated with both the growth in new housing but also the change in the evolving baseline population, the following community related requirements are generated.


74

Table 5.34-35: Community Requirements


Community Space 210 1,425 2,599 4,466

Library Space 91 618 1,127 1,937

Combined Multipurpose Space 302 2,043 3,726 6,403

Area Specific Combined Multi

purpose Floorspace Demand By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Barking Town Centre Area 80 686 980 1,119



North and Central Area 142 574 842 1,312



5.4.3. Having taken the assumptions outlined earlier into account, the amount of flexible and multipurpose community floorspace required in the study area will be approximately 4,466sq.m. by 2027. Demand for Library Space across the Borough is anticipated to be approximately 1,937sq.m. by 2027.

5.4.4. Following the emerging policy direction towards greater integration of community facilities and the move towards locating libraries in community settings, the analysis also considers the demand in a cumulative nature, suggesting a demand for 6,403 sq.m of combined multipurpose community space.

5.4.5. Drawing in the consideration of the phasing of development, however, significant demand for this space will arise across the four development areas of the Borough by 2016, with the greatest focus for demand being in the South Riverside Area at approximately 3,254 sq.m – representing the need for the provision of new facilities. The one exception in this case is the Eastern Area where demand is significantly lower than the other areas and could potentially be met by expansion or improvement to existing facilities.

5.4.6. Following the healthcare analysis earlier in this section, Table 5.36 provides information on existing community and library provision although further analysis of existing supply against demand is not possible due to a lack of information.

Table 5.36: Existing Community and Library Facilities in LBBD

Barking South

Riverside Eastern

North &

Central

Borough-

Wide

Community Centres 4 2 3 11 20

Libraries 1 1 3 6 11

Source: LBBD and EDAW analysis


75

Leisure Requirements

Table 5.37: Leisure Requirement Assumptions

per 1000 persons Arrangement

Swimming Pool Water 11.24 sq.m of water 1 lane = 25m by 2.12m (53sq.m)

Leisure Centre Courts 0.31 Courts Typical centre contains 4 courts

Source: Sports England – weighted to LB Barking and Dagenham Population Profile

5.4.7. Applying the above standard population requirements in Table 5.37 to the combined population growth associated with both the growth in new housing but also the change in the evolving baseline population, the following leisure related requirements are generated.

Table 5.38-39: Leisure Requirements


Swimming Pool Lanes 1 5 9 15

Leisure Centre Courts 1 7 12 21

Area Specific Pool Lane and

Sports Court Demand By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Barking Town Centre Area 0 lanes

0 courts

2 lanes

2 courts

2 lanes

3 courts

3 lanes

4 courts

South Riverside Area 0 lanes

0 courts

1 lane

2 courts

3 lanes

5 courts

7 lanes

11 courts

Eastern Area 0 lanes

0 courts

0 lanes

0 courts

1 lane

0 courts

2 lanes

1 court

North and Central Area 0 lanes

0 courts

1 lane

2 courts

2 lanes

3 courts

3 lanes

4 courts

Borough Wide Area 1 lane

1 court

5 lanes

7 courts

9 lanes

12 courts

15 lanes

21 courts


5.4.8. Having taken the assumptions outlined earlier into account, the amount of Swimming pool surface water (this is the approach taken by Sports England) required in the area will be approximately 671 sq.m. This can be provided in a number of ways such as main, paddling, teaching and diving pools but can be translated in approximately 15 lanes (assuming 25m lanes).

5.4.9. The amount of leisure or sport centre courts required in the area will be approximately 21. Again this number of courts could be delivered in a range of ways but adopting Sports England’s recent best practice example of a community sports hall, ‘The Optimum Sports Hall’, this could translate into between three and four new specific sports halls, which could potentially be combined with open space and/or health related activities. This could also be expanded into a larger scale leisure centre combining the swimming pool requirements identified earlier.

5.4.10. The figures above, however, represent a cumulative total based on all development potential being realised up to 2027. Consideration of the phasing and location of development indicates the gradual build up of demand representing partial swimming lanes and leisure courts in certain areas. In such


76

cases, it is likely that the additional demand could be met by increasing capacity of existing facilities rather than creating new swimming pools and leisure centres. As demand increases, however, new facilities will need to be created in areas accessible to the locations of additional demand.

5.4.11. Table 5.40 summarises existing provision across the Borough.

Table 5.40: Existing Leisure Facilities in LBBD

Barking South

Riverside Eastern

North &

Central

Borough-

Wide

Swimming Pool lanes n/a n/a n/a n/a 24

Swimming Pools n/a n/a n/a n/a 8

Sports Centres 1 0 1 6 8

Source: LBBD and EDAW Analysis

Open Space Requirements

5.4.12. The analysis of Open Space requirements is in itself a particularly difficult subject and has been the subject of much debate in recent years. The GLA is currently undertaking a considerable piece of work moving away from traditional standards applied to the London area and instead thinking in a fundamentally different approach. As this piece of work develops, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham assessment of need will aim to reflect any recommendations made as and when these become available.

5.4.13. The National Playing Field Associations Open Space Standards, generating demand in relation to total net population, have tended to significantly over quantify the open space requirements of new housing developments, especially within built up inner London urban areas where achieving these standards is unrealistic. As an alternative approach, many London Boroughs instead look at the open space requirement in terms of maintaining their current borough provision, calculating the ratio of open space to total population and then applying this ratio to any new population growth. These alternative approaches are illustrated below.

Table 5.41: Open Space Requirement Assumptions – Population Based

National Playing Field Open Space Standards Sq.m per person

Recreational Open Space Playing Pitches 12

Informal Open Space 4

Childrens Play Space Local Area of Play 2

Local Equipped area of play 2

Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play 4

Allotments 2.5

Total 26.5

Maintaining the Current Standard Sq.m per person

Open Space standard based on current borough specific open space provision of 2.5 ha

per 1000 people 25.3

Source: National Playing Field Association Standards & LBBD

5.4.14. Applying the open space standards in Table 5.41 to the combined population growth associated with both the growth in new housing but also the change in the evolving baseline population, the following open space requirements are generated.


77

Table 5.42-44: Open Space Requirements (hectares) – based on NPFA standards

Cumulative Build up of Demand (hectares) by

NPFA standards By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Playing Fields 4.1 28.0 51.1 87.9

Other Outdoor Playing Facilities 1.4 9.3 17.0 29.3

Local Areas of Play 0.7 4.7 8.5 14.6

Local Equipped Areas of Play 0.7 4.7 8.5 14.6

Neighbourhood Equipped Areas of Play 1.4 9.3 17.0 29.3

Allotments 0.9 5.8 10.7 18.3

Total Open Space (NPFA approach) 9.1 61.9 112.9 194.0

Cumulative Build up of Demand By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Maintaining LBBD Current Provision 8.7 59.1 107.8 185.2


Area Specific Total Open Space

Demand (NPFA) (ha.) By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027





Borough Wide Area 9 62 113 194


Area Specific Total Open Space

Demand (maintaining Borough

standard) (hectares)

By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027





Borough Wide Area 9 59 108 185

5.4.15. Having taken the assumptions outlined above into account, the total amount of open space required in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham area according to the NPFA standards will be approximately 194 ha. As this NPFA standard is widely recognised as challenging to achieve in London, the alternative approach is to assess requirements based upon a continuation of current provision. Applying Barking and Dagenham’s current standard of open space provision per population, however, leads to a study area requirement of approximately 185 ha. of new open space to maintain the current level of provision in the borough. This figure is also likely to be challenging to achieve in reality and so it is suggested that planning officers re-visit current policy on open space provision within the Borough to ensure realistic standards are established.


78

5.4.16. Table 5.45 summarises existing open space provision in the Borough which currently equates to approximately 25.3 sq.m per 1,000 people.

Table 5.45: Existing Open Space Provision in LBBD

Barking South

Riverside

Eastern North &

Central

Borough-

Wide

Total Open Space (ha.) 41 11 205 160 417

Source: LBBD and EDAW analysis

5.5. EMERGENCY AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES 5.5.1. The emergency services have recently begun reviewing the way they provide their services, focusing

more on preventative rather than reactionary approaches and creating more localised facilities, providing a more visible and approachable service. The approach towards analysing future demand has also changed significantly in recent years moving away from looking simply at a certain population size and assuming this will create the need for new facilities.

5.5.2. For example, the London Fire Brigade having previously planned service provision on recommended standards based on property types in an area dating back to 1947, are now putting people first, looking at the risks arising from many complex variables, with the intention of producing localised Integrated Risk Management Plans. This level of detail cannot be covered in a cross theme paper of this nature.

Table 4.56: Emergency Service Requirement Assumptions

Type Required Sources

Police Officers 1 officer per 326 persons – to

maintain borough average. www.mpa.gov.uk/issues/police/numbers

Police Service

Floorspace

20 sq.m of gross floorspace per

officer

Costing the Infrastructure Needs of the

South East Counties - Roger Tym &

Partners

Fire Stations Three appliance station per 64000

people.

Costs to Social Infrastructure Works in

the Thames Gateway - Gardiner &

Theobold - 2003

Associated Fire

Service Floorspace Three appliance station = 1,050 sq.m London Fire Brigade

Ambulance Demand

Approximately 80,000 new people

produce an increase of 10,000

emergency calls per annum.

London Ambulance Service

5.5.3. As mentioned above, while the assumptions presented in Table 5.46, above, do not necessarily reflect the latest detailed approaches to service delivery planning in the emergency service sector, they do allow an indication of the increase in service requirements associated with the housing growth across Barking and Dagenham.

5.5.4. Applying the emergency service standards in Table 5.46 to the combined population growth associated with both the growth in new housing but also the change in the evolving baseline population, the following service related requirements are generated.


79

Table 5.47-48: Emergency Service Requirements

Cumulative Build up of Demand By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Police Officers 8 56 102 175

Police Service Floorspace (sq.m) 172 1,168 2,130 3,661

Fire Stations (3 appliance station) 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.1

Associated Fire Service Floorspace (sq.m) 51 347 632 1,087

Ambulance Demand (calls per annum) 431 2,920 5,326 9,153

Area Specific Police officers and

Floorspace Demand By 2006 By 2011 By 2016 By 2027

Barking Town Centre Area 2 officers

46 sq.m

19 officers

392 sq.m

27 officers

560 sq.m

31 officers

640 sq.m

South Riverside Area 0 officers

0 sq.m

17 officers

362 sq.m

41 officers

861 sq.m

89 officers

1,860 sq.m

Eastern Area 2 officers

45 sq.m

4 officers

86 sq.m

11 officers

228 sq.m

20 officers

411 sq.m

North and Central Area 4 officers

81 sq.m

16 officers

328 sq.m

23 officers

481 sq.m

36 officers

750 sq.m

Borough Wide Area 8 officers

172 sq.m

56 officers

1,168 sq.m

102 officers

2,130 sq.m

175 officers

3,661 sq.m


5.5.5. Having taken the assumptions outlined above into account, the total amount of police officers required to maintain the current borough level would need an additional 175 officers. This could have a spatial requirement for approximately 3,661 sq.m. This analysis should, however, be treated with caution as it is based upon a very high level basis and does not take into account the different types and levels of community policing now being introduced. The actual number of police officers that would be appropriate or necessary at a local level would, therefore, need to be determined in partnership with London Metropolitan Police Service.

5.5.6. In relation to Fire Service, approximately 1 new Fire Station, or 1,087 sq.m of additional fire provision floorspace, would be required to serve new communities in the area, by 2027; however, due to the different phasing and location of this demand, it may be more appropriate to accommodate this new provision through the expansion of existing facilities throughout the Borough.

5.5.7. In relation to the London Ambulance Service assumptions of emergency calls generated through population size, the new population in the area is likely to increase ambulance service demand by approximately 9,153 calls per annum.

5.5.8. Table 5.49 outlines existing provision in the Borough.


80

Table 5.49 Existing Emergency/Essential Services Facilities in LBBD

Cumulative Build up of Demand Barking South

Riverside Eastern

North & Central

Borough-Wide

Police Officers n/a n/a n/a n/a 429

Safer Neighbourhood Team Locations 1 1 2 4 8

Police Stations 1 0 1 0 3

Fire Stations 1 0 1 1 2

Ambulance Stations 0 0 0 0 1

Source: LBBD and EDAW Analysis

5.6. PHASED SUMMARY OF KEY SERVICE AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 5.6.1. As outlined in Chapter 4, the housing developments coming forward in the borough have been analysed

in a phased approach. This phasing aligns with that of the Barking and Dagenham LDF Annual Monitoring Report. The table below summarises those Social Infrastructure requirements presented in this chapter at a borough wide scale and cumulatively at 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2027.

Table 5.50: Cumulative Impacts of future population and associated Service and Facility Requirements

Cumulative Total by 2006




Evolving Baseline Population

164,875 165,995 168,364 175,018

New Housing Impact Population 3,449 22,243 39,117 63,078

Gross New Population 168,324 188,238 207,481 238,096

Education

Nursery places -393 -125 281 880

Primary places -867 -94 655 2,589

Primary Form Entries -4.1 FE -0.4 FE 3.1 FE 12.3 FE

Secondary Places -272 -150 436 608

Secondary Form Entries -1.8 FE -1.0 FE 2.9 FE 4.1 FE

Health Theme

GPs 2 14 25 43

Primary Care Floorspace 192 1,298 2,367 4,068

Dentists 2 12 21 37



Community, Leisure & Recreation

Community Space 210 1,425 2,599 4,466

Library Space 91 618 1,127 1,937

Swimming Pool Lanes 1 5 9 15

Sports Centre Courts 1 7 12 21

Total Open Space (NPFA) 9.1 61.9 112.9 194.0

Total Open Space (Borough Standards) 8.7 59.1 107.8 185.2

Emergency & Essential Services

Police Officers 8 56 102 175

Fire Stations 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.1

+ Ambulance calls (p.a) 431 2,920 5,326 9,153


81

5.7. SUMMARY BY DEVELOPMENT AREA

5.7.1. In order to give a full understanding of how this demand will arise spatially, the Table 5.51 below summarises the total demand by development area and development phase:

Table 5.51: Phased Impacts of future population and associated Service and Facility Requirements by Development Area

Barking Town

Centre South Riverside Eastern Area

North & Central

Area

By

2011

By

2016

By

2027

By

2011

By

2016

By

2027

By

2011

By

2016

By

2027

By

2011

By

2016

By

2027

Education

Nursery places 231 286 320 287 521 972 - 390 - 328 - 271 - 253 - 198 - 141

Primary Form Entries 1.6 2.5 3.1 -0.4 0.1 6.3 -1.0 0.0 1.1 -0.6 0.6 1.9

Secondary Form Entries 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.3 5.4 2.8 -1.4 -0.9 0.3 -2.9 -3.2 -1.2

Health Theme

Primary Care Floorspace (sq.m) 436 623 711 402 957 2,067 95 253 456 365 535 834

Community, Leisure & Recreation

Multipurpose Community Space

(inc. library) (sq.m) 686 980 1,119 632 1,506 3,254 150 398 718 574 842 1,312

Swimming Pool Lanes 2 2 3 1 3 7 0 1 2 1 2 3

Sports Centre Courts 2 3 4 2 5 11 1 1 2 2 3 4

Total Open Space (NPFA) (ha) 21 30 34 19 46 99 5 12 22 17 26 40

Total Open Space (Borough

Standard) (ha) 20 28 32 18 44 94 4 12 21 17 24 38

Emergency & Essential Services

Police Officers 19 27 31 17 41 89 4 11 20 16 23 36

Police Floorspace 392 560 640 362 861 1,860 86 228 411 328 481 750



82

6. Mapping and Analysis

6.1. INTRODUCTION 6.1.1. The previous chapter has calculated the potential overall demand for social infrastructure as a result of

new residential development proposals across the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham area. This chapter aims to visually aid the interpretation of this analysis by mapping the demand across the key themes in comparison to the current supply of services, their capacity and accessibility.

6.1.2. For the purpose of this analysis, the review of the supply of services has been considered on a sub-area basis, as described in the previous chapters to enable an appreciation of the spatial location of demand in relation to the phasing of development.

6.1.3. The following graphical analysis provides an evidence base to support the identification of specific ‘hot spots’ of concern both in terms of insufficient service capacity in comparison to anticipated demand and also areas suffering from poor accessibility to services. While it is recognised that these maps do not necessarily identify solutions and do not prescribe definite locations for new service provision, their value lies in the assistance they offer service providers in understanding the geographic context within which appropriate responses can be evolved. As with all complex and sensitive decisions such as the provision of new schools and health facilities, decisions will need to be resolved at the local level by stakeholders and the community working together.

6.2. EDUCATION AND LEARNING

Early Year Requirements 6.2.1. As outlined in Table 6.1 a wide range of early year childcare is currently available in LB Barking and

Dagenham across the 5 sub-areas. The typology of childcare varies from childminders to family Centres and full day care facilities.

Table 6.1: Early Year facilities across study area

Barking

South

East

Central and North

Child Minders

17

16

88

153

Creche Family Centre

1

0

1

0

Full Day Care

Facility

5

2

3

9

Infant School

1

1

3

10

Primary School

3

0

10

9

Pre School

1

1

5

10

All Provision

28

22

112

193

0

2

2

2

LBBD 274 6 2 19 15 22 17 355

Source: EDAW Analysis + LBBD

6.2.2. Across the four sub-areas of Barking and Dagenham there is a total of 19 providers of full day care, 2 family centres, 6 crèches, 274 childminders, 15 Infant and 22 Primary School Nurseries and 17 Pre Schools. The greatest provision of all types is in the North and Central area whilst the lowest is in the South Riverside Area where previous chapters have shown the greatest increase in demand to be likely.

6.2.3. Figure 6.1 indicates the overall access to early year’s childcare provision across the study area and the relationship between existing facilities and future hot spots of demand. The diagram illustrates a reasonably good level of access across the entire Borough with the clear exception being in the South Riverside Area where strong levels of demand anticipated are not met at all by existing supply. Relatively high levels of demand expected in the Barking Area and in the East are also unlikely to be met by existing supply, suggesting that additional facilities may need to be provided.


83

Figure 6.1: Accessibility, Supply and new demand of Early Year Facilities across the Study Area


84

Primary Education Requirements 6.2.4. The previous chapter’s demographic analysis work estimated that the new housing combined with the

natural population growth anticipated in the study area had the potential to require approximately 2,914 additional primary school places (or 14 form entries) once surplus capacity has been absorbed in existing and planned facilties. This analysis has applied a reduction for the proportion of children from new market housing who were likely to attend private schools.

Table 6.2: Primary School Provision

Barking Area

South Riverside

Area East Area

North and Central

Area

Borough Wide

Infant School 2 1 2 9 14

Junior School 2 1 2 8 13

Primary School 3 1 7 11 22

49


6.2.5. Across LB Barking and Dagenham there are 22 primary schools, 13 junior schools and 14 infant schools. Of the 22 primary schools within LB Barking and Dagenham, the capacity exists for approximately 17,074 places to be provided. Current role figures for these 22 primary schools indicate that approximately 1,126 surplus spaces exist within LB Barking and Dagenham. It is important however to caveat the fact that these surplus figures are likely to fluctuate over time and only represent an indication of a possible future scenario.

6.2.6. The accessibility, supply and demand position is spatially represented in Figure 6.2 showing a relatively good level of school accessibility in the majority of the Borough with the clear exception once again being the South Riverside Area which, in line with childcare places, has been identified as a site producing significant new primary school place requirements in the future. Despite having reasonably good access currently, the Barking sub-area is also anticipated to create significant demand for primary school places throughout the development period which will not be met in full by current provision.

6.2.7. As illustrated in Figure 6.2 and included in the analysis of supply and demand in Section 5, two new facilities are already planned for the South Riverside area that will absorb much of the additional demand arising.

Table 6.3: Primary School Performance

Number of Schools Average Key Stage 2 Score

Barking Area 7 26.8

South Riverside Area 3 26

Eastern Area 11 27.8

North and Central Area 28 27.2

Barking and Dagenham Borough 49 27.0

England Average 27.8

Source: EDAW Analysis + DfES 2005 figures

6.2.8. Table 6.3 above also illustrates the existing quality of school performance in relation to Key Stage 2 scores. These are related to the Borough average and the England average. The figures show that the Eastern Area exceeds the Borough average, meeting the National Average for 2006 exactly. All other areas perform below the national average with the greatest concern being in the South Riverside area which performs significantly below both borough and national averages. With the greatest concentration of development and, therefore demand for school places, being located in this area, any new provision should be carefully planned in order to address the current underperformance of existing schools.


85

Figure 6.2: Accessibility, Supply and new demand of Primary Schools across the Study Area


86

Secondary Education Requirements 6.2.9. The catchment areas for secondary schools can extend far beyond local neighbourhood levels, as it is

quite common for students to travel outside local 5 and 10 minute walking distances, using public transport and often attending schools in neighbouring boroughs. For this reason wider impact areas should be taken into account when looking at surplus secondary school places.

6.2.10. The previous chapter’s demographic analysis work estimated that the new housing combined with the natural population growth anticipated in the study area had the potential to require approximately 608 additional secondary school places (or 4 form entries), after surplus capacity in existing and planned facilities has been absorbed. As mentioned in the case of primary school demand, this analysis has applied a reduction for the proportion of children who were likely to attend private schools.

6.2.11. As shown in Tables 6.4 Chapter 5, across LB Barking and Dagenham there are 9 secondary schools which have the capacity for 11,330 places with a current surplus of 439 places.

6.2.12. Table 6.4: Secondary School Provision

Barking

Area

South

Riverside

Area

East Area

North and

Central

Area

Borough

Wide

Secondary Schools 1 0 2 6 9


Table 6.5: Secondary School Performance

Number of Secondary

Schools

% of Pupils obtaining 5 or More A

C GCSE

Barking Area 1 41

South Riverside Area 0 n/a

Eastern Area 2 42.5

North and Central Area 6 58.4

Barking and Dagenham Borough 9 50.8

England Average 57.1

Source: EDAW Analysis + DfES 2005 figures

6.2.13. The accessibility, supply and demand position is spatially represented in Figure 6.3. As can be seen the majority of the Borough is not within a 10 minute walking distance from an existing secondary school, although a significant proportion is within a 20 minute walk. In line with the patterns for childcare and primary school provision, the South Riverside and Eastern area have particularly poor provision with no secondary school currently located within the South Riverside area. Again, this creates a significant concern when considering the strong levels of demand for additional provision that proposed new development would create. There is one 8FE secondary school currently proposed for the South Riverside Area, however, which will help to absorb a significant level of the potential demand.

6.2.14. Table 6.5 above also illustrates the existing quality of school performance in relation to the number of pupils obtaining 5 or more A to C GCSEs. These are related to the Borough average and the England average. At time of going to print, data was not yet available for the 2006 England average percentage of pupils obtaining 5 or more A-C GCSEs. In relation to the Borough average (calculated as an average of the 3 sub-areas currently hosting a secondary school), the North and Central areas performs particularly well, far exceeding the Borough average. This is in complete contrast to the Eastern and Barking Areas that perform below. Any future provision, therefore, will need to be carefully planned to ensure performance of schools across the Borough can be improved.


87

Figure 6.3: Accessibility, Supply and Demand of Secondary Schools across the Study Area


88

6.3. HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE 6.3.1. As outlined in Table 6.6 below a wide range of health and social care facilities are currently available in

LB Barking and Dagenham:

Table 6.6: Existing Health and Social Care Facilities

Barking Area

South

Riverside

Area

East Area North and

Central Area Borough Wide

Health Clinics 3 0 4 6 13

GP Centres 6 1 7 21 35

- GPs 16 2 13 58 89

Dental Surgeries 6 1 4 12 23

- Dentists 15 2 8 20 45

Pharmacies 7 2 8 18 35


6.3.2. Figure 6.4 illustrates the number of GP surgeries, by number of GPs per surgery and their level of accessibility in relation to the 15 minute walking distance target established by the PCT. This diagram illustrates relatively good access to GP facilities across the Borough with the exception, once again, being the South Riverside Area. Two new facilities are already proposed for this area, however, which should help to absorb a great deal of demand, particularly in the short term. A few other hotspots of demand that are not met by current or proposed facilities, are also identified in the Eastern and Barking areas.

6.3.3. The previous chapter’s demographic analysis work estimated that the new housing in the study area had the potential to require approximately 37 additional GPs and approximately 3,504 sq.m of primary care facility floorspace, representing a significant increase in primary care provision that will be required across the Borough over the development period.

6.3.4. Figure 6.5 illustrates the accessibility of existing Pharmacies across the study area indicating a good level of provision across the Borough with the clear exceptions of the South Riverside and Eastern areas. Demand is also anticipated to be high in these areas, particularly in the South Riverside area, suggesting the need to ensure new provision of these facilities in these areas.

6.3.5. Figure 6.6 illustrates the scale of provision and accessibility of dental facilities in the study area and wider impact areas. The diagram clearly shows poor accessibility to dental care facilities right across LB Barking and Dagenham with the majority of the Borough not within a 10 minute walk of an existing facility. The South Riverside Area has particularly poor accessibility matched by a significant level of demand anticipated across the development period, indicating the need for additional provision to be developed in the area. A significant increase in demand in the Barking area is also unlikely to be met by current provision, therefore requiring additional provision to be incorporated into the area. The previous chapter indicated a need for approximately 32 dentists to meet the incoming population requirement. Although some of this demand may be absorbed by boosting the capacity of existing facilities, it is likely that some additional provision will also be needed as the different phases of development are realised.


89

Figure 6.4: Accessibility, Supply and new Demand of Primary Healthcare across the Study Area


90

Figure 6.5 Accessibility, Supply and new Demand of Pharmacies across the Study Area


91

Figure 6.6: Accessibility, Supply and new Demand of Dentistry Facilities across the Study Area


92

6.4. COMMUNITY, LEISURE & RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE

Community Centres 6.4.1. Table 6.7 illustrates the number of community centres in LB Barking and Dagenham. While direct

comparisons between demand and supply are possible for other social infrastructure elements such as education and health, ascertaining an exact floorspace figure for community facility provision and weighing the value of different type of community provision (such as places of worship against job centres) is particularly difficult and as such a more effective comparison is possible between the forecast future community space requirements and the existing density of community related facilities. For this reason Figure 6.7, illustrating existing community facilities, does not look at accessibility but instead the density of different provision.

Table 6.7: Existing Community Centres

Barking Area South Area East Area North and

Central Area

Borough

Total

Community Centre 1 1 0 3 5

Community Hall 3 1 3 8 15

Social Services 0 0 0 1 1

Citizens Advice 1 0 0 0 1

Adult & community Services 0 0 0 3 3

Heritage / Civic 1 0 0 1 2

other 0 0 0 7 7


6.4.2. Figure 6.7 illustrates a concentration of provision in the North and Central and Barking areas with a significant lack of community related facilities across the South Riverside and Eastern areas. The previous chapter identified a potential demand for approximately 4,466 sq.m of community space provision across the Borough over the development period.

Library Provision 6.4.3. As indicated by Table 6.8, below, and Figure 6.9, the study area contains 11 libraries with the greatest

concentration of these being in the North and Central Area. Analysis of projected demand for library space arising from the proposed developments indicates a demand for approximately 1,937 sq.m. of library space by 2027. Figure 6.8 provides an analysis of the current supply of existing library facilities, using a 1 mile walking radius of each library. This has been applied to allow the area to be compared against Government policy requirements which require at least 99% of an Outer London Borough’s population to be within 1 mile of a static library. As can be seen from Figure 6.8, current provision in the Borough appears to exceed this target with the majority of the population within a 1 mile walk of an existing facility.

6.4.4. LB Barking and Dagenham will continue to consider how best its services can be delivered, to achieve best value and ensure they meet local needs. Clearly, the areas of the borough which at present have minimal library provision (i.e. South Riverside area) and will be subject to considerable development, will need new library provision.


93

Table 6.8: Existing libraries


Central Area

Borough

Total

Libraries 1 1 3 6 11


Multipurpose Community Space 6.4.5. In line with current Government policy, future library provision may be integrated into other community

facilities to maximise efficiency and accessibility. With regard to this, the previous chapter cumulated the demand for community space with library space to give a total of 6,403 sq.m. of multipurpose community space that would be needed over the development period. This figure is a cumulative figure, however, and does not take into account any space savings that may be made through the co-location and/or integration of community and library facilities.


94

Figure 6.7: Density, Supply and new Demand of Community Facilities across the Study Area


95

Figure 6.8: Accessibility, supply and new demand of libraries – Using DCMS standard of 99% of Outer London Boroughs’ population should reside within 1 mile of a static library


96

Leisure & Recreation Facilities 6.4.6. In addition to the existing facilities detailed in Table 5.40, as Figure 6.9 shows, there are a number of

specific sport clubs and recreation grounds within the Borough. Figure 6.9 looks at the accessibility of the 8 leisure centres within the four sub-areas.

6.4.7. The leisure centres included in the accessibility mapping offer a range of services and provision compared to specific small scale clubs and recreation grounds which have not been included as they create a false impression of adequate accessibility to leisure facilities. Figure 6.9 highlights a significant lack of accessibility to existing facilities across the Borough with some exception in the Barking and Central areas.

6.4.8. As identified in the previous chapter the anticipated demand arising from development proposals would equate to the equivalent of four to five sports halls, also accommodating approximately 15 swimming pool lanes across the development period. This level of demand would suggest the need for additional facilities to be provided within the Borough in locations currently identified as suffering particularly poor accessibility.

Open Space 6.4.9. Table 6.9 illustrates the number and quantity of local parks and civic open space across LB Barking and

Dagenham. There is currently a relatively high quantity of open space within the Borough (417ha), representing approximately 25.3 sq.m per person. The previous chapter identified a need to provide and additional 185 hectares by 2027. Following national standards, this figure rises to 194 hectares. Both figures represent a significant level of additional provision which will be particularly difficult to achieve.

6.4.10. As Figures 6.10 and 6.11 show, however, there are still some areas of low accessibility to open space within the Borough, particularly within the South Riverside Area, where current development proposals would also create the most significant levels of demand. Current Grampian conditions for the Barking Riverside development, however, requires up to 53.4ha of open space to be provided before more than 10,000 dwellings can be occupied in the area.

Table 6.9: Existing Open Space (hectares)


Central Area

Borough

Total

Number of parks / Spaces 3 3 8 9 23

Quantity of Open Space 40.5 11.4 205 160 416.9



97

Figure 6.9: Accessibility, supply and new demand of leisure centres across the Study Area


98

Figure 6.10: Accessibility and Supply of Open Space across the Study Area


99

Figure 6.11: Accessibility and Supply of Open Space across the Study Area


100

6.5. EMERGENCY SERVICES 6.5.1. Table 6.10 outlines the existing level of built emergency service facilities in LB Barking and Dagenham,

however, it should be noted that the provision of emergency services are not simply restricted to these facilities as in the case of police and ambulance provision there are also a number of patrolling officers and mobile units.

Table 6.10: Emergency Service Provision

Demand range Existing Borough-Wide Provision

Number of Police Officers 395

Safer Neighbourhood Teams 17

Police Stations 3

Fire Stations 2

Ambulance Stations 1


6.5.2. As Figure 6.12 illustrates, police stations are located within the East, West and Northern areas of the Borough with an obvious lack of accessibility within the South. Figure 6.13, however, shows that the Safer Neighbourhood Teams have a wider coverage across the North and Central, East and Barking Areas although, once again, lacking facilities within the South Riverside Area.

6.5.3. As Figures 6.14 and 6.15 indicate, the two fire stations and one ambulance station that currently exist in the Borough are suitably located to ensure target response times to the majority of areas in the Borough. The exception of this is parts of the South Riverside and Eastern areas that currently contain obstacles that prevent the emergency services from responding in the target time of 8 minutes. It is important, therefore, that the proposed developments in these areas are carefully planned to ensure that the new development is designed in a way that not only enables the new housing to be reached within the target response time but also removes the existing barriers to access that currently prevent these target times from being achieved.

6.5.4. It should be noted that the emergency/essential services undertake sophisticated approaches to planning with reference to levels of risk (fire, crime, and health), target response times, emergency routes and travel times and therefore substantial further work would be required to look into the current effectiveness and future requirements of emergency services across the study area.


101

Figure 6.12: Accessibility, Supply, Coverage and new Demand for Police Provision


102

Figure 6.13: Supply and Coverage of existing Safer Neighbourhood teams


103

Figure 6.14: Supply, Coverage and new Demand for Fire Protection


104

Figure 6.15: Supply, Coverage and new Demand for Ambulance Provision


105

6.6. COSTED OPTIONS FOR DELIVERY

Assumptions 6.6.1. The following costing analysis is based upon a number of keynote assumptions. It is necessary to apply

such assumptions on the cost of construction and land to usefully guide potential overall costs. The simplified nature of this costing means that the actual level of such costs will vary subject to location and site conditions. In the absence of such information and given the scope of this report, the following generic assumptions have been applied and are based upon the findings of Gardiner & Theobald and the Valuation Office Agency (Property Market Report, 2006).

Construction costs are based upon the findings of Gardiner & Theobald given the following assumptions. All costs are current as at August 2006 price base date.

• Construction costs based upon a clean, cleared, levelled site with main services terminated in an adjacent roadway that is, no infrastructure works assumed.

• No provision for external areas, such as car parking, service yards, hardstandings or soft landscaped areas. General provision for external works relevant to majority of uses would add £100- 150/m² of building area. However, car parking at semi basement or basement levels could cost between £9,000 and £20,000 per space.

• No site abnormal costs assumed with the exception of a simple cost efficient piling solution. Decontamination, ground water/stabilisation issues, extensive underbuild or sloping sites also excluded.

• No provision included for loose furniture, fittings and equipment to those buildings where they are appropriate –similarly category B fit out works are also excluded.

• No provision with the build costs included for the following:

o Increased tender price costs beyond August 2006 excluding sums up to proposed start on site date and to mid-point expenditure date of construction period. (current annual tender price increase for London region 5%p.a plus an additional 1% for the Olympic supply/demand effect).

o Professional design team fees.

o Legal and planning fees.

o Cost of Land and Finance

o VAT

Land Costs are based upon the Property Market Report published by the Valuation Office Agency in January 2006. Due to poor data availability is has become necessary to assume land value costs based on residential planning permissions within each area. Residential values are deemed appropriate as each reflect the likely overall cost of social/community land uptake once the cost of either voluntarily acquiring the land, or launching Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) proceedings over the land, are taken into account. The reduced cost of land in the latter circumstance is outweighed be the cost of a CPO inquiry to the approximate equivalent cost of social/community land.

Revenue costs have been taken from a number of different sources as detailed in Appendix A8. Where possible, the average annual salary for each occupation has been based on the local or regional figures. Where this has not been possible the national average has been used. In the case of education, further figures associated with the average number of teachers per pupil were also sourced from the National Statistics website in order to calculate the total revenue cost per new school building.

6.6.2. In this section, standard land and build costs have been sourced for the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham in order to carry out a high level analysis of the likely costs associated with delivering against some of the emerging options for providing social infrastructure to meet projected demand. In addition to this, average revenue costs have also been sourced to provide an idea of the costs associated with staffing these facilities once they are built.


106

6.6.3. The assumptions of land, build and revenue costs associated with these calculations are given in full in Appendices A8-A10.

6.6.4. The costs are given by development phase and sub-areas of development in order to provide a clear indication as to exactly where and when new facilities will be required.

6.6.5. Figures relating to demand arising include the anticipated natural population growth cumulated with the additional growth expected to arise from housing developments. The net demand figures take into account any existing proposals for development of social infrastructure facilities (such as a new school) in order to give a true indication of the actual level of additional supply required. A negative figure of demand indicates surplus capacity (either from existing or planned facilities).

Early Years Provision

Barking Sub-Area

6.6.6. Tables 6.12 to 6.15 give an indication of the possible costs associated with providing Early Years facilities to meet the demand identified in Section 4.

Table 6.12 Possible Costs Associated with Early Years Facilities in the Barking Sub-Area

Additional No. of Childcare

Places

Equivalent Facility (based on 60 FTE

place facility) Option for Delivery Estimated Cost

Capital Revenue/Yr Land Costs

2006 134 2.2 2 new facilities

required £1,277,095 £560,000 £1,249,090

2011 97 1.6 2 new facilities

required £1,277,095 £402,500 £1,249,090

2016 55 0.9 1 new facility

required £638,547 £213,889 £624,545

2027 34 0.6 Absorb in Existing Surplus Capacity N/A £140,000 N/A

Total 320 4 £3,192,737 £1,316,389 £3,122,755

Source: EDAW and Gardiner & Theobald Analysis


107

South Riverside

Table 6.13 Possible Costs Associated with Early Years Facilities in the South Riverside Sub-Area

Additional No.

of Childcare

Places

Equivalent

Facility (based on

60 FTE place

facility) Option for Delivery Estimated Cost

Capital Revenue Land Costs

2006 137 2.3 2 new facilities £1,277,095 £560,000 £1,249,090

2011 150 2.6 2 new facilities required £1,277,095 £612,500 £1,249,090

2016 234 3.8 4 new facilities required £2,554,189 £962,500 £2,498,179

2027 451 7.5 8 new facilities needed £5,108,379 £1,855,000 £4,996,358

Total 972 16.2 £10,216,758 £3,990,000 £9,992,717


Eastern Area

Table 6.14 Possible Costs Associated with Early Years Facilities in the Eastern Sub-Area

Additional No.

of Childcare

Places

Equivalent

Facility (based on

60 FTE place


Capital Revenue/yr Land Costs

2006 -374 -6.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011 -16 -0.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2016 62 1.0 Absorb in facilities

N/A £262,500 N/A

2027 57 1.0 provided in earlier stages N/A £227,500 N/A

Total -271 -4.5 £490,000



108


Table 6.15 Possible Costs Associated with Early Years Facilities in the North & Central Sub-Area

Additional

No. of

Childcare

Places

Equivalent

Facility (based

on 60 FTE place



2006 -290 -4.8 N/A N/A N/A

2011 37 0.6 Absorb in Existing Surplus N/A £157,500 N/A

2016 55 0.9 Capacity - Becontree

Children’s centre; Furze N/A £227,500 N/A

2027 57 0.9

Infants School's Children’s

Centre; and Sydney Russell N/A £227,500 N/A

Total -141 -2.4 N/A £612,500 N/A


6.6.7. In both the Eastern and North and Central sub-areas, existing proposals for new Children’s Centres mean that the level of provision exceeds the level of demand arising. It is essential, therefore, that plans for these facilities consider the most appropriate phasing of delivery and also to ensure that accessibility to a wider catchment area is maximised.

Primary Education

6.6.8. Tables 6.16 to 6.19 give an indication of the possible costs associated with providing Primary Education facilities to meet the demand identified in Section 5.

Barking Area

Table 6.16 Possible Costs Associated with Primary Education Facilities in the Barking Sub-Area

Additional

No. of

Primary

School

Places

Equivalent

Facility (based

on 2FE facility) Option for Delivery Estimated Cost


2006 -72 -0.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011 411 1.0

New Facility plus

absorbing existing £4,280,000 £644,100 £6,536,471

2016 179 0.4

New Facility built as 1 FE

with ability to expand to

2FE in next stage £4,280,000 £271,200 £6,536,471

2027 128 0.3

Expand previous facility to

2FE N/A £237,300 N/A

Total 646 1.5 £8,560,000 £1,152,600 £13,072,941



109

South Riverside

Table 6.17 Possible Costs Associated with Primary Education Facilities in the South Riverside Sub-Area

Additional

No. of

Primary

School

Places

Equivalent

Facility (based



2006 12 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011 -100 -0.2 2 new facilities planned4 N/A N/A N/A

2016 100 0.2

Demand can be met by new

facilities provided in

previous phase. N/A £237,300 N/A

2027 1,307 3.1

1 new facility plus absorb

existing capacity £4,280,000 £2,034,000 £6,536,471

Total 1,419 3.1 £4,280,000 £2,271,300 £6,536,471


Eastern Area

Table 6.18 Possible Costs Associated with Primary Education Facilities in the Eastern Sub-Area

Additional

No. of

Primary

School

Places

Equivalent

Facility (based



2006 -285 -0.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011 65 0.1 Absorb in Existing N/A £101,700 N/A


2027 221 0.5

Possibility of I new 2FE

facility £4,280,000 £399,000 £6,536,471

Total 228 0.4 £4,280,000 £779,700 £6,536,471


Two new 3FE Primary Schools are planned in the Baking Riverside development


110

4


Table 6.19 Possible Costs Associated with Primary Education Facilities in the North & Central Sub-Area

Additional

No. of

Primary

School

Places

Equivalent

Facility (based



2006 -522 -1.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011 398 0.9

Absorb in existing

facilities N/A £610,200 N/A

2016 241 0.6

New 1FE facility with

room to expand £4,280,000 £372,900 £6,536,470

2027 278 0.7

Expand previously built

facility to 2FE N/A £406,800 N/A

Total 395 1 £4,280,000 £1,389,900 £6,536,470


6.6.9. New primary schools planned in all four sub-areas means that at certain points within the development period, each of the areas will experience significant surplus capacity with provision exceeding demand. Whilst this surplus capacity will eventually be absorbed by rising demand, it is important for the planning authorities to revisit the proposals to ensure the most appropriate phasing of development is adopted.

Secondary Education

6.6.10. Tables 6.20 to 6.23 give an indication of the possible costs associated with providing Secondary Education facilities to meet the demand identified in Section 5.

Barking Sub-Area

Table 6.20 Possible Costs Associated with Secondary Education Facilities in the Barking Sub-Area

Additional

No. of

Secondary

School

Places

Equivalent Facility (based


Capital Revenue/yr

Land

Costs

2006 -27 0 N/A N/A N/A

2011 187 0.2 Absorb in Existing

Facilities or in new N/A £406,800 N/A

2016 77 0.1 Borough-wide facility. N/A £169,500 N/A

2027 91 0.1 N/A £203,400 N/A

Total 328 0.4 N/A £779,700 N/A



111

South Riverside

Table 6.21 Possible Costs Associated with Secondary Education Facilities in the South Riverside Sub-Area

Additional

No. of

Secondary

School

Places




2006 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011 341 0.4 New facility planned N/A £678,000 N/A

2016 470 0.5 will absorb majority

of demand but N/A £949,200 N/A

2027 -396 -0.4

provision of an

additional 3FE

equivalent will be

required – Borough-

wide facility N/A N/A N/A

Total 415 0.5 N/A £1,627,200 N/A


Eastern Area

Table 6.22 Possible Costs Associated with Secondary Education Facilities in the Eastern Sub-Area

Additional

No. of

Secondary

School

Places



Capital Revenue/yr

Land

Costs

2006 -183 -0.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011 -30 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A


2027 178 0.2

Facilities or in new

Borough-wide facility N/A £372,900 N/A

Total 39 0.1 N/A £508,500 N/A



112


Table 6.23 Possible Costs Associated with Secondary Education Facilities in the North & Central Sub-Area

Additional

No. of

Secondary

School

Places



Capital Revenue/yr

Land

Costs

2006 -63 -0.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011 -375 -0.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2016 -36 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A


Total -173 -0.2 N/A £610,200 N/A


6.6.12. Current surplus capacity in existing schools (indicated by negative numbers) will be absorbed by new demand arising. The planned expansion of the Jo Richardson school also suggests that secondary school provision in the North and Central Area will continue to exceed demand arising. This surplus capacity has the potential, therefore, to meet some of the demand arising in the other sub-areas as long as accessibility is maximised.

Primary Healthcare

6.6.13. Tables 6.24 to 6.27 give an indication of the possible costs associated with providing Primary Healthcare facilities to meet the demand identified in Section 5.

Barking Sub-Area

Table 6.24 Possible Costs Associated with Primary Healthcare Facilities in the Barking Sub-Area

Primary Care Floorspace

Demand (sq.m) Option for Delivery Estimated Cost


2006 51

5GP PCC - Planned for Barking Town Centre &

Barking Riverside £1,254,204 £742,496 £696,780

2011 38

Three 4 GP PCC - Planned for Barking Town Centre &

Barking Riverside £3,301,452 £495,575 £1,800,792

2016 187 10 GP PCC - Planned for

Barking Town Centre £2,077,320 £1,292,963 £1,246,392

2027 88 Likely to be absorbed in above

facilities N/A N/A N/A

Total 364 £6,632,976 £2,531,034 £3,743,964



113

South Riverside

Table 6.25 Possible Costs Associated with Primary Healthcare Facilities in the South Riverside Sub-Area

Primary Care

Floorspace

Demand (sq.m) Option for Delivery Estimated Cost


2006 0

5GP PCC - Planned for

Barking Town Centre &

Barking Riverside £1,254,204 £742,496 £696,780

2011 402

Three 4 GP PCC - Planned for

Barking Town Centre &

Barking Riverside £3,301,452 £1,757,340 £1,800,792

2016 555

10 GP PCC - Planned for

Barking Town Centre £2,077,320 £1,292,963 £1,246,392

2027 1,10

Likely to be absorbed in above

facilities N/A N/A N/A

Total 2035 £5,848,619 £2,499,836 £3,743,964


Eastern Area

Table 6.26 Possible Costs Associated with Primary Healthcare Facilities in the Eastern Sub-Area

Area Specific

Primary Care

Floorspace Demand

(sq.m) Option for Delivery Estimated Cost


2006 50 Absorb in Existing and new N/A N/A N/A

2011 45

facilities - Church Elm Lane;

Chadwell Heath Health

Centre 2006; Marks Gate

Health Centre 2006; Castle

Green Health Centre 2006 N/A N/A N/A

2016 158

New neighbourhood Facility

- 3GP with room to expand -

serving wider area £940,330 £495,575 £503,748

2027 203 Absorb in existing facilities N/A N/A N/A

Total 456 £940,330 £495,575 £503,748



114


Table 6.27 Possible Costs Associated with Primary Healthcare Facilities in the North & Central Sub-Area

Primary Care

Floorspace

Demand

(sq.m) Option for Delivery Estimated Cost


2006 90 Absorb in Existing N/A N/A N/A

2011 275

Neighbourhood centre -

3GP with room to expand

- serving wider area. £940,330 £495,575 £503,748

2016 170

Absorb in previously

built facility N/A N/A N/A

2027 299

Absorb in previously

built facility N/A N/A N/A

Total 834 £940,330 £495,575 £503,748


Community and Libraries

6.6.14. Tables 6.28 to 6.31 give an indication of the possible costs associated with providing Multipurpose community facilities to meet the demand identified in Section 5.

Barking Sub-Area

Table 6.28 Possible Costs Associated with Multipurpose Community Facilities in the Barking Sub-Area

Combined

Multi

purpose

Floorspace

Demand Option for Delivery Estimated Cost


2006 80 Absorb in Existing Capacity N/A N/A N/A

2011 606

Town centre facility could serve larger

catchment - build one medium town

centre facility combining medium-

sized hall and medium sized town

library - plot needs to be sufficient to

allow future expansion. £1,825,110

£31,019

multiplied by x £1,787,100

2016 294 Absorbed in previous facility - with

N/A N/A N/A

2027 139 expansion if necessary N/A N/A N/A

Total 1,19 £ 1,825,110 £1,787,100



115

South Riverside

Table 6.29 Possible Costs Associated with Multipurpose Community Facilities in the South Riverside Sub-Area

Multi purpose

Floorspace



2006 0 N\A N/A N/A N/A

2011 632

Small sized hall & small

community library

combined £785,500

£31,019

multiplied by x £908,250

2016 878

Medium sized hall &

small community library

combined £1,045,110

£31,019


2027 1,748

Large sized hall &

District Library £4,754,975

£31,019


Total 3,254 £6,585,585

£31,019



Eastern Area

Table 6.30:Possible Costs Associated with Multipurpose Community Facilities in the Eastern Sub-Area

Combined

Multi purpose

Floorspace



2006 79 N/A N/A N/A

2011 71

Expand existing facilities

or absorbed in Borough- N/A N/A N/A

2016 248

wide facilities

N/A N/A N/A

2027 320

Possibility of one small

combined facility of small

hall & small library £785,500

£31,019


Total 718 £785,500

£31,019




116


Table 6.31:Possible Costs Associated with Multipurpose Community Facilities in the North & Central Sub-Area

Combined Multi

purpose

Floorspace



2006 142 N/A N/A N/A

2011 432 Expand existing or absorbed by

Borough-wide facilities N/A N/A N/A

2016 268 N/A N/A N/A

2027 470

Small hall & small community

library in combined facility £785,500

£31,019


Total 1312 £785,500

£31,019



Leisure and Recreation

6.6.15. Tables 6.32 to 6.39 give an indication of the possible costs associated with providing Swimming Pool and Sports Centre facilities to meet the demand identified in Section 5.

Barking Sub-Area

Table 6.32-3:Possible Costs Associated with Swimming Pool and Sports Centre Facilities in the Barking Sub-Area

Area Specific

Pool Lanes Option for Delivery Estimated Cost


2006 0 N/A N/A N/A

2011 2 Borough-wide facility

N/A N/A N/A

2016 0 N/A N/A N/A

2027 1 N/A N/A N/A

Total 3 N/A N/A N/A


117

Sports Court



2006 0 N/A N/A N/A

2011 2 Borough-wide facility

N/A N/A N/A

2016 1 N/A N/A N/A

2027 1 N/A N/A N/A

Total 4

Possibility of one small

new facility £1,680,000 N/A


South Riverside

Table 6.34-5 :Possible Costs Associated with Swimming Pool and Sports Centre Facilities in the South Riverside Sub-Area

Pool Lanes Option for Delivery Estimated Cost


2006 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011 1

Absorb into Existing

Capacity or N/A N/A N/A

2016 2

Borough-wide

facility N/A N/A N/A

2027 4 New 6 Lane Facility £8,241,488 £2,986,560

Total 7 £8,241,488 £2,986,560

Sports Court Demand Option for Delivery Estimated Cost


2006 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011 2

Absorb into Existing Capacity or Borough-wide


2016 3 New small 4 Court

Facility £1,680,000 £2,097,750

2027 6 New large 4 Court

Facility £2,700,000 £2,686,500

Total 11 £4,380,000 £4,784,250



118

Eastern Area

Table 6.36-7:Possible Costs Associated with Swimming Pool and Sports Centre Facilities in the Eastern Sub-Area

Area Specific

Pool Lanes

Option for

Delivery Estimated Cost


2006 0 N/A N/A N/A

2011 0 Borough-wide N/A N/A N/A

2016 1 facility N/A N/A N/A

2027 1 N/A N/A N/A

Total 2

Sports Court

Demand

Option for



2006 0 N/A N/A N/A



2027 1 N/A N/A N/A

Total 1



Table 6.38-9:Possible Costs Associated with Swimming Pool and Sports Centre Facilities in the North & Central Sub-Area

Pool Lanes

Option for



2006 0 N/A N/A N/A



2027 1 N/A N/A N/A

Total 3 N/A N/A N/A


119

Sports Court

Demand

Option for



2006 0.5 N/A N/A N/A

2011 1.2 Borough-wide


2016 0.6 N/A N/A N/A

2027 0.4 N/A N/A N/A

Total 2.7 N/A N/A N/A


Police Facilities

6.6.16. Tables 6.40 to 6.41 give an indication of the possible costs associated with providing Local Police Service facilities to meet the demand identified in Section 5.

Barking Sub-Area

Table 6.40:Possible Costs Associated with Local Police Force Facilities in the Barking Sub-Area

Police

Officers

Floorspace


Capital Revenue/yr

Land

Costs

2006 2 46 Absorb in Existing Capacity N/A £47,388 N/A

2011 17 346

3 x Police Shop Units or Safer

Neighbourhood Teams £390,000 £402,798 N/A

2016 8 168

2 x Police Shop Units or Safer


2027 4 86

Absorb in Previously

Developed Facility N/A £94,766 N/A

Total 28 555 £650,000 £734,514 N/A



120

South Riverside

Table 6.41:Possible Costs Associated with Local Police Force Facilities in the South Riverside Sub-Area

Area

Specific

Primary

Places

Police

officers

Floorspace



2006 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011 17 362

3 x Police Shops or Safer


2016 24 499

5 x Police Shops or Safer

Neighbourhood teams £650,000 £568,656 N/A

2027 48 999 Police Station £1,400,000 £1,137,312 £1,395,000

Total 89 1860 £2,440,000 £2,108,766 £1,395,000


Eastern Area

Table 6.42:Possible Costs Associated with Local Police Force Facilities in the Eastern Sub-Area

Police

Officers

Floorspace

Demand

(Sq.m) Option for Delivery Estimated Cost


2006 2 45 Absorb in existing N/A £47,388 N/A

2011 2 41 Absorb in existing N/A £47,388 N/A

2016 7 142

Police Shop or Safer

Neighbourhood Unit £130,000 £165,858 N/A

2027 9 183

Police Shop or Safer

Neighbourhood Unit. £130,000 £213,246 N/A

Total 14 274 £260,000 £473,880 N/A



121


Table 6.43:Possible Costs Associated with Local Police Force Facilities in the North & Central Sub-Area

Police Officers

Floorspace Demand Option for Delivery Estimated Cost


2006 4 81 Police Shop or Safer Neighbourhood Unit £130,000 £94,776 N/A

2011 12 247 2 x Police Shop or Safer

Neighbourhood Unit £260,000 £284,328 N/A



Total 22 437 £650,000 £852,984 N/A


6.6.17. As mentioned earlier in this section, the actual calculation of Emergency and Essential Services resources requires a number of complex calculations considering a number of factors such as risk, access, level of demand, etc. The Metropolitan Police Service, in particular, uses a sophisticated Resource Allocation Formula (RAF) to calculate the police resources needed in each of the 32 London Borough Operational Command Units (BOCUs).

6.6.18. The formula is used to apportion an agreed level of resources, it is not used to decide what the appropriate level of resources or overall budget to BOCUs should be. The formula is applied only to the borough element of the Territorial Policing budget and does not extend to the Safer Neighbourhood teams, which are funded separately. Neither does it apply to resources that are funded by partners: for example a borough will not be penalised for buying extra police officers or Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs).

6.6.19. The RAF comprises 4 separate components representing differing aspects of policing: “Demand”, “Need”, “Opening the Shop” and “Capital City and Security”. Commissioner’s Judgment is a discretionary element that is not part of the formula itself:

Figure 5.11 The Elements of the Resource Allocation Formula.

Source: MPA (April 2005) Resource Allocation Formula, Final Report

6.6.20. Whereas, this report has outlined some of the resource implications on the local police force (i.e. Safer Neighbourhood Teams; etc.) it should not be considered as replacing the MPA’s own conclusions based on the RAF and should, instead, be considered alongside these.


122


123

7. Analysis of Co-location and Integration Potential

7.1. CO-LOCATION MATRIX Introduction

7.1.1. The costs given in section 6 represent the costs associated with the full build out to meet demand rather than the more realistic approach of step-by-step approach of using spare capacity; temporary expansion; full expansion; and then new build. The latter will obviously has considerably different costs (with higher front-end revenue costs and higher capital costs towards the latter stages of development) which are beyond the scope of this piece of work to calculate fully.

7.1.2. It can be assumed, however, that the co-location and/or integration of one or more facility will provide a significant cost saving on a scale relative to the level of co-location/integration achieved. One experience that supports this assumption is that of the Castle Green facility in which found a 20 to 33 per cent cost reduction from co-locating and integrating the facilities as opposed to providing stand-alone facilities.

7.1.3. Further reductions arise from co-location or integration of facilities by the adoption of a shared services approach in respect of maintenance and management costs such as security systems and personnel; maintenance teams, etc.

7.1.4. As the previous section outlined, there are a number of areas across the Borough that will require a range of services in order to meet the demand of the new communities. In order to inform the overall approach to delivery recommended in this report and to make the provision of facilities financially feasible in the early phases of development (when demand is lower) as well as ensuing the efficient use of resources such as land, a necessary part of this evaluation is the consideration of the potential for the co-location and integration of facilities and services.

7.1.5. For this purpose, a matrix has been developed to aid an appreciation and understanding of the different levels of potential for co-location and/or integration of services and facilities. Co-location is when two or more services locate on the same site to ease user access, while integration refers to shared use of facilities to achieve economies of scale.

7.1.6. Within the matrix, services have primarily been identified, and therefore included, through the Policy Context exercise undertaken as part of this analysis which highlighted all current and future planned services.

7.1.7. In essence the matrix is formed of 3 different tables, all relating to the service sectors identified within the four social infrastructure elements used within this framework: health, education, leisure and recreation, and blue light services. Business support has also been included as this is increasingly provided on a local basis.

7.1.8. The three different tables comprising the matrix are:

• Service mapped to life stage user(s)

• Service mapped to service with potential to co-locate/integrate

• Service mapped to facilities likely to be required on site/in the building

Using the Matrix

7.1.9. Colour coding has been used within the matrix whereby the primary users were initially identified. This allows for the reader to easily identify the main underlying lifecycle users of the service provision. The colour coding is given overleaf:


124

Infancy

Childhood

Youth

Pregnancy

Adult life

Retirement

Old age

7.1.10. The red crosses indicate a positive relationship or a potential match in terms of co-location.

7.1.11. The blue boxes indicate where integration is possible/exists.

7.1.12. The facilities table within the matrix highlights service provision which has the potential for integration due to the same facilities requirements.

Limits of the Matrix

7.1.13. It should be understood that where positive relationships have been identified (marked by a red cross/blue box) these are intended to relate to the generic situation and not a locally specific one. The consultants recognise that the local context will bring with it many nuances and variations to the generic matrix. For example, where a partnership already exists a more natural co-location/integration may be apparent, which nullifies other potential partnerships.

7.1.14. Where a service is marked as potentially co-locating/integrating with several other services it is not necessarily suggesting that all of these co-locations/integrations should be undertaken, more highlighting where there is potential for co-location/integration.

7.1.15. The matrix has been completed using policy information regarding potential for co-location/integration of services, as well as ‘our best guess’ according to acquired knowledge.

7.1.16. Not all services may have been included in the matrix, particularly when applied to the local context. The service areas included in the matrix attempt to incorporate all possible service providers within the fields of health, education, leisure and recreation and blue light services. For example, there may be several services providing support to ethnic minority groups, each of these can be assumed to be used by the same lifecycle population, therefore have the potential to co-locate/integrate with certain other services, and require the same type of facilities. However, the matrix should not be used as an inflexible tool, rather something to aid decision making.

7.1.17. Many of the ‘adult life’ colour coded services have been identified as such due to their application to many lifecycle stages as adult life comprises a high proportion of the life cycle.

7.1.18. Where the primary user (identified by colour coding) is accompanied by another or other user(s) several red crosses will be placed in the ‘user’ table. For example, though infants are the primary users of nurseries, adults will also need to have easy access to the service as they are key to its use. A further example is that while care homes are used by those of old age, relatives (mostly in adult life and of retirement age) will also wish to access the facility.

7.1.19. While the facility table identifies where services have corresponding facility requirements it must be used in conjunction with the service-to- service matrix which illustrates where potential colocation/integration exists. For example, domestic violence support services may require the same facilities as substance misuse facilities but it would not be advised to co-locate or integrate these services due to the vulnerabilities of the users.


125

Key Messages ~

7.1.20. There are numerous conclusions which can be drawn from this matrix:

7.1.21. Some leisure & recreation and health services have been recognised as being used by all ages in the life cycle. These are:

Leisure and Recreation

• Parks, open spaces, sports areas/pitches.

• Leisure centres

• Library

Health:

• Disability support groups

• Opticians

• Dentists

• Mental health support

• Domestic violence

• Learning disability support

• Minor surgery centre, walk in centre, core primary care centre, one stop primary care centre, primary care and diagnostic treatment centres, healthy living centres, intermediate care facilities

• Diabetes centre

Key Messages • User age/life-cycle stage, service provision and facility requirements should all be taken into account

when considering the feasibility of co-location or integration.

• Facilities such as recycling, which are used by many age groups regardless of health, children, education requirements, should be located where access is optimal.

• Centres which provide natural hubs for service provision are schools, health centres and leisure centres:

• Schools can provide community learning, leisure and child/young people related services.

• Health centres can provide ‘devolved’ health service, support groups etc.

• Leisure centres are used by all ages within the community, occupy large sites and as such could be used as a catalyst for development.

• Libraries are already co-locating and integrating with community learning facilities and schools.

7.1.22. A full summary of the analysis of the matrix can be found in Appendix A4.

7.1.23. To enable an application of the above matrix to the local context of LB Barking and Dagenham, and to develop the recommendations for delivery, Table 7.1 summarises the emerging recommendations for facility provision by sub-area and phase.


126

• Three 4 GP PCC planned

• Three 4 GP PCC planned

• New 6FE Secondary School planned for Barking Riverside

• 10 GP PCC planned for Barking Town Centre and Barking Riverside

• 10 GP PCC planned for Barking Town Centre and Barking Riverside

Table 7.1 Summary of emerging recommendations for facility provision by development sub-area and phase

Development Sub-Area

Phase Barking South Riverside Eastern North & Central 2011 • Eastbury Day

Nursery; Leys Primary School Children's Centre; Marsh Green Primary School Children's Centre; and Parsloes Primary School Children's Centre planned

• 2 new 3FE primary schools planned

• Becontree Children’s centre; Furze Infants School's Children’s Centre; and Sydney Russell planned

• 2 new Early Years facilities required

• New 2FE Primary School

• Medium-sized community hall and medium sized town library - plot needs to be sufficient to allow future expansion.

• 3 x Police Shop Units or Safer Neighbourhood Teams

• 2 new Early Years facilities required

• Small sized hall & small community library combined

• 3 x Police Shops or Safer Neighbourhood Teams

N/A • New 2FE Primary School

• Neighbourhood centre - 3GP with room to expand - serving wider area

• 2 x Police Shop or Safer Neighbourhood Unit

2016

• 1 new Early Years • 4 new Early Years • New neighbourhood • 2 x Police Shop or Safer facility required facilities required Facility - 3GP with Neighbourhood Unit

• New 1FE Primary • Medium sized hall & room to expand School with room to small community serving wider area expand to 2FE library combined • Police Shop or Safer

• 2 x Police Shop Units • New small 4 Court Neighbourhood Unit or Safer Facility Neighbourhood • 5 x Police Shops or Teams Safer Neighbourhood

teams 2027

• Possibility of one • 8 x new Early Years • New 2FE Primary • Possible need for new small sports centre facilities required

• 1 x new 2FE Primary School

• Equivalent of 3FE secondary school provision needed

• Large sized hall & District Library

• New 6 Lane Swimming Pool

School • Possibility of one

small combined facility of small hall & small library

• Police Shop or Safer Neighbourhood Unit - or expand previously built facility

2FE Primary School • Possibility for small hall

& small community library in combined facility

• 2 x Police Shop or Safer Neighbourhood Unit

• New large 4 Court Facility

• Police Station

LB Barking and Dagenham 127 Social Infrastructure Needs Assessment

Emerging Recommendations for Potential Co-location/Integration

7.1.27. Following the conclusions drawn from the Co-location and Integration Matrix, it is possible to begin to appreciate the potential for the co-location and/or integration of a number of facilities as and when the demand for them arises in the same area within the same phase. The following section will consider each of the sub-areas in turn to determine what potential exists for co-location/integration and, subsequently, more efficient use of resources.

Barking Sub-Area

7.1.28. Within the Barking Sub-Area, the need for a number of facilities arises within 2011 as summarised in Table 7.1. Of these, according to the matrix, the potential for co-location/integration is as follows:

• 1x Early Years facility (or Children’s Centre) co-located within the new 2FE primary with some shared facilities such as toilet and catering facilities; reception facilities; staff facilities and outdoor playspace.

• Multipurpose Community Space accommodating a library facility with integrated reception toilet and catering facilities and staff facilities. Experience in other areas has also suggested the possibility that local police facilities (such as one or more Safer Neighbourhood Teams) could also be colocated on the same site, perhaps sharing staff, toilet and catering facilities.

7.1.29. By 2016, the Barking sub-area will require more facilities which, according to the matrix have the following co-location/integration potential:

• New Early Years facility (or Children’s Centre) located within 1FE Primary School with shared facilities as above; or

• New Primary Care Centre containing Early Years facility in the form of Children’s Centre sharing a number of facilities such as treatment and consultation rooms; staff, toilet and catering facilities..

7.1.30. For 2027, the two facilities specifically required are a large Primary Care Centre and a small sports centre. Consultation with health professionals in other London boroughs has suggested some potential for co-location of health and leisure facilities in order to promote healthier lifestyles. Both Primary Care Centres and Sports facilities also have the potential to be co-located or integrated with a number of other facilities for which demand may arise as the development phases progress. It is important to note that the 10GP Primary Care Centre is proposed to serve both the Barking and South Riverside sub-areas.

South Riverside

7.1.31. A substantial level of demand for new facilities will arise in the South Riverside area throughout the entire development period. For the facilities required within the 2006-2011 period, the following potential for co-location/integration exists:

• 2 x Early Years (or Children’s Centre) facility located within the two new 3FE Primary School, sharing some facilities (see Para 7.1.26).

• New 6FE Secondary School containing a hall & library which would be suitable for community use (e.g. Castle Green). Following the example of the Caste Green Centre in Barking, there is also potential to locate one or more of the required Police Shops or Safer Neighbourhood Teams within the same site. All of the above have the potential to share a number of facilities including a reception area; toilet, catering and staff facilities.

7.1.32. Within the next period of development, 2011-2016, an even larger demand for new facilities is expected to arise as given in Table 7.1. According to the matrix, the following co-location/integration potential exists:

• 2 x Early Years (or Children’s Centres) facilities and new small 4 Sports Court Facility to be located on the same site as the new Primary Care Centre (see Para 7.1.28).

• One or more of the Police Shops or Safer Neighbourhood Teams to be co-located within an integrated facility accommodating a medium sized community hall & small community library, sharing a number of facilities (see Para 7.1.26).


128

7.1.33. In the final phase of development, 2016-2027, the substantial demand for new facilities could be met through the following options for co-location/integration:

• New Early Years facility (or Children’s Centre) located within a new 2FE Primary Schools

• Integrated community facility containing large-sized hall, District-sized Library, new 6-Lane Swimming Pool, and new large 4-Sports Court facility all designed in a way to make them appropriate for use by the wider community.

Eastern Area

7.1.34. In the Eastern sub-area, demand for new facilities is not expected to arise until the 2016-2027 with limited co-location/integration potential:

• 3GP Neighbourhood Health centre

• Safer Neighbourhood Team

7.1.35. By 2027, the demand for facilities represents the following co-location/integration potential:

• 2FE primary school

• Possibility of one small community hall & small library co-located with a Police Shop or Safer Neighbourhood Unit, sharing facilities as described in Para 7.1.26.

North & Central Area

7.1.36. Demand for new facilities in the North and Central sub-area will be greatest within the first phase of development, 2006-2011. Of these new facilities, there is limited potential for co-location/integration:

• 2FE Primary School

• 3 GP neighbourhood health centre.

7.1.37. The two facilities specifically required within the second phase of development, 2011-16, are 1FE primary school and a Police Shop or Safer Neighbourhood Unit which are not deemed as suitable for co-locating or integrating with each other. Both facilities do, however, have some potential for co-location and/or integrating with other facilities that may be built as demand arises.

7.1.38. In the final phase of development, the North and Central area has some potential for the co-location and integration of facilities in the form of the following:

• Small community hall and library facility co-located with a Police Shop or Safer Neighbourhood Unit sharing facilities as given in Para 7.1.26.


129

8. Recommendations for Delivery 8.1.1. OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS

• In developing the recommendations for delivery set out in this section of the report, we have had regard to the policy review and the outputs of the opportunities for co-location and integration set out above. We have identified four key areas that the range of specific delivery mechanisms set out below need to address in respect of the underlying Government policy drivers which underpin this overall rationale for delivery.

• ACQUIRING THE RELEVANT SITES – greater clarity needs to be achieved among stakeholders with regard to the full extent of the asset base available to the stakeholders within the Borough and to make best use of the assets available. To address this an Asset Disposal and Acquisition protocol needs to be developed by the stakeholders as summarised below.

• DELIVERING THE FACILITIES – in order to improve communication between stakeholders, there is a need for a Stakeholder Co-operation Agreement approach to be adopted which would allow for:-

- an accountable lead body (such as the Local Authority) to champion and secure efficient cooperation between stakeholders which is then translated into actual delivery;

- the co-ordination of the joint planning and commissioning of facilities with both individual stakeholder and collective commitment to deliver so that the potential cost savings of up to 33% (as referred to in Chapter 7 above) can be achieved;

- the co-ordination of the use of existing mechanisms (including, in particular, NHS LIFT and BSF) with new mechanisms.

- In the context of existing mechanisms we recommend:-

� NHS LIFT ought to be used for delivery where stand alone health facilities are required and, where sufficient advantages are likely to be achieved, NHS LIFT can also be used to deliver combined health and social care facilities. Subject to the review of the detailed documentation, NHS LIFT can in certain circumstances (see Chapter 3) also be used to deliver non-health/social care facilities. Where this is not possible, NHS LIFT may be used as part of larger schemes to deliver co-located health facilities and in particular to deliver an element of shared infrastructure in advance of the non-health facilities being built on such schemes.

� The BSF LEP procurement is reviewed to consider the possibility of extending its remit to deliver leisure facilities. In particular we recommend that further investigation is carried out to develop a specific leisure strategy for the Borough as discussed in Chapter 3 and in this Chapter 8.

- The co-ordination and increased access to, existing as well as potential /pooled Local Area Agreement, individual stakeholder mainstream, planning contribution and new funding streams.

- Accessing economies of scale and increased efficiencies from panel procurement and construction framework arrangements as well as access to private sector finance and risk transfer through PPP/PFI arrangements.

- The delivery of better customer focussed services which provide optimal solutions and which provide a mechanism to allow the Voluntary and Community Sector to be more effectively engaged in respect of service delivery design and facility format.

- A mechanism which is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the adoption of an iterative approach to the application of the SIF model and service delivery in the future.

• FUTURE USE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE FACILITIES – we recommend that a family of asset management vehicles is created. Such an approach would include:-


130

- Facilities Asset Management Vehicle (“FAMV”)

� The creation of a family of FAMVs which would hold joint provision facilities across the Borough would allow for the service providers to concentrate on service provision rather than facilities management issues. In particular significant benefits can be achieved from the adoption of a shared services approach as well as outsourcing facilities management issues to the private sector. In particular a family of FAMVs can act as a common landlord holding joint provision facilities under one operational policy. This provides stakeholders with significant flexibility beyond the constraints of a standard landlord and tenant relationship as they are able to commit to their overall space requirements across the Borough rather than having to commit for a specified period of time on a facility by facility basis.

- Community Asset Management Vehicle (“CAMV”)

� A family of CAMVs can be created to hold facilities within a specified geographical location within the Borough. The creation of such vehicles provides the opportunity, in appropriate circumstances, to transfer public sector assets to responsible community groups and also provides a “Kite Mark” standard to which such bodies will have to operate.

- There are further benefits from the creation of such a family of Asset Management Vehicles. Such vehicles will retain and provide the opportunity to land bank the public sector assets throughout the Borough which in turn would provide further opportunities for raising additional finance (for example Prudential as well as private sector finance) and also the opportunity for generating additional income streams through such facilities (by permitting private sector retail use etc.) Income streams can then be recycled for the maintenance of the facilities going forward as well as any surplus funds being used for further social infrastructure provision in the future. Finally, there are further benefits which can be achieved by permitting other delivery partners to hold stakes in such Asset Management Vehicles.

• PLANNING CONTRIBUTION STRATEGY – we recommend that an evidence based and transparent planning contribution strategy is developed which engages with the private sector and is backed up by a commitment from stakeholders (through the SCA) to deliver the identified social infrastructure needs to a specified programme.

• We believe that the Local Authority, and in particular, the arrangements of the Local Strategic Partnership and the Local Area Agreement will be central to the development and implementation of this overall approach to delivery.

8.2. INTRODUCTION

8.2.1. From our review of the current legal and commercial landscape within the Borough (see Chapter 3), we have concluded that there are very few restrictive or otherwise legally constraining structures in existence within the Borough which would prevent either the development of a LBBD Local SIF or the implementation of the recommendations set out in this section.

8.2.2. In developing the recommendations set out in this report we have had regard to the overall policy context, service rationale for a co-operative and co-ordinated approach to delivery of social infrastructure and the analysis of the potential for co-location and integration. In particular, the recommendations in this report seek to address the underlying government policy drivers which underpin this overall rationale for a co-operative and co-ordinated approach. These can be broadly categorised into a drive to achieve:

• better value for money through joined up working and shared service provision where possible between public sector bodies;

• delivery mechanisms and facilities which are flexible so that they can respond to changing policies as well as the new and emerging needs of the end users; and

• better community consultation and engagement.


131

8.2.3. Clearly, some of these underlying government policy drivers will be addressed in whole or part by aspects of the current delivery mechanisms which are being used within the Borough to deliver social infrastructure. However, these current approaches to delivery do not comprehensively meet all of these policy drivers and the overall principle that social infrastructure should be delivered in a co-operative and co-ordinated fashion.

8.2.4. Some of the particular barriers and hurdles to the joined up delivery of social infrastructure which are currently being encountered within the Borough and which we identified during our review of the existing legal and commercial landscape are set out below. We have discussed each of these more fully in the Barriers and Hurdles section of the London Thames Gateway Social Infrastructure Framework (‘LTG SIF’) report a copy of which has been provided to the Council. Some of the particular barriers currently being encountered are:-

• that the current process for generating public capital receipts from the disposal of ‘surplus’ public assets at ‘best value’ coupled with the lack of clarity with regard to the full extent of the public sector asset base held by all stakeholders within the Borough (and the terms on which they are held) can militate against the co-ordination of delivery and the maximising of efficiencies;

• the current NHS LIFT (and subject to how it is procured) the proposed DfES BSF schemes are sector specific and can militate against adopting a co-ordinated or joined up approach to delivery;

• the need for improved communication between stakeholders (as well as within service providers) with regard to each service provider’s plans for the delivery of their service going forward and their consequent emerging needs for facilities. There is a need for this higher level of strategic cooperation and engagement to be championed by a lead body or individual which is accountable (and is incentivised) for securing efficient co-operation, and for this then to be translated down into the actual delivery of facilities.;

• the current shortfall of building specifications which are both flexible enough to allow different uses to be accommodated as needs evolve and change as well as allowing the limitations of standard landlord and tenant relationships encountered on a facility by facility basis to be overcome;

• the need to improve the quality of service delivery to end users through more extensive engagement with the community and the voluntary sector at a number of stages and levels such as:-

− the assessment of needs;

− the development of service provider strategies and the design of facilities/ services programmes;

− monitoring performance; and

− service delivery participation.

• the need for public sector performance indicators to be simplified and to focus more on wider outcomes for the community rather than being service provider and facility specific. In particular a significant amount of duplication of responsibilities and initiatives occurs through the proliferation of partnerships in operation within the Borough.

8.3. KEY CRITERIA FOR THE PREFERRED DELIVERY MECHANISMS

8.3.1. In order to develop the recommended approach to delivery set out in this section, we have identified the following criteria as key requirements which should be addressed by the overall approach which is recommended and implemented. The aims of the overall approach are to achieve:-

• the joint planning and commissioning of services with effective partnership working and, subject to the demonstration of a clear business case, a commitment by stakeholders to deliver facilities to address the identified needs;

• leadership with individual stakeholder and collective accountability;

• measurable economic and service benefits at project level;


132

• better use of the public sector asset base within the Borough for capital and revenue generation;

• better access to, and co-ordination of, the use of the existing as well as the potential aligned/pooled funding streams for capital and revenue. In addition, the overall approach should encourage and allow for engagement with private sector investment in the delivery of facilities where possible;

• where appropriate the utilisation or the extension of the existing delivery mechanisms so that the bureaucratic and administrative burdens for stakeholders are not increased and, if possible, are reduced;

• the reduction of the duplication or conflicts amongst stakeholders with overlapping partnership structures and strategies in relation to service provision and to ensure that there are no gaps in the services provided to the community;

• improved engagement with the voluntary and where appropriate the independent sector;

• improved local community engagement and consultation;

• a shared services approach with regard to facilities management so that the primary obligations of stakeholders in respect of service provision are given a clear priority over facilities management issues; and;

• a flexible arrangement which is capable of responding and accommodating the iterative application of the SIF supply/ demand analysis and the changing needs of stakeholders with regard to their space requirements.

8.4. THE OVERALL APPROACH TO DELIVERY

8.4.1. As outlined in the LTG SIF Case For and Toolkit documentation, the overall approach to delivery is likely to operate at a number, if not all, of the three levels of the delivery chain i.e. at policy, stakeholder and project level.

8.4.2. It is important to bear in mind that there is no ‘one size fits all’ delivery mechanism which will address all of the key criteria and underlying policy drivers identified above. Instead the overall approach to delivery should seek to co-ordinate the use of appropriate existing delivery arrangements with any new delivery arrangements so that the overall combined approach addresses the key criteria and underlying the policy drivers which have been identified.

8.4.3. The recommendations in this section therefore range from:-

• using existing delivery mechanisms where appropriate and where possible extending the scope of those existing mechanisms to deliver additional types of facilities;

• adopting new mechanisms to achieve better co-ordination of the delivery of facilities within the Borough utilising both existing and new delivery arrangements combined with clear accountable leadership for securing co-operation which is translated into a commitment by stakeholders to deliver facilities to meet their agreed needs over defined periods; and

• solutions which vary from being site specific to having Borough wide applicability.

8.5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DELIVERY

8.5.1. Our recommendations for delivery and the specific preferred delivery mechanisms are:-

• Acquiring the Sites: the Alignment of Asset Disposal and Acquisition protocols. There is a need for the alignment of the asset disposal and acquisition protocols of all stakeholders within the Borough;

• Delivering the facilities: the SCA. There needs to be a co-ordinated approach to the use and extension of existing mechanisms so that, where possible, NHS LIFT and the proposed DfES BSF are utilised for the delivery of single use health, social care, educational and leisure facilities;

In addition the SCA can be used to identify the need for design and delivery of, joint service provision facilities as well as co-ordinating where appropriate the co-location of such facilities with facilities delivered using the existing LIFT and proposed BSF schemes;


133

• Future use and management of the Facilities: Facilities Asset Management Vehicle (‘FAMV’). A family of FAMVs should be created to hold all joint service provision facilities within the Borough on behalf of stakeholders and to act as a common landlord for stakeholders across the Borough in respect of such facilities so that their changing needs for the optimal location of their services within the Borough can be accommodated. The FAMV also creates the potential to raise additional finance from the asset base held by the FAMV. In particular we believe that the adoption of such a vehicle is likely to provide the genesis of a solution to the current issues within the Borough in respect of depressed land values; and

Community Asset Management Vehicle (‘CAMV’) – a family of CAMVs should be created to allow facilities to be made available to local communities for the delivery of community services encouraging wider engagement with community and independent sector groups operating within the Borough.

8.5.2. As part of the creation of the above mechanisms, we have also included in this report specific recommendations for the creation of a planning contribution strategy which will link into the SCA as well as a summary of the criteria to be applied for the creation of a hierarchy of the existing partnerships which currently operate within the Borough.

Stakeholders

Asset Acquisition &

Disposal Protocol

Stakeholder Co-operation Agreement

FAMV

Joint Service Provision Sites

Community Service Provision Sites

Longer Term/ Strategic Joint Service

Provision Sites

Facilities CAMV

Community Groups Stakeholders


134

8.6. ALIGNMENT OF ASSET DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION PROTOCOLS

8.6.1. In order to achieve better co-ordination between stakeholders in the delivery of social infrastructure and to maximise the efficiencies which can be achieved, a pan Borough and pan stakeholder approach needs to be adopted in respect of the management of the public sector asset base within the Borough.

8.6.2. Stakeholders should co-operate to adopt a co-ordinated approach in respect of the acquisition and disposal of assets where such assets are suitable for the delivery of social infrastructure services either on a single service or joint service provision basis. Assets should therefore be viewed on a wider corporate basis rather than belonging to particular stakeholders and being owned in perpetuity by them for single service provision.

8.6.3. The principal steps to be taken to achieve such a co-ordinated approach to the management of the public assets within the Borough are:-

• Step One – stakeholders should defer disposal of assets as surplus to requirements until the steps outlined in this section have been taken. In particular, the Local Authority should reconsider the proposed office rationalisation programme in the light of these steps;

• Step Two – a review of the outputs from the SIF supply/ demand model needs to be carried out and agreement needs to be reached amongst stakeholders in terms of:-

− the immediate and short term (3 – 5 years) requirements for social infrastructure facilities within the Borough; and

− the longer term strategic needs which are likely to arise but which will need to be reviewed regularly to assess how these projected needs compare against the actual emerging needs over time;

• Step Three – stakeholders need to review their asset bases in order to identify all sites which may be suitable for the provision of the immediate and short term social infrastructure which has been agreed between them as well as the longer term projected needs which have been identified.

• Step Four - Land terriers need to be produced in respect of all such identified assets. It is recognised that availability and access to information with regard to assets is inconsistent and in some instances incomplete. Therefore, stakeholders should prioritise the identification of those key opportunity sites based on:-

− the current known occupation of existing sites by stakeholders;

− other immediately available information sources; and

− their proximity to the identified needs from the outputs from the SIF supply/ demand model.

• Step Five – where suitable sites are identified in accordance with the above steps, those facilities are to be made available at the required times in accordance with the SCA for delivery of social infrastructure;

• Step Six – all other surplus sites may be disposed by stakeholders as part of their ongoing capital programmes;

• Step Seven – an iterative approach to the application of the SIF supply/ demand model should be adopted to validate and reassess the medium and longer term strategic needs.


135

Stakeholders

8.6.4.

8.6.5.

8.6.6.

8.6.7.

8.6.8.

Postpone asset disposal programmes

Immediate & Longer term short term needs strategic needs

Iterative reappraisal of medium and longer term

Identify suitable Identify suitable needs sites sites for land bank


FAMV

It is recommended that the process for the creation of a complete Borough wide land terrier of all public sector assets is commenced as soon as possible although it is recognised that this is likely to be a time intensive process.

In addition to identifying key sites on the basis of public sector assets already held by stakeholders, stakeholders should also work together to review their asset bases in order to identify opportunities to unlock larger suitable sites through private treaty acquisition as well as exploring opportunities with other large landholding bodies within the Borough, for example Network Rail and other utilities providers.

If suitable assets do not exist within the current public sector asset base, or if additional opportunities to unlock larger sites are identified, an acquisition programme can be developed between stakeholders and the SCA can be tailored to allow for the implementation of that programme. Particular thought will need to be given to how funding streams should be routed to allow such additional acquisitions.

The stakeholders will need to agree the basis upon which suitable assets are made available for delivery of joint provision facilities under the SCA and the terms of their transfer to the FAMV which will hold and manage the facilities going forward. Particular issues which will need to be addressed are:-

• the price paid to the original asset holding stakeholder and in particular whether the asset is transferred for best consideration or at a discount where a wider public benefit can be demonstrated. In particular where assets are capable of being transferred at a discount, stakeholders will need consider the value of the asset transferred compared with the benefit received by the original asset holding stakeholder from the joint service provision facility which is delivered; and

• the routing of funding streams for such transfers and the accounting treatment of such assets.

In practical terms, the mechanism and forum which is best suited to achieve the above is:-

• the internet for advertising proposed disposals of assets to estate managers of all stakeholders along similar lines to that envisaged by NHS Estate Code; and

• the Public Service Board which provides the ideal forum for stakeholders to discuss and agree their immediate and short term needs based on the SIF supply/ demand model outputs as well as aligning their asset disposal protocols and progressing the other steps outlined above.


136

8.6.9. If it is considered necessary by the stakeholders, the adoption of this approach could be reflected in the SCA.

8.7. USE OF EXISTING MECHANISMS

8.7.1. The Barking and Havering NHS LIFT scheme is currently operating within the Borough. We have advised the Council in our review of the current legal and commercial landscape (see section 3.4) of the possible scope (as well as the particular issues to be considered) for utilising the existing LIFT mechanism to deliver non health/ third party income type facilities.

8.7.2. We understand that the Local Authority is currently bidding to central government to move forward in wave 4 of the BSF programme and that it is proposed that the LEP will have exclusivity with regard to the provision of secondary school facilities in addition it will, on a non-exclusive basis, be able to deliver primary school facilities and other children’s services within the Borough. We also understand that a 100% Local Authority owned ‘proto’ LEP is being considered by the Local Authority.

8.7.3. Clearly, due to exclusivity issues, the LIFT and LEP structures will have to be utilised to deliver health and educational facilities respectively. However, we believe that these structures can and should be incorporated into the overall approach to delivery of social infrastructure set out in this report. The coordination of these structures with the other delivery mechanisms forming part of the overall approach in this paper should be addressed within the provisions of the SCA.

8.7.4. In particular the SCA can provide for the co-ordination of the use of the LIFT and LEP structures to deliver:-

• health, educational, third party and (subject to the comments below) leisure facilities; and

• the co-location of such facilities wherever possible with other joint provision facilities delivered under the SCA including the delivery of any shared hard infrastructure at such sites.

8.7.5. We recognise that the role of the LEP is to deliver first and foremost high quality secondary school educational facilities with a view to raising the educational standards attained within the Borough. However, subject to the LEP’s continuing ability to deliver optimal solutions, the Local Authority should consider whether the LEP is a suitable vehicle for the delivery of leisure facilities generally as part of the Local Authority’s broader leisure strategy.

8.7.6. With regard to leisure facilities, we recommend that a specific leisure strategy is developed for the provision of these types of facilities (as outlined in section 3.6) and the Local Authority will need to give further consideration to this.

8.7.7. There is therefore the need for scrutiny of existing facility provision to take account of factors such as:-

• the condition of such leisure stock;

• the cost of maintaining such stock;

• the capability of such facilities to meet the requirements of end users and the expected surge in demand encouraged by the London Olympics;

• service requirements (eg. Sport England requirements on the make-up of facilities and proximity to users); and

• participation targets etc.

8.7.8. The principal reasons for developing a leisure specific strategy are as follows:-

• the bespoke nature of such facilities: clearly, a leisure facility with, for example, a swimming pool, will need to be built to a particular specification (preferably in line with Sport England Guidelines) and will be a facility with a limited number of uses. It is of course possible for such facilities to be converted into other uses but the initial expenditure in developing and providing such a facility and the further cost in converting it to an alternative use is unlikely to mean that such a route is financially viable;


137

• commercial issues in respect of revenue generation: a leisure centre delivered by way of " design build finance operate " or " design build operate maintain " is more than just a building for the provision of public services. It is a business which needs to operate on a break even or preferably a profitable basis. Although leisure services are provided to the public for an admission fee, the costs of providing the services quite often exceed the income generated from providing them. Accordingly a subsidy is usually required from the local authority and the operator looks periodically to have it’s net income projections benchmarked against actual user demand;

• the recent Audit Commission report ("Public Sports and Recreation Services - making them Fit for the Future June 2006") highlights the fact that in-house services are significantly more expensive over time than those delivered by leisure contractors. It was found that private contractors required lower subsidies than in house or trust providers with in-house providers needing significantly higher subsidies per visit. These findings cannot be ignored where local authorities are looking to maximise financial savings which can then be injected into delivery of other community services. In addition, the Audit Commission refers to the Hybrid Trust structure (see section 3.6 as a delivery vehicle which can offer the local authority national non-domestic rates savings, and therefore allowing it to inject monies into leisure and other community services;

• risk transfer: one of the significant benefits to a local authority of outsourcing the operation in a “design build operate maintain” or “design build finance operate” project is the ability, through competition, to have the leisure operators which are involved in the delivering special purpose vehicle to take equity risk and sub-contractor risk. Both in terms of the leisure facility becoming available and also, once available, in terms of the facility staying available as a functional building from which the contractor can generate income to reduce or eradicate their local authority subsidy;

• incorporating leisure operation performance indicators into a payment mechanism is also a useful way for a local authority to deliver non financial outcomes such as benefits to the community. It can incorporate key performance indicators which are subject to scrutiny as well as potential monetary deductions which focus on community uptake and participation at the facilities together with other certain public good requirements which the private sector is expected to deliver or actively to work towards.

Therefore, involving the private sector in leisure facility build and operation is regarded by many as essential both in respect of risk transfer to obtain a functional building but also in respect of looking to maximise income from leisure facilities and reducing or eradicating any local authority subsidy. This needs to be properly considered alongside the bespoke nature of such facilities when reviewing the best procurement vehicle for leisure.


138

8.8. STAKEHOLDER CO-OPERATION AGREEMENT (‘SCA’)

LAA/ Mainstream/ Planning Contribution

Funding Streams

Stakeholders


New Delivery Existing Delivery Mechanisms Mechanism

Facilities

FAMV

8.8.1. We recommend that a SCA is entered into by the stakeholders which would provide for:-

• a clear framework within which strategic co-operation and engagement can take place between stakeholders with regard to joint planning for the immediate and short term needs as well as the longer term strategic needs for social infrastructure facilities based upon the outputs from the SIF supply/ demand model;

• a binding commitment by stakeholders to deliver those facilities to an agreed timetable once agreement is reached on the immediate and short term needs, suitable assets have been allocated for the location of those facilities and viable business cases have been produced and agreed. In particular, the stakeholders will need to have regard to the planning contribution strategy which is developed in accordance with section 8.13 below;

• a clear lead body which is accountable for securing efficient co-operation and partnership working between stakeholders. We recommend that this body is the Local Authority;

• an overall approach to the delivery of social infrastructure within the Borough which co-ordinates:-

− the use of existing mechanisms together with new mechanisms and with any multiple procurement frameworks which may exist or be created;


139

− the asset disposal and acquisition protocols into the overall approach to delivery; and

− the setting up of, and the transfer of assets and completed joint provision social infrastructure facilities to, the FAMV and the CAMV.

• the co-ordination of mainstream and Local Area Agreement funding between stakeholders (to the extent permissible within the confines of their statutory powers) as well as accessing private sector investment where appropriate for the delivery of social infrastructure facilities; and

• the accommodation of an iterative approach to the changing and emerging social infrastructure needs within the Borough.

8.8.2. We have discussed in detail in Appendix A5, Part 3 of the London Thames Gateway Social Infrastructure Toolkit the principal areas which will need to be covered by the SCA in addition to the areas outlined above. In particular, the stakeholders will need to consider:-

• how will the decision making process work between the Local Authority as the lead organisation and the other stakeholders;

• the duration of the commitments entered into by stakeholders under the SCA and the processes by which those arrangements can flex to address changing circumstances. Particular regard will need to be had to the planning contribution strategy which is developed (see section 8.13 below) when considering this;

• whether co-ordination of facilities provision and/or co-location with joint provision facilities is to be preferred rather than integrated facilities provision. This will be particularly relevant where flexibility to allow for the future disposal of assets and/or the ability to flex the use of the space is considered by stakeholders to be paramount; and

• the various exit routes from the SCA if it becomes necessary to collapse the structure.

8.8.3. Finally, the SCA could provide an ideal route for stakeholders to engage jointly with the voluntary and community sector and to allow that sector to have real input in the design of social infrastructure facilities as well as the way that services are delivered across the full range of social infrastructure services.

8.8.4. In particular, in order to ensure that services are delivered from facilities as effectively as possible for the end users and to bring a lasting transformation in service delivery format, it is recognised that there is a need to consider issues beyond the processes for the procurement of those facilities alone.

8.8.5. There is therefore a need for wider engagement with voluntary and community sector in this regard so that this sector has input in design and service delivery format of social infrastructure services i.e. in identifying service needs as well as scoping delivery arrangements and offering expert advice on community issues.

8.9. PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENTS

8.9.1. The recent publication from the local government task force "Transforming Local Government Construction – The Power of Framework Agreements" recommends that local authorities should seek to set up construction framework arrangements in order to secure benefits including reduced tendering costs.

8.9.2. We are aware form our review of the current legal and commercial landscape that the Local Authority is already proceeding along this route and is at the final stages of a process for the creation of framework for the procurement of future construction work within the Borough.

8.9.3. A joint approach, co-ordinated in accordance with the terms of the SCA, by stakeholders to the procurement of social infrastructure facilities across the Borough is recommended.

8.9.4. We have not been provided with the terms of the current framework which is being procured and therefore are unable to comment in detail with regard to how that framework could be incorporated within the various mechanisms (and in particular the SCA arrangements) recommended in this report.


140

8.9.5. An immediate review therefore of the terms of, and extent of works which can be delivered by, the proposed framework in the context of the recommendations in this report needs to be carried out.

8.9.6. In particular, there are a number of key issues which will need to be considered in any review of the suitability of an existing framework arrangement for the delivery of social infrastructure facilities across the Borough as well as the options for incorporating such a framework within the mechanisms (and in particular the SCA) recommended in this report. These will include:-

• whether there are any constraints in the original OJEU notices advertising the framework. Constraints could include, for example:-

− the type of works which can be delivered by the framework e.g. repair/maintenance or new build only;

− the subject matter of the works which can be carried out e.g. only in respect of highways or social housing or general construction; and

− the estimated value of works which can be delivered under the arrangement and which may be grossly exceeded if substantial social infrastructure schemes are subsequently directed via the framework.

• the capacity of the framework suppliers to carry out the range of social infrastructure works which may be required e.g. are they fully committed providing the existing needs or would they have spare capacity? Of particular relevance in this regard will be what size of organisation is signed up to the framework; is it a national contractor which may have greater capacity or is it a smaller entity which may be fully committed providing the existing workload?;

• whether there is greater benefit in procuring the delivery of a large facility through a single organisation and framework?;

• whether it is possible to divide a larger development into separate packages that would fit within an existing framework?;

• are design & construction services dealt with or is the framework simply for construction with the client procuring its own designers and either keeping them or novating the designers to the chosen framework contractor? Is the framework arrangement one where the relevant contractor has been engaged on the basis of an existing supply chain including designers?; and

• early engagement of both a contractor and relevant members of its supply chain especially with regard to mechanical & electrical engineers and other specialist trades with a particular relevance to the works being carried out.

8.9.7. The advantages of framework arrangements are to remove the procurement costs of engaging construction teams for individual projects. Frameworks also provide the opportunity for greater continuity between projects which allows suppliers to better understand the needs of the clients and clients to better plan workloads so as to provide a more regular stream of work for the private sector suppliers and thereby reducing potential resourcing difficulties for them. Also, repeat working should enable greater efficiencies to be demonstrated over time.

8.9.8. However there are potential disadvantages which need to be borne in mind. These include the potential over-reliance on a small group of providers and the possible exclusion of potential contractors from subsequent projects by virtue of not being in existing framework arrangements. Notwithstanding this, our view is that on balance, the advantages of frameworks greatly outweigh these disadvantages.

8.9.9. It is possible that the extent and range of the different areas of work and types of facilities required will necessitate a number of different framework arrangements being put in place. For example, the Local Authority could act as lead procurer to put in place a panel of frameworks and providers which can then be called off in accordance with the SCA to deliver specific schemes.

8.9.10. The use of multiple frameworks, in conjunction with existing delivery mechanisms, can be co-ordinated through the terms of the SCA.


141

8.9.11. We anticipate that the stakeholders will wish to draw on and co-ordinate the following sources of funding through the SCA:-

• co-ordinating the mainstream funding available to stakeholders, particularly funding provided to the Local Authority and to local health trusts;

• accessing Local Area Agreement funding; and

• accessing planning contributions (through section 106 agreements and the planning contribution strategy outlined below) for the delivery of joint provision facilities through such frameworks

8.9.12. It is of course highly likely that access to additional sources of funding, through borrowing and/or private sector investment will be needed. This may entail the transfer/sharing of risk, through PPP and PFI structures, to deliver social infrastructure facilities. The SCA can provide the appropriate structure to enable the stakeholders to pursue these options.

8.9.13. The advantages and disadvantages of (and limitations placed on) public sector borrowing by each of the stakeholders will need to be assessed. For example, the Local Authority may be able to make use of its prudential borrowing powers to the extent that this is compliant with the requirements of its accountancy regime overall.

8.9.14. It will therefore also be necessary for the stakeholders to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the possible routes for accessing additional private sector investment (as summarised in the Toolkit Appendix 5) and to agree on a preferred strategy so that this can then be incorporated into the SCA. Particular issues that will need to be considered include:-

• will a particular stakeholder (for example the Local Authority) be the key contracting party with the private sector or will a separate legal entity be required in which some or all stakeholders will have a share?;

• any such separate legal entity could take the form of a newly created corporate vehicle although the private sector will expect the covenant strength of any such entity to be backed up by the public sector;

• the vires of the stakeholders to create and hold shares in any such entity will need to be considered carefully and the accountancy treatment of any such entity will need to be assessed (will it be, for example, viewed as controlled by the Local Authority and therefore subject to the financial regulations governing local authorities?);

• the duration of any such arrangements so that they are sufficiently long to give value for money for the stakeholders (without breaching procurement legislation) as well as creating an incentive for private sector involvement whilst not limiting flexibility for stakeholders to deal with changing and emerging needs within the Borough;

• the acceptability/ attractiveness of any routes which are adopted to private sector banks and lending institutions; and

• exit strategies.

8.9.15. Similar issues will also need to be considered when adopting a preferred route for the creation of multiple frameworks as referred to above.

8.10. FACILITIES ASSET MANAGEMENT VEHICLE (“FAMV”)

8.10.1. We recommend that a FAMV is created to hold social infrastructure facilities within the Borough on behalf of stakeholders. The benefits of such an entity are that:-

• it provides a vehicle into which assets which are suitable for the delivery of joint service provision facilities can be transferred (either from other stakeholders or acquired by private treaty) in accordance with the aligned asset acquisition and disposal protocol referred to above;

• it provides flexibility to respond to the outputs from an iterative application of the SIF supply/ demand model and the changing needs of stakeholders with regard to their space requirements;


142

• it allows for joint provision facilities across the Borough to be retained by public sector and held under one operational policy. It can therefore act as a common landlord for stakeholders in respect of the facilities from which services are provided so that the changing needs for service provision including the optimal location of those services within the Borough can be accommodated;

• it allows for a shared services approach by stakeholders in respect of the management of the facilities so that the primary obligations of stakeholders in respect of service provision are given a clear priority;

• as provided for under the SCA, the sources of funding available to each of the stakeholders can be channelled into the FAMV. Such funding may include mainstream funding as well as specific grant funding, for example, additional funding from DCLG special funds for Growth Areas; and

• the joint holding of assets within the FAMV allows for:-

− monies to be raised by way of loans to the stakeholders, for example, prudential borrowing or the FAMV itself may consider borrowing against the assets held by the FAMV (subject to any accountancy rules limiting such borrowing for example if it is deemed to be prudential borrowing) or from private sector lenders;

− the income streams generated by the FAMV asset base (through the provision of space on the sites to non-public sector bodies) to be accessed to cover the revenue costs in respect of the facilities going forward and also for any surplus funds to be recycled to provide new social and other infrastructure ;

− surplus income potentially being securitised to raise additional finance (to the extent that the income stream is supported by sufficient covenants); and

− the FAMV to consider itself as the public sector’s land bank for the local area and to seek to raise finance based on its portfolio of land holdings, again subject to any financial regulations limiting its ability to do this.

8.10.2. We understand that the Local Authority is at the very early stages of considering the setting up of a family of asset investment vehicles for the holding of parts of the Local Authority’s land with a view to generating additional returns. We recommend that the current status of these proposed vehicles is reviewed in conjunction with the options put forward in this report.

8.10.3. The operation of the FAMV structure will need to be agreed between stakeholders. In particular the structure will need to include:-

• the agreement and then commitment, in accordance with the SCA, by stakeholders (for an agreed period of time) to their total space requirements for the delivery of their services from the joint provision facilities held by FAMV across the Borough;

• the ability for stakeholders to use the space at a nominal rent but subject to the payment to the FAMV on a pro-rata basis according to the level of space each stakeholder has committed to for service and maintenance costs in respect of the overall facilities pool;

• the ability for stakeholders to access (subject to availability) and to use all the joint service provision facilities held by the FAMV and to relocate to alternative facilities within the pool if necessary subject to any such stakeholder continuing to pay its share of the overall service and maintenance costs it has committed to;

• if additional joint service provision space is required because the FAMV asset pool is fully utilised, provisions (within the SCA) to co-ordinate the arrangements for the delivery of further facilities to meet the increased demand;

• if joint service provision facilities are becoming under utilised or are redundant due to the service needs changing in a particular area, provisions (within the SCA) to co-ordinate the disposal of such facilities. The funds generated from such a disposal could then be pooled for future joint service facilities provision in accordance with the SCA;


143

• provision for the procurement of facilities management services across the portfolio of facilities held by the FAMV; and

• exit strategies if the structure is to be collapsed.

8.10.4. In addition to general operational considerations surrounding the FAMV, the creation of the FAMV will require a number of points to be considered further by the stakeholders in respect:-

• how the FAMV is to be procured and whether charitable status of the entity is preferred. Clearly there are tax advantages with such a route although there will also be consequential additional restrictions on the powers of the FAMV if charitable status is to be adopted;

• the powers and vires of the FAMV and in particular the extent of any restrictions on its ability to dispose of assets or to undertake any particularly high risk projects;

• the extent that stakeholders (including potentially other government agencies and private sector bodies) have a shareholding in the FAMV; and

• the accounting treatment of the FAMV.

8.11. COMMUNITY ASSET MANAGEMENT VEHICLE (“CAMV”)

8.11.1. We recommend that a CAMV is also set up to facilitate the transfer of assets to local communities from which community services can be delivered and also to encourage wider engagement with community and independent sector groups operating within the Borough.

8.11.2. In particular we understand the Local Authority has recently piloted potential models for implementing neighbourhood asset management structures in order to reach key target groups within the Borough. The results of these pilots should be reviewed and considered in the light of the recommendations in this report.

8.11.3. As mentioned above, the SCA can provide an ideal mechanism for stakeholders to engage jointly with the voluntary and community sector and can provide a structure to allow that sector to have real input in the way that services are delivered across the full range of social infrastructure facilities. In addition, the CAMV can allow community groups to operate community facilities on a site specific and local level to deliver key services which the local community in that area require. This in turn could be used to minimise the multiplicity of local schemes, partnerships and other short term proposals which operate at a local level within the Borough.

8.11.4. Suitable assets for the provision of community services could be transferred into the CAMV in accordance with the asset acquisition and disposal protocol and the SCA. The stakeholders will have to agree a number of issues with regard to the creation of the CAMV and its operation including issues surrounding the funding of its ongoing operational costs.

8.11.5. The principal criteria for the creation of a CAMV will include:-

• the limitation of its geographical remit to a defined area/ neighbourhood of operation;

• the creation of a separate legal entity (either a company limited by guarantee or an industrial and provident society) probably with charitable status (and therefore a restriction on its ability to distribute profits to its members);

• nominal membership for the Local Authority by way of a golden share so that it can prevent any disposition of the assets transferred into CAMV;

• an open membership requirement to allow any member of the community to join. This is to ensure that the CAMV is accessible to the community as a whole and that there is a fair representation of all community interests that wish to participate as well as avoiding any one interest group leading at the expense of others;

• an open and robust governance mechanism so that the public has made available to it the structure and decision making processes of the CAMV;

• a process to ensure that the entity has financial substance and is properly audited;


144

• public accessibility so that it is easy for the public to identify what it is, who is involved in it, how to join it and what it does etc. This could easily be achieved through a website or other information made available to the public at the facility;

• an inspection and scrutiny process so that any minimum standards which need to be complied with are set out and policed by the Local Authority together with performance benchmarking and monitoring provisions; and

• a link in to the role of the Ward Councillors and any existing local partnership arrangements.

8.12. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (“LDF”) DEVELOPMENT

8.12.1. The proposals set out in this report should be considered in the context of the development of the LDF and should be used to provide an evidence base for the spatial priorities identified in LDF at core strategy and area action plan level.

8.12.2. In particular, the LDF should seek to align the provision of social infrastructure for new communities with the planned provision for existing communities as well as seeking to encourage social infrastructure provision within mixed use proposals.

8.13. PLANNING CONTRIBUTION STRATEGY

8.13.1. Any planning contribution strategy needs to be transparent and fair for both public and private sectors. If the Borough can demonstrate a robust methodology for calculating contributions, which provides both certainty to developers and puts in place a system which enables applications and S106 documentation to be processed swiftly, it will enhance co-operation and it will be more likely to be able to attract higher levels of contribution.

8.13.2. We believe that the public sector could achieve far better value for money through developing a strategic approach to the joint provision of social infrastructure across the Borough. This would appeal to developers for several reasons including:-

• a single point of contact would mean considerable savings in terms of time and decision making;

• there would be a greater degree of certainty about what is required ; and

• it would be likely that the private sector could be more certain of what was being provided in return for its contributions

8.13.3. The key points which need to be covered when developing such a strategy are:-

- the basis for the calculation of private sector contributions must be transparent and evidenced by a robust strategic social infrastructure delivery plan developed through the SIF model. This is very important if the proposals are to have credibility with developers and the wider community. It is important that this happens in order to reduce delays in negotiating planning contributions as well as speeding up delivery of both homes and infrastructure;

- the importance of demonstrating a real public sector commitment to deliver facilities once contributions have been made and to deliver in accordance with a timetable set out in a social infrastructure delivery plan. We recommend that the stakeholders demonstrate this commitment to deliver the immediate and short term needs through the SCA;

- the need in some circumstances to front load the provision of infrastructure paid for by the public sector from other sources, with the private sector contributions feeding through at a later date. We refer here to schemes such as the tariff mechanism being developed for use in the Milton Keynes Growth Area.;

- the most appropriate timing of contributions from the private sector to coincide with when the need for the services from the facilities arises i.e. when the developments are occupied. Similarly, as at Milton Keynes, the public sector needs to take a less risk averse approach to bridging funding issues relating to such facilities during the early stages of developments; and


145

- reassurance for the private sector that the contributions it makes will be used for the provision of specific facilities within the catchments of the proposed developments. This is because the private sector will view those facilities partly as good marketing opportunities for the saleable units on its schemes, and also because it will, rightly, consider that it should only be required to contribute when there is a direct correlation between their development and the generation of need for services/facilities from that development.

8.14. EXISTING PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURES

8.14.1. As mentioned in our review of the existing legal and commercial landscape within the Borough, the existence of the current multiplicity of partnerships with overlapping remits is reducing the effectiveness of those partnership arrangements and the ability of the stakeholders to deliver against their desired aims. There is therefore scope to rationalise the existing arrangements.

8.14.2. A hierarchy of the existing partnership structures needs to be agreed by the stakeholders as part of the ongoing review of the existing partnership structures. In particular, once this process is completed, there is scope for the SCA to link into those existing partnership structures which are identified as providing ideal opportunities for achieving co-operation between stakeholders and the co-ordination of funding streams in order to facilitate the joined up delivery of social infrastructure facilities.

8.14.3. We recommend that the following criteria are adopted when considering the production of the hierarchy:-

• identification of those partnerships which have similar or overlapping remits;

• achievement of a clear focus amongst stakeholders on the desired outcomes;

• avoidance of duplication of effort and the avoidance of multiple meetings for the representatives of the various stakeholders;

• clear and transparent reporting lines with clear accountability and delegation of authority;

• achievement of commitment at senior levels of each stakeholder to the significant partnerships; and

• harnessing of best practice models in particular where joint working has led to efficiencies and service improvements.

8.15. APPLICATION OF THE ABOVE RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC OUTPUTS FROM THE SIF SUPPLY/ DEMAND MODEL ANALYSIS

8.15.1. With regard to the emerging recommendations for co-location/ integration of facilities set out in section 6 of this report, the approach to delivery set out above can accommodate all of the proposed options as well as allowing flexibility to deal with other needs which may emerge over time.

8.15.2. For example, for the immediate and short term requirements (up to 2011), there is a need for:-

• a number of Early Years facilities (or Children’s Centres);

• some multipurpose community space;

• a 6FE secondary school; and

• a new neighbourhood health centre.

8.15.3. The first step for stakeholders will be to identify possible sites for locating these facilities within their existing asset portfolios and then to adopt a co-ordinated approach to delivery through the creation of an SCA.

8.15.4. In particular the health centre will need to be delivered through the existing LIFT mechanism although this can be co-ordinated through the SCA to be delivered at the appropriate time and to be co-located with the Early Years facility in the North Central Area.


146

8.15.5. The delivery of all the remaining facilities can be co-ordinated through the SCA and can be delivered either through the existing construction framework which has been procured or through alternative frameworks/ PFI arrangements which can be procured.

8.15.6. The secondary school can also be delivered under these arrangements or through the BSF programme if the LEP has been procured prior to the point that the need arises.


147

Documents

LB Barking & Dagenham Social Infrastructure Needs Assessment · a Social Infrastructure Needs Assessment for development proposals across the Borough between 2006 and 2027. The work