Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Infrastructure Transition Partnership Project First Interim Report: September 2011
2
Foreword
We are living in very challenging times. After a period of rapid growth, the development
industry has been particularly hard hit by recession. Potential purchasers are unable to
obtain mortgages without large deposits, building up latent demand, while developers have
prioritised debt repayment rather than volume that may compound undersupply issues in
some areas.
Without the imposition of top-down targets to compel growth, local communities are able to
decide what is best for them. Most areas are united in their desire for more jobs to enable
their economies to grow and their communities to prosper. They would equally like greater
control over the side effects of development, for example, pressure on services.
In this Infrastructure Transition Project four authorities have joined together to establish an
up to date view of where they stand with regard to future development, the need for
infrastructure and how to fund this infrastructure. Aylesbury Vale district council in
Buckinghamshire, Cherwell district council in Oxfordshire, Dacorum borough council in
Hertfordshire and the unitary authority, Milton Keynes, all have a shared understanding of
the importance of growth for maintaining vibrant communities with jobs for their young
people. Also associated with this work is South Northamptonshire district council with
strong economic ties to Milton Keynes, Aylesbury Vale and Cherwell.
All local authorities are facing budget cuts, which are leading them to look at new ways of
delivering services efficiently to meet the needs of a growing and changing population.
Working across boundaries to identify strategic priorities and find ways of delivering them
is an essential response in this new environment where central government grants will no
longer be the primary means of funding strategic infrastructure such as new road and rail
routes.
This first interim report demonstrates how it will be necessary to draw together various
new strands of finance, such as the Community Infrastructure Levy, New Homes Bonus
and retained business rates to finance essential infrastructure required to meet the needs
of the growing population. To make this happen on the ground local authorities may find
themselves routinely working together across services areas, such as planning, housing,
transport and finance.
I commend the approach taken with this project and encourage others to use it across the
wider Local Enterprise Partnership. By working together we can overcome the challenges
and grasp the benefits of growth that strengthen local resilience and maximise the number
of new jobs drawn into this vibrant economic area.
Richard Harrington, Managing Director, Aylesbury Vale Advantage.
3
Contents
Infrastructure Transition Partnership Project ........................................................................ 1
Foreword .............................................................................................................................. 2
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 1 Introduction and Background .............................................................................. 6
Chapter 2 Governance and structure ................................................................................... 8
Chapter 3 Phase I: Information Gathering ......................................................................... 11
Chapter 4 Comparative Analysis ........................................................................................ 16
Chapter 5 Infrastructure Requirements .............................................................................. 32
Chapter 6 Funding Opportunities ....................................................................................... 39
Chapter 7 East West Rail ................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 8 Preliminary Conclusions .................................................................................... 49
Transitional Postscript ........................................................................................................ 54
Annex A: Information Gathering Meetings ......................................................................... 55
Annex A: Information Gathering Meetings ......................................................................... 55
Annex B: Briefings on Consultations .................................................................................. 76
Annex C: Maps .................................................................................................................. 84
Annex D1: Population and Housing Data........................................................................... 85
Annex D2: New Homes Bonus Estimates .......................................................................... 86
Annex E: Infrastructure Transition Work Plan &Timeline.................................................... 87
4
Executive Summary
Housing Numbers and Trajectory
1.1 The Infrastructure Transition Partnership (ITP) area is facing a significant demographic
challenge. Office of National Statistics (ONS) population data show while the
population aged 65 and over across England will increase by 65% between 2008 and
2033, across the ITP area the increase is 105%. This has a number of implications:
the population is growing
older people are remaining in larger homes for longer
suitable housing stock does not become available so quickly for younger families
more housing is needed to maintain current levels of employment and skills
1.2 While population and household growth and the demand for homes continues, the
delivery of housing may be affected adversely by factors such as the lack of supporting
infrastructure, the economic slowdown, low levels of affordability, scarcity of mortgage
finance and the revocation of regional spatial strategies.
Targets and Obstacles
2.1 In spite of the challenges, local authorities continue to develop ambition targets for
housing growth in order to meet the challenges of a growing and changing population
while balancing those needs against environmental constraints, sustainable
development and local opinion.
2.2 Judging viability of development sites will be critical in, firstly, planning for future
housing growth and, secondly, setting developer contributions that will contribute
towards local infrastructure delivery.
2.3 However, financial viability for developers manifests itself in different ways and can
change rapidly in fluctuating market conditions. Therefore viability testing is an inexact
science.
2.4 Nevertheless there is an opportunity to construct a consistent approach for viability
testing, which includes shared general principles and a typical model. This could
encourage policy alignment across local authorities on the Community Infrastructure
Levy (CIL) and help deliver significant financial yields.
2.5 Financial yields – although possibly modest in each authority – could be scalable and
extensible across local government boundaries. However, it would require political will
to align CIL. Similar opportunities also exist to pool funds from the New Homes Bonus
(NHB), the Growing Places Fund (GPF), retained business rates and Tax Increment
Finance (TIF) to support shared strategic infrastructure.
5
Strategic Infrastructure 3.1 East West Rail (EWR) is compelling example of shared strategic infrastructure. Local
authorities across the ITP area and neighbouring areas recognise the shared interest in
improving east-west links across the sub-region. EWR could be an early candidate for
pooled NHB proceeds or expenditure through GPF.
3.2 However, to make such shared projects work, robust governance arrangements for
cross-boundary working are critical. The whole ITP area sits within the South East
Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership (SEMLEP). Four of the five ITP authorities also
sit within county-based overlapping LEPs.
3.3 There are two key roles for SEMLEP. One is an urgent internal conversation among its
local authorities and private sector partners in the development industry regarding a
vision for infrastructure and housing delivery. Second is an external conversation cross-
LEP conversation about the regional economic environment and shared infrastructure
priorities. This will need to followed up with joined-up activity to maximise inward
investment for strategic infrastructure and transport.
Looking to the Future
4.1 Looking to the next interim report, further work will include an exploration of:
delivery mechanisms to overcome obstacles to infrastructure development
schedules of critical infrastructure
emerging funding opportunities
linkages between housing, skills, jobs and health
viability testing of residential and non-residential developments
4.2 Future work may also be informed by conversation with HCA on technical resources to
support local authorities; and enabling measures, such as asset backed vehicles and
tax increment finance, supported by exemplar case studies.
6
Chapter 1 Introduction and Background
Transition Funding
1.1 A £5m transitional fund was announced by Grant Shapps on 31st January 2011 as part
of a wider statement on regeneration and Government support for local growth. The
objective of this fund, which will operate over 2011/12 (£3m) and 2012/13 (£2m) is to
provide transitional support for areas which have previously received direct
Government funding for local delivery capacity and expertise and wish to transfer some
of that expertise to a new local authority led partnership. The funding is transitional and
is intended to provide time for local authority partnerships or Local Enterprise
Partnerships to put in place a longer term operation without Government support.
1.2 Aylesbury Vale district council put in a bid for funding in partnership with Cherwell
district council, Dacorum borough council and Milton Keynes council with the intention
of using Aylesbury Vale Advantage, the only local delivery vehicle remaining in this
area, to manage the project. These four authorities are all part of the South East
Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership. They have a shared understanding of the
importance of new development to bring jobs and economic growth to their areas as
well as meeting the changing needs of a growing population.
1.3 The bid was successful and AVDC has been awarded a total of £163,125 to support an
Infrastructure Transition Project with the three partner authorities. Because Cherwell
now shares a Chief Executive and senior management team with South
Northamptonshire district council, the data included in this report will also cover South
Northants.
1.4 The approach that is being developed in this work would be equally applicable across
the rest of the South East Midlands or other groups of authorities.
Project brief and remit
2.1 The approach to the project is to build on the work that has already been carried out in
each local authority in terms of reviewing core strategies and local development plans.
These revised plans will be combined to develop an overall picture of the development
potential for this area. These plans will be compared with the need for new homes as
measured simply by changes in population.
2.2 A schedule of the infrastructure needed to support these developments will be
assessed. New ways of funding infrastructure including the New Homes Bonus,
Community Infrastructure Levy and emerging opportunities for retaining business rates
to forward fund through Tax Increment Financing.
2.3 The outcome of this project will be a better understanding of the potential for
investment in infrastructure across the area and the housing development need to
7
support growth. This will inform a methodology that can be adopted and used more
widely. This work will build on existing Local Investment Plans and Infrastructure
Delivery Plans where they exist and complement the work of the Homes and
Communities Agency on assessing the viability of sites.
2.4 In the present funding environment it is essential that local authorities build a stronger
more effective relationship with the private sector. It is envisaged that this work will
eventually feed into the work of the Local Enterprise Partnerships in this area. These
include Oxford City region, South East Midlands and Hertfordshire. It also hoped to
work closely with Bucks Business First.
2.5 Where obstacles to developments are identified then the intention is to work with
developers and others to overcome them to ensure continued delivery of homes, which
will support growth in jobs.
2.6 The project will also consider ways to provide financial support for the East West Rail
scheme. This a major project to establish a strategic railway connecting Bedford,
Bletchley, Milton Keynes, Aylesbury and Oxford.
Why is this project of particular benefit at this time?
3.1 The Milton Keynes South Midlands (mksm) growth area (of which Aylesbury Vale and
Milton Keynes were a part) supported by 6 Local Delivery Vehicles and had a strong
track record of delivering ambitious growth targets for homes and jobs.
3.2 The expertise that had been built up in the Delivery Vehicles is at risk of being lost as
local authorities adjust to new policies focussed on the localism agenda and the end of
growth area designations. We are in different era in terms of funding opportunities.
There are no longer central government initiatives, such as Growth Fund and
Community Infrastructure Funds. Local authorities will need to be able to weave
together a variety of funding streams such as the New Homes Bonus and Community
Infrastructure Levy to ensure that infrastructure is provided at the right time and in the
right place to support growth.
3.3 This will require working across service areas within authorities and working across
local authority boundaries. It will also require a stronger more effective relationship with
the private sector to fill the funding gaps. This project will build on the experience that
remains to ensure that the potential for significant growth in jobs, homes and
infrastructure is not lost.
3.4 A widely shared understanding of how development can be best supported and
delivered is critical to the development of a common methodology to nurture economic
growth and spread prosperity.
8
Chapter 2 Governance and structure
Steering Group
1.1 A project steering group has been established with representatives from each of the
four local authorities together with a representative from the new area team for the
Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) for the South East Midlands.
1.2 The Steering Group met for the first time on 23rd June to review the Project Brief and
will meet again then again in October, early January and end March 2012.
Project Group
2.1 A project management group meets monthly consisting of Richard Harrington and Liz
Thomas of Aylesbury Vale Advantage (AVA) and Hilary Chipping and Matthew Clifton,
along with Sheila Keene of the HCA.
2.2 This group will review a regular monitoring report, discuss any issues arising and
review evidence gathered over the previous month.
Work Plan
3.1 Actions
Gather existing information from each local authority about what is already in the
development pipeline and take into account revised aspirations and expectations for
growth.
Gather information about the proposed approach to Community Infrastructure Levy
(CIL) charging schedule in each authority area. Consider opportunities for Tax
Increment Financing including establishing the position with regard to Enterprise
Zones in LEP areas.
A meeting arranged with each authority to establish what is available in terms of
planning documents, monitoring of starts and completions, land supply and the
pipeline of potential developments.
Forecast pressures on transport and infrastructure capacity of potential
developments and identify potential solutions
Identify common challenges and find solutions so that delivery is maintained
3.2 Deliverables
A schedule of infrastructure will be assembled with potential costs
9
A table of past completions by area with future housing projections
A map of development locations with commentary regarding progress, obstacles
and necessary enabling actions
A range of supporting housing and financial statistics, including information on
population, housing need, infrastructure funding and land assets
First and Second Interim Reports and a separate report prepared for the East West
Rail consortium
A final report with recommendations.
3.3 Outcomes
An analysis and understanding of the strategic infrastructure requirements across
the ITP area, the various funding sources (mainstream and new) available and an
estimate of the likely remaining funding gap to be addressed.
A stronger and more effective approach and relationship between local authorities
and the private sector to support the delivery of development.
Proposals to address the funding gaps for strategic cross-boundary infrastructure.
Reports
4.1 This first Interim Report collates and presents information gathered from the first stage
of the project; provides maps of potential development areas; and considers an initial
approach to viability testing. It will be ready for discussion at the second Steering
Group meeting in early October.
4.2 The second Interim Report will be produced in December for discussion at a Steering
Group in early January. Without pre-empting the deliberations of any particular
authority and based on an informed view, the second report will offer:
A schedule of infrastructure requirements necessary to deliver potential
developments across the five ITP authorities
An assessment of the likely gap between the cost of infrastructure requirements
and likely contributions from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), New Homes
Bonus and other potential mainstream and novel sources.
4.3 The Final Report will bring together all of the material, identifying the challenges and
10
risks to delivery and recommending a number of actions to facilitate continuing delivery.
4.4 This will, in addition to a paper setting out the challenges provide a framework or
methodology that can be used more widely and feed into the future work of the Local
Enterprise Partnerships.
4.5 It will be important to link this work with other delivery programmes, including the work
being carried out by the HCA working with authorities on their Local Investment Plans.
11
Chapter 3 Phase I: Information Gathering
1.1 The first phase of the Infrastructure Transition Project included a process of gathering
information through meetings with senior planning leads in each of the main partner
authorities. Annex A of this first interim report contains the detailed notes from these
meetings with partner planning authorities.
1.2 In summary, there were four areas of shared interest: blended finance to support
growth; evidence and policy-based decision-making; the progress of new development
documents; and barriers to development.
Blended finance to support growth
2.1 Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) summarised the key question at the heart of the
project as, where would future funding come from to provide necessary infrastructure to
support development? The reason why this is such a pressing question is because it is
widely recognised that New Homes Bonus (NHB) and the Community Infrastructure
Levy (CIL) will not raise enough money quickly enough to cover all future requirements.
Indeed, it may be quite some time before CIL raises any significant funds as most
future developments over the next ten years or so are covered by site specific s106 or
tariff agreements, as is the case in both Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes.
2.2 The first tranche of New Homes Bonus will be new money and only after that will it be
supported by a top slice from the national amount of Revenue Support Grant available.
The Government intends that growing areas will be relatively better off as a result of
New Homes Bonus even after the impact of the top slice is taken into account.
2.3 Each authority has a different approach to NHB. It is possible that AVDC will absorb its
first tranche of funding (£810,000) into its revenue budget rather than support
infrastructure directly. Milton Keynes Council (MKC) will use its £2.5million to develop
its portfolio of land assets. Dacorum Borough Council (DBC) will use NHB to employ a
team to bring forward development delivery and maximise future NHB receipts.
Cherwell District Council (CDC) is banking its NHB receipts this year, and a project
group will consider how to best use it. Some of it is likely to be used to support
infrastructure and some to support economic development.
2.4 Because of the myriad calls on NHB and long lead-in time before CIL receipts,
infrastructure funding is likely to be supported by a blend of sources including locally
retained business rates, tax increment finance and central government grant. This
therefore requires thinking about how to channel developers' contributions and
government transport funding and the implementation of business rate retention. The
ability of the MK tariff to forward fund infrastructure will also need to be reassessed
given the slowdown in delivery timelines.
2.5 Charging levels for CIL are also being considered across local authorities. Government
12
and Inspectors have made it clear that CIL rates cannot be based on an objective of
improving the competitiveness of a place or sectors. They are expected to be justifiable
and based on viability alone.
2.6 However, it is not impossible that some authorities may try to exempt certain
developments, such as employment sites, from CIL on viability grounds thus making
them more competitive against larger economic centres. Although a hypothetical
scenario, competing schedules would in principle reduce the resources needed across
a wider area to support strategic infrastructure and employment growth.
2.7 DBC is looking for a degree of consistency with its neighbouring authorities in
Hertfordshire.
Development documents
3.1 In November 2010 the AVDC Cabinet, following the decision to withdraw the draft Core
Strategy, decided to develop a new planning policy document known as the Vale of
Aylesbury Plan. The initial focus has been on engaging with parishes, some of whom
feel minimal development is right for their communities while other larger settlements
are more willing to contemplate growth. The next stage is develop a spatial strategy to
develop a wide range of options. The final stage in 2012/13 will be to apply a narrowed
range of options to each of the areas likely to see significant growth. The examination
process is likely to take place towards the end of 2013 with formal adoption in 2014.
3.2 MKC is developing a new Local Investment Plan to determine delivery schedules for
local infrastructure priorities, and to provide a longer-term schedule of desired projects.
The new LIP will be used to demonstrate the deliverability of its existing core strategy
and capital programme.
3.3 DBC has four key development plan documents: the core strategy, site allocations, the
area action plan and the development management plan. Dacorum’s pre-submission
core strategy was agreed by the full Council in September 2011 and representations
are being sought until 7 December. Adoption is expected in late 2012 or early 2013.
The site allocations DPD is on hold, but will deal with land allocations and boundary
issues. The area action plan will build on the existing Maylands master plan and is a
joint piece of work with St. Albans district council. It has a particular focus on a cross-
boundary development area west of the M1 with an aim of supporting employment
growth. Finally, the development management plan will contain detailed criteria based
policies and guidance for use in determining planning applications.
3.4 A draft core strategy went out to public consultation in Cherwell in 2010. Given the
political and policy changes at the national level the core strategy is being reviewed to
remove regional housing targets and reflect a locally driven level of housing and
growth. The RSS figure of 13,400 homes will be trimmed back 12,750 to reflect
population projections, and reducing the level of rural development.
13
3.5 With the absence of regional targets and strategies, planning officers ventured the view
that decisions on housing growth and expansion areas now reflect council members'
political judgements on the balance between meeting local and strategic needs.
Evidence and policy-based decision-making
4.1 AVDC has commissioned work to develop some local population projections. This work
tests assumptions on housing and population growth in the local population ranging
from no net inward migration to the high levels of population growth and house-building
foreseen in the South East Plan. Cabinet members will then agree upper and lower
population estimates which would be fed into the process for developing the Vale of
Aylesbury Plan.
4.2 The new Milton Keynes LIP will serve a political purpose in helping to articulate and
galvanise support for priority projects. However the Joint Housing Delivery Team are
working on an evidence base to support the LIP. However, there was a shared
conviction that an increase in the local birth rate had important implications for
infrastructure planning.
4.3 The DBC draft core strategy recommends a housing growth strategy of 430 dwellings
per year based on evidence in housing reports, ONS population projections,
assumptions on sites discussed with developers, the DBC Infrastructure Study and the
Local Investment Plan (LIP). The Homes and Communities Agency has been actively
engaged in the LIP process and is in active dialogue with DBC about housing delivery
on sites in the ownership of both organisations.
4.4 DBC officers recognise that there has to be the right mix of housing to attract
businesses, without which there would be difficulties of managing in-commuting.
However, evidence of housing need, along with concerns about affordability, need to be
balanced against strong local feelings against green belt developments and are
tempered by the consideration of environmental and landscape constraints.
4.5 CDC continue to accept previous assumptions about locally driven levels of growth
(reflecting ONS population projections), with the refreshed draft core strategy leaving
key strategic sites unchanged. However, changes in the political environment led to
councillors taking a political decision to reduce planned growth by 600 or so units in
rural areas.
4.6 Although all authorities reported that they use detailed evidence to support planning
policy options, they also recognised that to a greater or lesser extent, decisions reflect
community views and political judgements as well as technical evidence, rather than
arbitrary figures from an overarching regional plan.
Barriers to development
14
5.1 AVDC felt that the state of the market is main barrier to development, with developers
reluctant to build while banks are reluctant to lend to first time buyers. Electricity supply
is also recognised as a potential barrier to growth.
5.2 MKC recognised that local market conditions might restrict growth, although better
evidence of this would be available once the Western Expansion Area comes on
stream in a year’s time. However, there was a conviction that the trajectory for 1750
new homes a year was realistic. More sites are now available than before the
recession but completions will be lower because there are less high density
developments in Central Milton Keynes.
5.3 While there some gaps in critical infrastructure – hospital investment, school places
and higher education – these do not present any statutory obstacles to growth. In
Dacorum, school infrastructure is a practical barrier to growth along with the lack of
strategic transport, including east-west links. Delivery capacity to implement new
infrastructure is also essential in order to deliver consistently the 430 new homes a
year foreseen by the core strategy.
5.4 CDC also recognise that the market is working against large scale strategic sites. The
eco-town development in Bicester is therefore considered a potentially risky venture.
However it is being promoted by an enthusiastic innovative developer and supported
with improved transport links and the development of employment land. East West Rail
connecting Bicester to Oxford and Milton Keynes will strengthen the prospects for
development and growth.
5.5 Clearly the market is the key barrier to development, along with a lack of supporting
infrastructure. Without developer contributions from new builds and urban extensions
there are fewer resources available to address the infrastructure gaps.
Deductions
6.1 These few pages summarise common themes and issues raised by the local
authorities in interview. All authorities are grappling with new financial models to
support development and to understand the implications of new funding regimes, such
as CIL, will work. All planning authorities are also developing new development plan
documents (DPDs), although taking different approaches. For example, Aylesbury Vale
is developing a new long-term plan to be in place by April 2014; Milton Keynes is
preparing a new Local Investment Plan with detailed infrastructure priorities; Cherwell
is refreshing its existing core strategy and Dacorum is developing a new suite of four
DPD papers and a Local Investment Plan.
6.2 While all authorities have the same access to population projections from the ONS,
some authorities’ approaches will also be influenced by local knowledge and
expectations. Milton Keynes observes how growth ebbs and flows with the market;
15
Aylesbury Vale is testing a range of migration scenarios; Dacorum is working from ONS
projections and is testing these against environmental constraints and sustainability
appraisals; and Cherwell accepts ONS projections as realistic. However, all authorities
identify the state of the market as the main barrier to development, reducing the
viability of large scale housing development and thus reducing the flow of developer
contributions to support infrastructure.
16
Chapter 4 Comparative Analysis
Population Projections
1.1 The Infrastructure Transition Partnership (ITP) area is facing a significant demographic
challenge. The information below has been taken from projections of population by
the Office of National Statistics (ONS) together with local authorities’ published
projections of housing completions (at the time of writing).1 These published figures do
not take into account on-going work on revised core strategies, new local plans and
revised housing assessments by local authorities.
1.2 In general terms ONS population data show that the proportion of the population which
is elderly is set to increase significantly over the period.2 The total population within
local authorities will increase as a result of people living longer and other factors, while
the delivery of new homes may be affected adversely by factors such as the economic
slowdown, affordability, availability of mortgage finance and the revocation of regional
spatial strategies.
Source: ONS
1 Dacorum Housing Land Availability Paper July 2011(option 2); MKC ID4 - Housing trajectories 2011/12.xls;
AVDCHousingMar11DistrictWithSEP.xls; CDC Housing & Land Supply Position (FEB 2011 & JUNE 2011); W Northants Joint Core Strategy 2011 2 Age categories derived from those collected by ONS.
6,000.0
7,000.0
8,000.0
9,000.0
10,000.0
11,000.0
12,000.0
13,000.0
14,000.0
15,000.0
Pe
op
le (
00
0s)
All England Population Projections - Narrow Age Groups
0-19 20-34 35-49 50-64 65 +
17
Source: ONS
1.3 The trends locally clearly reflect a national picture. However, across the ITP area the
issues are more acute. While the population aged 65 and over across England will
increase by 65% between 2008 and 2033, locally the increase is 105%. The increase
in overall population in England is expected to be 18%. Within the ITP it will be 22%.
Source: ONS
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
Pe
op
le (
00
0s)
ITP Population Projections - Narrow Age Groups
0-19 20-34 35-49 50-64 65 +
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0-19 20-34 35-49 50-64 65 + England
England % Change Narrow Age Groups 2008-2033
18
Source: ONS
1.4 Milton Keynes is interesting in that among the ITP boroughs and districts it will have
the highest increase by some way in the elderly population (138%).
1.5 Growth in the 0-19 cohort offers a differing picture across the ITP authorities. 0%
growth in Aylesbury Vale and 4% growth in Dacorum and Cherwell contrast with growth
of 14% and 20% in South Northants and Milton Keynes respectively.
1.6 Aylesbury and Cherwell also see falls of 4% in the number of 35-49 year-olds; and as
the overall population grows the relative proportions of younger age groups will
become smaller.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0-19 20-34 35-49 50-64 65 + ITP
ITP % Change Narrow Age Groups 2008-2033
19
Source: ONS
Source: ONS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
0-19 20-34 35-49 50-64 65 + Milton Keynes
Milton Keynes % Change Narrow Age Groups 2008-2033
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0-19 20-34 35-49 50-64 65 + Aylesbury Vale
Aylesbury Vale % Change Narrow Age Groups 2008-2033
20
Housing Starts and Completions
2.1 The availability and consistency of data on housing starts and completions is patchy.
Milton Keynes offers some very detailed data identifying a peak in housing
development during a time when market conditions were favourable and when regional
and sub-regional strategies and targets were starting to have an impact..
Source: Milton Keynes Housing_Statistics_1991_2012_-_Q1.xls
2.2 A similar picture on completions can be identified in Cherwell and South
Northamptonshire.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Milton Keynes Housing Development
Starts Under construction Completions
21
Source: Cherwell DC Housing & Land Supply 2011; AMR 2006
Source: West Northants Joint Core Strategy
2.3 Aylesbury Vale and Dacorum offer a mixed picture of delivery, with peaks and troughs
occurring across the economic cycle with a less marked slowdown in later years.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Cherwell Housing Development
Completions
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
South Northants Housing Development
Completions
22
Source: AVDC Housing Completions by Parish
Source: Dacorum Housing Land Availability Paper July 2011; AMR 2004/05
2.4 Historic data across local authorities is not always reported consistently. However,
DCLG maintains an estimate of starts and completions by local authority area from
2004/05. These clearly demonstrate that Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes have been
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Aylesbury Housing Development
Completions
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Dacorum Housing Development
Completions
23
the fastest growing areas.
Starts 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
AVDC 540 840 630 570 440 730 920
Cherwell 540 420 450 380 210 180 100
Dacorum 260 340 250 390 130 290 200
MK 1,720 2,490 2,450 1,710 1,110 1,130 1,410
SNorthants 290 260 210 210 110 110 260
Completions 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
AVDC 680 580 500 730 640 680 700
Cherwell 420 620 570 330 220 340 120
Dacorum 240 210 280 320 360 180 230
MK 1,060 1,860 1,630 2,500 1,820 1,610 1,230
SNorthants 490 270 310 170 180 120 160
Source: DCLG Live tables on house building - local level
24
Population and Housing Projections
3.1 Looking ahead we can identify the sharp divergence between housing projections and
population growth.
Source: ONS, DCLG household data & combined local data
3.2 The demographic context over the next 20 years is one of significant population
growth.
3.3 Across the ITP area as a whole projected housing completions are of a similar order as
the growth in household numbers until 2021at which point new households outstrip the
supply of new dwellings.
3.4 It is also at this point where the cumulative surplus of completed dwellings over new
households becomes a deficit.
3.5 This cumulative difference between the completion of dwellings and the increase in
households can be sharply demonstrated when mapped against their year on year
trajectories.
-100000
100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000
100000110000120000130000140000150000
ITP Cumulative Housing & Population Trajectories
Projected completions Population growth
Household increase Cumulative difference
25
Source: ONS, DCLG & combined local data
3.6 Milton Keynes is in a much stronger position because according to these figures, it is
likely to maintain a medium-term cumulative surplus of new homes over growth in
households.
Source: ONS, DCLG & MKC ID4 - Housing trajectories 2011/12.xls
-500
-250
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
MK Housing & Population Trajectories
Projected completions Population growth
Household increase Cumulative difference
26
3.7 Aylesbury Vale is committed to bringing forward a new plan with appropriate levels of
housing and employment, without which a current cumulative surplus quickly declines
into a deficit of housing by 2020.
Source: ONS, DCLG & AVDCHousingMar11DistrictWithSEP.xls
3.8 Dacorum, however, is still benefiting from a pipeline of activity and development and is
likely to see its cumulative surplus grow over the next year or so, but without new
planned growth this could be turned into a deficit by 2024.
-4000
-3500
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Aylesbury Vale Housing & Population Trajectory
Projected completions Population growth
Household increase Cumulative difference
27
Source: ONS, DCLG & Dacorum Housing Land Availability Paper July 2011
3.9 Cherwell has ambitious plans for housing growth, which have not yet fed through into
housing land supply data. A revised core strategy would help avoid potentially large
housing deficits in the district.
Source: ONS, DCLG & CDC Housing & Land Supply Position (FEB 2011 & JUNE 2011)
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
Dacorum Housing & Population Trajectories
Projected completions Population growth
Household increase Cumulative difference
-5000
-4500
-4000
-3500
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
Cherwell Housing & Population Trajectories
Projected completions Population growth
Household increase Cumulative difference
28
3.10 Low levels of development in South Northamptonshire have led to a cumulative
housing deficit. A programme of planned growth will have a positive but potentially
short-lived impact.
Source: ONS, DCLG & West Northants Joint Core Strategy
3.11 Without further housing growth beyond what is currently planned, this analysis
suggests that:
by 2021 the ITP area as a whole will have a housing deficit; and if so
the availability of housing in Milton Keynes may no longer be able to absorb
demand from surrounding areas.
Emerging growth scenarios
4.1 In presenting the above graphs the figures used were those that are publicly available
in order to aim for some consistency of approach. However, these figures do not
reflect future policy ambition and action. For example, in Aylesbury Vale and
Cherwell there is a commitment to bring forward suitable levels of development.
4.2 Reflecting ONS assumptions of population and household growth, an annual build rate
of 765 homes would be both sufficient to meet demand and historically consistent in
Aylesbury Vale. This potential build rate would avoid any significant housing deficit.
-1100
-900
-700
-500
-300
-100
100
300
500
700
900
1100
1300
South Northants Housing & Population Trajectories
Projected completions Population growth
Household increase Cumulative difference
29
Source: G.L.Hearn, ONS, DCLG & AVDCHousingMar11DistrictWithSEP.xls
4.3 The reported ambition for Cherwell is to build around 12,750 homes by 2026/27. This
would equal 850 units a year, and similarly prevent a deficit of housing with a suitable
supply.
Source: ONS, DCLG & CDC interview
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Aylesbury Vale Housing & Population Trajectory (emerging scenario)
Projected completions Population growth
Household increase Cumulative difference
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Cherwell Housing & Population Trajectories (emerging scenario)
Projected completions Population growth
Household increase Cumulative difference
30
4.4 Dacorum, in its pre-submission draft core strategy, has settled for a growth rate of 430
dwellings per year to 2031. This is an ambitious target given its environmental and
political constraints, although a little below some of the figures suggested in its
Housing Land Availability Paper in July 2011.
4.5 The result is that even under this growth scenario, Dacorum may fall short of housing if
ONS population and DCLG household projections are accurate.
Initial Inferences
5.1 Looking at the data and the findings, there appears to be a number of possible
implications, including that:
housing deficits in surrounding districts and boroughs could increase demand for
homes in larger urban centres, such as Milton Keynes, and raise the trajectory of
urban population growth;
local planning authorities may need to bring forward strategic reserves of land for
housing development to meet growing demand and need;
extended growth scenarios will in some cases raise the profile of future housing
trajectory and infrastructure development.
5.2 Any further shortage of supply of homes could impact on affordability making
mortgages less accessible. The resulting higher land prices would also reduce the
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
Dacorum Housing & Population Trajectories (emerging scenario)
Projected completions Population growth
Household increase Cumulative difference
31
viability of large new developments, such as urban extensions.
5.3 This pressure on homes is compounded by the fact that people are living longer and
staying in their own homes for longer.
5.4 This means that household growth is increasing and there is a need for new housing
for younger families, and better suited properties for older people, centrally located
close to key transport, health and social infrastructure.
32
Chapter 5 Infrastructure Requirements
Introduction
1.1 Within the partnership structure of the Milton Keynes South Midlands (mksm) Growth
Area, emphasis was placed on the need for infrastructure in the widest sense
(transport, electricity, water and superfast broadband) to be in place ahead of homes
and jobs. The mksm Strategic Transport Board produced an Inter Urban Transport
Strategy (IUTS) in 2009, which enabled the Partnership to identify specific
infrastructure priorities needed to support growth.
1.2 In broad terms this IUTS identified the need for improved East West links to support
economic development. This amounted to improvements to the A14 in the northern
part of the area to support developments to the east of Kettering, the M1 to A5 link in
the south to support development to the north of Luton around Houghton Regis, and
the East West Rail link to provide a fast passenger service linking Oxford to Milton
Keynes and Bedford with a spur down to Aylesbury.
1.3 Another significant east west link – the A421 from Milton Keynes to Bedford was
upgraded to a dual carriageway as part of the mksm growth strategy. This work was
completed in late 2010 and has shortened significantly the travel time between Milton
Keynes and Bedford. However, there remains a gap still to be filled in relation to the
short length of single carriageway route between the Nova roundabout in Milton
Keynes and J13 of the M1. Upgrading this is essential to reduce congestion on this
busy stretch of road that links a number of key depots such as the John Lewis and
River Island distribution centres.
1.4 As a result of concerted action across the mksm partners working with Central
Government and the Regions, a number of key infrastructure projects had been
completed by March 2011 when the mksm partnership arrangements were formally
wound up. These are listed in Table 5.1 below
1.5 This means that in general terms the infrastructure requirements that remain essential
to deliver the (lower) development aspirations for the 4 authorities covered by this
Project are more manageable. However, there is now very little mainstream funding
available for infrastructure, which makes even modest infrastructure requirements
difficult to deliver. Previously Community Infrastructure Funds and Growth Area Funds
could be used flexibly to meet the needs of specific developments and fund town
centre improvements where these were deemed to assist with attracting businesses
into the area.3
1.6 The remainder of this chapter considers the specific infrastructure requirements of
each of the 4 authorities in turn, by the nature of the infrastructure.
3 Please see the Report produced by SQW on behalf of the HCA and mksm for more details
33
Table 5.1
Transport Actions undertaken across mksm
A421 Bedford to J13 M1 – new dual carriageway improving significantly the
journey time from Milton Keynes to Bedford.
A4146 dual carriageway improving significantly the journey time between
Milton Keynes and Aylesbury.
Bedford Western Bypass Phase 1 supporting developments at Bromham and
Biddenham.
M1 J6a to J10 (from M25 to Luton) additional carriageway added.
M1 J10 to J13 (Luton to Milton Keynes) managed motorway scheme.
East Luton corridor improvements from J10a to the airport completed.
New station at Corby providing rail link to Kettering, Wellingborough,
Bedford, Luton and London St Pancras.
New Parkway station at Aylesbury Vale Parkway linking housing
development at Berryfields to centre of Aylesbury with access to London
Marylebone.
Improvements to Milton Keynes station and line modernisation enabling
service improvements from Milton Keynes to Northampton and London.
Improvements to Aylesbury bus station and links from town centre and rail
station to College.
Enhanced bus services between Milton Keynes expansion areas and central
Milton Keynes
Further projects under development.
Luton guided busway from Houghton Regis to centre of Luton
A43 Corby Link Road scheme
A14 Kettering bypass
A14 technology improvements to improve safety and tackle congestion east
of M1 J19
Transport
2.1 The Core Strategy for Aylesbury Vale was in the process of being examined in public
last spring when the coalition Government came to power. Subsequently they asked to
have it withdrawn by the Secretary of State for Communities They are in the process of
developing a new Vale of Aylesbury Plan following extensive engagement with the
parish communities. The next stage of work on the Plan up to April 2012 will be to
develop a Spatial Strategy for the district with options. From May 2012 to Jan 2013 the
options will be narrowed down with the identification of potential strategic sites for
development. It is envisaged that the Vale of Aylesbury plan will be ready for sign-off
between February and September 2013.
34
2.2 Without attempting to prejudge local planning decisions, any new highway
development around Aylesbury could include a new road linking the A418 to the A41.
This would facilitate housing and commercial development east of Aylesbury.
2.3 Aylesbury would also benefit significantly from the East West Rail project that would not
only improve the link north to Milton Keynes, but also south via Princes Risborough to
High Wycombe and into London.
2.4 Milton Keynes is well placed to deliver its Eastern Expansion Area. Previous
improvement works on J14 and upgrading of the M1 between J10 and J13 to managed
motorway status (allowing hardshoulder running) have enhanced capacity in this area.
However, as noted above there is still a small but significant gap between J13 and the
Kingston roundabout in Milton Keynes, which is a key route into Milton Keynes much
used by freight as well as local traffic.
2.5 Expansion to the west of Milton Keynes raises a sensitive issue around the nature of
the road network. Milton Keynes was built with a network of roads based on a grid
system. This tends to encourage more car use and is less suitable for the provision of
public transport that the conventional radial routes from the central business district.
However, traffic levels have continued to grow in Milton Keynes in spite of policies to
curb growth, such as parking charges. Other approaches such as ‘city streets’ with
developments facing on to them have been considered in order to provide more
sustainable options for walking and cycling in a safe environment. However, this is a
politically sensitive area with many residents feeling that the ‘grid system’ is an
important part of the distinctive character of MK. This will have to be resolved in order
for developments to be delivered to the west of Milton Keynes.
2.6 Milton Keynes is seeking to encourage greater use of public transport, walking and
cycling. There are ongoing improvements to Station Square in front of the main train
station to make buses more accessible. SEMLEP bid for funds to encourage greater
use of the interurban bus links with Luton and Bedford by aligning the systems for
providing Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI). However, this bid was
unsuccessful so alternative sources of funding will be required to enable this important
project to be delivered.
2.7 Dacorum has excellent transport links being close to the M1, A41 and on the West
Coast mainline. They have benefited from the recent widening of the M1 from J6a
(where it meets the M25) to J10 near Luton. The current capacity improvements from
J10 toJ13 and improvements at the junction will also help.
2.8 Hemel Hempstead station is some distance away from the town centre. This
encourages people to use cars for journeys that could be made by train. The station is
run down and there are fewer trains to London stopping at Hemel than in the past. The
Hemel Station Gateway Project aims to improve passenger interchange facilities and
35
there are plans to improve bus links between the station, town centre and Maylands in
Hemel Hempstead.
2.9 If HS2 were to be built then this would free up capacity on the West Coast mainline.
This would allow a faster more frequent service to be provided to Hemel Hempstead
and Milton Keynes.
2.10 Like other parts of the SEMLEP area Dacorum would benefit from better east west
links. Although the East West Rail project was not one to which they had so far
subscribed, the rail link from Hemel to Bletchley/Milton Keynes would also enable
businesses in the area to benefit from access to Oxford and Bedford.
2.11 Cherwell has the benefit of excellent access to the M40 at J9. It also benefits from
the new Chiltern railways service to Banbury and Oxford and will benefit greatly when
the new Evergreen 3 upgrade is completed. This project will create a new route by
upgrading the existing route between Oxford and Bicester Town and by building a short
connecting line south east of Bicester linking the Oxford to Bicester and London
Marylebone to Birmingham lines.
2.12 Bicester Village, the first designer outlet centre in this country has helped to put
Bicester on the map both nationally and internationally. This also has a downside in
that a lot of traffic travels around Bicester each day to commute into London or
Birmingham and onto Bristol. However, Bicester has plenty of room for expansion to
the north and south west and local communities and their elected members have
understood the need to make new settlements sustainable. The planned Eco Town of
5,000 dwellings to the north west of Bicester will be built to the highest environmental
standards. Employment will be provided locally and it will be planned to allow easy
access to the town centre by cycle or on foot.
2.13 Some improvements to J9 on the M40 have already taken place and more are
planned. These are relatively low cost traffic management initiatives involving traffic
lights and dedicated lanes.
2.14 Cherwell is already set to benefit from Chiltern Railway’s Evergreen 3 project and is
very enthusiastic about the additional opportunities offered by East West Rail. This will
help to support the sustainable credentials of the eco town development.
Utilities
3.1 Aylesbury Vale has a well-researched problem with the need for additional electricity.
The work carried out by Aylesbury Vale Advantage as part of delivering the mksm
growth area aspirations identified the need to increase significantly the generating
capacity to support new developments. To meet the growth previously planned for the
next 20 years it is estimated that additional electricity capacity of around 48MVA,
costing in the regions of £15m would be required. EDF, the distribution Network
36
Operator for the area, has a duty to meet the requirements of existing customers for
new capacity, but they will only provide upgrades where a planning consent exists and
an order is in place. This means that that the whole cost of the upgrade falls to the first
developer to apply for a connection, which acts as a brake on development. AVA has
found a way round this by setting up an Electricity Consortium comprising developers
of sites affected by the lack of electricity capacity. It was possible to use part of the
allocation of Growth Funding to support this approach, which both spread the costs
and reduced risks. There is also scope for reimbursement by EDF of part of the cost
of the additional capacity if it is taken up by additional users within a defined period.
This would effectively be using Growth Area Funds to forward fund infrastructure with
the ability to recycle for future investments.
3.2 However, now that Aylesbury’s appetite for development is likely to be reduced then
there is doubt over whether the funds will still be available for use in this way. Yet
commercial developments are also likely to give rise to the need for more electricity,
which they may be prepared to fund.
3.3 The world famous Silverstone F1 circuit lies half in Aylesbury Vale and half in South
Northants. The delivery of the masterplan for development involving hotel and
conference facilities as well as commercial office space is also dependent on the
provision of additional electricity, gas and water. This was the subject of an
unsuccessful bid for Regional Growth Fund resources and remains a key priority for
the whole SEMLEP area to support the growth of the high performance engineering
industry in this area. Development at Silverstone would also complement the
Northampton Waterside Enterprise Zone.
3.4 Milton Keynes has in the past experienced problems with the provision of electricity
as new commercial developments came on stream. It is thought that with the present
aspirations for development likely to be less that previously within the South East Plan
then the present arrangements should be manageable. However, with large
developments underway, such as Network Rail’s new headquarters bringing 3,000
jobs to Milton Keynes then it would seem sensible to carry out some further specialist
work in this area. Milton Keynes is also focussed on becoming a plugged in place with
extensive use of electric cars.
3.5 Milton Keynes was initially well planned to take account of the need for additional
drinking water, sewerage and sewage facilities together with provision for the water
run-off that accompanies new roads and developments. However, Milton Keynes is
now set to grow beyond the initial planned size for the city so it would be prudent to
review the provision of clean and dirty water facilities. Sustainable Urban Drainage
Systems (SUDS) have been embedded into all recent developments.
3.6 Dacorum was previously in the East of England region and so was part of the East of
England Water Cycle Strategy. Dacorum relies on Three Valleys a small water only
company for its provision of drinking water and Thames Water for sewerage. The
37
scale of development envisaged for Dacorum at 430 dwellings per year is unlikely to
cause significant pressure with respect to utilities. The desired expansion of the
Maylands Business Park, and development levels generally, will need to be monitored
to ensure to ensure adequate water and sewerage capacity.
3.7 There is a need to update the existing sewerage treatment works at Maple Lodge
(outside the borough boundary) and discussions about capacity are ongoing with
adjoining districts and Thames Water as part of the Water Cycle Study work.
3.8 Cherwell are keen to ensure that developments in their area are delivered in a
sustainable ecologically friendly way. As such they have not identified any problems
with the provision of utilities that are not already built into their plans.
Next Generation Broadband
4.1 The provision of next generation broadband through fibre optic cables has been
identified as essential to support economic growth across all of the SEMLEP
authorities.
4.2 There are various approaches already being taken forward by different local
authorities. Aylesbury Vale has been working with Bucks Business First to deliver next
generation broadband to businesses. There is also a project to identify the ‘not spots’ in
rural areas and a project to link with Stoke Mandeville Hospital to provide advanced
tele-healthcare.
4.3 Milton Keynes has a demonstration project to provide fibre to the cabinet in one area of
central Milton Keynes. The Enterprise Zone in Northampton will automatically benefit
from superfast broadband. Dacorum is included in the Hertfordshire Broadband
Delivery Plan and has undertaken a campaign with businesses to gauge interest in
super-fast BT services at Maylands.
4.4 What is needed is a concerted action plan working closely with BT Openreach to
provide NGB across the whole SEMLEP area. This would have potentially huge
benefits in terms of supporting growth and innovation.
Health and Social Care
5.1 There are a range of factors driving change in the way health and social care is
delivered. First is the efficiency drive by the government to improve outcomes and cap
costs. The second is an ageing population with increasing levels of long-term
conditions.
5.2 The challenge to make efficiency savings of 4% year-on-year for four years changes
the way the health service carries out its business. Equally the 25% or so savings local
government is being asked to make profoundly effects how it provides adult social
38
services.
5.3 Increasingly local authorities and health services are working together to pool
resources and eliminate duplication to meet the needs of a growing and ageing
population. Central to the changes taking is the growth of practice-based clinician-led
commissioning and delivery of services.
5.4 Efficiency savings are made by joining-up pathways of care delivered either in the
home, through general practices, or in intermediate step-down units, thus reducing
demand for expensive hospital-based acute services. However, this agenda will
increasingly require planners to consider new more localised facilities to support larger
practices and intermediate care units along with the transport infrastructure with which
to reach them.
39
Chapter 6 Funding Opportunities
Background
1.1 The whole landscape of funding opportunities for infrastructure is currently changing.
This will make it even more difficult than usual to plan for delivery of infrastructure
ahead of developments.
1.2 With the severe cutback in public expenditure following the change in Government last
year mainstream funding for transport schemes has been significantly reduced. In
October 2010 the Department for Transport published a document setting out planned
expenditure on the strategic road network up to 2015. A similar document was
published in February this year looking at investment in local major transport schemes
up to 2014/15. This means that if a scheme is not mentioned in either of these
programmes then there is little chance of its being considered for many years.
1.3 Other sources of funding, such as Community Infrastructure Fund (which was operated
jointly by DCLG and DfT) and the Growth Area Fund (which was shortened to Growth
Fund) in the last 3 years of its operation have also disappeared.
1.4 Planning Obligations through s106 are still in place, but in future these will be scaled
back or replaced to varying extents by the Community Infrastructure Levy, which is
intended to generate revenue that may be used for cross boundary infrastructure of a
strategic nature. However, this is unlikely to generate sufficient income to fund all of
infrastructure required to support development. Other new sources of funding such as
the New Homes Bonus, which started this year and Business Rates Retention
(including Tax Increment Financing) are currently being consulted upon.4
Community Infrastructure Levy
2.1 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) came into force in April 2010. It allows local
authorities in England and Wales to raise funds from developers undertaking new
building projects in their area. The money can be used to fund a wide range of
infrastructure that is needed as a result of development.
2.2 CIL charging authorities in England will be districts and unitaries. These bodies all
prepare development plans for their areas. The levy is intended to fill the funding gaps
that remain once existing sources have been taken into account. This means that
authorities will need to look across the full range of funding possibilities and decide how
best to meet their infrastructure requirements
2.3 Charging authorities wishing to introduce the levy will need to produce a charging
schedule, which sets out the levy’s rates in their area. In setting the proposed rate they
4 See Annex A for a summary of the consultation proposals
40
will need to take into account the economic viability of development across their area
and strike a balance between the desirability of funding infrastructure from the levy
and the viability of development.
2.4 In order to assess viability they will be able to use a variety of available models. For
example the HCA have provided a model, which can be downloaded from their
website. In order to make best use of these models it will be important to have an
understanding of land values in their area. It will also make sense to carry out
sensitivity analysis with a number of assumptions.
2.5 Charging authorities will need to consult local communities and stakeholders on their
proposed rates for the levy in a preliminary draft. This will then be subject to an
examination in public by an independent person appointed by the charging authority.
This examination may be conducted as part of the process of examining draft
development plan documents.
2.6 The levy will charged in pounds per square metre on the net additional increase in
floor space of any given development. Charging authorities will apply an annually
updated index of inflation. The levy will be charged on new build permitted through
some form of planning permission.
2.7 A charging authority must aim to strike what appears to the charging authority to be an
appropriate balance between the desirability of funding infrastructure required to
support development and the potential effects of the imposition of CIL on the economic
viability of development across the area.
2.8 A charging authority’s proposed CIL rate (or rates) should appear reasonable given the
available evidence and they should seek to illustrate, using appropriate available
evidence, that their proposed charging rates would be robust over time.
2.9 The levy will become due from the date that a chargeable development is commenced
in accordance with the terms of the relevant planning permission. When planning
permission is granted, the collecting authority will issue a liability notice setting out the
amount of the levy that will be due for payment when the development is commenced.
2.10 The levy is intended to provide infrastructure to support the development of an area
rather than to make individual applications acceptable in planning terms. There will still
be a role for development specific planning obligations. However, regulations are in
place to ensure that the same piece of infrastructure is not charged for by the levy and
a specific planning obligation.
2.11 An authority may publish on its website a list of infrastructure projects that may be
wholly or partly funded by the levy. However, it may update this as priorities change
over time. Local authorities are not obliged to spend the CIL on items in the schedule,
but on the local adoption of the levy, the regulations restrict the local use of planning
41
obligations for pooled contributions towards infrastructure items that may be funded
via the levy.
2.12 CIL cannot be used as a supplement to general local authority expenditure.
Taking forward CIL
3.1 Local authorities are under pressure to develop their new planning policies in a post-
regional policy world. An up-to-date Core Strategy will help prepare the ground for the
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Additionally any local authority without a Core
Strategy will be vulnerable to speculative applications from developers.
3.2 In the light of renewed government consultation, it is not clear whether CIL will be used
to fund affordable housing. Affordable housing will be addressed through s106
contributions or through the new HCA Affordable Housing Programme. The
government however does intend that affordable housing (including the proposed new
affordable rented housing) would be exempt from CIL payments.
3.3 It is possible to make an estimation of what levels of resource CIL might bring forward.
Earlier this year, AVA commissioned a report from the Hewdon consultancy to review
the potential yield from CIL in Aylesbury Vale. Just to provide a possible indication of
the potential yield from CIL across the ITP area, we have taken their model and
adapted it to the wider area.
3.4 CIL must be set as a rate per square metre of Gross Internal Area of building. This
means that all other metrics commonly used in planning such as land values per
hectare or density in terms of units per hectare have to be converted to square metres
of building. Planners traditionally used Gross External Area (GEA) rather than Gross
Internal Area (GIA). CIL is only payable on the net increase in floor area of buildings
on the site, so, for instance, if a warehouse (in recent use) is replaced by residential
development of the same size, no CIL is payable.
3.5 The Hewdon’s model for calculating an estimated CIL income uses implied densities
in terms of GIA per hectare for different development types to arrive at an average of
around 3,500 m2/ha. The model also makes assumptions on the levels of affordable
housing, land values and annual completion rates under different market conditions
based on recent historical evidence.
3.6 In adopting the Hewdon’s model for this paper, we have assumed a medium market
scenario over a 20 year period. Although the market is at a low state of activity at the
moment, assuming this over a twenty year period creates abnormal results. The high
scenario has been discounted as there is no credible situation in which land values
return to their previous level and there is a major expansion of housebuilding.
42
3.7 The model calculates average floor area per unit, total floor area pa (after deducting
affordable housing) and total floor area for the plan period, on which CIL will be
payable. It assumes land values per hectare, with deductions to reflect the cost of
major on-site infrastructure and adjustments for affordable housing, which pays no
CIL.
3.8 Hewdon’s model also estimates a minimum land value that a landowner would accept
per hectare.
3.9 The CIL charge is calculated as a percentage of the difference between the two sets of
land values. Where land values are lower (Milton Keynes) this calculation results in
significantly lower returns.
3.10 Extrapolated across the ITP area, making some adjustment for lower land values in
Milton Keynes compared to the surrounding districts, the Hewdon methodology offers
the following results:
AVDC CDC DBC MKC SNDC
Scenario Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Completion rate 700 600 400 2000 600
Plan Numbers
20 year plan 14,000 12,000 8,000 25,338 12,000
Already identified5 7,850 5,977 2,927 21,000 7,894
Supply (years) 11 10 7 11 13
To identify 6,150 6,023 5,073 4,338 4,106
CIL Start Year 2023 2022 2019 2023 2025
Total 57,000,000 57,000,000 48,000,000 10,000,000 39,000,000
Annual CIL to 2031 7,120,000 6,300,000 4,000,000 1,200,000 6,500,000
New Homes Bonus
Total to 2017/18 39,000,000 25,000,000 22,000,000 65,000,000 12,000,000
3.11 Because each local authority area has a pipeline of development it will be a number
of years before CIL income streams are likely to be realised. The amounts of CIL
received annually are modest. Therefore to gain CIL revenue more quickly, once
charging schedules are in place, new consents need to deliver building ahead of
existing consents.
3.12 Added to the table are estimates for total New Homes Bonus receipts between now
and 2017/18. A more detailed table of NHB may be found in Annex D.
5 See annex D for details of existing housing numbers
43
3.13 Pooling resources across the Authorities may offer more significant resources to
support strategic infrastructure. It is however clear that the amounts raised will not be
able to address all local and cross-border infrastructure needs.
3.14 s106 and tariff receipts for already consented developments will be assessed along
with current capital programmes as part of the next interim report.
Viability Testing
4.1 A more robust model of viability testing has been developed by the Homes and
Communities Agency designed for strategic level policy testing. It anticipated that
planners and policy makers will use the model to review scenarios for a range of
affordable housing targets, and understand what can be delivered on the basis of nil
grant and what can and cannot be viably delivered by the market alone.
4.2 Because the value of a nil grant affordable housing dwelling will always be less that
the value of an equivalent commercial dwelling, as the percentage of affordable
housing is increased within a development, a ‘gap’ will emerge between the residual
land value and the viable land value. If this gap cannot be filled with investment from
public or other sources, the affordable housing planning requirement will not be viable.
4.3 The model has been designed to appraise groups of similar developments, rather than
individual sites, as it is assumed that the starting point for most users will be
representative sites identified in the local planning authority’s Strategic Housing Land
Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The Area Wide Viability Model addresses this
limitation by enabling the user to test up to nine different site typologies in one model.
4.4 The HCA’s Area Wide Viability Model is a strategic tool designed to assist forward
investment planning in the context of housing supply and in particular capacity to
deliver affordable housing on mixed tenure. The model has been designed to balance
ease of use with the ability to produce robust results at a strategic level. The
information requirements of the model will draw on the evidence base in the local
authority’s Local Development Framework, in particular its Strategic Housing Land
Availability Assessment (SHLAA).
4.5 There should also be a read across from Infrastructure Delivery Plans where
assumptions are made on viable levels of infrastructure delivery from s106 planning
obligations, pooled charges or a future Community Infrastructure Levy.
4.6 The model calculates residual land values for each development typology specified,
using cost and revenue assumptions and a defined cashflow. It allows the user to
assess capacity for affordable housing planning obligations on mixed private sale and
affordable housing residential sites balancing affordable housing with requirements for
s106 charges and for CIL.
44
4.7 The model seeks to establish the residual land value for a given set of development
proposals with assumed costs and revenues. This residual value is established by
deducting the costs of development (for example, build costs, fees, finance, profit)
from the value of the completed units. The approach reflects the calculation that a
developer would typically make to establish how much they might pay to acquire a site
for development.
4.8 The model allows the user to assess the capacity to deliver affordable housing
expressed as a percentage of the total number of dwellings in a typology or
combination of typologies. It assumes that the user will do this by testing the capacity
of the assumptions to deliver affordable housing without public subsidy.
4.9 The user is able to determine the total potential capacity for viable planning obligations
across an area wide programme of sites represented by defined development
typologies. The model can be used to test the viability of CIL charges, and the impact
a CIL charge might have on capacity to deliver affordable housing.
4.10 The Area Wide Viability Model is freely available to use6 and Milton Keynes Council
has adopted the model to assess the viability of housing developments across the
borough.
4.11 The ITP project will continue to examine the model and apply information from
strategic sites across the partnership area in order to test the ability of the area to raise
the level of housing and commercial development to support infrastructure. It will also
consider how infrastructure and housing development may become more viable if
supported by tax increment finance and business rate retention.
Summary of Funding Opportunities
4.12 Local authorities will need to plan to use a combination of the various funding
possibilities in a flexible way. These include New Homes Bonus, Community
Infrastructure Levy, Business Rates retention and Tax Increment Financing as well as
any mainstream funding sources. This will make it essential for authorities to work
across service areas – planning, transport, housing and finance – in order to
coordinate the delivery of infrastructure when it is needed to support growth.
6 http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/area-wide-viability-model
45
Chapter 7 East West Rail
Background
1.1 The East West Rail project aims to provide an improved rail link between East Anglia,
Central, Southern and Western England. The western section focuses on linking
Oxford to Milton Keynes and Bedford with a spur through Aylesbury to London
Marylebone.
1.2 The East West Rail Consortium brings together a group of local authorities and
businesses with an interest in promoting this project. The Consortium is led by Bucks
county council.
1.3 The western section has completed an outline design (GRIP Stage4) in Network rail’s
eight stages of Guidance for Rail Investment Projects approval process. An
assessment of the Outline Business Case has demonstrated not only that there is a
strong case in terms of benefits relative to costs (the benefit-cost ratio of the preferred
option is over 6) but that there are likely to be significant wider economic benefits for
the local authorities along the route and beyond. The possibility of extending the
Oxford to Milton Keynes train service to Reading and extending the Milton Keynes to
Aylesbury train service through to Princes Risborough, High Wycombe and London
Marylebone means that these benefits are likely to be spread over a much wider area.
1.4 These benefits are likely to accrue not just to rail users travelling to and from work, for
leisure or on business as a result of time savings, but also to road users who will
benefit from less congestion, and fewer cars will generate less pollution and reduced
carbon emissions. Businesses will benefit from agglomeration and output
improvements.
1.5 The Consortium intends to lead on a programme entry to the Department for Transport
to seek the majority of the capital funding of East West Rail through the DfT’s High
Level Output Specification (HLOS) programme for delivery by Network Rail in the
period 2014/15 to 2018/19. At the same time work is being carried out with partners to
secure private sector investment towards the funding of the capital costs.
1.6 Some work was carried out by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) in 2009 to
identify possible areas of land suitable for development where there might be potential
to extract some of the raised value to contribute to East West Rail. At that stage it
looked as though a very optimistic assessment might be a maximum contribution of
£50m.
1.7 Since then a combination of the impact of the recession and changes to the planning
system has reduced this considerable. In particular the revocation of housing targets in
Regional Spatial Strategies, which will finally come about with the implementation of
46
the Localism Bill in spring 2012, has allowed local authorities to reduce their appetite
for growth.
1.8 An important part of this project is to consider the possible level of contributions to
East West Rail in this changed environment. The main part of the project has focussed
on the four core authorities of Aylesbury Vale, Cherwell, Dacorum and Milton Keynes.
For the strand of work involving East West Rail a wider group of authorities have been
consulted including Wycombe, Chiltern, Bucks County Council, Oxford City Council,
Oxfordshire County Council and Bedford Borough.
Appetite for Contributing to East West Rail
2.1 Those authorities that are part of the Consortium are generally supportive of East
West Rail (EWR) and recognise its benefits. They have contributed revenue to support
the continued work on the project and are happy for officers to spend time on
promoting the project. However, the potential for financial contribution to the capital
cost of the project is viewed by the majority as contentious if not impossible in the
present financial climate.
2.2 Most authorities (as described earlier in Chapters 3 and 4) have reduced their
aspirations in terms of the numbers of homes to be delivered. In particular they are
likely to remove the more contentious developments from future plans. This could
have a significant impact on EWR as some of these developments are those that were
identified in the 2009 study (carried out by the HCA for the Consortium) as being most
likely to benefit from and therefore should be asked to contribute to EWR. These
include the development at Salden Chase (Newton Longville) in the north of the Vale
of Aylesbury and to the South of Milton Keynes. This could have delivered 5,300
homes with the possibility of a new station on the route west of Bletchley. Also any
future development to the north of Winslow would add weight to the reinstatement of
Winslow station.
2.3 The appetite for in principle contributions to EWR varies amongst authorities mainly
due to how likely they view the realisation of direct benefits to their authorities. At one
end of the range, Cherwell in Oxfordshire, have seen the positive impact of Chiltern
Railways Evergreen projects on the economic growth of Bicester and they are willing
to contribute to EWR. Wycombe in Buckinghamshire, on the other hand, remains to be
convinced that they will benefit significantly from EWR and so are reluctant to commit
any funds. Milton Keynes and Aylesbury recognise the benefits and are keen
supporters of EWR. However, they feel that other pressures on the resources likely to
be delivered from developer contributions and other potential sources of funding, such
as New Homes Bonus, means that they are unlikely to be able to contribute much if at
all to EWR. Dacorum is not directly affected by the EWR project, but recognises the
need for improved east-west links to the wider sub-region.
2.4 Bedford borough council were initially uncertain about the additional benefit of the
47
EWR proposals, as they would introduce some faster links between Bedford and
Milton Keynes at the expense of some of the stopping services. However they are now
supportive of the project. In terms of potential contributions they feel that it would be
some years before they would be in a position to raise revenue from developments. At
present they have around 6,000 homes with planning consent where S106
agreements are already in place. These do not mention EWR.
Overall Amount of Contribution
3.1 It is difficult to do calculations with any precision at present because of the level of
uncertainty. However, it would be helpful to have a broad idea of the minimum and
maximum amounts of any contribution.
3.2 For each local authority most new homes delivered up to 2030 are quite likely to
already be in the pipeline and are likely to have S106 agreements in place or, in the
case of Milton Keynes, subject to contributions to the Milton Keynes tariff.7 Anything
permitted before an Authority has completed its CIL preparation process cannot be
liable for CIL. This means that most of the potential CIL contribution to EWR is likely to
be some years away.
3.3 CIL contributions will be paid on the basis of an amount in £ per square metre of net
additional internal floor space provided by new dwellings permitted through some form
of planning permission. The charges become due from the date that the chargeable
development is commenced. The charge is collected by the CIL collecting authority,
which in most cases will be the charging authority.
Way of Linking Contribution to EWR
4.1 Contributions from CIL will be generated over a period of time from say 2015 to 2030.
A mechanism will be needed to ensure that any part of these that will contribute to
EWR are held centrally. Alternatively a mechanism could be put in place for borrowing
against a future stream of income from CIL. If this were undertaken by one local
authority on behalf of the Consortium then that authority would have to bear the risk. A
possibility might be for DfT or the HCA to make the up-front contribution to the capital
costs of the project and then receive the stream of revenue over time.
4.2 Any decision about how best to link contributions to payments depends to some extent
on who is going to deliver the construction element of the project and at what point and
how the decision will be taken about which operator will have the franchise for
operating services on the route. Currently Chiltern rail operates services at the western
end of the route, including services from Aylesbury into London. At the other end,
services between Milton Keynes, Bletchley and Bedford are operated by London
Midland.
7 There may be some scope for renegotiating these agreements, especially if the viability of the level of
contribution is challenged by developers in the current climate.
48
Other Sources of Funding
5.1 In addition to s106 planning obligations and CIL other potential sources of
contributions are from the New Homes Bonus, the retention of business rates and Tax
Increment Finance. Local authorities could decide to use some of their Local
Transport Plan resources from DfT. An outside possibility might be that a private sector
company in the area might offer a contribution as part of its Corporate Social
Responsibility measures. Encouraging the use of rail travel will reduce car use and
overall carbon emissions. Alternatively private sector companies could see the
potential benefits in terms of access to employees.
5.2 New Homes Bonus has the potential to generate a significant amount of income. Each
dwelling completed will have a contribution from Central Government of the average
band Council Tax for that authority (around £1,400) for 6 years. These sums are
intended to be used to encourage local communities to accept developments in their
areas. Providing infrastructure, such as EWR, which would benefit the whole
community would be a valid use of such funds. However, local authorities have
suggested that this resource could help fund the pressures on service provision as a
result of cuts in Revenue support Grant or support locally-focused priorities and
aspirations.
5.3 It is probably too early to put a figure on the amounts that might be generated from
these other sources at this stage. Further work will be carried out throughout the rest
of the project.
49
Chapter 8 Preliminary Conclusions
1.1 This Interim Report has started to paint a picture for these four authorities, at a
relatively high level, of the implications of the changing needs of their areas against a
backdrop of changing Government policies and funding opportunities.
1.2 This is a period of transition and it will not be possible for authorities to draw up firm
plans until a number of pieces of the emerging policy jigsaw are firmly in place. These
are described briefly below with possible timescales.
Localism Bill
2.1 The Localism Bill is currently at its Report Stage in the House of Lords in advance of
receiving its Third Reading. Following the final consideration of amendments in both
Houses the Bill should proceed to the Royal Assent stage in autumn 2011.
2.2The planning and regeneration provisions will:
abolish Regional Spatial Strategies;
abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and return to a position where the
Secretary of State takes the final decision on major infrastructure proposals;
make some of the Community Infrastructure Levy revenue available for the local
community;
provide for neighbourhood plans, backed by local referenda;
provide for neighbourhood development orders; and
abolish the London Development Agency.
Government Consultations
Local planning regulations
2.3 With the abolition of regional spatial strategies local plans will assume greater
importance setting out a planning strategy in cooperation with neighbouring councils.
The ways local plans are prepared are therefore being changed by the Localism Bill.
2.4 The Duty to Cooperate will require councils and public bodies to work together on
planning issues. The Government intends that the adoption of local plan documents
should become simpler and more transparent removing the power of inspectors to
impose changes. Councils will have greater flexibility in presenting planning
information, including publishing a monitoring report on the implementation of their
local development scheme.
2.5 Responses to this consultation are invited by 7 October 2011.
50
Draft National Planning Policy Framework
2.6 The draft National Planning Policy Framework (see Annex B for a longer description)
aims to replace the current suite of national Planning Policy Statements, Planning
Policy Guidance notes and Circulars with a single, streamlined document.
2.7 The Framework introduces a strong presumption in favour of sustainable
development. The Government’s expectation is that the answer to development and
growth should wherever possible be ‘yes’, except where this would clearly conflict with
other aspects of national policy.
2.8 The presumption turns this expectation into policy, emphasising the role of up-to-date
development plans in identifying and accommodating development needs. Where
those plans are not up-to-date, or do not provide a clear basis for decisions, the policy
establishes the clear presumption that permission should be granted.
2.9 Responses to this consultation are invited by 17 October 2011.
Local Government Resource Review: Business Rates Retention
2.10 This consultation sets out proposals for the retention of business rates and takes
forward the implementation of Tax Increment Financing (see Annex B for a longer
explanation). This could have profound consequences for local authorities in terms of
their ability to fund infrastructure from local resources and should change local
attitudes to commercial developments. However it will take time to understand the
detailed consequences. Eight technical papers have been issued over the summer to
support the main consultation, which outlines how the proposals interact with wider
Government initiatives to promote growth, including the existing New Homes Bonus,
and considers how they will work alongside the existing architecture of the business
rates system.
2.11 While rate setting powers will remain with the Government, it hopes that enabling
local authorities to retain a proportion of the business rates generated locally will
provide a strong incentive to promote growth.
2.12 Responses to this consultation are invited by 24 October 2011.
2.13 Renewed consultation is also taking place on CIL arrangements, including the
“reasonable proportion” of receipts which must be passed to parish level to support
their spending priorities.
Risks and Opportunities
3.1 Possibly the biggest risk for local authorities at present is inertia. Most authorities are in
the process of reviewing their Local Development Plans which, with proper
51
consultation, could take between 6 months and 2 years. Fundamental changes to the
ways in which infrastructure will be funded in future are currently being consulted upon
as set out above. It will take time for the Government to review the consultation
responses and put in place new arrangements.
3.2 So the temptation may be to ‘wait and see’ what comes out of these processes before
making decisions. However, it is vital for local authorities to move quickly and start
formulating plans in order to maximise the benefits from New Homes Bonus (which is
already being received) to develop a coherent and attractive CIL schedule and avoid
out of plan developments by appeal. This will necessitate local authorities (at officer
and member level) being able to cooperate across traditional boundaries. In particular,
housing and planning colleagues will have to work closely with economic development,
transport and finance to understand the implications of the new funding approaches for
delivery of infrastructure, jobs and homes.
3.3 The Duty to Cooperate will require neighbouring local authorities to work together to
achieve local plans that are able fulfil the role vacated by regional strategies.
3.4 In its consultation on local planning regulations the Government states that “abolition
of regional strategies … make the role of local plans even more important, as they will
set a planning strategy in co-operation with neighbouring councils.”8 Demonstrating
this will also be part of the examination of Local Plans.9
3.5 A strong housing component is necessary to bring forward the funds that can support
economic growth and employment through strategic infrastructure such as transport.
3.6 The analysis in this document has shown that there is a strong underlying need to
provide new homes for the growing population. It has also shown that there will be a
significant increase in the proportion of elderly people in the population. This is likely to
require a different approach in terms of the supply of homes and infrastructure.
Identified Risks to Infrastructure Delivery
4.1 Although there is a strong land supply and consents for housing in the near to medium
term, strong levels of population and household growth identified in Chapter 4, coupled
with the policy uncertainty suggested in Chapter 3, could lead to a deficit of housing.
4.2 In the unlikely event of no new building (beyond the extant pipeline of consented and
planned for properties at the time of writing) there might be a shortage of homes in
Aylesbury, Dacorum and Cherwell by around 2020.
8 DCLG, Local Planning Regulations Consultation, July 2011
9 DCLG, Draft National Planning Policy Framework: Consultation, July 2011
52
4.3 Housing shortages in surrounding boroughs might attract more people into larger
centres, such as Milton Keynes, Bedford and Luton, creating urban drift and placing
pressure on existing infrastructure.
4.4 There is however no reason to believe at this stage that the authorities will not bring
forward development to meet their needs, nor that there will be any displacement of
demand into surrounding districts.
4.5 Revised of trajectories for housing growth (as suggested at the end of chapter 4)
would help meet housing needs and deliver supporting infrastructure and amenities.
For example, Dacorum’s pre-submission core strategy currently out to consultation,
has set housing growth at a level which tries to meet ONS projections, tempered by
Green Belt constraints, public opinion, and the findings of its sustainability appraisal.
4.6 Where neighbouring districts are developing CIL schedules, as in Hertfordshire, local
authorities will use intelligence garnered from cross-boundary working and information
sharing to set CIL charges.
4.7 It is not possible to have a cross-border CIL. CIL charging levels have to be based on
viability and the infrastructure funding gap in each particular authority, although it
would be possible to match elements (but not charges) in each district’s CIL. Based on
each area’s viability, charging should neither be equalised nor competitive.
4.8 However, the combination of collaborative relationships and proximity among
authorities across borders may lead to a consistent set of charges. Alternatively, if CIL
charging, for example on commercial developments, is set very low or at zero this
might appear to be competitive.10
4.9 If competitive charging – although justified in terms of viability - were applied on a
widespread basis then revenue from CIL might be lower than expected. Therefore
local authorities should share best practice in evolving their CIL schemes and charging
schedules; they can work together with developers to provide the robust and costed
evidence that justifies viable local charges needed to support joint (or matched)
infrastructure priorities.
Next Stages of Investigation
5.1 The next stage of the work will focus on doing more detailed work on the likely
proceeds from CIL, New Homes Bonus, retained business rates and other possible
funding sources for strategic infrastructure.
5.2 Analysis will be carried out on the basis of a variety of assumptions, which will be
informed by discussion with developers and planners. Comparisons will be made
between the scale of developer contributions available at the top of the market in 2007
10
If such charges are tested and challenged at examination, this might cause delays and uncertainty.
53
and what might be feasible in today’s financial climate. This will also be used to
provide an estimate of the scale of contribution that might be available to support the
East West Rail Project if authorities are able to recognise the economic benefits of this
project across the wider area. The project will begin a schedule of infrastructure
needs, which will help highlight funding challenges and opportunities.
5.3 Such analysis should also offer the strategic view necessary to take advantage of
Government initiatives as they arise, such as the recent Growing Places Fund. If
authorities are clear about infrastructure priorities and are already working across
boundaries and identifying funding opportunities then they are better placed to be able
to respond when new sources of funding come along.
5.4 There will be an exploration of what other delivery mechanisms could best be applied
to meet the infrastructure gaps identified in the study work. These might include local
asset backed vehicles, collaborative work with the HCA on local investment plans and
delivery and the use of Tax Increment Funding.
5.5 Work will also be carried out on the possibility of aligning CIL charging schedules.
However, with the deadline for adopting schedules in April 2014 fast approaching and
s106 already being scaled back, authorities will be working under pressure to agree
their CIL schemes quickly with or without alignment.
5.6 However, a viable common charging framework might create opportunities for
contributing to vital infrastructure that might be otherwise missed and ultimately it
could prove advantageous to explore joined-up CIL schedules.
54
Transitional Postscript
When this report was first being written, the Localism Bill had not received Royal Assent
and a number of consultations had just been launched on the national planning policy
framework, planning regulations and the local retention of business rates. In subsequent
developments the Localism Bill has now passed into law and is an Act, strengthening the
influence of parish and town councils or neighbourhood forums over local planning.
The Government responded to the consultation responses on the retention of business
rates on 19 December. The Government confirms it wants all authorities to benefit if their
local economies grow, and that councils should be able to join forces to pool their business
rates to support shared strategic priorities. These measures will be included in the Local
Government Finance Bill to help local authorities take a “coherent approach to growth
within natural economic geographies.”11
During the time of writing, locally consultations were being prepared. In Aylesbury Vale,
consultation is now underway on a very wide range of jobs and homes numbers for the
district, as well as a wide range of possible distribution scenarios. Similarly views and
positions with respect to the New Homes Bonus have become more refined in district.
Offset against the increase in the cost of services to new housing and the loss of
government grant top-sliced to pay for the NHB scheme, the remaining receipts will be
placed into a reserve fund to support revenue or capital funding decisions.
Contextual information is also constantly evolving. There are two new Local Enterprise
Partnerships: Bucks Thames Valley LEP and the Northamptonshire Enterprise
Partnership. There is new housing completions data coming on-stream. There are political
challenges locally and nationally, which this work will need to address, in resolving the
increased emphasis on localism and local communities (parishes) seeing and feeling the
benefits of accepting growth with the “larger than local” architecture of LEPs and possibly
consortia of LEPs leading strategic developments.
Therefore in taking forward this work forward into the next report, a greater emphasis will
be placed on integrating its findings and conclusions into the thinking of local authorities
preparing their CIL schemes. The work will also press Government to rationalise its
divergent localist and strategic approaches to planning and development.
11
DCLG, December 2011
55
Annex A: Information Gathering Meetings
A1: Questions for participating local authorities:
In general terms what do you and your authority hope to gain from this project?
Background
1. Where are you with regard to your Core Strategy or Local Development Plan?
2. Please can we see the key Development Plan documents – hard copies or links to
websites?
3. What assumptions and evidence are you using to plan a trajectory for future
growth?
4. What time periods do you focus on when assessing growth trajectories – 5, 10, 15
or 20 years?
5. Other than this project do you have any arrangements in place for cross boundary
working with other local authorities?
6. What is the general attitude of your elected members and local communities to
growth?
7. What are the key barriers to development in your area?
8. What arrangements do you have in place for consulting with your community on
attitudes toward growth?
9. How closely do you work with your Homes and Communities Agency area contact –
do you have a Local Investment Plan or Delivery Plan?
10. Have you made use of the HCA’s new viability model (on their website)?
Financial Position
11. Have you drawn up any proposals for CIL charging schedules?
12. Do you have a strategic transport or infrastructure schedule with priorities for your
area?
13. What are your plans for funding this infrastructure?
14. What about New Homes Bonus – how much have you received this year, what are
your projections for the future?
15. What are you planning to use New Homes Bonus for? Do you think that it provides
an incentive for the local community to accommodate growth?
16. How is your authority managing the cutback in Revenue Support Grant – has this
had an impact on the appetite for growth?
17. Have you any plans for developing an Enterprise Zone or making use of Tax
Increment Financing?
18. What are your views on the Local Government Resource Review and the proposal
for partial local retention of business rates?
56
Infrastructure and Delivery
19. How does your authority relate to the East West Rail Project? What scope is there
for contributions from developers through CIL or other mechanisms?
20. Do you have examples of specific sites that are being held back by a lack of
infrastructure?
21. What monitoring mechanisms do you have in place to track progress with
developments, including housing and employment land, and the necessary
infrastructure to unlock developments?
22. Are there any specific developments in your area, which are likely to need special
treatment, such as the proposed eco town in Cherwell?
Relationship with Local Enterprise Partnerships
23. To what extent is your local authority already involved with SEMLEP and/or your
Local Enterprise Partnership?
24. How do you think that we should engage with Local Enterprise Partnerships for this
project?
25. What is the attitude of your Local Enterprise Partnership to strategic infrastructure
planning?
26. What outcomes would you like from engagement with developers? [There is a new
SEMLEP group being established as a successor to the former mksm Developers
Forum that is keen to engage with this project.]
Other
27. Would it be helpful to prepare a presentation that can be used for elected members
as part of the final outputs? If so is there a particular time when this would be
needed?
28. How much resource in terms of time at a senior and working level is your authority
able to contribute?
29. Do you have any specific skills or resources in your authority to contribute to the
project, such as a facility for mapping?
30. Having reflected on these questions is there anything else that you would like us to
cover in this project?[ We are aiming to produce outcomes that will help you with
delivery so please tell us what you need and we will do our best to provide it.]
57
A2: Aylesbury Vale District Council
Meeting with John Byrne at 4pm on 11th July
1. Hilary Chipping and Matthew Clifton had previously supplied set of Questions for
participating authorities to gather information.
2. In response to the question about what you hope to gain from this project John
said that they were hoping to be able to answer the question of where would future
funding come from to provide the necessary infrastructure to support developments.
He felt that the combination of New Homes Bonus and CIL would not provide enough
and it was not clear how mainstream funding for transport would be channelled in
future. He thought that it would be necessary to explore new ways of ensuring that
developers contributed to necessary infrastructure.
3. In order to answer the question about Core Strategy, John referred to the report to
Cabinet to be considered on 19th July, which set out progress on developing The Vale
of Aylesbury Plan. This is summarised below in paras 4 to 10.
4. Aylesbury Vale district council had taken Core Strategy through Examination in Public
in Spring 2010. They were awaiting the Inspector’s Report at the time of the May
election. Subsequently they requested the Core Strategy to be withdrawn.
5. In November 2010 the Cabinet decided to develop a new planning policy document for
the district known as the ‘Vale of Aylesbury Plan’.
6. The initial focus has been on engaging with parishes. This phase has come to an end
with most parishes concluding that very small scale development (under10 dwellings)
is likely to be right for their community. However larger settlements (where most
growth would be expected to take place) are more interested in accommodating an
appropriate level of growth for their communities.
7. Next stage of work, from July 2011 to April 2012 will be to develop Spatial Strategy for
the district
Identifying issues and objectives
Narrowing number range
Developing spatial options
Broad brush development management policy scoping.
8. Next stage of work, from May 2012 to Jan 2013, will entail applying narrowed range of
options and approaches to each of the areas likely to receive significant growth
including identification of potential strategic sites. Development management policies
will be taken forward during this period.
58
9. The formal sign-off for the Vale of Aylesbury Plan by the Council is envisaged between
February 2013 and September 2013. This will include the spatial strategy,
development management policies and strategic allocations.
10. It is envisaged that the examination process will take place from September 2013 and
so likely to be adopted early in 2014.
11. In response to the question about assumptions and evidence, John explained that
G.L. Herne’s were undertaking some work to determine a range of population
projections based on a number of assumptions such as ‘no net migration’ ‘growth in
existing population’ ‘ balancing affordability’ and ‘encouraging economic growth’. The
results of this work would be available over the summer to provide top down estimates
on the basis of the different scenarios. Work with the parishes would continue to
produce a collective ‘bottom up’ estimate of the local need for development. By the
end of the year, following internal discussions with agroup of cabinet members, there
should be an agreed upper and lower population estimate. This would then slot into
the process for developing the Plan set out above.
12. John stressed that ultimately the decision of where to grow Aylesbury would be
political. He said that there was an Inquiry currently underway with respect to an
appeal against the decision not to give planning permission to a development west of
Leighton Buzzard, adjacent to the A4146. There was likely to be another Inquiry in
October into the appeal about the decision at Quarrendon Fields, where a wind turbine
was part of the proposed development. He said that there was a general concern
about the need for a robust environmental assessment. Growth to the east of
Aylesbury would require a new eastern link road. This might be seen as not sufficiently
sustainable in the eyes of an Inspector
13. John pointed out that this was the first time that AVDC had been asked to work out the
numbers for its own growth rather than have them imposed by the County Structure
Plan or the Regional Strategy.
14. John explained that there are 8,000 homes in the pipeline with a 5 year supply of
housing land. Their analysis would start from a base position of 2006 and assess
need from 2006 to 2026 netting off commitments. They were aiming for a site specific
allocation of development up 10 years followed by allocations of numbers based on
need up to 2021.
15. Dominic Williams of Hewdons Consulting had carried out a broad brush analysis to
assess the potential for contributions from CIL. One issue that emerged was that
most developments had already had S106 agreements negotiated so scope for CIL
was limited. This could be critical for East West Rail. It was likely that EWR would
need to look more widely at developments such as growth in Eastern Expansion Area
of Milton Keynes for potential contributions
59
16. When asked about cross boundary working, John mentioned the Cross Boundary
Officer Group with Central Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes and the Bucks Planning
Officers’ Group.
17. When asked about barriers to development John said that the biggest barrier was
the state of the market with developers reluctant to build whilst banks were reluctant to
lend to first time buyers unless they were able to supply a significant deposit.
Electricity supply was also an issue.
18. John suggested that the ITP team speaks to Anna Gordon in their Housing
Department for more information on the relationship with the HCA and their viability
model.
19. The new ARLA milk processing plant at Aston Clinton was a significant development,
which was contrary to planning policy. It would provide between 500 and 1000 jobs.
20. There was a Local Investment Plan in place, which covered the whole of
Buckinghamshire. Julia Hedger had worked with the HCA on developing this and is
now working for Dacorum with James Doe.
21. New Homes Bonus would provide £810k. Although no decision has been made, there
is a feeling among Members that this would be used to complete small projects
supported locally and offset cuts to core expenditure rather than providing
infrastructure.
22. Silverstone had been suggested as a possible Enterprise Zone, but had not received
SEMLEP support.
23. John did not have views on the issue of future business rate retention. The
consultation on the Local Government Resource Review would provide more
information. He suggested that we speak to John McGinty.
24. John suggested that we speak to Tracey Aldworth for a view on the relationship with
SEMLEP.
25. Growth to the east of Aylesbury would require Eastern Link Road.
26. John thought the council was likely to have to assess a free standing development, an
example might be Winslow Green, as well as urban extensions, in the “reasonable
options” for sustainability appraisal.
27. In terms of support John explained that he and his team would be happy to provide
any information that they could, and help with data and mapping, but the team was
stretched and he could not consider providing any dedicated support.
60
A3: Milton Keynes Council
27 July 2011
Hilary Chipping, ITP Project Director
Sheila Keene, HCA
Darren Gray, Growth Manager
Diane Webber, Senior Planning Officer
Fiona Tarbit, Senior Planning Officer
Mark Harrison, Senior Planning Officer
Roger Hankey, Infrastructure Delivery Officer
Matthew Clifton, ITP Project Manager
1. Introduction to the ITP
HC introduced the background to the ITP by using the short presentation that had been
used at the first meeting of the project's Steering Group. HC stressed that the intention of
the project was not to give partners additional work and to avoid duplication of existing
activity. One of its central goals was to align cross border approaches to the Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL); the project would also focus on East West Rail and develop the
evidence base to lobby government for additional funding to support cross-boundary
strategic infrastructure.
2. Round Table Discussion of ITP
DG noted that work on the Local Investment Plan (LIP) reflected the aims of the ITP, and
that ITP would be helpful in demonstrating a cross-boundary consistency of approach. DG
expected to take the new LIP to Cabinet in December, which will relate to the work that FT
is doing on planning obligations and CIL. The LIP would also synchronise with the
Council's capital programme. However, questions still remained about whether the LIP and
the capital programme would focus solely on council-led activities, as 70 to 80% of local
infrastructure will be delivered by the council.
RH identified utilities as being an issue, which it was important to consider on a cross-
boundary basis. He was not sure of the present arrangements. DW noted that the
approach of the utility companies had been largely reactionary in response to the needs of
particular developments and has involved little intervention from the council. However, it is
important to understand the costs of delivering/upgrading utilities provision in order to
properly understand the full costs of development and include those in the viability testing
of new developments. DG agreed that the council has tended to deal with the 'snags' in
utility provision rather the big strategic questions.
SK noted that there had been some joint environmental team work on longer term issues,
such as water management (a water cycle study had been undertaken to support the core
strategy), and that there has always been concerns about sewage works capacity (which
61
is ok up to 2016 according to Anglian Water). However this project could usefully recheck
utilities issues, such as water, electricity and broadband, and any associated land
requirements.
DG noted there were also questions on energy related to carbon management and
reduction and local resilience to energy/power shortages. RH thought it important to
consider from where to source electricity in the future when more sustainable forms of
energy may be available.
3. Local Investment Plan
DG pointed out that the LIP is now the responsibility of MK Council and will need to
determine the delivery schedules for local infrastructure priorities and provide a longer
term schedule of desired projects. Previous LIPs have some contextualised priorities,
however the new LIP would inevitably be more 'political' than the HCA document.
Like the earlier versions, the LIP will also coordinate the delivery of infrastructure and
galvanise support for projects. It will provide a delivery schedule for the core strategy,
rather than being a strategic decision-making document in its own right. The Local Delivery
Plan, on the other hand, remains an HCA document that articulates how it will play a role
in Milton Keynes.
SK said that the new iteration of the LIP would produce a successor document to previous
iterations, but local prioritisation would take it in a different direction. DW said that the LIP
was needed to demonstrate the deliverability of the core strategy and the capital
programme. However, RH pointed out that running up to 2016, the LIP has a longer
planning horizon than the capital programme.
DG felt that the LIP would help by identifying where council activities were needed and
where not and would maintain its relevance through constant updating of data.
When HC raised the question of how other documents were being used to identify
infrastructure, RH thought that the existing LIP helped articulate needs for infrastructure.
DG explained that the Joint Housing Delivery Team were producing figures to match
against LIP plans and factor in the loss of forward funding from the Tariff. Timing is an
important political issue as members always say they want infrastructure in place before
housing growth (although this may no longer be feasible in the current economic
circumstances).
4. Questionnaire
In addressing what officers wanted from the ITP work, there were four identified desired
outcomes:
shared approaches/information on CIL
a more strategic approach to utilities
62
developed thinking on other cross-boundary infrastructure (East West Rail)
testing of local assumptions on LIP
DG and DW recognised that more cross-boundary collaboration was necessary, and the
Salden Chase development, which foundered over a lack of cross-boundary subsidy of
service provision (amongst other issues), was an example of where things could go wrong.
The question of who pays for what will constantly return because Aylesbury and MK are so
interlinked. 40% of working residents in Winslow work in MK. The town of Buckingham
recognises MK as its employment growth area.
In terms of the development of the Core Strategy, the examination was unlikely to start
before the end of the year, according to DW. In terms of supporting evidence and
information the council would continue to produce supporting documents, such as the
Annual Monitoring Report and the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
(SHLAA). Internal quarterly updates are also produced supported by surveys of all
developers. Similar work is also undertaken to review the availability of employment land.
There was a conviction that a significant increase in the birth rate, related to a more
homogeneous community, had important implications for infrastructure planning. However,
it was also noted that all assumptions on long term demand for housing have proved
wrong, which was much more susceptible to the ebb and flow of the wider economy. DW
pointed out that we would get a better feel for this when the Western Expansion Area
comes on stream in a year or so.
Local disagreement about maintaining a grid road system within the expansion areas
potentially threaten the established transport strategy that supports better bus routes and
could risk unpicking the planning permission and tariff agreements if not settled.
Other barriers to growth included market conditions, although MK was in good position to
continue growth based on previous work and planning. MH felt that the new trajectories for
growth (1750 per year) were realistic. DG thought that housing would come forward if the
housing market conditions were right because there were no major issues such as land
remediation to be dealt with. There were now more available sites than before the
recession, but completions would still be lower because they were not providing
apartments in CMK.
RH pointed out that there was still some critical infrastructure necessary, e.g. hospital
investment and higher education development. However DG explained that the lack of
community infrastructure (such as the need to provide 7000 new school places) would not
present any legal barriers.
5. Planning Obligations
SK told the meeting that legal advice has suggested that current tariff agreements are
secure, the question remains, however, about strategic reserve areas (areas identified for
63
housing growth yet lacking permissions). If consents are not granted before the CIL
framework becomes operational, then any tariff agreements may not be legal. Therefore a
level of contingency planning was needed for either outcome. The viability work would
need to identify if it is possible to accrue similar benefits through CIL and site specific s106
agreements as through the tariff. DG questioned whether the tariff could retain its ability to
forward fund (given the unanticipated longer delivery timelines). SK said this was being
looked into.
FT is working on viability model assumptions for housing, however more thought is also
needed around a parallel model for non-residential developments. A preliminary draft
schedule for CIL charging (based on the viability evidence) should be ready in early 2012.
Site specific projects could get additional enabling funding through s106. However, pooling
s106 and CIL needs to be worked out to avoid double charging.
Viability testing is only needed for essential development, whereas CIL charges for other
developments only need to be 'justifiable'. Because charges need to be based on 'viability'
or have to be justifiable, cross-boundary charging should not be competitive. However,
conversations are needed to ensure that viability measures are consistent. It was
mentioned that even if charges are higher in MK it may be that developers would still find
MK attractive (an MK 'CIL premium').
There was concern among developers, however, that CIL payments would not be used to
deliver the enabling infrastructure they were expecting for particular sites, as the receipts
could be used flexibly. MH explained that CIL was unlikely to be used for heavy
infrastructure in the foreseeable future as most developments (about 20,000) were already
covered by the tariff, with only 6,000 homes likely to be covered by CIL.
For projects, such as EWR, CIL could be used for viability work but not capital. LIP will
reference EWR, but will not prioritise it for CIL funding. Developments on the scale of
Salden Chase close to the route of East West rail would be necessary to generate the
significant contributions needed to support capital development on this scale, but these
were no longer under consideration. New Homes Bonus generates relatively small
amounts. This year the council has received £2.5million but this is likely to be significantly
less in the next financial year because of the recent fall in completions.
64
A4: Dacorum Borough Council
17 August 2011
Chris Taylor
Laura Wood
Heather Overhead
Hilary Chipping
Matthew Clifton
Introduction
CT is keen to identify gaps in the DBC’s involvement in the ITP and the wider SEM
partnership.
HC explained that ITP aimed to review the development aspirations of partners, and that
the collaborative relationship between Dacorum and Aylesbury was very positive in
supporting this work.
DBC is also involved in the Herts LEP – however, resources were thin and DBC was
finding itself stretched. However, the authority still remained ambitious on regeneration
and growth. It was recognised by officers that the authority needed to be more proactive
with businesses to support partnership working and attracting investment.
LW thought that there was a growing awareness of the borough’s links extending beyond
the county boundaries with strong relationships with Bedfordshire and Luton.
HC hopes that a wider partnership area of SEM, Oxfordshire, Bucks, Herts and
Cambridgeshire could oversee transport infrastructure development. There are a number
of other active partnerships developing within SEM, including a new developers’ group and
a universities’ partnership. CT is keen to see links develop between Dacorum businesses
and higher education.
Development
DBC has four key development plan documents:
The core strategy
Site allocations
Area action plan
Development management plan
The draft core strategy will go to Council in September with consultation in October and
November. Adoption is likely to be towards the end of 2012 or early 2013.
65
The second paper deals with issues and options on a range of sites.
The area action plan is a joint piece of work with St Albans, with a particular focus on a
development area west of the M1 with the potential for significant new housing.
The development master plan is employment driven and is based on the Maylands Master
Plan, aiming for 10,000 new jobs by 2031 – the minimum needed to support economic
growth.
Much of the land earmarked for development is owned by the HCA and the Borough.
Junction improvements with the M1 have improved access into Hemel Hempstead.
The Department for Transport Local Sustainable Transport Fund is being used to support
an area wide travel plan for Maylands and a priority bus link between Maylands, the town
centre and the train station. However, the roads are not wide enough for individual bus
lanes.
The draft core strategy will recommend a housing growth strategy of 430 dwellings per
annum (dpa) with some green belt allocations. This is a higher trajectory than the 370 dpa
expected from existing development sites.
Members seem to accept that population projections require a higher number of homes.
Also regeneration aspirations are at risk if housing development is not stepped up. Also
members recognise they need some planned expansion to provide cover from potential
planning appeals. However, they also hope that any development on green belt sites could
be pushed back beyond 2021 in the hope that more brownfield sites come forward making
it possible to avoid building on green field sites.
The trajectory is based on an evidence base in the housing report, ONS population
projections, assumptions on sites discussed with developers, and the infrastructure study.
Tipping points for new school developments, for example, help determine the distribution
of growth. Land supply is based on 5/6 year cycle. A population paper is being worked up
using East of England model. County population assumptions based on housing positions
(policy-driven estimates).
Experience of cross border partnership working
Dacorum has worked with St Albans on the joint area action plan; it works with the Herts
county planning group and the county-wide economic development officers; the authority
also works with Watford and Three Rivers on employment. Dacorum has also liaised with
the Luton and South Central Bedfordshire Joint Planning Unit , although that has gone
into abeyance with the demise of the last core strategy.
The focus for Herts LEP is an extension of the existing economic development strategy,
overlooking transport and infrastructure. It might therefore be good to get SEM and Herts
66
to work more closely together, as there is a learning curve for everyone, including
businesses, on infrastructure planning.
Attitudes to growth
Attitudes are very mixed given the strong feelings against green belt developments.
Affordability issues are of greater concern for people living in the town. Although there is a
pro-growth stance, it is a big step for many to accept that to pay for growing prosperity
there needs to be housing growth.
Officers accept that there has to be the right mix of housing to attract businesses, without
which there would difficulties of managing in-commuting; the bottom has fallen out of the
high density flat market, while housing is more sought after.
DBC has secured HCA funding to build 45 affordable units, although it has no great
ambitions to be a developer. In the depressed market HCA and Crown Estate sites are not
forthcoming, however discussions have taken place on bringing forward Spencer’s Park at
North East Hemel Hempstead for housing development with the HCA, which is subject to
the Buy Now, Pay Later scheme. This is hoped to kick start implementation of the
Dacorum Local Investment Plan.
Viability issues are also holding up some developments. Developers are coming back with
issues on s106, levels of affordable housing and infrastructure. The Buncefield incident is
still a dampener on the economy and the HCA are withholding comments on potential
regeneration projects.
Broader infrastructure issues
Hemel town centre has an ageing infrastructure and appearance; poor perceptions are a
problem; market towns are in a better state and have higher land values.
The cross-district water cycle study has identified capacity issues for the future but these
are not so great as to be an absolute barrier to growth.
There is a tension between the competing local priorities of developing sustainable
transport and providing plentiful cheap car parking to support the retail centre.
The local train station is in a poor state, and has been downgraded with fewer trains
stopping at Hemel. HS2 is cautiously welcomed as long as it can deliver more capacity
and a better service (through Hemel) on the West Coast Mainline.
Consultation and public relations
There is a consultation database to support the core strategy; the agents' forum provides a
sounding board; Dacorum also has a citizens' panel and runs numerous workshops and
67
focus groups.
Businesses are represented through the Maylands Partnership and the Dacorum Business
Network. Monthly meetings, newsletters and a database of 2000 email addresses keep the
council in touch with local enterprises.
Key landowners include Taylor Wimpey, Barratts, Bovis, Crest Nicholson, Crown Estates
and the HCA.
The Local Strategic Partnership is still in existence and has some recognised merit. It has
an infrastructure sub-group, interest in CIL is likely to give it a lift, it provides a route for
comments on planning work and its affordable housing and medical stakeholders have
been effective in putting the case for housing growth.
The HCA sponsored Local Investment Plan spans 20 years and money from the Growth
Area Fund has been ring-fenced and is still being used to release some land with profits to
be recycled into future schemes.
Housing Delivery
Dacorum needs to strengthen in its approach to viability testing. It currently uses the Three
Dragons toolkit, but is not tied to this particular model.
A new team will try to front-load development to maximise New Homes Bonus, which is
being used to support delivery. Unlike other authorities, there does not seem to be too
much pressure to draw down NHB to plug gaps in general budgets.
Laura Badham is a borough council technical assistant who can help with Dacorum GIS
issues.
Finance
Last year there was a range of pre-emptive cut-backs in order to balance the budget this
year and next; beyond which the council is looking to business rates retention to address
any budgetary gaps. There is now a more streamlined management structure with 22
senior managers (down from 43). There is an on-going review of services and outsourcing
opportunities – for example, transferring payroll to AVDC.
There is an interest in the possibility of using tax increment financing to support growth,
but there is a cautious view about the need to see the detail of the government's proposals
due out shortly.
Infrastructure Delivery
HO leads on infrastructure delivery plan and CIL.
68
CIL charging schedule is under preparation – the council is looking to recruit someone to
embed within the planning team to speed this work up.
The SPD on planning obligations provides a tariff-based approach to s106. CIL will not be
used to cover everything (and will be mainly used to support big infrastructure) and s106
will be used to support affordable housing.
Dacorum is not a CIL front-runner; North Herts is moving forward more quickly on CIL, and
would like to share information with MK. DBC would like to use some of CIL to support
strategic transport projects (including beyond the borough) however it is not certain that
EWR would be a priority, although improved East West links are a priority for the borough
and county.
Knowledge and intelligence on site situations is an issue for planning but is something the
new delivery team will help pick up.
School infrastructure is a key issue for growth: CIL offers a future funding stream for
school building; possibly a couple of big sites could fund a school through s106.
The districts and county are looking for a degree of consistency on CIL charging; Herts has
a CIL reference group with the possibility of jointly commissioning viability work. However
there is some uncertainty as to how the boroughs could control the parameters of viability
modelling. There is some concern that competing schedules may drive down CIL income.
DBC is working to keep the infrastructure delivery plan up to date, and track the availability
of employment and housing delivery land. It also intends to embed CIL into the AMR.
Particular obstacles include a lack of upfront funding to support low carbon developments;
there are concerns about the viability of developments in the town centre. And help is
needed on the implementation of infrastructure as there are concerns about the ability to
deliver 430 homes annually on a consistent basis.
69
A5: Cherwell District Council
23 August 2011
John Hoad, Strategic Director Planning, Housing and Economy
Julie King, Planning Policy Team Leader (works to Phillip Clarke, Head of Planning Policy
& Economic Development)
Hilary Chipping
Matthew Clifton
Introduction
HC gave an introduction to the Infrastructure Transition Partnership and the project being
carried out.
JH explained that the focus for the Project would primarily be on Cherwell rather than the
two authorities, although there will be sharing of management from directors to heads of
service. Cherwell lacks the cross-border development data and intelligence that South
Northants has built up through WNDC and being part of the former mksm arrangements.
Naturally there is an interest in levering in new streams of finance to support growth, but
this also raises difficult issues in the context of the two tier system. The Project could
facilitate a strong response to the government's consultation on local business rate
retention in this regard.
Cherwell officers responsible for East West Rail include Andrew Bowe (infrastructure) and
Phillip Clarke (Head of Economic Development). Cherwell recognise that there is a real
case for the cross-border pooling of resources to support East West Rail. The Enterprise
Zone and business rate retention could provide valuable resources to support EWR.
Oxfordshire has promised to share around the proceeds from its EZ across the county.
Cherwell would also be eligible for a share of the Northampton EZ proceeds as part of
SEMLEP.
Core Strategy and housing trajectory
A draft core strategy went out to consultation last year. Given political and policy changes
in Government it is being reviewed and refreshed to remove regional housing targets and
reflect a locally driven level of housing and growth.
The RSS housing figure was 13,400 dwellings by 2026. This will be trimmed back to
12,750 in the forthcoming public consultation, reflecting population and household
projections. The difference is likely to affect the level of development in rural areas. The
key proposed strategic sites remain unchanged. The delay in revising and re-consulting
upon the strategy means that the end date is likely to roll forward by one year to 2027.
70
Proposed Strategic sites
Banbury: Canalside
Canalside is a brownfield/industrial regeneration project in Banbury expected to deliver
1200 homes. It is dependent on a flood alleviation scheme which is under construction.
CDC has invested two million pounds into the scheme with some private sector and
railway support. It is a hard to develop complex site, with some land assembly and viability
issues.
The HCA were initially very supportive but this has faded with the restructuring of the HCA.
However, locally there is much political support for the development and past infrastructure
investment to release the land. However, it may not be able to deliver the levels of
planning gain previously expected.
Banbury Bankside
Phase I of this development has been consented but has not yet started. It should deliver
1100 homes. The second phase could deliver a further 400 homes. It is now expected that
both phases will be delivered as one coherent development.
This is a difficult to start strategic site promoted by Hallam Land Management and
Gallaghers who assembled the land. No deals have been concluded with individual house
builders yet. However, it is a relatively easy to build site because it is greenfield.
Elsewhere in Banbury
West of Bretch Hill is an unconstrained greenfield site thought to be able to deliver around
400 dwellings. A further two reserve sites in Banbury could come forward if any of the
other projects become undeliverable.
Bicester Eco Town
This major urban extension to the north west of Bicester is expected to deliver 3000
homes in the plan period, but could potentially deliver a further 2000 dwellings beyond
2027. An exemplar Phase 1 scheme by A2Dominion for approx. 400 dwellings is now
permitted and there is political commitment to see it grow and to maintain the
environmental standards expected. HCA made the eco town a priority which helped
commit A2Dominion: this is a remnant of previous funding.
Other sites
Bicester South West
Countryside Properties have made the running with this site, which could deliver 1585
71
dwellings. Because of the state of the market, the affordable housing has been delayed to
the later stages, while the developers have got on with building the site infrastructure, such
as a connection with the link road and a local school.
Countryside Properties have begun to sell parcels of land to four house builders, but the
rate of development is relatively low. There is a small amount of employment land by the
A41 with more significant commercial development on the other side of the road. This site
is already permitted and is not therefore proposed in the emerging Core Strategy.
Bicester Garrison
The MoD has proposed developing part of its land to fund improvements to the rest of its
site (distribution depot and training grounds). In its current state the proposal is not
consistent with the emerging Core Strategy.
Upper Heyford
This site is a former cold war military airfield with permission to deliver 1000 homes.
However it is very difficult to deliver – even in the best market conditions. Nothing has
been started on site.
Comments and reflections
The Local Investment Plan for Oxfordshire does try to identify priorities, however is not
considered so important now and is therefore unlikely to be refreshed.
The continuing requirement for five year land supply does not reflect the market reality that
developers are now more focused on small, easily marketed sites with low planning gain
requirements.
To make the eco town development in Bicester work, it needs to attract employment. To
support this there is a £10m town centre redevelopment and a large employment site on
A41 link road with the M1 close to the Bicester Village Outlet retail centre.
If the Bicester Garrison development were to appeal successfully against the Council's
intention to refuse to grant planning permission then its housing might unfairly compete
with higher standard housing in the Eco Town development.
Transport
East West Rail is key to the future development of Bicester providing it with a direct link to
Milton Keynes. Chiltern Rail is also promoting a section of rail track to enable turning at a
corner in Bicester, improving access to rail routes.
It is hoped that growth and EWR will help change the perceptions of Bicester as
72
peripheral, with a greater appreciation of the town's pivotal location and what it has to offer.
Barriers to growth
There is a market-wide problem relating to large scale strategic sites. The eco town is
therefore a risky venture, being a large strategic site with more expensive units. However,
the developer (P3eco) is very committed and there is a political momentum behind this
different type of housing investment: a modular approach potentially more able to deliver
large sites in difficult market conditions.
The travel tensions have not been fully tackled – there needs to be some more road
investment. However, it is not difficult to get around Bicester on foot or by bicycle. There
are improving train links with a direct link to Oxford within two years. EWR would also be a
big boost.
Improvements to Junction 9 on the M40 is a half-finished DfT project requiring
improvements in traffic management measures, such as traffic lights and designated
lanes. This is important for growth because it affects employment developments. However,
phase II of this work is as yet unfunded.
Financing growth
There has been no formal decision on adopting a Community Infrastructure Levy. However
it is expected that councillors will eventually have to do so. A Statutory Planning Document
on planning obligations is in preparation and will prepare the ground for CIL, forming part
of the new Local Development Framework.
To save costs Cherwell and South Northants are sharing senior management with a joint
Chief Executive, Directors and Heads of Service. This is a bold strategic step to make
savings to protect front line services. The two authorities will however seek to maintain
their individual identity and sovereignty.
The model is reflected in the relationship between South Oxfordshire and Vale of White
Horse, and West Oxfordshire and the Cotswolds. For the model to be sustainable people
have to change the way they do things.
The New Homes Bonus is not being used as a resource in this year's budget and a project
will consider how to make best use of it. Councillors may take the view that it should be
invested in new infrastructure. Officers feel that such investment also needs to be
supported by the baseline services that deliver growth, such as economic development. It
is likely therefore that the money will be used to support a bit of both given the likely
pressures on budgets in two years’ time.
Tax Increment Finance: the Enterprise Zone is expected to deliver some benefits across
the county, but any borrowing against such revenue is likely to be focused on the Vale
73
Science Park.
The County Council would like to see a common approach to CIL across Oxfordshire,
which is not popular in Cherwell because there are differences in viability. It is possible that
Cherwell will want to waive CIL charges for employment development in order to be able to
compete with Oxford.
The pooling of resources will need to be negotiated project by project and take place
where there is a particular need and an obvious interest, for example, on East West Rail.
However, it is issues such as CIL systems, business rate retention and pooling of funds
that pose difficult issues in the two tier system, with government seen as back-tracking on
its professed localism agenda.
Hopes and expectations for ITP
Cherwell hopes that the project will help raise the visibility of the district and highlight what
it can contribute. The group of authorities involved in the project should work together to
exercise more influence within SEMLEP.
74
A6: South Northamptonshire Council Towcester 20th September Present: Sue Smith, Chief Executive, Adrian Colwell, Head of Planning and Economic Development, Hilary Chipping
1. Sue Smith explained that she was in the process of putting in place a new structure
that would effectively combine the two authorities (Cherwell and South Northants)
with joint responsibilities down to Heads of Service level. She explained that Calvin
Bell had been appointed as one of 3 Directors. Heads of service would be
confirmed in the next week or so.
2. Sue mentioned that she was finding that she had to cope with having more than
one contact point in different organisations. For example, in the Homes and
Communities Agency, Cherwell was in their South and South West region whereas
South Northants is part of the South East Midlands and in the Midlands region.
Department for Communities and Local Government has also designated two
different link people for the two districts.
3. Adrian Colwell has subsequently been appointed as Head of Service 7 and will
cover Planning, Economic Development and Transport across the two authorities.
He will sit on the Steering Group for the Transition Project.
4. Adrian explained where South Northants had reached with regard to planning
documents. They were working closely with West Northants Development
Corporation and what is left of the Joint Planning Unit. The Joint Core Strategy,
which had previously been adopted was under review. However there was still a
strong appetite for growth amongst elected members, who understood the
importance of new homes for the economic growth in the area.
5. Growth would be focussed on the two main towns of Towcester and Brackley. The
total housing requirement from 2010 to 2026 is 5,800. This is deliverable taking
account of the supply of land for 3 times the five year periods required to be
considered. Completions between 2001 and 2026 were 2.952 (ie around 253 per
annum).
6. Adrian explained that excellent progress had been made recently working with the
Highways Agency and there was now an agreed strategy in place for delivering the
necessary additional transport capacity to enable the developments at Towcester
and Silverstone to proceed.
7. Adrian provided a number of hard copies of helpful background documents and we
agreed to meet again to discuss these in more detail.
8. Below is a summary of the key statistics from those documents:
75
According to Housing Land Availability Study (April2011), South Northants
Council will not have an up to date Development Plan (whether a Core
Strategy or local plan) until at least 2014. Therefore the need for a robust
Land Supply becomes the only short term mechanism available to the
council as a defence against unsupported developments.
The Council supports the housing figures set out in the Pre-submission Joint
Core Strategy (PSJCS).
The evidence from the PSJCS reflects current lower rate of completions due
to market conditions and mortgage availability. The trajectory therefore
represents an uneven profile of projected housing completions with relatively
lower numbers of completions in the early years of the period up to 2026
increasing in later years.
Towcester – the 2011 Report assumed that a windfall allowance of 50
dwellings would be developed in the Towcester SUE. It is assumed that this
can be increased by 75 dwellings in 2016 – 2017.
Brackley – 250 dwellings would be developed on the Radstone Fields SUE.
It is assumed that this can be increased by 75 dwellings in 2016 – 2017.
Roade – 264 dwellings would be developed on the three sites identified in
the Masterplan. It is assumed that this can be increased by 62 dwellings in
2016/17.
PSJCS sets out a total requirement of 8,340 dwellings for the South
Northants area (excluding the area adjoining Northampton Borough
boundary)
For the purposes of its housing trajectory the PSJCS provides for the
development of the total housing residual requirement from 2010 to 2026.
For this area that is 5,814 dwellings (8,340 minus the number of completions
between 2001 and 2010).
Requirement 2012 to 2026 is 388 dwellings per year or 5,388.
Deliverable supply 1,959 compared to required supply of 2,230 so shortfall of
271.
Number of years supply is1,959/446 =4.39 years.
ITP Team October 2011
76
Annex B: Briefings on Consultations
B1: Local Government Resource review: Proposals for Business Rates Retention
1. This consultation started on 18th July and will conclude on 24th October. The Terms of
Reference for Phase 1 of the Local Government Resource Review were published in
March 2011, focusing on the retention of business rates and council tax benefit
localisation.
2. The underlying principles of the proposals on business rates retention are:
To provide an incentive for local authorities to promote local growth over the long
term;
To reduce local authorities’ dependency upon central government;
To maintain a degree of redistribution of resources to ensure that authorities are still
able to meet the needs of their areas;
To protect businesses from locally-imposed tax increases.
3. This consultation sets out proposals for retention of business rates and takes forward
the implementation of Tax Increment Financing.
4. The government believes that if local authorities are able to retain a significant part of
the business rates generated in their area then this will provide a strong incentive for
them to promote local economic growth.
5. The proposals focus on the distribution of business rate tax revenues. Businesses will
see no difference in the way they pay tax or the way that the tax rate is set. The
revaluation process will also remain unchanged.
6. The intention is to bring forward legislation later in this session with a view to
introducing business rates retention from April 2013.
7. Under these proposals district councils and unitary authorities will continue to bill and
collect business rates. But instead of contributing all business rates into the central
pool and receiving formula grant, some of the business rates would be retained locally.
The baseline level of funding will be set at the start of the system for each authority so
that their budget is equivalent to what it would have been under the current system.
From then on funding would grow if the business rate base in the area grows but could
decline if it declines.
8. County councils will receive a share of business rates revenues from the districts in
their areas, rather than receiving formula grant. Again at the start of the system
baseline funding will be set to provide the equivalent position to the current system.
77
9. The Government believes that a stronger financial incentive is needed to ensure that
local authorities respond to business concerns and promote actively the conditions
that would lead to greater economic growth especially where growth would otherwise
lead to increased costs.
10. The key components of the proposal are as follows:
A baseline will be set in 2013/14 for each local authority within the envelope of the
expenditure controls set out in Spending Review 2010 to ensure that no authority
loses out.
To achieve this fair starting point a tariff or top-up amount will be calculated for each
authority.
In future years a strong incentive would be provided by allowing authorities to retain
a significant proportion of increases in their business rates. Those whose rates
declined or grew at a lower rate would experience lower or negative growth.
To manage the possibility of disproportionate gains for authorities with a high
taxbase there would be a levy. The proceeds of this levy would be used to manage
significant negative volatility.
The system would be adjusted to take account of changes in the distribution of
business rates yield as a result of five yearly revaluations.
There would be an option by Government to reset the system if it was felt that
resources no longer met changing service pressures.
Local authorities, for example those in Local Enterprise Partnerships, or districts
and counties, could choose to form voluntary pools
11. There are then options within these components. Within the tariff and top-up
component it would be possible to update these each year in line with RPI or
alternatively retain their year one cash amounts.
12. To establish the baseline it will be necessary to have an agreed way of measuring
each authority’s business rates income. This could be at a point in time, averaged over
a number of years or with the removal of one-off fluctuations.
13. From the first year all authorities would have the potential to benefit from increases in
their business rates, providing a strong incentive for growth.
14. There are a number of ways in which the levy to recoup a share of disproportionate
financial gains could operate. The first option would be to use a levy based on ‘pence
in the pound’ with the same rate for all authorities, this would not address the impact of
gearing and so those authorities with a high tax base and low need would benefit more
than those with a low tax base and high need. The second option would be to have a
banded approach to a ‘pence in the pound’ levy. The third option would be to create an
individual levy rate for each authority to allow the retention of growth in an equivalent
proportion to its baseline revenue.
78
15. The Government is committed to allowing authorities to retain business rate revenues
from new renewable energy projects.
16. It is proposed that a significant amount of the proceeds of the levy is used to help
manage significant, negative volatility in individual authorities’ business rates. This
volatility can result from appeals and physical changes to properties, which are beyond
an authority’s control, or through sudden changes in local economic circumstances.
17. Also the levy will be used to protect those authorities who are less able to respond to
the incentive and have low growth, where funding levels could reduce to where it
becomes difficult to meet service needs.
18. This safety net could provide a level of short term protection against major drops in
income compared to the previous year to allow time to adjust budgets. Alternatively a
level of longer term protection could be provided where an authority’s rates drop by
more than a certain percentage below its business baseline rates.
19. The Government could decide whether or not to set a fixed period for resets in
advance Also it could decide whether fully or partially to reset the system.
20. Various technical papers will be issued throughout August to provide more details on
options in the following areas:
Establishing the Baseline
Measuring business rates
Dealing with non-billing authorities
Business rates administration
Tariff, top up and levy options
Volatility
Revaluation and transition
Renewable energy.
21. Pooling – groups of local authorities will be encouraged to pool resources across
natural economic geographies. This will include individual tariffs, top-ups and levies.
Pooling could enable groups of local authorities to make additional increases in growth
through collaborative effort by taking advantage of economic efficiencies. If the pool
included members of a Local Enterprise Partnership it could minimise displacement
effects and bring greater alignment between financial incentives and decision making
on local economic development.
22. However, in two tier areas the Government feels that it makes sense for districts to
align with their counties. This is because, when tariffs and top-ups are set, a significant
amount of the business rates collected by the district councils in their area will be
‘assigned’ to them. If a district formed a pool outside its county area, it would still have
to ‘pay’ a fixed proportion of its collected business rates to its county. The consultation
79
proposes that pooling arrangements should not separate a district from its county. This
clearly has implications for the three districts in our Project as they fall within one or
more LEPs as well as their own counties.
23. It is envisaged that the New Homes Bonus will work alongside business rate retention.
Tariffs and top-ups will be set at a level which leaves a sufficient sum aside to fund the
future cost of the New Homes Bonus. In the early years the full sums of £200m and
£250m will not be needed. Any surplus will be returned to local authorities, possibly in
proportion to their baseline positions.
24. Business Rate Supplements will continue to operate, but local businesses will need to
vote on their imposition. This could be a mechanism considered for funding East West
Rail. The Greater London Authority is using it as part of the package of proposals to
fund Crossrail.
25. The previous blockage to Tax Increment Financing will be removed as authorities will
be able to retain part of their business rates. There will still be issues around the
uncertainty of future income streams from growth in business rates. Borrowing for TIF
schemes would fall under the prudential borrowing system allowing local authorities to
borrow for capital projects against predicted increases in business rates, provided that
they can continue to service the borrowing costs out of revenue resources. The
system could operate with no constraints on the number of TIF schemes with
authorities bearing the risks to income, or alternatively there could be government
control on numbers with greater certainty over revenues as they would be protected
from loss of levy or reset process.
26. Enterprise Zones would have a guarantee that their uplift in business rates revenues
would be retained and not taken into account in any reassessment of top-ups and
tariffs.
27. As with all such proposals it will vital to consider the detailed implications form
individual authorities. At present there are no accompanying exemplifications .All
authorities will need to read the technical papers carefully as they come out over the
summer and formulate their responses to the consultation paper, individually and
collectively.
80
B2: Draft National Planning Policy Framework: Summary
Introduction
1 The draft National Planning Policy Framework published in July 2011 replaces over a
thousand pages of national policy with around fifty. It sets out the Government’s
economic, environmental and social planning policies for England.
2 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s requirements for
the planning system only to the extent that that it is relevant, proportionate and
necessary to do so. It provides a Framework within which local people and their
accountable councils can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans,
which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities.
3 The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable
development where this means meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. This involves:
planning for prosperity (an economic role);
planning for people (a social role);
planning for places (an environmental role).
4 A the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan
making and decision taking. Local authorities should plan positively for new
development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible. Local authorities
should:
prepare Local Plans to meet local development needs;
approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay;
grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant
policies are out of date.
5 All of these policies should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing development
would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the
policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
6 All plans should be based on and contain the presumption in favour of sustainable
development as their starting point, with clear policies that will guide how the
presumption will be applied locally.
7 There is a set of core planning principles that should underpin both plan-making and
development management.
Planning should be genuinely plan-led.
81
Planning should proactively drive and support the development that the country
needs.
Decision-takers at every level should assume that the default answer to
development proposals is “yes”, except where this would compromise the key
sustainable development principles set out in the Framework.
Planning policies and decisions should take into account local circumstances and
market signals such as land prices, commercial rents and housing affordability.
In considering the future use of land, planning policies should take account of
environmental quality.
Planning policies should seek to protect and enhance environmental and heritage
assets and reduce pollution.
Planning policies and decisions should make effective use of land and encourage
multiple benefits from the use of land.
Planning policies should enable the reuse of existing resources and encourage the
use of renewable resources.
Planning policies should actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest use
of public transport.
Planning policies should support local strategies to improve health.
Planning policies should seek to encourage a good standard of amenity for existing
and future occupants of land and buildings.
Local Plans
8 Each local planning authority should produce a Local Plan for its area. They should be
aspirational but realistic. Local planning authorities should set strategic priorities to
deliver:
Housing and economic development requirements
The provision of retail, leisure and other commercial development
The provision of infrastructure for transport, minerals, waste, energy, telecoms,
water supply and water quality
The provision of health, security, community infrastructure and other local
facilities
Climate change mitigation and adaptation, protection and enhancement of
natural and historic environment.
9 Local Plans should:
Plan positively for development and infrastructure
Be drawn up over an appropriate timescale, preferably a 15 year time horizon
Indicate broad locations for strategic development
Allocate sites to promote development
Identify areas where it may be necessary to limit freedom to change the use of
buildings
82
Identify land which it is genuinely important to protect from development
Contain a clear strategy for the environmental enhancement of the area.
10 Up-to-date Local plans which are consistent with this Framework, should be in
place as soon as practical. Local planning authorities should have a clear
understanding of housing requirements in their area. They should also work with
neighbouring authorities, counties and Local Enterprise Partnerships to prepare a
robust evidence base to understand existing and future business needs. They should
work with the business community to understand their changing needs.
11 Public bodies have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative
boundaries, particularly those that relate to strategic priorities.
12 The Local Plan will be examined by an independent inspector whose role is to
assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate,
legal and procedural requirements and whether it is sound.
13 Neighbourhood Plans give communities direct power to plan the areas in which they
live. However, the ambition of the neighbourhood should be aligned with the strategic
needs and priorities of the wider local area.
14 The primary objective of Development Management is to foster the delivery of
sustainable development, not to hinder or prevent development. This means that
authorities must approach decisions positively looking for solutions rather than
problems so that applications can be approved wherever it is practical to do so.
Significant weight must be attached to the benefits of economic and housing growth.
15 The planning system is plan-led, so Local Plans are the starting point for the
determination of any planning application, which should apply the presumption in
favour of sustainable development. Local Planning authorities should avoid
unnecessary conditions or obligations, particularly where this would undermine the
viability of development proposals.
16 Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating development, but also
in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Smarter use of
technology can reduce the need to travel. The planning system should support a
pattern of development that facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport.
17 Transport policy should facilitate economic growth, support reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions and congestion and promote accessibility through
planning for the location and mix of development.
18 All developments that generate significant amounts of movement, as determined by
local criteria, should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport
Assessment. Planning policies should consider whether:
83
The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up
Safe and suitable access can be achieved for all people
Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively
limit the significant impacts of the development.
19 Development should not be prevented or refused on transport grounds unless
the residual impacts of development are severe, and the need to encourage increased
delivery of homes and sustainable economic development should be taken into
account.
20 In preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should support the expansion of
the electronic communications networks, including telecommunications and high
speed broadband.
21 The Government’s key housing objective is to increase significantly the delivery of new
homes. Everyone should have the opportunity to live in high quality, well designed
homes, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. This means:
Increasing the supply of housing
Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes that people want and need
Widening opportunities for home ownership
Creating sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, including through
regeneration and renewal of areas of poor housing.
22 To boost the supply of housing, local planning authorities should use an evidence base
to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full requirements for market and
affordable housing in the housing market area, including identifying key sites which
are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period. They should
identify and maintain a rolling supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to
provide five years’ worth of housing taking account of housing requirements
including an additional allowance of 20% to ensure choice and competition in the
market for land. They should identify a supply of developable sites for 6 to 10 and
where possible 10 to 15 years and not make allowance for windfall sites in the first 10
years of supply.
23 The Government’s objective is to create strong, vibrant and healthy communities,
by creating a good quality built environment, with accessible local services that
reflect community needs and support wellbeing.
84
Annex C: Maps
C1: Housing growth areas with South East Midland transport routes and proposed
East West Rail scheme
85
Annex D1: Population and Housing Data
Projected completion 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 Totals
1233 1101 1232 916 719 555 423 339 330 330 158 0 0 0 0 7,336
500 648 938 1122 1118 845 420 75 75 75 78 25 25 25 8 5,977
679 555 701 789 607 463 473 486 407 484 532 493 393 423 342 373 359 390 384 270 9,603
1635 1476 1810 2128 2183 2046 2082 1754 1559 1874 1971 1735 1091 1059 936 25,338
220 220 450 530 575 696 665 765 780 734 559 504 504 349 343 7,894
Totals 4267 4000 5131 5485 5202 4605 4063 3419 3151 3497 3298 2757 2013 1856 1629 373 359 390 384 270 56,148
Cumulative totals 4267 8267 13398 18883 24085 28690 32753 36172 39322 42819 46117 48874 50887 52743 54372 54745 55104 55494 55878 56148
Dacorum Housing Land Availability Paper July 2011(option 2); MKC ID4 - Housing trajectories 2011/12.xls; AVDCHousingMar11DistrictWithSEP.xls; CDC Housing & Land Supply Position (FEB 2011 & JUNE 2011); W Northants JCS 2011
Core strategy reviews 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 Totals
765 765 765 765 765 765 765 765 765 765 765 765 765 765 765 765 765 765 765 765 15,300
850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 12,750
430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 8,600
Pop growth p.a. (ONS) 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 Totals
1100 1100 1100 1100 1200 1200 1100 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1100 1100 1000 1100 1100 1000 22,700
1100 1000 1000 1100 1000 1100 1100 1000 1100 1200 1100 1100 1000 1000 1000 1000 900 1000 900 900 20,600
700 600 700 800 700 800 700 900 800 900 900 900 900 900 900 800 800 800 800 900 16,200
3300 3400 3300 3300 3200 3200 3200 3200 3200 3100 3100 2900 2800 2800 2700 2600 2400 2500 2400 2400 59,000
1100 1100 1100 1000 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1200 1100 1100 1000 1100 1000 1000 900 900 900 900 20,900
Totals 7300 7200 7200 7300 7200 7400 7200 7400 7400 7600 7400 7200 6900 7000 6700 6500 6000 6300 6100 6100 139,400
Cumulative totals 7300 14500 21700 29000 36200 43600 50800 58200 65600 73200 80600 87800 94700 101700 108400 114900 120900 127200 133300 139400
Household growth 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 Totals
600 600 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 667 667 667 1000 1000 600 600 600 15,001
800 800 600 600 600 600 600 800 800 800 800 800 667 667 667 500 500 600 600 600 13,401
600 600 400 400 400 400 400 600 600 600 600 600 667 667 667 500 500 400 400 400 10,401
1600 1600 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1333 1333 1333 1500 1500 1400 1400 1400 31,399
600 600 600 600 600 600 600 400 400 400 400 400 667 667 667 500 500 400 400 400 10,401
Totals 4200 4200 4200 4200 4200 4200 4200 4200 4200 4200 4200 4200 4001 4001 4001 4000 4000 3400 3400 3400 80,603
Cumulative totals 4200 8400 12600 16800 21000 25200 29400 33600 37800 42000 46200 50400 54401 58402 62403 66403 70403 73803 77203 80603
2008-26 Increase in households (DCLG, annualised)
Household increase and projected completions: cumulative difference
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 Totals
633 1134 1566 1682 1601 1356 979 518 48 -422 -1064 -1864 -2531 -3198 -3865
-300 -452 -114 408 926 1171 991 266 -459 -1184 -1906 -2681 -3323 -3965 -4624
79 34 335 724 931 994 1067 953 760 644 576 469 195 -49 -374 -501 -642 -652 -668 -798
35 -89 -79 249 632 878 1160 1314 1272 1546 1917 2052 1810 1536 1139
-380 -760 -910 -980 -1005 -909 -844 -479 -99 235 394 498 335 17 -307
Cumulative totals 67 -133 798 2083 3085 3490 3353 2572 1522 819 -83 -1526 -3514 -5659 -8031
Core strategy reviews 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 Totals
165 330 295 260 225 190 155 120 85 50 15 -20 78 176 274
50 100 350 600 850 1100 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1783 1966 2149
-170 -340 -310 -280 -250 -220 -190 -360 -530 -700 -870 -1040 -1277 -1514 -1751 -1821 -1891 -1861 -1831 -1801
35 -89 -79 249 632 878 1160 1313.5 1272 1546 1917 2052 1810 1536 1139
-380 -760 -910 -980 -1005 -909 -844 -479 -99 235 394 498 335 17 -307
Cumulative totals -300 -759 -654 -151 452 1039 1631 1995 2178 2631 3006 3090 2729 2181 1504
Milton Keynes
South Northants
Dacorum (draft CS)
AVDC(draft VofA plan)
Cherwell (draft CS)
AVDC
Cherwell
Dacorum
Milton Keynes
South Northants
Cherwell
Dacorum
Milton Keynes
South Northants
AVDC
Cherwell
Dacorum
Milton Keynes
South Northants
AVDC
AVDC(draft VofA plan)
Cherwell (draft CS)
Dacorum (draft CS)
AVDC
Cherwell
Dacorum
Milton Keynes
South Northants
86
Annex D2: New Homes Bonus Estimates
Aylesbury Vale
completions 755 1233 1101 1232 916 719 555
£1,439 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Totals
Year 1 1,086,445.00£ 1,086,445£ 1,086,445£ 1,086,445£ 1,086,445£ 1,086,445£ 6,518,670£
Year 2 1,774,287£ 1,774,287£ 1,774,287£ 1,774,287£ 1,774,287£ 1,774,287£ 10,645,722£
Year 3 1,584,339£ 1,584,339£ 1,584,339£ 1,584,339£ 1,584,339£ 7,921,695£
Year 4 1,772,848£ 1,772,848£ 1,772,848£ 1,772,848£ 7,091,392£
Year 5 1,318,124£ 1,318,124£ 1,318,124£ 3,954,372£
Year 6 1,034,641£ 1,034,641£ 2,069,282£
Year 7 798,645£ 798,645£
Totals 1,086,445£ 2,860,732£ 4,445,071£ 6,217,919£ 7,536,043£ 8,570,684£ 8,282,884£ 38,999,778£
Cherwell
completions 172 500 648 938 1122 1118 845
£1,439 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Totals
Year 1 247,508.00£ 247,508£ 247,508£ 247,508£ 247,508£ 247,508£ 1,485,048£
Year 2 719,500£ 719,500£ 719,500£ 719,500£ 719,500£ 719,500£ 4,317,000£
Year 3 932,472£ 932,472£ 932,472£ 932,472£ 932,472£ 4,662,360£
Year 4 1,349,782£ 1,349,782£ 1,349,782£ 1,349,782£ 5,399,128£
Year 5 1,614,558£ 1,614,558£ 1,614,558£ 4,843,674£
Year 6 1,608,802£ 1,608,802£ 3,217,604£
Year 7 1,215,955£ 1,215,955£
Totals 247,508£ 967,008£ 1,899,480£ 3,249,262£ 4,863,820£ 6,472,622£ 7,441,069£ 25,140,769£
Dacorum
completions 230 679 555 701 789 607 463
£1,439 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Totals
Year 1 330,970.00£ 330,970£ 330,970£ 330,970£ 330,970£ 330,970£ 1,985,820£
Year 2 977,081£ 977,081£ 977,081£ 977,081£ 977,081£ 977,081£ 5,862,486£
Year 3 798,645£ 798,645£ 798,645£ 798,645£ 798,645£ 3,993,225£
Year 4 1,008,739£ 1,008,739£ 1,008,739£ 1,008,739£ 4,034,956£
Year 5 1,135,371£ 1,135,371£ 1,135,371£ 3,406,113£
Year 6 873,473£ 873,473£ 1,746,946£
Year 7 666,257£ 666,257£
Totals 330,970£ 1,308,051£ 2,106,696£ 3,115,435£ 4,250,806£ 5,124,279£ 5,459,566£ 21,695,803£
Milton Keynes
completions 1306 1635 1476 1810 2128 2183 2046
£1,439 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Totals
Year 1 1,879,334.00£ 1,879,334£ 1,879,334£ 1,879,334£ 1,879,334£ 1,879,334£ 11,276,004£
Year 2 2,352,765£ 2,352,765£ 2,352,765£ 2,352,765£ 2,352,765£ 2,352,765£ 14,116,590£
Year 3 2,123,964£ 2,123,964£ 2,123,964£ 2,123,964£ 2,123,964£ 10,619,820£
Year 4 2,604,590£ 2,604,590£ 2,604,590£ 2,604,590£ 10,418,360£
Year 5 3,062,192£ 3,062,192£ 3,062,192£ 9,186,576£
Year 6 3,141,337£ 3,141,337£ 6,282,674£
Year 7 2,944,194£ 2,944,194£
Totals 1,879,334£ 4,232,099£ 6,356,063£ 8,960,653£ 12,022,845£ 15,164,182£ 16,229,042£ 64,844,218£
South Northants
completions 160 220 220 450 530 575 696
£1,439 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Totals
Year 1 230,240.00£ 230,240£ 230,240£ 230,240£ 230,240£ 230,240£ 1,381,440£
Year 2 316,580£ 316,580£ 316,580£ 316,580£ 316,580£ 316,580£ 1,899,480£
Year 3 316,580£ 316,580£ 316,580£ 316,580£ 316,580£ 1,582,900£
Year 4 647,550£ 647,550£ 647,550£ 647,550£ 2,590,200£
Year 5 762,670£ 762,670£ 762,670£ 2,288,010£
Year 6 827,425£ 827,425£ 1,654,850£
Year 7 1,001,544£ 1,001,544£
Totals 230,240£ 546,820£ 863,400£ 1,510,950£ 2,273,620£ 3,101,045£ 3,872,349£ 12,398,424£
global total 163,078,992£
87
Annex E: Infrastructure Transition Work Plan &Timeline
Meeting schedule
Jun 2011 Jul 2011 Aug 2011 Sept 2011 Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Feb 2012 Mar 2012
Steering group 23 19 TBA TBA
Project group 27 12 16 13 11 15 13 10 14 13
AVDC info mtg 11
MKC info mtg 27
DBC info mtg 17
CDC info mtg 23
Bedford EWR mtg 30
Oxford EWR mtg 8
Bucks CC EWR
mtg
28
EWR Board 15 10
Developers
Forum
21
Activities undertake and to be completed include:
First meeting of Project Steering Group June 2011
Arrange initial meetings and commence information gathering July 2011
Prepare paper to update Aylesbury Vale Advantage Board August 2011
Produce First Interim Report September 2011
Arrange second meeting of Project Steering Group October 2011
Collect information on CIL and infrastructure requirements November 2011
Provide update to East West Rail Project Board November 2011
Produce Second Interim Report December 2011
Arrange third meeting of Project Steering Group January 2012
Prepare and give presentations of findings February 2012
Produce Final Report including Action Plan March 2012
Present the Final Report to Project Steering Group March 2012
