Towns: Financial Viability Study of The Eco-Towns Programme

eco-towns
Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme
eco-towns
Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme
March 2009 Department for Communities and Local Government
Important notice This report is being published by Communities and Local Government (the Department) to inform its consideration of whether the locations listed have the potential to support a viable eco-town scheme. The financial assessments set out in Section 3 of the report have been carried out by the Departments advisers (as set-out in Appendix A) in accordance with the terms of their engagement. The financial assessments in Section 4 of the report which relate to the schemes submitted as alternatives in the course of the Sustainability Appraisal are those submitted by the schemes themselves. The assessments presented in Section 4 have not been subject to review or verification by the Departments advisers. The Departments advisers do not accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any other purpose or to any person other than the Department in relation to the work they performed under this engagement. Much of the content of this report is based on information provided by scheme promoters to the Department and its advisers and as such is the promoters property. It should be noted that the assessment undertaken may be based on additional or more detailed information than is contained in this report. This report and the assessment presented herein are not to be used as the basis for investment decisions by any party. A further technical report will be published in the next few months with detail on the assumptions and methodology used in Sections 1-3 of the study. This will not affect the substance of the material presented. Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk Crown Copyright, 2009 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. If you require this publication in an alternative format please email alternativeformats@communities.gsi.gov.uk Communities and Local Government Publications PO Box 236 Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7NB Tel: 03 0 0123 1124 Fax: 030 0123 1125 Email: communities@capita.co.uk Online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk March 2009 Reference No: 08 SCG 05738 ISBN: 978-1-4098-1101-5
Contents 3
Contents
Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Project overview 1.2 The Departmental context and project limitations 1.3 The Departments advisers 1.4 Structure of the report 1.5 Consultation arrangements Section 2 Overview of interim site assessments 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Technical provision for site issues and infrastructure 2.3 Ability to meet draft PPS standards 2.4 Outline financial assessment Section 3 Individual site assessments 3.1 Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire 3.2 Ford Airfield, West Sussex 3.3 Whitehill Bordon, Hampshire 3.4 Pennbury, Leicestershire 3.5 St Austell China Clay Community, Cornwall 3.6 Rossington, South Yorkshire 3.7 Middle Quinton, Warwickshire 3.8 North East Elsenham, Essex Section 4 Individual site assessments of SA alternative schemes 4.1 North West Bicester (Cherwell), Oxon 4.2 Rackheath, Norwich 4.3 Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire Section 5 Next steps 4 4 4 5 5 6 9 9 11 11 12 18 18 28 36 46 54 65 74 82 90 90 103 110 118 119 121 126 276
Appendix A: Further details of the Departments advisers for this assessment Appendix B: Key issues, assumptions and limitations Appendix C: Draft Heads of Terms Template Glossary The results presented in this assessment should be treated with caution. The reliability of conclusions to be drawn from data provided at an early stage of the development cycle, and projected over 30 years, is necessarily, limited.
4 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Project overview
Sections 1 3 of this report provide an overview of the findings of the assessments of the submissions made by the promoters of the following eco-town schemes up to 19 December 2008 (the Cut-Off Date): Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire Ford Airfield, West Sussex Whitehill Bordon, Hampshire Pennbury, Leicestershire St Austell China Clay Community, Cornwall Rossington, South Yorkshire Middle Quinton, Warwickshire North East Elsenham, Essex Each of the promoters submissions was reviewed on a consistent basis from a development, technical and financial perspective. The cost data used in this report and its assessment have not been subject to formal appraisal by Government or its Agencies. In addition, a number of further proposals have come forward subsequently in response to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and could not be included in the external review and assessment process described here. However available information on these schemes is set out as far as possible on a comparable basis in Section 4. Other schemes may exist which the Department is not aware of and may come forward in future local and regional plans as envisaged in the draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS).
1.2 The Departmental context and project limitations

The purpose of this project has been to provide a financial assessment of potential ecotown locations as an input to the Stage 2 consultation ahead of decisions by Ministers on the PPS and programme, using the evidence that is currently available. However at this early stage in the development of proposals of this type extreme care is needed in the interpretation of the assessments outcomes. There are three major areas of qualification:
Section 1 Introduction 5
i.
The outcomes are sensitive to the assumptions, in particular on land values and future sales over a 30 year period;
ii. Government and its Agencies have not endorsed the costs of new and unplanned infrastructure and its deliverability. For large schemes involving major new infrastructure substantial further work will be required and this is a significant consideration; iii. The assessments of the SA alternative projects in Section 4 have been carried out individually using different assumptions and cannot be compared directly to those in Section 2. Accordingly in the Departments view these assessments should not be used in any sense of pass/fail but to assist in the consideration of the deliverability and affordability of developing eco towns at the potential locations.
1.3 The Departments advisers

The assessments (other than those in Section 4) were carried out by a team of advisers led by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), which includes: (see also Appendix A for further details): Real estate, development economics and financial modelling assessment inputs from DTZ Engineering, utilities and environmental assessment inputs from Buro Happold (BH) Building and infrastructure cost assessment inputs from Davis Langdon (DL) Draft Section 106 (s106) Heads of Terms and related planning inputs from DentonWildeSapte (DWS)
1.4 Structure of the report

The remainder of this report is structured as follows: Section 2.1 provides a summary of the different components to the outline assessment Section 2.2 provides an overview of the assessment of the technical provision for site development issues and provision of infrastructure Section 2.3 provides an overview of the assessment of the provision to meet the standards for eco-towns as set out in the draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) Section 2.4 provides an overview of the outputs from the outline financial assessment
Section 3 provides details of individual assessments undertaken for each of the proposed schemes Section 4 provides details of the assessments undertaken for each of the schemes brought forward as alternative locations as part of the Sustainability Appraisal Section 5 outlines the next steps for the assessment process Appendix A provides a summary of the advisers supporting the Department Appendix B provides a breakdown of key issues and assumptions underpinning the assessment Appendix C provides an overview of the draft s106 heads of terms for schemes where available.
1.5 Consultation arrangements

This report supports the current round of consultation on the eco-towns programme, which was launched on 4 November 2008 with publication of the following documents: Draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) This provides further detail on the proposed planning process for eco-towns, with detail on the high standards that an eco-town application would need to meet in order to be approved through the planning system. We are seeking peoples views directly on the standards proposed in the draft PPS and have set out a number of key consultation questions for respondents to consider. A final PPS is due to be published alongside the final list of prospective locations later in 2009. Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) This is an evidence based suite of documents undertaken by Scott Wilson for Communities and Local Government which set out the strengths and weaknesses of the programme and the locations being considered. Undertaken at a strategic level, it is necessarily broad in its assessment, conclusions, and recommendations. The SA should be read in four parts: 1) The SA of the PPS 2) The SA of the Programme Introduction 3) The SA of the Programme Locational chapters 4) The SA of the Programme Conclusions
Section 1 Introduction 7
The sections above are accompanied by a Non-Technical Summary which summarises the findings of the SA and HRA of the draft Eco-Towns PPS and Programme. Impact Assessment This assesses the likely costs, benefits and impacts of the eco-towns planning policy statement. The Impact Assessment will be updated and published alongside the final PPS. The financial viability study is intended to advise on whether, on the basis of an initial high level assessment, an eco-town could be economically viable in the locations listed. The study is primarily about the viability of the location. The particular scheme put forward is considered because it helps illustrate whether that location could be viable. Comments are invited on the information presented, in particular on the following questions: Do you consider that as a high level strategic assessment this study has identified the main issues affecting viability? Are there major areas of cost or infrastructure provision and funding or other issues affecting financial viability which are not identified and could be considered at this stage? Are you aware of evidence which would lead you to different conclusions to those set out here? For example, where the assessment shows a negative financial outcome are there additional public policy reasons (e.g. regeneration or site restoration) which would justify an alternative approach? Responses to the financial viability study and wider documentation are invited by 30 April 2009 and should be sent to: Eco-towns Team Communities and Local Government Housing and Growth Programmes Division Zone 2/G9 Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Fax: 020 7944 3949 Or by email: ecotowns@communities.gov.uk It would be helpful if responses from representative groups could give a summary of the people and organisations they represent.
A summary of responses to this consultation will be published later this year on the Communities and Local Government website. Paper copies will be available on request. All responses will be made public unless confidentially is specifically asked for. It would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. Please note that further information is available for the locations listed in this report through promoter and local authority websites, for example local impact studies. Details of how to find these are included at the end of each location assessment. Further details on the consultation process and how to respond are set out at the Communities and Local Government website at www.communities.gov.uk/ecotowns. If you would like further information on any of the above or hard copies of documents where necessary please contact the Eco-towns Team at Zone 2/G9, Eland House, London, SW1E 5DU or by email to: ecotowns@communities.gsi.gov.uk.
Section 2 Overview of interim site assessments 9
Section 2
Overview of interim site assessments
2.1 Introduction
Much of the content of this report is based on information provided to the Department by scheme promoters and as such is the promoters property. Each promoter has approved the inclusion of this information to help facilitate communication with key stakeholders. Elements of the information provided to the Department by the promoters were considered by them to be commercially confidential and at their request have been excluded from this report. Such information is indicated as redacted or summarised at the promoters request. This report is also a summary of the assessments completed and therefore the conclusions drawn from the assessment may, as a result, be based in part on additional or more detailed information than is presented. The assessment of the proposed schemes has been undertaken in order to inform the Department of the potential for an eco-town to be viably delivered over the medium to long-term in the proposed location drawing on the evidence of scheme proposals and the inherent technical, commercial and financial implications and challenges. It is recognised that, given the scale, complexity and longevity of the schemes under review, and the relatively early stage in their development, the conclusions reached can only be viewed as indicative and are likely to be subject to change as promoters further develop their schemes in light of additional investigation and analysis and consultation and engagement with relevant Local Planning Authorities (LPAs). The assessment of whether a scheme, as defined by the promoter at December 2008, is potentially viable includes consideration of whether the scheme has reasonable potential to deliver, albeit with a range of risks and uncertainties, the higher sustainability standards expected of an eco-town without requiring significant additional public subsidy. This means that the scheme proposed has the potential to generate sufficient revenue over the development lifecycle to cover the costs associated with its delivery, including those costs related to delivering the higher environmental standards required for eco-towns, without needing to rely on public funds beyond those that would normally be available to support the proposed development. Those elements of the proposed scheme which have the potential to be delivered by the use of obligations made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (s106) have been distilled in a draft form within a standard template. The purpose of the template is to provide further clarity on the proposal and to act as a sense check that the promoter, in its financial assessment, has made sufficient allowances for what, while
recognising that the fact that scheme proposals are generally at an early stage, could reasonably be expected to be provided under s106. This information is also expected to aid further consideration by the relevant LPAs. The template referred to as the draft s106 Heads of Terms (s106 HoTs) is attached separately in Appendix C. We emphasise that the purpose of the template is not to pre-empt the normal development control processes and associated negotiations. The Department recognises that LPAs will wish to carry out their own assessment and determination of planning applications (including the accompanying Environmental Statement (ES)) and secure appropriate s106 obligations through the normal process of dialogue and negotiations with promoters and other stakeholders. Accordingly, neither the Department nor its advisers have taken a view on whether the s106 offer set out in the draft s106 HoTs is likely to be satisfactory in planning terms. Indeed, at this stage, prior to any planning application, the list of matters to be considered can only be identified at a high-level and it is likely to be subject to change at a future date. Nevertheless, a high-level assessment has been made of the potential for the scheme, as currently proposed, to meet the higher sustainability standards that will be expected for eco-town developments (with reference to the current draft eco-towns PPS). It is appreciated and anticipated that the promoter will continue to develop the scheme beyond the assessment phase, through consultation with the relevant LPAs and others. The draft s106 HoTs template is therefore only indicative (as are the associated costs that would be incurred in its delivery). Both the draft s106 Heads of Terms templates and the cost allocated to their delivery (where such elements can be costed) are based on a complex range of assumptions, many of which are currently highly uncertain, that will be further clarified as the promoter works up its outline planning application. As the precise nature of those elements of the development proposals to be secured by s106 become more certain it will be the responsibility of the promoter and the responsible public sector counterparties to assess in more detail the timing and impact of the scheme and the need for specific additional infrastructure or other impact mitigation measures. The draft s106 HoTs are designed to be used as a base-line reference for further refinement of these obligations. They are living documents that will change and develop through the development control process. The draft PPS sets out the planning process for eco-towns, and confirms the Government is committed to the plan-led system. Eco-towns will be considered in the same was as any other development and all eco-towns will be the subject of a planning application, to be considered by the relevant LPAs. This financial and technical assessment is, therefore, intended only to provide the Department with initial guidance on whether current scheme proposals for locations identified in the PPS have the technical and financial potential to be viable and deliverable. Whilst the potential for schemes to meet the draft PPS standards has been assessed this exercise is not designed to circumvent the normal planning process or to aid LPAs in their determination of any future planning application. Neither should any part of this assessment be used by promoters to make investment decisions.
When promoters have refined their schemes to a point where they are ready to make a planning application, the relevant agencies will request the promoters to provide them with the required financial or technical information to assist in assessing proposals. LPAs may request this process to be carried out on an open book basis. In accordance with the final PPS, and other relevant development controls and guidance (including the Local Development Framework), the LPA would be required to make a determination as to whether or not the proposed eco-town scheme should be permitted. The performance of the scheme against criteria set out in the draft PPS is one of the factors the LPA will need to consider.
2.2 Technical provision for site issues and infrastructure

The schemes have also been reviewed by the Departments advisers as to the extent of their provision for site development issues and provision of infrastructure including transport, utilities, drainage, flood risk and other environmental issues. The purpose of the exercise is (a) to check that material costs have been included for the purposes of the viability assessment and (b) to indicate the potential technical deliverability of the scheme proposals and areas where further work would likely be needed for the scheme to meet the eco-town planning requirements. Where gaps in infrastructure provision or site issues were identified the potential impact on scheme costs was considered and an estimate made of the potential cost implications. The results of these reviews, along with assumptions submitted with promoters proposals, were then used to guide the generation of a set of high-level cost assumptions for use in the financial assessment.
2.3 Ability to meet draft PPS standards

The context and costings of each scheme have been reviewed by the Departments advisers in terms of whether the scheme has made provision to meet the draft PPS standards (which are currently being consulted on), while also taking into account the potential to address, through appropriate mitigation, those issues identified in the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment published in November 2008, as both of these are likely to have a significant bearing on scheme costs. The Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment can be found at www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingsupply/ecotowns. The purpose of the exercise is to check that key infrastructure and related cost estimates have been identified and included for the purposes of the overall viability assessment, while also indicating the potential of the scheme to achieve the standard set out in the draft PPS. It was recognised that whilst at this time it was possible to test some aspects of scheme proposals against the draft PPS, it was premature for others given the early stage in the
development of promoters proposals. Thus, this assessment relates only to the following categories detailed in part two of the draft PPS: zero carbon climate change adaptation homes employment transport local services green infrastructure biodiversity water ood risk management and fl waste
It will be a matter for the relevant LPAs, in the event of any planning application, to decide whether the scheme meets the final PPS standards.
2.4 Outline financial assessment

2.4.1 Overview of the outline financial assessment of promoters proposals
A high-level assessment of the potential viability was completed for each of the promoters schemes, the main elements of each are summarised in Section 3. The definition of the term potential viability in the outline financial assessment has been set out by the Department and refers to the potential for a scheme to generate sufficient value to cover the costs of development without placing undue risk on the public finances. The assessment has not been based on an independently generated set of assumptions for the promoters scheme, neither is it an independent valuation of the site as an eco-town. Rather, it is an independent high-level review and evaluation of the financial material and related underlying assumptions provided to the Department in order to test, where possible, the reasonableness of key assumptions made by the promoter in preparing their initial financial appraisal of the scheme. Where promoters have provided assumptions, their reasonableness has been tested based on industry standards and benchmark data. Where gaps or major differences in the assumptions underpinning a promoters financial submission have been identified, an attempt has been made to quantify the potential financial implications of these gaps by making reference to benchmark or other relevant comparable data where this exists, together with national policy guidance and standards. In attempting to quantify these gaps to aid understanding of the financial implications for the proposed schemes no specific detailed investigations or work such as, for example, engineering studies have been carried out, and therefore any gap analysis used should not be assumed to represent precise estimates. The role of such alternative assumptions is to ensure that, where a promoter did not provide assumptions needed to complete an assessment, an estimate of potential cost and/or revenue implications was made to enable an overview financial assessment to be carried out. The fact that this approach was necessary highlights once again the early stage of development that some scheme proposals are currently at. Following the submission of financial information, meetings were held, where possible, with the promoter to ensure that the assumptions were understood and to give each promoter the opportunity to reconcile gaps or differences identified in the assessment.
The aim of the outline financial assessment is to test the potential financial viability of promoters proposals in order to provide guidance to Ministers that the high standards expected from eco-towns can be met without undue risk to the public finances. In other words, is there a potential for proposed schemes to pay for and deliver the scheme requirements from development value and other funding sources? In carrying out the assessment a number of assumptions relating to house price values, build costs and inflation rates over the assessment period have been used. Due to the current unprecedented turmoil in the housing market, predicting future values and house price inflation as well as build costs is extremely problematic. In particular it is difficult to predict when the markets will recover and how quickly prices and development margins will rise again to those seen in recent years. The Departments advisers have used market assumptions in the Base Case that could be viewed as optimistic, in that the assessment has assumed a relatively strong recovery in house prices to (pre-2007 levels) by 2011. This optimism has been tempered by the use of a low 2.5 per cent per annum average long-term real estate price inflation assumption, the same value as the assumption for general inflation allowing no real growth in property values over the assessment period (compared to a trend real house price inflation rate over the 20 years prior to 2007 of a little over 4 per cent per annum). In addition the assessment also assumes inflation of 2.5 per cent per average annum on build costs whilst recognising that the likelihood is that costs would fall in relation to lower house prices and demand if the market does not recover. The Departments advisers emphasise that should house prices and housing demand not recover in the medium to long-term then this would have a significant negative impact on the viability of eco-town proposals as would be the case for any large scale housing-led development. The purpose of this assessment is, however, to judge the potential viability of eco-towns in the longer term. The assessment involves scoring the financial elements of promoters proposals based on whether or not the outline financial assessment indicates that, based on the assumptions used, there is a reasonable potential for development proposals to generate sufficient cashable surpluses from property sales to cover the cost of on-site development as well as allowances made for off-site infrastructure and other s106 obligations that are assumed to arise (e.g. new schools etc) as a result of the scheme. The assessment for each scheme involves constructing illustrative financial projections to estimate the potential development surpluses (expressed in 2008 prices) that may be generated up to a 30 year time horizon based on a series of cost and revenue assumptions related to promoters proposals for the site. Key assumptions and risks are also tested by sensitivity analyses. Whilst the outline financial assessment involves the calculation of potential development surpluses and other potential financial outputs, it is not, nor is it intended to be, a property or land valuation or detailed due diligence on the viability of proposed schemes.
The results of the outline financial assessment are presented in 2008 prices on an undiscounted and a discounted basis1. This is the sum over a 30 year planning horizon of the potential net surplus cash flows (before tax) that arise in each year after deducting the projected flow of costs (including allowances for s106 obligations, financing and profit) from the projected flow of revenues based on the Assumptions applicable for that year. As noted above, the Assumptions used in the assessment have been discussed and where possible agreed with the promoter. These assumptions form the Base Case Assumptions, whereby the complexity, scale and longevity of the proposals and the inherent uncertainties involved are expressed as a range. An overall positive outcome would indicate the projected potential flow of revenues exceed the projected flow of costs (in 2008 prices). Where this occurs, we consider it reasonable to assume that, so long as all other elements of the scheme progress as planned, the scheme has the potential to be viable. The higher the positive outcome of the assessment, the more likely the scheme is to be viable; while the lower the positive outcome (or values close to zero) the less potentially viable the scheme could be considered to be. We recognise that promoters would not initiate proposed development schemes unless and until they have completed their development appraisals and reached a commercial view on the viability of the scheme. Therefore, in these latter cases, a low or marginal outcome does not mean that the scheme could not be viable; it means that the promoters will most likely need to engage in further work to optimise or value engineer their scheme to improve its viability. An assessment that indicates the potential for a large negative outcome raises questions over a proposed schemes viability. In such cases, the implication is that promoters may need to rely upon sources of funds other than those generated from the development (i.e. funds not generated from property sales or other projected revenues) to make the scheme viable. Such other funding sources would generally include public funds, both local and national government, and any specific funds from, for example, the European Commission, that promoters could reasonably anticipate. There may be a case, for example, where a site includes or adjoins an area of regeneration priority, or where a brownfield site requires remediation and restoration and significant additional public subsidy should be considered. It is not in the scope of this assessment to test the availability of any alternative sources of finance, although some evidence has been provided by scheme promoters to suggest that financial support or contributions from both public and private sources might be available to some schemes. Further work would be needed to assess whether these sources are credible and deliverable as additional sources of funds. In cases where the assessment indicates a significant negative outcome and the promoter is unable, at this point in time to demonstrate credible and deliverable sources of funding of sufficient scale to address the gap, the assessment would conclude that further work is needed to investigate whether an eco-town could be delivered in the proposed location.
1
The discounted basis is a net present value calculation of the projected nominal pre-financing and tax cash flows, discounted using a standard discount rate. The same standard discount rate is applied to all sites. The volatility of the results to changing the level of the discount rate is to be tested as part of the sensitivity testing.
In addition to the core assessment, a number of sensitivity tests have been carried out to demonstrate the implications of varying some key common assumptions (in particular around housing market conditions). The conclusions for this part of the assessment are defined as follows. Definitions The financial assessment indicates that the development proposal in its current formulation has the potential to generate sufficient value to cover the direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme without recourse to public subsidy over and above existing public sector funding sources (e.g. social housing grant). The proposal has potential to generate a surplus (contingency) over and above the estimated direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme. The financial assessment indicates that the development proposal in its current formulation has the potential to generate sufficient value to cover the majority of the direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme. Some public subsidy may be required but credible sources have been identified (so not likely to represent additional public funds) and/or scheme viability could be improved through modest revisions to the development proposal. The financial assessment indicates that the development proposal in its current formulation only has the potential to generate sufficient value to cover some of the direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme. For the scheme to be viable it is likely to need some form of public subsidy (over and above that already allocated by public sector spending plans and/or normally available to enable development of this kind) to meet the direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme. At this time there is insufficient evidence on the nature and availability of sources of funds needed to address the funding gap. Further work required to investigate whether an eco-town could be delivered in this location.
2.4.2 Uncertainties
The emphasis of this assessment is on potential because of the large degree of uncertainty involved in assessing the flow of costs and revenues over long timescales and at this early stage in the development process (well in advance of a planning application). The main uncertainties, which are common to all schemes, are: Local Market Conditions levels of house prices, absorption rates and price inflation/deflation. National Market Conditions financial conditions for house builders and developers, availability, quantum and pricing of funds from financial institutions, availability and pricing of mortgages, and general investment sentiment. Cost inflation levels of scheme costs relative to today to achieve the required CSH standards and to deliver the rest of the essential investments and future inflation trends.
Uncertainty over infrastructure and utility reinforcement timing and costs at this very early stage in the development process (well in advance of any planning application). Uncertainties as to the deliverability and economic viability of some proposed revenue generating eco-infrastructure (for example around renewable energy provision) at this stage in the development and business planning process (well in advance of any planning application and/or final funding or commercial agreements being in place to demonstrate deliverability and viability). Extent of social infrastructure investment needed to offset the impact of the scheme (the assessment of the impact of schemes on education, health and other social infrastructure is at a very early stage and more work is required in the planning phase by promoters and the relevant authorities to assess and agree appropriate provision, the related cost and delivery responsibility). Additional uncertainty is introduced for complex schemes or where a promoter has not been able to provide sufficient information in their submissions to meet the requirements of this assessment, and, as a result, alternative assumptions have been generated in order to aid the assessment. As noted, where such assumptions are required, they have not been based upon any specific detailed investigations or analysis and should not be assumed to be precise estimates. In order to reflect such uncertainties, all outputs from the viability assessment are presented as ranges. The main assumptions underlying the analysis are set out in the next sub-section.
2.4.3 Key common assumptions

The main assumptions underlying the outline financial assessment for all schemes are as follows: GDP/RPI House price/cost inflation Treatment of revenue generating ecofacilities Average 2.5 per cent pa over the 30 year assessment period. Both price and cost inflation are assumed to move in line and average 2.5 per cent pa over the 30 year assessment period. Many of the promoters are proposing to include some form of heat or power generation in their proposal; and would generate revenues from these facilities most promoters are proposing to either allow a third party or an Energy Service Company (ESCo) or a Multi Utility Service Company (MUSCo) to design, build, finance and operate these facilities. Therefore, in these cases these facilities are assumed to be at no-cost cost to the scheme. The Base Case assumption is that 100 per cent of the capital cost of such facilities is paid for by others and that the scheme receives no additional revenue on top of this. A value less than 100 per cent is used when the allowance included in the cost estimate for Eco-Facilities also includes non-revenue generating items.
Treatment of utility costs
Generally it is assumed that 25 per cent reimbursement of utilities network infrastructure and reinforcement capital costs incurred by developer are reimbursed by the MUSCo or other utility provider on connection to home owner. In accordance with the Draft PPS at least 30 per cent of housing is assumed to be affordable shared ownership units sold to a residential social landlord on completion. Actual percentages of affordable housing included for each scheme are set out in the scheme descriptions for each site in Section 3. These are set out in the Promoters Offer column of the S106 HoT presented in Appendix C. Debt 70 per cent of initial funding requirement and interest rate of 7 per cent pa. In line with market norms developers profit is generally assumed to be 20 per cent on all costs the developer is assumed to incur. This is only varied if the promoter has indicated they have a different approach, in which case alternative assumptions may be used that more closely reflect the promoters intentions. Most promoters have assembled the majority of the land they need and will have a range of agreements with former owners on pricing, sharing of overage/claw-back on change of planning or allow for sharing of remediation costs. The actual cost of the land to promoters is ignored in this assessment. The assessment uses generic assumptions for the cost of acquiring the land needed for these schemes. These assumptions assume current planning status, comparable current use and take no allowance of any hope value attributed to the potential for an eco-town to be located on the land.
Affordable housing
S106 obligations Finance assumptions Developers profit assumptions
Land Cost assumption
Appendix B contains further detail on the general assumptions used across the assessment and the limitations applied to the assessment. Further information on scheme-specific assumptions is described below.
2.4.4 Sensitivity analysis

The assessment includes completion of a series of sensitivity tests to identify the impact on the outcome calculated of the Base Case of varying select key assumptions. Further details of the full range of sensitivity tests completed will be included in the final report.
Section 3
Individual site assessments
3.1 Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire
3.1.1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the initial assessment completed for the eco-town scheme proposed by Parkridge Development Land Ltd (the promoter) for Weston Otmoor (the scheme). A summary of the key features for the scheme is set out below.
3.1.2 Summary of the proposed scheme

The following table summarises the key features and components of the promoters proposals for an eco-town at Weston Otmoor. Element Land Description The promoter of the Weston Otmoor site is Parkridge Development Land Ltd, which is working on behalf of a formal consortium of landowners with options for land purchase. The promoter is pursuing a master developer model, whereby serviced plots will be delivered to the market for house builders and commercial developers to purchase. Given the promoters track record and parent company they are likely to undertake an element of the development in-house. The site identified for the Weston Otmoor eco-town lies just off the M40 between Bicester and Oxford. It is bisected by the A34. It lies mostly outside the Oxford green belt but does contain some green belt land. The site lies adjacent to the proposed East-West Rail link between Oxford and Milton Keynes. The promoter intends to fund and deliver this transport link as part of the proposal. The overall site measures 828 hectares, around 16 per cent of which is currently owned by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the remainder is owned by a number of private landowners and used primarily for agriculture.
Section 3 Individual site assessments 19
Element Housing
Description The proposal is for a development of 15,000 homes. In support of this, it is proposed that schools and other community facilities and green space will also be developed. The promoter has stated that approximately 500 residential units will be constructed annually over a 30 year time frame. In regards to affordable housing, the promoter anticipates that 30 per cent of this annual output (180) will be affordable shared ownership units. In addition to 15,000 residential units, Parkridge is also proposing to develop a significant amount (c500,000 sqm) of commercial, retail, leisure and community space on site. The delivery of this floor space is aligned to the housing output, and community facilities are due to be completed periodically. Transport ew Weston Otmoor station N large park & ride scheme proposed within the development A one parking space per household is to be provided i.e. 15,000 on-site spaces. ew East-West Rail Link connecting Oxford and Milton Keynes N omprehensive on-site tram system C etwork of off-site bus services N ignalling/platform improvements at Oxford railway station S ew North Oxford exchange railway station N ual-tracking of Wolvercote tunnel D ajor upgrading works of Junction 9 on M40 M Transport ree public transport to Oxford and Bicester for residents F ree on-site tram system F Energy Generation ombined Heat and Power Plant C ind turbines W p to 3 secondary schools and 8 primary schools U 0 per cent affordable housing 3 Recreational facilities including play areas, public parks and sports village ommunity and health facilities C rchards, woodland and allotments O ommunity based farming facilities and market gardens C 6 hectares of public open space 5 olice and community reporting centres P stablishment of a Weston Otmoor Trust with an initial E endowment
Commercial and other
Key elements of on- and off-site infrastructure
Key ecoelements
Key elements of s106 package offered
The above represents only a brief summary of the key features of the Weston Otmoor scheme and eco-town proposal. In addition to this summary the promoter has provided a number of documents on its web site that set out its overall vision for the Scheme, and further details of the proposed scheme components. These can be accessed at www.westonotmoor.co.uk.
3.1.3 Financial assessment

This section presents, at a summary level, the output from the outline financial assessment carried out for the Weston Otmoor scheme. The figures show the range of potential net surplus cash flows (in 2008 prices) that the scheme may generate over a 30 year period if the assumptions used in the assessment (the Assumptions) hold true. 3.1.3.1 The Base Case Financial Assessment The figure below presents a range of potential outcomes calculated for the Scheme using the Base Case Assumptions. Figure 3.1.3.1: Potential scale of development surplus (m 2008 prices) calculated for the scheme using the Base Case Assumptions
1,600 1,400 200 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 0 100 150 250
50
Undiscounted
Discounted (to take account of timing, risk and investment requirements)
Figure 3.1.3.1 indicates that based on the Base Case Assumptions, the financial assessment indicates that the promoters proposals have the potential to generate a significant financial buffer against adverse movements in the assumptions. However, it should be noted that the promoter of this site will be required to face high up-front investment costs, in particular in transport infrastructure, which may slow the rate at which these potential surpluses (and the underlying returns to investors) could be earned from development proceeds.
3.1.3.2 The Base Case assumptions This sub-section summarises the key assumptions used in the Base Case assessment. Key timing and phasing assumptions The promoter has stated that approximately 500 residential units will be constructed annually over a 30 year time frame commencing in 2011. With regard to affordable housing, the promoter anticipates that 30 per cent of this annual output (180) will be affordable shared ownership units. The delivery of commercial floor space is aligned to the housing output and community facilities are completed periodically. Key elements of offsite infrastructure would be completed in the first 5 years of the development. Key cost assumptions The key cost assumptions for the scheme that underpin the above are presented in Table 3.1.3.2 below. The figures presented in this table are rounded to the nearest 10 million and presented in broad cost categories. These illustrate the Base Case range of potential development costs, together with the levels of financing and development profit assumed in the assessment over the 30 year assessment period and presented in 2008 prices. This table includes costs towards the lower and the higher end of the estimates prepared by the Departments advisers. These estimates are not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes and will change if the underlying assumptions they are based on also change.
Table 3.1.3.2: Base Case Range1 of potential cost assumptions over the 30 year planning period (m 2008 prices, rounded to nearest 10m) Cost category Predevelopment Onsite Build costs2 Utilities (on and off site)3 less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties Transport Eco-features less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties Other s106 elements4 Landscaping & public realm Offsite Transport (hard costs)5 Transport (subsidies) Including fee, sales, marketing, land cost6, finance costs and assumed development profit etc. Total over the 30 year planning horizon
Source: the Departments Advisors. Excludes: Taxation and operating costs, other than those identified as transport subsidies. Notes: 1 The range of Low to High is not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes. At this stage we consider it reasonable to assume that this range could include the central 50 per cent of potential outcomes of costs based on the underlying assumptions used in preparing these indicative estimates, should any of these underlying assumptions change then the values in these ranges would change. 2 House building costs based on achieving CSH level 4 standards, the other costs of achieving the higher standards required by the PPS are included within other cost headings 3 Utilities and eco-facilities costs are expressed as capital expenditure; potential contributions from third parties in return for the developer installing key elements of the utilities infrastructure or in making the investment themselves are separately identified. 4 s106 cash contributions are those costs identified in Appendix C not already included within the costs above. The values shown here are only on element of the s106 contribution that the developer would be providing as part of this scheme. The other costs in this table include costs that would not be incurred but for the s106 obligations, including amongst other things the cost of providing affordable housing, public open spaces, playing fields, etc. The Department recognises that s106 agreements will have costs for the promoter which are not represented by cash payments to third parties. 5 The Off-site Transport Costs include allowances where the scheme would, in practice, be required to make a contribution towards the specific investment (e.g. contributions towards a Road, Motorway or Railway improvements). 6 Land cost has been assessed based on comparable data for land in the current use of the site selected by the promoter.
Low 10 1,950 150 (40) 190 40 (20) 120 30 240 100 700 3,470
High 10 2,260 220 (60) 220 70 (30) 140 40 270 100 870 4,110
As indicated in Note 1 above, the range of potential costs shown in Table 3.1.3.2 illustrates the level of uncertainty in estimating costs at this early stage in the development of the scheme. These ranges apply to the Base Case and therefore exclude the impact of varying key assumptions. It is expected that the range of costs would narrow over time, with additional clarity on the necessary infrastructure solutions and any site-specific abnormal costs following more detailed investigation by the Promoter in consultation with delivery partners. Description of key cost assumptions The promoter submitted a high-level cost model to support their proposal that was reviewed by technical and costing experts and a number of areas of risk were identified. These led to slightly higher costs being included in the assessment teams estimate than those allowed by the promoter. That said, the promoters estimate falls within the range set-out out above, albeit towards the lower end. Key risks/uncertainties identified as part of the cost review include: Costing of CSH level 4/6 housing to be delivered in 2011-2035 is challenging, particularly in the current market conditions. The promoters own assumptions for building costs fell slightly lower than the lower bound of those used by the Departments advisers. It was therefore considered that a 15 per cent cost range would be prudent. The feasibility and design programme for improvements to the M40 Junction, other related crossings and the works required for the other rail, road, tram and bus modes are at a very early stage of development. During the course of the assessment a range of potential solutions have been identified and the potential costs of these have varied significantly. From the discussions held with the promoter, it is clear that they are working with relevant agencies and potential partners (including Network Rail) to move this feasibility and design work forward. The promoter is confident of achieving a successful conclusion. However, to be prudent, the Departments advisers have considered it necessary to add additional allowances for these risks and uncertainties in their estimates for the cost of both on and off-site transport. Both the promoters and assessment teams cost estimates have been prepared on the basis that the promoters demand management proposals are successful and sustainable in the long-term. The implications of this assumption not being achieved have not been considered in this assessment. We anticipate that further work will be completed on this issue in preparation for any outline planning application. It is likely that successfully resolving this issue will be a key consideration if this proposal is to proceed.
The promoter, like many of the promoters of large site developments in the UK over recent years, is seeking to share the cost of providing eco-facilities and utilities with partners through the creation of a MUSCo or potentially also letting concessions for the proposed 9MWe Energy Centre and a district heating network and a 20MW wind farm. These approaches are beginning to be used with some success across the country and, therefore, whilst the Departments advisers have identified a few concerns that may need to be addressed (e.g. the need for the provision for black-water treatment works), the Departments advisers felt able to assume that a relatively high portion of the costs of the eco-facilities and related utilities infrastructure could be self-financing and not funded from the development revenues. As the scheme progresses the ability of these elements of the scheme to be self-funding or possibly revenue contributors will become clearer and could improve scheme viability. Key revenue assumptions Overall the promoters real estate revenue estimates for this scheme are similar to those provided by the Departments advisers for the Base Case. As noted below the Departments advisers have also tested the sensitivity of the assessment outputs to a significant long-term lowering in these assumptions. Sensitivity analysis The assessment has included completion of a series of sensitivity tests to identify the impact on the outcome calculated in the Base Case of varying select key assumptions. Further details of the full range of sensitivity tests completed will be included in the final report. However, we have highlighted one of the tests applied in this report: It is important to understand the impact variations in house prices and other property values could have on the potential for the scheme to generate surpluses. Whilst over the short-term property values move independently of building costs in the longer term this is not sustainable. Underlying costs and margins in the construction/house building supply chain have and are likely to continue to compress below recent levels. Following the recent sharp reduction in activity and values in the UK housing market, building costs have fallen over the last 6-9 months and the Departments advisers forecast this downward trend to continue through 2009 and into 2010. Looking at this and historic data it is clear there is a correlation between house values and build costs, but that costs are a lagging item and less elastic than prices/values. The Departments advisers have, therefore, applied a combined cost and value sensitivity test as follows: values are reduced by 10 per cent and costs by only 50 per cent of this (i.e. 5 per cent). The sensitivity test identifies that such a change could reduce potential surpluses by 320m (2008 prices), if all other assumptions are held constant. Even with this level of reduction, the scheme appears to continue to generate a reasonable surplus (contingency) over and above the estimated direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme.
The analysis illustrates that the viability of the scheme may vary significantly depending on a range of factors (in addition to the uncertainty around cost estimates in the baseline assessment above). This underlines that the current assessment can only illustrate potential viability and any future s106 negotiations will need to take into account updated information on both the cost and revenue side, including the long-term outlook for the housing market. 3.1.3.3 Conclusions from the outline financial assessment The financial assessment indicates that the development proposal has the potential to generate sufficient value to cover the direct and indirect costs of delivery without recourse to public subsidy over and above existing public sector funding sources (e.g. social housing grant). On the current analysis the proposal has potential to generate a surplus (contingency) over and above the estimated direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme. However, as the report indicates, a number of major cost issues require substantial further work to agree costs and deliverables with the relevant agencies; in the case of this scheme these are very substantial areas of further work. We would expect that the promoter would seek to address and resolve, if possible, the issues and uncertainties identified in this report as part of the preparations for an Outline Planning Application.
3.1.4 Engagement with key stakeholders

As set out in the introduction to this report, the promoters scheme for an eco-town is at a relatively early stage of development and substantial detailed work will be required before the promoter will be in a position to submit an Outline Planning Application. As stated, a significant element of this further work will involve a structured engagement between the promoter and relevant government and other agencies, and in particular the LPA including, in due course, the negotiation of an s106 agreement. That said, the range and scale of possible s106 obligations are material considerations in the assessment of the potential viability of the scheme and, therefore, it was important that initial discussions were held between the promoters and LPAs and other relevant parties to exchange information. The Departments advisers engaged in a series of meetings with promoters and LPAs and acted as a conduit for an exchange of information on s106 issues. The table below provides a summary of the meetings held with respect to Weston Otmoor.
Date 7 July 2008
Participants he promoters team T wC, DTZ, BH, DL P TLAS A he promoters team T herwell District Council C xfordshire County Council O epartment for Transport D ommunities and Local C Government wC, DTZ, BH, DWS, DL P TLAS A he promoters team T ommunities and Local C Government epartment for Transport D wC, BH, DTZ, DL, DWS P herwell District Council C xfordshire County Council O epartment for Transport D ommunities and Local C Government, WC, BH, DL, DTZ, DWS P TLAS A he promoters team T L D he promoters team T wC, DTZ P
Key issues covered eview of promoters R proposals for the eco-town at Weston Otmoor iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team
29 September 2008
13 November 2008
iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team
14 November 2008
27 November 2008 12 December 2008
iscussion of key outstanding D cost concerns iscussion of key outstanding D development assumptions
The main elements of the proposed scheme were distilled in a standardised s106 HoTs template and the expectations of each party, albeit at an early stage, as to the promoters initial s106 offer and the LPAs initial s106 expectations were recorded. The purpose of this template is to begin to provide clarity on likely s106 issues related to the assessed scheme and to aid further consideration by the promoter as to the likely requirements of the LPAs as the sites move forward through the planning process. The template is set out in Appendix C.
3.1.5 Further information

Promoter website: www.westonotmoor.co.uk/inovem/consult.ti Local authority websites: www.cherwell.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=3890 www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/wps/portal/publicsite www.oxfordcity.co.uk/
3.2 Ford Airfield, West Sussex

3.2.1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the initial assessment completed for the eco-town scheme proposed by The Ford Airfield Vision Group (FAVG or the promoter) for Ford Airfield (the scheme). A summary of the key features for the scheme is set out below.

The following table summarises the key features and components of the promoters proposals for an eco-town at Ford Airfield. Element Land Description The 360 hectare site identified for the Ford Airfield eco-town is located between Littlehampton, Bognor Regis, Arundel and Chichester near the south coast in Sussex. As indicated by its name, the site includes a former airfield. There are also a number of industrial areas both within and adjacent to the site boundary including a cement works, a sewage treatment works and (under construction) a materials recycling facility. Together these brown field areas comprise approximately 30 per cent of the development area, the remainder being green field. The site is near Ford Open Prison. The promoter of the Ford Airfield site is the Ford Airfield Vision Group, made up of the landowners (collectively known as the Ford Farming Group), Redrow Homes and Wates Homes. Wates and Redrow will undertake enabling and delivery of major infrastructure and will undertake responsibility for the majority of the housing units. The proposal is for a development of 5,000 homes. In support of this, it is proposed that retail and commercial space will also be developed, along with schools and other community facilities and green space. The promoter has not provided any phasing information, as they are taking a master promoter approach and plan to enable and deliver serviced plots as market conditions dictate. In undertaking the indicative assessment of viability, the Departments advisers have phased development over a 20 year period assuming a relative constant supply of housing delivery and absorption equating to circa 340 units per annum, including 40 per cent affordable. In addition to 5,000 residential units, FAVG is also proposing to develop a significant amount of commercial space on site. For the purposes of the assessment, delivery of this commercial floor space is aligned to the housing output, and community facilities are due to be completed periodically.
Housing
Element Key elements of on- and off-site infrastructure provision
Description Transport Provision of a relocated and improved rail station within the site Closure of the on-site level crossing, and provision of a new bridge for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists Extension of local bus services including improvements to the 66/66A route and providing improved and more frequent services to the 700 route. These services would connect with a proposed public transport interchange hub rovision of free community shuttle bus P Transport mprovements to public transport including home information I portals, ar clubs and pooling schemes C imited car parking provision L evelopment of Community Travel Plan. D Environment n integrated Waste & Resource Management Facility (WRMF) is A to be established, including an Eco-park to achieve closed-loop recycling and an Energy Centre. In consultation with West Sussex County Council, the WRMF would receive waste from Ford ecotown, Ford Open Prison and from other off-site, county wide locations. 0 per cent affording housing provision 4 primary schools and 1 secondary school 2 hildrens play facilities c ver 150 hectares of green space o ports pitches s eighbouring parks n new wetland area a urn up and go shuttle bus t re and rescue services fi ealth, youth and community facilities h town trust or community interest company a
Key ecoelements
The above represents only a brief summary of the key features of the Ford scheme and eco-town proposal. In addition to this summary the promoter has provided a number of documents on its web site that set out its overall vision for the scheme, and further details of the proposed scheme components. These can be accessed at www.fordairfieldecotown.co.uk.

This section presents, at a summary level, the output from the outline financial assessment carried out for the scheme. The figures show the range of potential net surplus cash flows (in m 2008 prices) that the scheme may generate over a 30 year period if the assumptions used in the assessment (the Assumptions) hold true. 3.2.3.1 The Base Case Financial Assessment The figure below presents a range of potential outcomes calculated for the Scheme using the Base Case Assumptions. Figure 3.2.3.1: Potential scale of development surplus (m 2008 prices) calculated for the scheme using the Base Case Assumptions
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10
Undiscounted
Figure 3.2.3.1 indicates that based on the Base Case Assumptions, the financial assessment indicates that the promoters proposals have the potential to generate a small financial buffer against adverse movements in the assumptions. 3.2.3.2 The Base Case assumptions This sub-section summarises the key assumptions used in the Base Case assessment. Key timing and phasing assumptions The promoter has not provided any phasing information as they are taking a master promoter approach and plan to enable and deliver serviced plots as market conditions dictate. In undertaking the indicative assessment of potential viability, consistent with the promoters assumptions, development has been phased over a 20 year period assuming a relative constant supply of housing delivery and absorption equating to circa 340 units per annum, including 40 per cent affordable.
Key Cost assumptions The key cost assumptions for the scheme that underpin the above are presented in table 3.2.3.2 below. The figures are rounded to the nearest 10 million and presented in broad cost categories. These illustrate the Base Case range of potential development costs, together with the levels of financing and development profit assumed in the assessment over the 30 year assessment period and presented in 2008 prices. This table includes costs towards the lower and the higher end of the estimates prepared by the Departments advisers. These estimates are not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes and will change if the underlying assumptions they are based on also change. Table 3.2.3.2: Base Case Range1 of potential cost assumptions over the 30 year planning period (m 2008 prices, rounded to nearest 10m) Cost category Predevelopment Onsite Build costs2 Utilities (on and off site)3 less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties Transport Eco-features less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties Other s106 elements4 Landscaping & public realm Offsite Other Transport (hard costs)5 Including fee, sales, marketing, land cost6, finance costs and assumed development profit, etc. Low 770 30 (10) 40 30 (30) 50 10 50 30 1,190
High 10 890 40 (10) 50 40 (40) 70 20 70 30 1,460
Total over the 30 year planning horizon
Source: the Departments Advisers. Excludes: Taxation and operating costs, other than those identified as transport subsidies. Notes: 1 The range of Low to High is not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes. At this stage we consider it reasonable to assume that this range could include the central 50 per cent of potential outcomes of costs based on the underlying assumptions used in preparing these indicative estimates, should any of these underlying assumptions change then the values in these ranges would change. 2 House building costs based on achieving CSH level 4 standards, the other costs of achieving the higher standards required by the PPS are included within other cost headings. 3 Utilities and eco-facilities costs are expressed as capital expenditure; potential contributions from third parties in return for the developer installing key elements of the utilities infrastructure or in making the investment themselves are separately identified. 4 s106 cash contributions are those costs identified in Appendix C not already included within the costs above. The values shown here are only on element of the s106 contribution that the developer would be providing as part of this scheme. The other costs in this table include costs that would not be incurred but for the s106 obligations, including amongst other things the cost of providing affordable housing, public open spaces, playing fields, etc. the Department recognises that s106 agreements will have costs for the promoter which are not represented by cash payments to third parties. 5 The Off-site Transport Costs include allowances where the Scheme would in practice be required to make a contribution towards the specific investment (e.g. contributions towards a Road, Motorway or Railway improvements). 6 Land cost has been assessed based on comparable data for land in the current use of the site selected by the promoter.
As indicated in Note 1 above, the range of potential costs shown in Table 3.2.3.2 illustrates the level of uncertainty in estimating costs at this early stage in the development of the scheme. These ranges apply to the Base Case and therefore exclude the impact of varying key assumptions. It is expected that the range of costs would narrow over time, with additional clarity on the necessary infrastructure solutions and any site-specific abnormal costs following more detailed investigation by the promoter in consultation with delivery partners. Description of key cost assumptions The promoter submitted a high-level cost model to support their proposal that was reviewed by technical and costing experts and a number of areas of risk were identified. These led to slightly higher costs being included in the Departments advisers estimate than those allowed by the promoter. That said, the promoters estimate falls within the range set-out out above, albeit towards the lower end. Key risks/uncertainties identified as part of the cost review include: Costing of CSH level 4/6 housing to be delivered in 2011-2035 is challenging, particularly in current market conditions. The promoters own assumptions for building costs lie towards the higher estimate of those advised by the Departments advisers. It was therefore considered that a 15 per cent cost range would be prudent. At the time of this report the promoter had not proposed a transport solution for addressing the impact the development could have on local roads and the strategic network that is acceptable to the DfT/HA. In its submission the promoter identified an allowance of 41m for off-site highway works, which would provide a link to the north of the site, a link south of the site to the A529, and a contribution to an A27 bypass. This figure broadly concurs with the Departments advisers cost estimate. However, the basis of the contribution and acceptance of the highways strategy by DfT/HA is a risk for this scheme. The promoter accepts that more work is required in this area. The promoter is also yet to fully develop their rail strategy for the project; but initial proposals suggest the provision of a new station or loop, and an adjacent parking facility of 500 spaces. The promoter has costed this item at 2.5 million which the Departments advisers believe is likely to be insufficient for these works. They consider a more prudent approach is required, and have based their assessment on the need for a new station, as identified in the promoters minutes of their meeting with Network Rail. The Departments advisers have also included an additional allowance for the parking facilities noted. The Departments advisers were unclear precisely how much allowance the promoter had made in its cost estimate for on-site transport and infrastructure, and whether or not part of this cost was assumed by the promoter to be included in their estimates for building costs. Based on a review of the promoters master plan, the Departments advisers have included allowance for this element including the main highways/link roads on the site separate from building costs and this is included in Table 3.2.3.2.
The promoter, like many promoters of large site developments in the UK over recent years, is seeking to share the cost of providing eco-facilities and utilities with partners through the creation of an ESCo/MUSCo or potentially also letting concessions for the proposed CHP based on energy from waste solution and a district heating network. These approaches are beginning to be used with some success across the country and, therefore, whilst the Departments advisers have identified a few concerns that may need to be addressed (e.g. the need to include cost for potable water reinforcement), the promoters assumption that a relatively high proportion of the costs of the ecofacilities and related utilities infrastructure could be self-financing and not funded from the development revenues was judged reasonable. However, it was not considered that all of the utilities infrastructure would be funded in this manner. The Departments advisers have, therefore, assumed that only 75 per cent of the fixed cost of the network infrastructure would be applied as costs to the project. As the scheme progresses the ability of these elements of the scheme to be self-funding or even net revenue contributors will become clearer and could improve the viability of the scheme. Key Revenue assumptions Overall the promoters real estate revenue estimates for this scheme are slightly lower than those provided by the Departments advisers for the Base Case. As noted below, the Departments advisers have also tested the sensitivity of the assessment outputs to a significant long-term lowering in these assumptions. Sensitivity analysis The assessment has included completion of a series of sensitivity tests to identify the impact on the outcome calculated of the Base Case of varying select key assumptions. Further details of the full range of sensitivity tests completed will be included in the final report. However, we highlight two of the tests run in this report: As noted above, perhaps the greatest costing uncertainty surrounds the potentially adverse impact the site could have on the strategic transport network, and the costs of any associated works or contributions the promoter would need to make to mitigate these. As a Base Case assumption the Departments advisers have assumed that the promoter would be required to make a 30-40m contribution towards off-site highways. If the promoter is required to fund an additional 25m off-site infrastructure or other s106 payments, then potential development surpluses could be reduced by 35-40m (2008 prices) more than eliminating the likely potential to generate a surplus when using the high end range of cost assumptions. In addition to this issue, perhaps the most important risk to understand is the impact varying house prices and other property values has on the potential for the scheme to generate surpluses. Whilst over the short-term property values move independently of building costs in the longer term this is not sustainable. Underlying costs and margins in the construction/house building supply chain have and will continue to compress below recent levels. Following the reduction in activity and values in the
UK housing market, building costs have fallen heavily over the last 6-9 months and the Departments advisers forecast this downward trend to continue through 2009 and into 2010. Looking at this and historic data it is clear there is a correlation, but costs are a lagging item and less elastic than prices/values. The Departments advisers have, therefore, applied a combined cost and value sensitivity test as follows: reduce values by 10 per cent and reduce costs by only 50 per cent of this (i.e. 5 per cent). The sensitivity test identifies that such a change could reduce potential surpluses by 80-90m (2008 prices), if all other assumptions are held constant. Such a long-term reduction in development margins would make the scheme marginal without a consequent reduction in the normal level of development profit required for house builders and master developers. The assumed level of developers profit would need to fall from 20 per cent to 15 per cent if costs were at the high end of the range set out in Table 3.2.3.2 for the scheme to provide a surplus. The analysis illustrates that the viability of the scheme may vary significantly depending on a range of factors (in addition to the uncertainty around cost estimates in the baseline assessment above). This underlines that the current assessment can only illustrate potential and any future s106 negotiations will need to take into account updated information on both the cost and revenue side, including the outlook for the housing market. 3.2.3.2 Conclusions from the outline financial assessment The financial assessment indicates that the development proposal has the potential to generate sufficient value to cover the direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme without recourse to public subsidy, this assumes the level of contribution to off-site highways is around the range set-out in this report. Whilst, the proposal has potential to generate a small surplus (contingency) over and above the estimated direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme, there are material uncertainties over the nature and cost of transport solution required to meet DfT/HAs requirements, small movements in the cost of which could adversely impact the viability of this proposal. The promoter needs to significantly reduce this risk, together with other uncertainties before the potential viability of this scheme can be confirmed. We would expect that the promoter would seek to address and resolve these issues, if possible, as part of the preparations for an Outline Planning Application. 3.2.4 Engagement with key stakeholders As set out in the introduction to this report, the promoters scheme for an eco-town is at a relatively early stage of development and substantial detailed work will be required before the promoter will be in a position to submit an Outline Planning Application. As stated, a significant element of this further work will involve a structured engagement between the promoter and relevant government and other agencies, and in particular the LPA including, in due course, the negotiation of an s106 agreement.
That said, the range and scale of possible s106 obligations are material considerations in the assessment of the potential viability of the scheme and, therefore, it was important that initial discussions were held between the promoters and LPAs and other relevant parties to exchange information. The Departments advisers engaged in a series of meetings with promoters and LPAs and acted as a conduit for an exchange of information on s106 issues. The table below provides a summary of the meetings held with respect to Ford Airfield. Date 02 July 2008 Participants he promoters team T wC, DTZ, BH, DWS, DL P TLAS A run District Council A est Sussex County Council W O South East G WS D he promoters team T ommunities and Local C Government wC, DTZ, BH, DWS, DL P he promoters team T L D he promoters team T wC, DTZ P Key issues covered eview of Promoters R proposals for the eco-town at Ford Airfield iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by Promoters team iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team iscussion of key outstanding D cost assumptions iscussion of key outstanding D development assumptions
10 November 2008
20 November 2008
02 December 2008 18 December 2008

Promoter website: www.fordairfieldecotown.co.uk/ Local authority websites: www.arun.gov.uk/cgi-bin/buildpage.pl?mysql=4021 www.westsussex.gov.uk/ccm/content/environment/heritage-wildlife-and-landscape/ west-sussex-character-project/landscape-character-assessments-of-west-sussex.en
3.3 Whitehill Bordon, Hampshire

3.3.1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the initial assessment completed for the eco-town scheme proposed by broad based partnership, led by East Hampshire District Council (the promoter) for Whitehill Bordon (the scheme). A summary of the key features for the scheme is set out below.

The following table summarises the key features and components of the promoters proposals for an eco-town at Whitehill Bordon. Element Land Description The scheme at Whitehill Bordon is being promoted by a broad based partnership, led by the public sector. The Executive Group comprises Town, District and County Council representatives plus representatives from South East of England Development Agency (SEEDA), The Government Office for the South East (GOSE), the Ministry of Defence (MoD)/Defence Estates, Natural England and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). The current land owner is unlikely to vacate before 2011 therefore delivery is still unclear. The promoter has presented a high-level viability assessment based on undertaking full development. The most likely route would be for the partners to form a development trust an arms length body, which would become in effect a master developer. The area of Whitehill Bordon is located in East Hampshire near to the proposed extension to the South Downs National Park. It lies midway between the A3 and the M3 and between the London/ Portsmouth railway and the London/Alton line. The proposal for an eco-town has been made following a decision by the MoD to relocate a number of its activities from the area to Wales. This will release over 250 hectares of predominantly brown field land which, together with some additional space currently owned by the District and County Councils, will be sufficient to build up to 5,500 homes. The area already has a population of around 14,000, however there is no town centre and facilities are minimal. As a result there is a considerable amount of outward commuting. It is intended that the proposed green development will help to turn the settlement into a significant district town, eventually reaching a population of some 30,000 people.
Element Housing
Description The proposal is for a development of up to 5,500 homes. In support of this, retail and commercial space will also be developed, along with schools and other community facilities and green space. The promoter has supplied information on phasing equating to the delivery of units over a 30 year period. 300 units are delivered annually which includes 40 per cent affordable. An absorption rate equal to the rate of delivery is assumed with a one year lag. In addition to 5,500 residential units, the promoter is also proposing to develop a significant amount of commercial space on site. Delivery of this commercial floor space is aligned to the housing output, and community facilities are due to be completed periodically. Transport mprovements to local walkways and cycleways and connections I with nearby villages mproved conventional bus links for on site journeys and I connections with nearby villages ew fast bus links between eco-town and the two nearest N mainline railway stations pgrading the A325 immediately to provide a fast bus link U between Petersfield and Farnham ventual construction of a Rapid Transit solution to link the ecoE town with a far wider network of conurbations by connecting into both the Alton and Portsmouth railway lines onstruction of a town centre multi-modal transport hub C Transport rovision of real time travel information at bus stops throughout P the eco-town and introduction of a wide ranging marketing system to encourage modal shift. Environment etro-fitting of as many existing houses to PassivHaus standards R over 15 years p to 3 no. new primary schools plus a new secondary school (or U expansion of existing one) Reuse of unused rail infrastructure to link the town to the wider network rotections for existing biodiversity and measures to encourage P recreation reation of a community development trust, possibly financed by C ownership of assets.
Key elements of on- and off-site infrastructure
Key ecoelements
The above represents only a brief summary of the key features of the Whitehill Bordon scheme and eco-town proposal. In addition to this summary the promoter has provided a number of documents on its web site that set out its overall vision for the scheme, and further details of the proposed scheme components. These can be accessed at www.whitehillbordon.com.

This section presents, at a summary level, the output from the outline financial assessment carried out for the scheme. The figures show the range of potential net surplus cash flows (in 2008 prices) that the scheme may generate over a 30 year period if the assumptions used in the assessment (the Assumptions) hold true. 3.3.3.1 The Base Case Financial Assessment The figure below presents a range of potential outcomes calculated for the scheme using the Base Case Assumptions. Figure 3.3.3.1: Potential scale of development surplus (m 2008 prices) calculated for the scheme using the Base Case Assumptions
250 50 40 30 150 20 100 10 50 0 10
200
Undiscounted
Figure 3.3.3.1 indicates that, based on the Base Case Assumptions, the financial assessment indicates that the promoters proposals have the potential to generate only a small financial buffer against adverse movements in the assumptions. The promoters own assessment indicates a small potential loss and the need for some further value engineering or subsidies.
3.3.3.2 The Base Case assumptions This sub-section summarises the key assumptions used in the Base Case assessment. Key timing and phasing assumptions The promoter has supplied information on phasing equating to the delivery of units over a 30 year period. 300 units are delivered annually which includes 40 per cent affordable and an absorption rate equal to the rate of delivery is assumed with a one year lag. Key Cost assumptions The key cost assumptions for the scheme that underpin the above are presented in Table 3.3.3.2 below. The figures are rounded to the nearest 10 million and presented in broad cost categories. These illustrate the Base Case range of potential development costs, together with the levels of financing and development profit assumed in the assessment over the 30 year assessment period and presented in 2008 prices. This table includes costs towards the lower and the higher end of the estimates prepared by the Departments advisers. These estimates are not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes and will change if the underlying assumptions they are based on also change. The promoters own estimates were slightly higher than these estimates.
Table 3.3.3.2: Base Case Range1 of potential cost assumptions over the 30 year planning period (m 2008 prices, rounded to nearest 10m) Cost category Predevelopment Onsite Build costs2 Utilities (on and off site)3 less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties Transport Eco-features less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties Other S106 elements4 Landscaping & public realm Offsite Other Transport (hard costs)5 Transport (subsidies) Including fee, sales, marketing, land cost6, finance costs and assumed development profit etc. Low 30 740 20 10 30 (20) 60 20 30 30 240 1,190 High 40 840 30 (10) 10 40 (30) 70 20 40 30 280 1,360

Source: the Departments Advisers. Excludes: Taxation and operating costs, other than those identified as transport subsidies. Notes:
1 The range of Low to High is not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes. At this stage we consider it reasonable to assume that this range could include the central 50 per cent of potential outcomes of costs based on the underlying assumptions used in preparing these indicative estimates, should any of these underlying assumptions change then the values in these ranges would change. 2 House building costs based on achieving CSH level 4 standards, the other costs of achieving the higher standards required by the PPS are included within other cost headings. 3 Utilities and eco-facilities costs are expressed as capital expenditure; potential contributions from third parties in return for the developer installing key elements of the utilities infrastructure or in making the investment themselves are separately identified. 4 s106 cash contributions are those costs identified in Appendix C not already included within the costs above. The values shown here are only on element of the s106 contribution that the developer would be providing as part of this scheme. The other costs in this table include costs that would not be incurred but for the s106 obligations, including amongst other things the cost of providing affordable housing, public open spaces, playing fields, etc. the Department recognises that s106 agreements will have costs for the promoter which are not represented by cash payments to third parties. 5 The Off-site Transport Costs include allowances where the Scheme would in practice be required to make a contribution towards the specific investment (e.g. contributions towards a Road, Motorway or Railway improvements). 6 Land cost has been assessed based on comparable data for land in the current use of the site selected by the promoter.
As indicated in Note 1 above, the range of potential costs shown in Table 3.3.3.2 illustrates the level of uncertainty in estimating costs at this early stage in the development of the scheme. These ranges apply to the Base Case and therefore exclude the impact of varying key assumptions. It is expected that the range of costs would narrow over time, with additional clarity on the necessary infrastructure solutions and any site-specific abnormal costs following more detailed investigation by the promoter in consultation with delivery partners. Description of key cost assumptions The promoter submitted a high-level cost model to support their proposal. This model was reviewed by technical and costing experts and a number of areas of risk were identified. These led to slightly higher costs being included in the Departments advisers estimate than those allowed by the promoter. That said, the promoters estimate falls slightly above the range set-out out above. With the exception of the cost of land from the MoD, the Departments advisers have not identified at this point in time any major risks in the high-level costs proposed by the promoter, although we would highlight certain areas where the promoters costs fall outside the ranges the Departments advisers would expect to see based on benchmarking and historical costs. The key risks are as follows: Cost and availability of the land to be acquired from the MoD whilst the MoD has announced that it will be moving units from the Bordon Camp, discussions with the MoD have not progressed to a point where the promoter can be certain when land will be available or the price of that land. The Departments advisers have included an allowance for the cost of land in their estimates based on current use. Costing of CSH level 4/6 housing to be delivered in 2013-2032 is challenging, particularly in the current market conditions. For example, the promoters own assumptions for building costs for CSH level 4 housing were at the lower end of the range of costs advised by the Departments advisers. The Departments advisers understand that this is because the promoter has included an allowance for site roads and utilities distribution in their cost allowance, but this allowance excludes estate access roads and final utilities connections. The promoter has also stated that they have assumed that the costs for CSH level 6 housing by 2016 would be the same as that for CSH level 4, due to the use of local power generation. It was therefore considered that a 15 per cent cost range would be prudent. The promoter has included a range of highways works solutions in its submission. The main element of this is the A325 Fast Bus Link Works at 20 million but further work is required by the promoter to define the exact nature of the requirements in order to establish a more robust cost estimate. The promoter has also identified the need to subsidise transport costs by 27.5 million over the initial years of the development. This is by no means the total costs included for transport in the viability study which amounts to 66,500,000.
There are also a number of areas for which the Whitehill Bordon scheme is still developing further strategies in order to meet PPS requirements. On transport the overall aim is to facilitate/encourage modal shift away from the car with an ambitious target of reducing car use from 80 per cent to 25 per cent. This is a particularly challenging target given it would require a significant shift away from current travel patterns in the area (80 per cent of trips are currently by car). Some of the assumptions adopted in the assessment work are considered as being likely to underestimate the potential impact of the eco-town. The scheme and cost implications of more achievable/conservative assumptions will need to be considered by the promoter as their scheme is developed further. The promoter has advised that around 75 per cent of the utilities infrastructure for electricity, potable water and foul drainage is already in place, as part of the MoD site. In addition, the promoter has assumed that the host water authority will fund a further 40 per cent of on-site potable water and drainage costs. The Departments advisers allowances for the utilities networks include for the whole site except for the cost of connecting the buildings, which has been included within the cost rates applied to housing. The Departments advisers have assumed that a proportion of the cost of these utilities could be recovered from the ESCo/MUSCo or end suppliers when homeowners connect. The promoter, like many promoters of large site developments in the UK over recent years, is seeking to sharing the cost of proving eco-facilities and utilities with partners through the creation of a ESCo/MUSCo or potentially also letting concessions for the proposed heating network and energy centre. These approaches are beginning to be used with some success across the country and, therefore, whilst the Departments advisers have identified a few concerns that may need to be addressed (e.g. need for the provision of a separate grey-water treatment works), the Departments advisers felt able to assume that a relatively high portion of the costs of the eco-facilities and related utilities infrastructure could be self-financing and not a cost that would need to be funded from the development revenues. As the scheme progresses the ability of these elements of the scheme to be self-funding or even revenue contributors will become clearer. Key Revenue assumptions Overall the promoters real estate revenue estimates for this scheme are similar to those provided by Departments advisers for the Base Case. As noted in section below, the Departments advisers have also tested the sensitivity of the assessment outputs to a significant long-term lowering in these assumptions. No specific assessment has been completed of the MoD land, its likely availability or any assessment of the potential price, if any, the promoter could be required to pay to secure it.
Sensitivity analysis The assessment has included completion of a series of sensitivity tests to identify the impact on the outcome calculated of the Base Case of varying select key assumptions. Further details of the full range of sensitivity tests completed will be included in the final report. However, we considered it worth while to highlight just two of the tests run in this report: The greatest costing uncertainty is around the availability and price of the MoD land on which the bulk of the proposed eco-town will sit. If the MoD were to seek an up-front payment for the land at a price significantly higher than the Departments advisers have assumed, then the viability of the scheme would be significantly challenged. It is recognised, however, that negotiations with the MoD are at a very early stage and there may be potential to explore with the MoD, for example, the possibility of deferred land payments allied to a profit sharing arrangement or similar. This would enable the MoD to share over time in the profits or any potential surpluses generated by the scheme. It is important to understand the impact variations in house prices and other property values could have on the potential for the scheme to generate surpluses. Whilst over the short-term property values move independently of building costs in the longer term this is not sustainable. Underlying costs and margins in the construction/house building supply chain have and are likely to continue to compress below recent levels. Following the recent sharp reduction in activity and values in the UK housing market, building costs have fallen over the last 6-9 months and the Departments advisers forecast this downward trend to continue through 2009 and into 2010. Looking at this and historic data it is clear there is a correlation, but costs are a lagging item and less elastic than prices/values. The Departments advisers have, therefore, applied a combined cost and value sensitivity test as follows: values are reduced by 10 per cent and costs are reduced by only 50 per cent of this (i.e. 5 per cent). The sensitivity test identifies that such a change could reduce potential surpluses by 70-95 million (2008 prices), if all other assumptions are held constant. Such a long-term reduction in development margins would make the scheme only marginally viable without there also being a reduction in the norms for the development profit required for house builders and master developers. The assumed level of developers profit would need to fall by the order of 4 per cent, if costs were at the high end of the range set out Table 3.3.3.2 for the scheme to provide a surplus. The analysis illustrates that the viability of the scheme may vary significantly depending on a range of factors (in addition to the uncertainty around cost estimates in the baseline assessment above). This underlines that the current assessment can only illustrate potential and any future s106 negotiations will need to take into account updated information on both the cost and revenue side, including the outlook for the housing market.
3.3.3.3 Conclusions from the outline financial assessment The financial assessment indicates that the development proposal has the potential to generate sufficient value to cover the potential direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme without recourse to public subsidy. This assumes the cost of land secured from the MoD is around the cost assumption set-out in this report. As noted above, some elements of the promoters scheme like the on-site transportation and eco-features are not yet certain and may, as they are worked up, result in more investment being required than has been allowed. Whilst, the proposal has potential to generate a surplus (contingency) over and above the estimated direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme, there are uncertainties over the timing of release and cost of the MoD land and its condition. We would expect that the promoter would seek to address and resolve these issues, if possible, as part of the preparations for an Outline Planning Application.

As set out in the introduction to this report, the promoters scheme for an eco-town is at a relatively early stage of development and substantial detailed work will be required before the promoter will be in a position to submit an Outline Planning Application. As stated, a significant element of this further work will involve a structured engagement between the promoter and relevant government and other agencies, and in particular the LPA including, in due course, the negotiation of an s106 agreement. That said, the range and scale of possible s106 obligations are material considerations in the assessment of the potential viability of the scheme and, therefore, it was important that initial discussions were held between the promoters and LPAs and other relevant parties to exchange information. The Departments advisers engaged in a series of meetings with promoters and LPAs and acted as a conduit for an exchange of information on s106 issues. The table below provides a summary of the meetings held with respect to Whitehill Bordon. Date 04 July 2008 Participants he promoters team T wC, DTZ, BH, DL P TLAS A he promoters team T ommunities and Local C Government epartment for Transport D wC, DTZ, BH, DWS, DL P he promoters team T L D Key issues covered eview of promoters R proposals for the eco-town at Whitehill Bordon iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team iscussion of key outstanding D cost assumptions
14 November 2008
26 November 2008

Promoter website: www.whitehillbordon.com/ Local authority website: www.easthants.gov.uk/ehdc/localplanweb.nsf/webpages/Planning+Policy www.hants.gov.uk
3.4 Pennbury, Leicestershire

3.4.1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the initial assessment completed for the eco-town scheme proposed by The Co-operative Group (the promoter) for Pennbury (the scheme). A summary of the key features for the Scheme is set out below.

The following table summarises the key features and components of the promoters proposals for an eco-town at Pennbury. Element Land Description The Pennbury site is located 4 miles to the south east of Leicester. The promoter of the town is the Co-operative Group. The Group is currently planning to take on the role of master developer. The whole site is 1,886 hectares, most of which is owned by the Co-operative Group, the remainder being owned by the HCA. The latest plan is for a settlement of 15,000 homes built with a gross developed area of 600 hectares to ensure that the built area is around one third of the land holdings of the promoter (Masterplan Vision Document, page 56). The M1 is approximately 14km from the site and the nearest A roads are the A47 (4km away) and A6 (6km away). The nearest railway station is in Leicester. The proposal is for a development of 15,000 homes. In support of this, retail and commercial space will also be developed, along with schools and other community facilities and green space. A detailed phasing plan has been provided by the promoter. This envisages delivery of serviced plots over a 20 year period to facilitate the delivery of circa 775 residential units per annum including 30 per cent affordable (233 units pa). In addition to 15,000 residential units, the Co-operative Group is also proposing to develop a significant amount of retail and commercial space on site, along with schools and other community facilities and green space. Development of commercial floor space and community facilities is assumed to be phased to support the projected delivery of residential units.
Housing
Element Key elements of on-off site infrastructure
Description Transport reation of a park & ride site with the preferred location being on C the A6. Provision of a high frequency, high quality, rapid transit route connecting the eco-town with Leicester City centre and the railway station. Conversion of Gartree Road to a Greenway that would provide a segregated busway. Transport A Smarter Choices Company (SCC) will be established whose overarching role will be to promote and encourage more sustainable living and will oversee Travel Planning for the site. Energy Generation reation of a Wind Farm, Biomass Combined Heat and Power C Plant (CHP) and the construction of an anaerobic digester. Food and farming Development of local food production in the town and the Great Park (Masterplan Vision Document, pages 98-101) 0 per cent affordable housing provision 3 primary schools and 2 secondary schools (including an eco 7 academy). he Great Park surrounds the town and there will be other T open space (formal, informal and recreation). ocal bus services in the town. L Community facilities include a library and a community hub, containing a youth facility and place for worship Governance and guidance structures are proposed (to be further developed with key stakeholders)
Key ecoelements
The above represents only a brief summary of the key features of the Pennbury eco-town proposal. In addition to this summary the promoter has provided a number of documents on its website that set out its overall vision for the scheme, and further details of the proposed scheme components. These can be accessed at www.ecotownforleicestershire.coop/

This section presents, at a summary level, the output from the outline financial assessment carried out for the scheme. The figures show the range of potential net surplus cash flows (in 2008 prices) that the scheme may generate over a 30 year period if the assumptions used in the assessment (The Assumptions) hold true.
3.4.3.1 The Base Case Financial Assessment The figure below presents a range of potential outcomes calculated for the scheme using the Base Case Assumptions. Figure 3.4.3.1: Potential scale of development surplus (m 2008 prices) calculated for the scheme using the Base Case Assumptions
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 20
Undiscounted
Figure 3.4.3.1 indicates that based on the Base Case Assumptions, the financial assessment indicates that the promoters proposals have the potential to generate a small financial buffer against adverse movements in the assumptions. 3.4.3.2 The Base Case assumptions This sub-section summarises the key assumptions used in the Base Case assessment. Key timing and phasing assumptions Detailed phasing has been provided by the promoter. This envisages delivery of serviced plots over a 20 year period to facilitate the delivery of circa 775 residential units per annum including 30 per cent affordable (233 units pa). In interpreting the promoters delivery assumptions the development of commercial floor space and community facilities have been phased to support the projected delivery of residential units. Key Cost assumptions The key cost assumptions for the scheme that underpin the above are presented in Table 3.4.3.2 below. The figures are rounded to the nearest 10 million and presented in broad cost categories. These illustrate the Base Case range of potential development costs, together with the levels of financing and development profit assumed in the assessment over the 30 year assessment period and presented in 2008 prices. This table includes costs towards the lower and the higher end of the estimates prepared by the Departments advisers. These estimates are not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes and will change if the underlying assumptions they are based on also change.
Table 3.4.3.2: Base Case Range1 of potential cost assumptions over the 30 year planning period (m 2008 prices, rounded to nearest 10m) Cost category Predevelopment Onsite Build costs2 Utilities (on and off site)3 less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties Transport Eco-features less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties S106 elements4 Landscaping & public realm Offsite Other Transport (hard costs)5 Including fee, sales, marketing, land cost6, finance costs and assumed development profit etc. Low 20 1,820 180 (40) 100 50 (30) 100 40 40 350 2,630 High 30 2,070 280 (70) 120 70 (50) 120 50 50 480 3,130

1 The range of Low to High is not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes. At this stage we consider it reasonable to assume that this range could include the central 50 per cent of potential outcomes of costs based on the underlying assumptions used in preparing these indicative estimates, should any of these underlying assumptions change then the values in these ranges would change. 2 House building costs based on achieving CSH level 4 standards, the other costs of achieving the higher standards required by the PPS are included within other cost headings. 3 Utilities and eco-facilities costs are expressed as capital expenditure; potential contributions from third parties in return for the developer installing key elements of the utilities infrastructure or in making the investment themselves are separately identified. 4 s106 cash contributions are those costs identified in Appendix C not already included within the costs above. The values shown here are only on element of the s106 contribution that the developer would be providing as part of this scheme. The other costs in this table include costs that would not be incurred but for the s106 obligations, including amongst other things the cost of providing affordable housing, public open spaces, playing fields, etc. the Department recognises that s106 agreements will have costs for the promoter which are not represented by cash payments to third parties. 5 The Off-site Transport Costs include allowances where the Scheme would in practice be required to make a contribution towards the specific investment (e.g. contributions towards a Road, Motorway or Railway improvements). 6 Land cost has been assessed based on comparable data for land in the current use of the site selected by the promoter.
As indicated in Note 1 above, the range of potential costs shown in Table 3.4.3.2 illustrates the level of uncertainty in estimating costs at this early stage in the development of the scheme. These ranges apply to the Base Case and therefore exclude the impact of varying key assumptions. It is expected that the range of costs would narrow over time, with additional clarity on the necessary infrastructure solutions and any site-specific abnormal costs following more detailed investigation by the promoter in consultation with delivery partners. Description of key cost assumptions The promoter has provided a comprehensive package of information in support of its proposals. A meeting was held with the promoter that revealed the significant level of detailed analysis informing its cost submissions. The Departments advisers assessment has not identified any major risks in the costs proposed by the promoter, although we would highlight the following areas where the promoters costs fall outside the ranges which the Departments advisers would expect to see based on benchmarking and historical data: Costing of CSH level 4/6 housing to be delivered in 2013-2032 is challenging, particularly in the current market conditions. For example, the promoters own assumptions for building costs for CSH level 4 housing fell some 6 per cent higher than the upper bound and 17 per cent above the lower bound of those advised by the Departments advisers. The Departments advisers understand that the reason for this is because the promoter has included an allowance for site roads and utilities distribution within the boundary of the serviced development plots that are to be sold in their cost allowance. The promoter has included in the overall estimates a separate amount for sustainability build premium. The Departments advisers have assumed that part of this sum would be used to fund site-wide measures and have allocated the remainder of the premium to the promoters rates for the construction of dwellings. The promoters estimates for on-site utilities distribution were below the estimated range provided by the Departments advisers. The promoter assumed some of the costs would be met by third party developers, reflecting its current arrangements, which make savings on this basis. This discrepancy will need to be clarified as the promoters proposals are developed further. The promoter, like other promoters of large site developments in the UK over recent years, is seeking to sharing the cost of proving eco-facilities and utilities with partners through the creation of a ESCo/MUSCo or potentially also letting concessions for the proposed 17MW e-energy centre and a 24MW wind farm and a site-wide grey water network. These approaches are beginning to be used with some success, including by the promoter, across the country and, therefore, whilst the Departments advisers have identified a few concerns that may need to be addressed (e.g. need for the provision of a black-water treatment works), the Departments advisers felt able to assume that a relatively high portion of the costs of the eco-facilities and related utilities infrastructure could be self-financing and not a cost that would need to be funded from the development revenues. As the scheme progresses the ability of these elements of the scheme to be self-funding or even revenue contributors will become clearer.
The promoter has indicated that they are not a traditional developer and they therefore are more prepared to take a long-term view of the investment that they make. They will assume the role of Master Developer in order to ensure that a scheme which meets their vision and is of exemplar quality is delivered and, if necessary, adjust their share of profits and the timing of receipts accordingly. However, the buyers of the serviced land that the promoter would sell are assumed to seek normal levels of development profit. Overall the promoters cost estimate slightly exceeded the higher range estimate prepared by the Departments advisers and is therefore considered relatively prudent at this stage. The bulk of the difference between the estimates is in the assumptions used for housing building costs. Key Revenue assumptions Overall the promoters real estate revenue estimates for this scheme are similar to those provided by the Departments advisers for the Base Case. As noted below, the Departments advisers have also tested the sensitivity of the assessment outputs to a significant long-term lowering in these assumptions. Sensitivity analysis The assessment has included completion of a series of sensitivity tests to identify the impact on the outcome calculated of the Base Case of varying select key assumptions. Further details of the full range of sensitivity tests completed will be included in the final report. However, we considered it worthwhile to highlight one of the tests run in this report: It is important to understand the impact varying house price and other real estate values could have on the potential for the scheme to generate the necessary surpluses to support its development. Whilst over the short-term property values move independently of building costs in the longer term this is not sustainable. Underlying costs and margins in the construction/house building supply chain have and will continue to compress below recent levels. Following the reduction in activity and values in the UK housing market, building costs have fallen over the last 6-9 months and the Departments advisers forecast this downward trend to continue through 2009 and into 2010. Looking at this, and historic data, it is clear there is a correlation, but costs are a lagging item and less elastic than prices/ values. The Departments advisers have, therefore, applied a combined cost and value sensitivity test as follows: values are reduced by 10 per cent and costs are reduced by only 50 per cent of this (i.e. 5 per cent). The sensitivity test identifies that such a change could reduce potential surpluses by 180-200 million (2008 prices), if all other assumptions are held constant. Such a long-term reduction in development margins would significantly reduce the potential viability of the scheme, but may not materially threaten its viability; the scheme still projecting a potential surplus, albeit at a reduced level.
This analysis illustrates that, while in this instance the scheme continues to generate a surplus, the viability of an eco-town scheme may vary significantly depending on a range of factors (in addition to the uncertainty around cost estimates in the baseline assessment above). This underlines that the current assessment can only illustrate potential and any future s106 negotiations will need to take into account updated information on both the cost and revenue side, including the outlook for the housing market. 3.4.3.3 Conclusions from the outline financial assessment The financial assessment indicates therefore that the development proposal has the potential to generate sufficient value to cover the direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme without recourse to public subsidy. The proposal has potential to generate a surplus (contingency) over and above the estimated direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme. We would expect that the promoter would seek to address and resolve, if possible, the issues and uncertainties identified in this report as part of the preparations for an Outline Planning Application.

As set out in the Introduction to this report, the promoters scheme for an eco-town is at a relatively early stage of development and substantial detailed work will be required before the promoter will be in a position to submit an Outline Planning Application. As stated, a significant element of this further work will involve a structured engagement between the promoter and relevant government and other agencies, and in particular the LPA including, in due course, the negotiation of an s106 agreement. That said, the range and scale of possible s106 obligations are material considerations in the assessment of the potential viability of the scheme and, therefore, it was important that initial discussions were held between the promoters and LPAs and other relevant parties to exchange information. The Departments advisers engaged in a series of meetings with promoters and LPAs and acted as a conduit for an exchange of information on s106 issues. The table below provides a summary of the meetings held with respect to Pennbury. Date 17 July 2008 Participants he promoters team T wC, BH, DTZ, DL, DWS P TLAS A arborough District Council H adby & Wigston District O Council eicester City Council L eicestershire county Council L WS D TLAS A Key issues covered eview of promoters R proposals for the eco-town at Pennbury iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team
23 July 2008
Date 11 November 2008
Participants arborough District Council H adby & Wigston District O Council eicester City Council L eicestershire county Council L WS D he Promoters team T ommunities and Local C Government wC, DfT, BH, DTZ, DWS P he promoters team T L D arborough District Council H Oadby & Wigston District Council eicester City Council L eicestershire county Council L ommunities and Local C Government TLAS A WS D
Key issues covered iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team
12 November 2008
iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team iscussion of outstanding key D costing assumptions iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team
24 November 19 December 2008

Promoter website: www.ecotownforleicestershire.coop/ Local authority websites: www.blinehousing.info/LeicSHMA/Leicester_SHMA.htm www.cabinet.leicester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=78&MId=2440&Ver=4 www.harborough.gov.uk www.oadby-wigston.gov.uk/Home/Eco%20Town/home_page.aspx
3.5 St Austell China Clay Community, Cornwall

3.5.1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the initial assessment completed for the eco-town scheme proposed by Imerys Minerals Ltd (the promoter) for Clay Country eco-town (St Austell or the scheme). A summary of the key features for the scheme is set out below.

The following table summarises the key features and components of the promoters proposals for an eco-town at St Austell. Element Land Description The proposed eco-town at St Austell is made up of a cluster of smaller linked settlements. The promoter refers to the creation of an Eco-zone which incorporates these settlements along with the existing town of St Austell. The St Austell cluster of sites is to be located in an area of former china clay works in Cornwall. The promoter for the sites is Imerys Minerals Ltd which currently owns and operates the china clay area. Of their current land holding of some 4,000 hectares, it is anticipated that around 750 ha will be released over the next few years as being surplus to requirements. The eco-town will be derived from this 750 ha of land. The promoter will be seeking a development partner to share the development risk in enabling the site, and deliver serviced plots to the market. The sites are located between the A30 to the north and the A390 to the south and are an average of 1km and 8km away from the nearest rail station. It is anticipated that the new development would require upgrade and expansion of these transport links. The site is near the Eden Project with which the promoter has entered into a partnership agreement. The total number of homes to be provided by the scheme is 5,107, 40 50 per cent of which will be affordable. Housing will be provided to meet compliance with the eco-town PPS and SA standards. The promoter anticipates delivery of enabled sites to provide 5,107 residential units from approximately 2012 to 2025 which includes affordable housing (40 per cent or 50 per cent). Annual build will range during this period from 200 to 900. The provision of commercial floor space and community facilities is phased over the first 10 years to support the development of the eco-town.
Housing
Element Key elements of on- and off-site infrastructure
Description mproved local road infrastructure including realignment of the I A391 and secondary roads Upgrades to Bodmin Parkway and Truro stations to allow trains to turnaround ignalling and rail infrastructure upgrades S ew rolling stock (4 two car trains providing a 20 minute service N during peak times) and an allowance for an operating subsidy. new station at Blackpool Driers A lectric car clubs and e-car ownership E mprovements to local cycle routes, including development of I entirely new commuter routes. pgrade to existing bus services and new Rapid Transit bus U system rovision of significant quantities of open space P ew primary schools and new secondary school N ustainable energy and water strategies. S
Key ecoelements Key elements of s106 package offered
The above represents only a brief summary of the key features of the St Austell scheme and eco-town proposal. In addition to this summary the promoter has provided a number of documents on its web site that set out its overall vision for the scheme, and further details of the proposed scheme components. These can be accessed at www.claycountryvision.imerys.com

This section presents, at a summary level, the output from the outline financial assessment carried out for the scheme. The figures show the range of potential net surplus cash flows (in 2008 prices) that the scheme may generate over a 30 year period if the assumptions used in the assessment (The Assumptions) hold true. 3.5.3.1 The Base Case Financial Assessment The figure below presents a range of potential outcomes calculated for the scheme using the Base Case Assumptions.
Figure 3.5.3.1: Potential scale of development surplus (2008 prices) calculated for the scheme using the Base Case Assumptions (40 per cent affordable)
0 0 (20) (50) (40) (100) (60) (80) (150) (100) (200) (120) (140) (250) (160) (180)
(300)
Undiscounted
Figure 3.5.3.1 indicates that based on the Base Case Assumptions, the financial assessment indicates that the promoters proposals do not appear to have the potential to meet the total potential cost of the scheme. Therefore it is likely that for the scheme to be viable either some of the costs identified will need to be met by other third party commercial sources or the promoter will need to secure significant financial assistance from public sector sources to pay for elements of the scheme cost. The promoters own assessment indicates potential sources for such funding (see below), albeit at a lower level than indicated by the assessment. Their submission identifies the need for circa 90m of funding from third parties. The Departments advisers assessment is that this funding gap range could be between 60 and 190m. 3.5.3.2 The Base Case assumptions This sub-section summarises the key assumptions used in the Base Case assessment. Key timing and phasing assumptions As indicated above, the promoter anticipates delivery of enabled sites to provide 5,107 residential units from approximately 2012 to 2025 which includes affordable housing (40 per cent or 50 per cent) and an annual build will range during this period from 200 to 900. The Departments advisers consider this assumption to be very ambitious. For the Base Case the Departments advisers have included an assumption of circa 255 residential units per annum over 20 years from 2011 till 2030, which includes affordable housing (40 per cent). Commercial floor space and community facilities are also assumed to be phased over the first 10 years to support the development of the eco-town.
Key Cost assumptions The key cost assumptions for the scheme that underpin the above are presented in Table 3.5.3.2 below. The figures are rounded to the nearest 10 million and presented in broad cost categories. These illustrate the Base Case range of potential development costs, together with the levels of financing and development profit assumed in the assessment over the 30 year assessment period and presented in 2008 prices. This table includes costs towards the lower and the higher end of the estimates prepared by the Departments advisers. These estimates are not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes and will change if the underlying assumptions they are based on also change. Table 3.5.3.2 has been developed by the Departments advisers based on the promoters proposals. However, for clarity the figures included in this Table are not the figures submitted by the promoter, but are the figures used in the assessment as Base Case assumptions.
Table 3.5.3.2: Base Case Range1 of potential cost assumptions over the 30 year planning period (m 2008 prices, rounded to nearest 10m) (40 per cent affordable) Cost category Predevelopment, Build costs2 and Utilities (on and off site)3 Transport, Eco-features, Other S106 elements4, Landscaping & public realm Transport (hard costs)5 and other (including fee, sales, marketing, land cost6, finance costs and assumed development profit etc) Total over the 30 year planning horizon
[This table has been summarised at the request of the promoter] Source: the Departments Advisers. Excludes: Taxation and operating costs, other than those identified as transport subsidies. Notes: 1 The range of Low to High is not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes. At this stage we consider it reasonable to assume that this range could include the central 50 per cent of potential outcomes of costs based on the underlying assumptions used in preparing these indicative estimates, should any of these underlying assumptions change then the values in these ranges would change. 2 House building costs based on achieving CSH level 4 standards, the other costs of achieving the higher standards required by the PPS are included within other cost headings. 3 Utilities and eco-facilities costs are expressed as capital expenditure; potential contributions from third parties in return for the developer installing key elements of the utilities infrastructure or in making the investment themselves are separately identified. 4 s106 cash contributions are those costs identified in Appendix C not already included within the costs above. The values shown here are only one element of the s106 contribution that the developer would be providing as part of this scheme. The other costs in this table include costs that would not be incurred but for the s106 obligations, including amongst other things the cost of providing affordable housing, public open spaces, playing fields, etc. the Department recognises that s106 agreements will have costs for the promoter which are not represented by cash payments to third parties. 5 The Off-site Transport Costs include allowances where the Scheme would in practice be required to make a contribution towards the specific investment (e.g. contributions towards a Road, Motorway or Railway improvements). 6 Land cost has been assessed based on comparable data for land in the current use of the site selected by the promoter.
Low 660 80 230 970
High 830 110 270 1,210
As indicated in Note 1 above, the range of potential costs shown in Table 3.5.3.2 illustrates the level of uncertainty in estimating costs at this early stage in the development of the scheme. These ranges apply to the Base Case and therefore exclude the impact of varying key assumptions. It is expected that the range of costs would narrow over time, with additional clarity on the necessary infrastructure solutions and any site-specific abnormal costs following more detailed investigation by the promoter in consultation with delivery partners.
Description of key cost assumptions The promoter has provided a package of information in support of its proposals. However, we would note that since the promoter is seeking to act, in partnership with a Development Partner, as a master developer and to sell serviced plots, rather than act as a fully integrated developer, it has been difficult for the Departments advisers to identify some of the underlying costing assumptions the promoter has used for building costs. We would note that the promoters cost estimate falls just above the mid point of the Departments advisers range estimate. Other than building costs the Departments advisers have not identified at this time any major risks in the costs proposed by the promoter, although we would highlight the following areas where the promoters costs fall outside the ranges that the Departments advisers would expect to see based on benchmarking and historical costs: Costing of CSH level 4/6 housing to be delivered between 2012-2025 is challenging, particularly given current market uncertainties. The imputed cost for promoters own assumptions for the building costs of houses to a CSH level 4 level fell below the lower bound of the Departments advisers cost assumptions, even after taking into account the allowance of 45 million in their cost estimate for PPS/SA compliance (the promoters cost allowance for PPS/SA compliance was 75m of which 45m would be borne by the Project). The promoters assumptions about the quality of housing they are proposing and the cost they (and their potential development partners) would incur require further clarification. Eco-Features the promoter, like many promoters of large site developments in the UK over recent years, is seeking to share the cost of providing eco-facilities and utilities with partners through the creation of a ESCo or potentially also letting concessions for the proposed wind farm and macro generation. These approaches are beginning to be used with some success across the country and, therefore, whilst the Departments advisers have identified a few concerns that may need to be addressed, they felt able to assume that a relatively high portion of the costs of the eco-facilities and related utilities infrastructure could be self-financing and not a cost that would need to be funded directly from the development revenues. As the scheme progresses the ability of these elements of the scheme to be self-funding or even revenue contributors will become clearer. The A391 highways improvements put forward by the promoter will provide circa 10km of road improvements incorporating junctions. More work is required to harden up estimates for this work. Although discussions have been held with Network Rail on a rail solution, its cost to the scheme and the potential role the promoter would have in its delivery remains at a very high-level.
The assumptions listed above, take no account of any 3rd party funding of any cost other than eco-revenue generating facilities where 100 per cent of the cost is assumed to be incurred by other parties. Key Revenue assumptions Overall the promoters real estate revenue estimates for this scheme are significantly higher and delivered much earlier than those provided by the Departments advisers for the Base Case. The largest sources of the differences are differences in the absorption assumptions and the 10 per cent premium added by the promoter to relevant market norms to reflect their assumption that higher prices would be paid for homes on the eco-town. The Base Case assumptions exclude any such premium and assume slower absorption rates than the promoter allowed. The combined effect of these differences in the real estate assumptions is that the Base Case revenues used in the assessment are about 14 per cent lower than those assumed by the promoter. As noted below, the Departments advisers have also tested the sensitivity of the assessment outputs to a significant long-term reduction in these assumptions. Third party funding assumptions As indicated above, it is likely that for the current scheme to be viable either: some of the costs identified will need to be met by other third party commercial sources or the promoter will need to secure significant financial assistance from public sector sources to pay for elements of the Scheme. The promoters own assessment indicates the need for such funding, albeit at a lower level than indicated by the assessment. As set out below, their submission identifies potential sources of circa 90m of funding from third parties. As outlined above, modelling of potential development costs and values suggests that a funding gap of between 30 and 190m might need to be addressed if the current proposed Scheme is to be viable. The promoter is working to identify and secure additional sources of funding and have identified a number of potential sources that may be available to address this funding gap. The promoter included a funding annex as part of its submission to the Department in December 2008. This annex set out a number of potential funding sources including: Growth Point funding (supporting the Governments new growth point programme) Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) (transport infrastructure for Growth Areas and Points) EU Convergence funding (provided by the EU to support economic development, including business support and investment in airport and ICT infrastructure and enhancing business/academic links) South West Regional Development Agency (support for economic development and infrastructure investment including potential access to newly established Regional Infrastructure Fund although it should be noted that this fund provides up front funding in expectation of future returns)
Rural Development Programme (with a budget for South West England of 157million up to 2013 to support improvements to the environment and countryside, improvements to the quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy) Various national schemes such as the low carbon buildings programme, DEFRAs Bioenergy scheme, the Building Schools for the Future programme and local/ national support for infrastructure investment such as road building Various charitable sources including the Big Lottery Fund, SITA Cornwall Trust and other charitable trusts Homes and Communities Agency funding (to support affordable housing provision and provide gap funding support to commercial and industrial development schemes). At the present time the extent to which these identified potential sources of funding might be available and secured to support the project is unclear. The promoter has made some specific assumptions on funds which may be available to support the project, namely: Roads 44 million 100 per cent grant funding provided by Cornwall County Council through bids under the Community Infrastructure Fund programme and the Regional Funding Allocation process to support road building works. Schools 24million 100 per cent funding from central government under the Building Schools for the Future programme to support delivery of new schools Exemplar PPS 15million 20 per cent funded by grants from the HCA to address eco costs or support the delivery of affordable housing. The promoter has explained that work continues with the HCA to support the house building programme within the eco-town submission, looking at the extra over costs of achieving above CSH 4 affordable housing programme. Community 1.7million 50 per cent funded via grants from various sources to support the delivery of investment in community facilities Remediation costs 5 million to support site remediation costs from the EU Convergence Programme and the HCA. In addition to these sources, the promoter is also anticipating investment from, amongst others: A local utility in waste water disposal infrastructure and has provided evidence to show support from this party (allowance for such funding was included in the Base Case assumptions) transport operators for rail and bus services an investor into an ESCo for wind farm and macro generation so this is delivered at no cost to the project investors in e-transport and other enabling technologies.
While the Departments advisers are aware of an expression of interest for CIF funding of 12million to support the delivery of improvements to the A391, clearly there is some way to go before any offers of CIF funding become firm. Furthermore, while we note that the promoter has commenced discussions with a number of stakeholders concerning potential funding support and has provided copies of letters of support, at this time it is not possible to confirm the availability of such funds. As such the availability of funding to address any project funding gap represents a key risk to the programme. The promoter understands the scale of the funding challenge for this scheme and that its viability is heavily dependent on existing (and a few potential new) funding sources delivering an appropriate level of financial support that the project needs. Sensitivity analysis The assessment has included completion of a series of sensitivity tests to identify the impact on the outcome calculated of the Base Case of varying select key assumptions. Further details of the full range of sensitivity tests completed will be included in the final report. However, we considered it worth while to highlight a number of the tests applied to this scheme: Increasing the sales price assumption of housing land by 10 per cent (i.e. towards the promoters own assumption) adds around 45 million (2008 prices) to the potential surpluses generated by the scheme Changing the level of affordable content from 40 per cent to 30 per cent adds about 20 million (2008 prices) to the potential surpluses generated by the scheme from 40 per cent to 50 per cent reduces the potential surpluses generated by the scheme by about 20 million (2008 prices) In addition to this issue, perhaps the most important other current issue to understand is the impact varying house price and other real estate values has on the potential for the scheme to generate surpluses. Whilst over the short-term property values move independently of building costs in the longer term this is not sustainable. Underlying costs and margins in the construction/house building supply chain have and will continue to compress below recent levels. Following the reduction in activity and values in the UK housing market, building costs have fallen heavily over the last 6-9 months the Departments advisers forecast this downward trend to continue through 2009 and into 2010. Looking at this and historic data it is clear there is a correlation, but costs are a lagging item and less elastic than prices/values. If values remain at a relatively reduced level, specifications for high value items, like kitchens, bathrooms and finishes will also reduce to reflect the lower price norms for the houses being sold. Therefore, the Departments advisers have applied a combined cost and value sensitivity test as follows: reduce values by 10 per cent and reduce costs by only 50 per
cent of this (i.e. 5 per cent). The sensitivity test identifies that such a change could reduce potential surpluses by 33-38 million (2008 prices), if all other assumptions are held constant. The analysis illustrates that the viability of the scheme may vary significantly depending on a range of factors (in addition to the uncertainty around cost estimates in the baseline assessment above). This underlines that the current assessment can only illustrate potential and any future s106 negotiations will need to take into account updated information on both the cost and revenue side, including the outlook for the housing market. 3.5.3.3 Conclusions from the outline financial assessment The financial assessment indicates therefore that the development proposal only has the potential to generate sufficient value to cover some of the direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme. Therefore for the scheme to be viable it appears likely to require substantial levels of public subsidy which at present is not secured. The promoter has begun a process seeking to secure a combination of additional third party investment or financial contributions and financial assistance from public sources. The promoter recognises the need to complete further work to secure the level of support and commitments needed, before the potential viability of an eco-town at this location can be confirmed or otherwise. We would expect that the promoter would seek, if possible, to address and resolve this and other issues identified in this report should they move forward with an Outline Planning Application.

As set out in the introduction to this report, the promoters scheme for an eco-town is at a relatively early stage of development and substantial detailed work will be required before the promoter will be in a position to submit an Outline Planning Application. As stated, a significant element of this further work will involve a structured engagement between the promoter and relevant government and other agencies, and in particular the LPA including, in due course, the negotiation of an s106 agreement. That said, the range and scale of possible s106 obligations are material considerations in the assessment of the potential viability of the scheme and, therefore, it was important that initial discussions were held between the promoters and LPAs and other relevant parties to exchange information. The Departments advisers engaged in a series of meetings with promoters and LPAs and acted as a conduit for an exchange of information on s106 issues. The table below provides a summary of the meetings held with respect to St Austell.
Date 30 June 2008
Participants he promoters team T wC, BH, DL, DTZ and DWS P estormel Borough Council, R ornwall County Council C WS D he promoters team T ommunities and Local C Government PwC, BH, DL, DTZ and DWS
Key issues covered eview of promoters R proposals for the eco-town at St Austell iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team
3 November 2008
13 November 2008

Promoter website: www.claycountryvision.imerys.com/content/1_EcoTowns.asp Local authority websites: www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=41432 www.restormel.gov.uk/
3.6 Rossington, South Yorkshire

3.6.1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the initial assessment completed for the eco-town scheme proposed by UK Coal (the promoter) for Rossington (the scheme). A summary of the key features for the scheme is set out below.

The following table summarises the key features and components of the promoters proposals for an eco-town at Rossington. Element Land Description The proposed eco-town of Rossington is located south of Doncaster in South Yorkshire, just below the M18. The promoter, UK Coal Ltd, will be taking on the role as master developer, delivering serviced plots to the market. The site includes a former colliery area and associated spoil heap as well as woodland and some agricultural land. It is adjacent to the existing village of New Rossington much of which was built to house the mining community that served the colliery. The promoter states that no homes will be built in the green belt and none within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The proposal is part of a wider Doncaster regeneration plan which is aimed at meeting the growing housing demand in the region through the development of a number of Eco-boroughs. The promoter is proposing a development consisting of the delivery of serviced plots to support 5000 residential units over a 20 year time horizon with the majority of delivery weighted towards the first 5 years (enabled plots to deliver 300 units) falling back to an average circa 255 units per annum. The proposed quantum of commercial development is phased over 5 years from 2012 to 2016 delivering circa 8,500 sq m per annum. The Departments advisers have replicated this in the assessment and phased commercial and community facilities to support the residential trajectory. Transport quality bus corridor to the north of the site with direct links A towards Doncaster. Improvements to existing bus services include improved faster bus lanes, and the introduction of hybrid and bio fuel vehicles. ew access road to junction 18 of the M18 (this could form part N of proposed FARRRS Road scheme which has been proposed by others) and two additional access roads to the site.
Housing
Key elements of on-off site infrastructure
Element Key ecoelements
Description Energy Provision ursuing wind power P Transport Walkable neighbourhoods and cycle links, both within the site and to local centres. 0 per cent affordable housing 3 wo primary schools and a contribution towards secondary school T provision ontribution towards construction skills academy C 0 hectares of parkland 5 sport hub A 0 allotments (2 ha) 6 bio-park A xtension and enhancement of woodland and riverside walk E ontribution towards bus services and infrastructure C ycle pathways C edestrian and cycle footbridge P bus pass A ike and membership to car club for every home B ontribution towards a community dowry C reation of bioscience office space and light industrial space C ew manufacturing site for modern methods of construction at N Bankwood
The above represents only a brief summary of the key features of the Rossington scheme and eco-town proposal. In addition to this summary the promoter has provided a number of documents on its web site that set out its overall vision for the scheme, and further details of the proposed scheme components. These can be accessed at: www.rossingtonecotown.co.uk/

This section presents, at a summary level, the output from the outline financial assessment carried out for the scheme. The figures show the range of potential net surplus cash flows (in 2008 prices) that the scheme may generate over a 30 year period if the assumptions used in the assessment (The Assumptions) hold true. 3.6.3.1 The Base Case Financial Assessment [Figure presenting the results of the Base Case financial assessment is redacted at the request of the promoter.]
Based on the Base Case Assumptions, the financial assessment indicates that the promoters proposals alone only have the potential to generate only a portion of the total potential cost of the scheme. Therefore it is likely that for the scheme to be viable either: some of the costs identified will need to be borne by other third parties or the promoters will need to secure grants or donations from robust sources to pay for elements the scheme cost. The promoters own assessment indicates the need for such funding, albeit at a lower level than indicated by the Departments advisers assessment. [Sentence redacted at the request of the promoter.] 3.6.3.2 The Base Case assumptions This sub-section summarises the key assumptions used in the Base Case assessment. Key timing and phasing assumptions The promoter is proposing a development consisting of the delivery of serviced plots to support 5,000 residential units over a 20 year time horizon with the majority of delivery weighted towards the first 5 years (enabled plots to deliver 300 units) falling back to an average circa 255 units per annum. Commercial development is phased over 5 years from 2012 to 2016 delivering circa 8,500 sq m per annum. This has been replicated in the assessment and phased commercial and community facilities to support the residential trajectory. Key Cost assumptions The key cost assumptions for the scheme that underpin the above are presented in Table 3.6.5.2 below. The figures are rounded to the nearest 10 million and presented in broad cost categories. These illustrate the Base Case range of potential development costs, together with the levels of financing and development profit assumed in the assessment over the 30 year assessment period and presented in 2008 prices. This table includes costs towards the lower and the higher end of the estimates prepared by the Departments advisers. These estimates are not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes and will change if the underlying assumptions they are based on also change.
Table 3.6.3.2: Base Case Range1 of potential cost assumptions over the 30 year planning period (m 2008 prices, rounded to nearest 10m) Cost category Pre- development Onsite Build costs2 Utilities (on and off site)3 less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties Transport Eco-features less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties Other S106 elements4 Landscaping & public realm Offsite Other Transport (hard costs)5 Transport (subsidies) Including fee, sales, marketing, land cost6, finance costs and assumed development profit etc. Low 40 470 30 (10) 30 40 (40) 30 10 30 20 180 830 High 50 530 50 (10) 30 60 (60) 40 10 40 20 200 960

1 The range of Low to High is not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes. At this stage we consider it reasonable to assume that this range could include the central 50 per cent of potential outcomes of costs based on the underlying assumptions used in preparing these indicative estimates, should any of these underlying assumptions change then the values in these ranges would change. 2 House building costs based on achieving CSH level 4 standards, the other costs of achieving the higher standards required by the PPS are included within other cost headings. 3 Utilities and eco-facilities costs are expressed as capital expenditure; potential contributions from third parties in return for the developer installing key elements of the utilities infrastructure or in making the investment themselves are separately identified. 4 s106 cash contributions are those costs identified in Appendix C not already included within the costs above. The values shown here are only on element of the s106 contribution that the developer would be providing as part of this scheme. The other costs in this table include costs that would not be incurred but for the s106 obligations, including amongst other things the cost of providing affordable housing, public open spaces, playing fields, etc. the Department recognises that s106 agreements will have costs for the promoter which are not represented by cash payments to third parties. 5 The Off-site Transport Costs include allowances where the scheme would in practice be required to make a contribution towards the specific investment (e.g. contributions towards a Road, Motorway or Railway improvements). 6 Land cost has been assessed based on comparable data for land in the current use of the site selected by the promoter.
As indicated in Note 1 above, the range of potential costs shown in Table 3.6.3.2 illustrates the level of uncertainty in estimating costs at this early stage in the development of the scheme. These ranges apply to the Base Case and therefore exclude the impact of varying key assumptions. It is expected that the range of costs would narrow over time, with additional clarity on the necessary infrastructure solutions and any site-specific abnormal costs following more detailed investigation by the promoter in consultation with delivery partners. Description of key cost assumptions The promoter submitted a series of high-level cost estimates to support their proposal that was reviewed by the Departments advisers. A positive meeting was held with the promoter to help develop the Department and its advisers understanding of the basis of the promoters estimates for the proposed scheme. Nevertheless, key outstanding risks are as follows: The promoters rates for housing are significantly below the Departments advisers benchmark range. The promoters assumptions originated from the Departments Report Cost Analysis of The Code for Sustainable Homes dated July 2008 and February 08. However, the report is quite clear that all site specific works are excluded as are items such as substructure, floor finishes throughout, kitchen appliances, drainage, site works associated with dwelling, and fees and surveys. This exclusion is confirmed by the promoter. The promoter has included circa 28 million for off-site highway works comprising a contribution towards part of the FARRRS link road and junction improvements. The promoter has assumed that no off-site utilities reinforcement will be required but this assumption does not appear to have support from the relevant supply companies. The promoters allowance for on-site utilities is significantly below the Departments advisers benchmark range and needs further discussion. The Departments advisers have included the building connection costs of all utilities services within the rates for the houses. The allowance the Departments advisers are making for on-site utilities distribution accounts for the utilities networks for the whole site, except for the cost of connecting the buildings, which has been included within the rates of the houses. On this basis, the Departments advisers estimate an allowance of 35 53 million for the onsite utilities would be required. The promoter has allowed 4 million, which in the Departments advisers opinion, is too low. The Departments advisers have made contact with the promoter with regards to this issue, but no clarification or agreement has been reached and therefore the existing divergence cannot be accounted for and represents a risk.
The promoters approach to section 106 works is inconsistent with the approach taken on other schemes of this type and therefore it is believed it could represent a risk. The promoter has included 17 million for primary and secondary education, 5 million for a construction skills academy, 10 million as a community dowry, 200,000 to relocate allotments and 1 million for a household waste recycling facility. The promoter has made no allowance, however, for community buildings e.g. community centres, health centres, youth centres, etc. The Departments advisers benchmark range includes 25 30 million for primary and secondary education and 5 10 million for community buildings. Overall the promoters cost estimate for this scheme fell 8 per cent below the lower end of the Departments advisers cost estimate and 16 per cent below the mid point. Key Revenue assumptions Overall the promoters real estate revenue estimates for this scheme are similar to those provided by the Departments advisers for the Base Case. As noted below, the Departments advisers have also tested the sensitivity of the assessment outputs to a significant long-term lowering in these assumptions. Promoters proposals to close the funding gap In its December 2008 submission the promoter provided details of its plans to address the funding deficit identified in the Departments advisers and their own assessment. In principle these proposals can be summarised under 4 headings: funding the cost of off-site transport the promoter has rightly identified that there are a range of other parties who would benefit from early completion of the FARRRS scheme including: the existing communities the promoter has indicated that Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council are considering introducing a Supplementary Planning Document to require developments affected by the M18 transport constraints to contribute a set amount per dwelling or use (floor area) towards the cost of alleviating such constraints. It has not yet been decided if this would be enabled through an s106 requirement or a Community Infrastructure Levy. other significant private or public sector beneficiaries the promoters of the Inland Port and the Owners of the Robin Hood Airport have already offered, subject to contract, to provide a sizeable contribution towards the cost of the FAARS Scheme. It is not yet clear the extent to which these proposals would reduce the amount of contribution the promoter would be required to make towards the cost of these works. Funding energy capital costs the promoters cost model assumed that the full capital cost of the four wind turbines would be 10m (2.5m each), and would be incurred by the project. It also indicated that the promoter expected no offsetting of capital costs against revenue. Following further discussions with the wind turbine
providers, it is now expected that there will be an off setting of capital costs by revenue from the wind turbines and so the promoter has assumed a 50 per cent capital offset. This results in a cost saving of 5m to the Scheme. The Departments advisers consider that these types of energy solutions have the potential to be more than self funding and could be a source of income for the scheme. As noted in the assumptions set out above, the Departments advisers anticipate that the promoters of this site would either establish an ESCo and attract 3rd party investment to pay for the investment in the eco-power or let a concession to a 3rd party who would pay the promoter either a capital sum or a concession fee for the rights to place a wind farm at this location; thus allowing the promoter to avoid 100 per cent of this cost. Reducing the size of the residual funding gap by changing the scheme the promoter has identified two potential solutions that could, if acceptable, reduce the level of cost the scheme would incur. However, both of these potential solutions would require a relaxation of the Scheme Requirements set out in the draft PPS, and as such, this assessment can take no account of such proposals. The promoters scheme is to comply with the Scheme Requirements set out in the draft PPS. Reducing the size of the residual funding gap by securing additional third party funding/grants the promoters have indicated that they have begun a programme of activity to secure additional support from local and national agencies, including: 5m to be provided by Yorkshire Forward or the Sector Skills Council for Construction for the Training and Skills Academy further financial support from Yorkshire Forward towards the FARRRS road costs. After taking account of this potential additional funding, there remains a sizable residual gap that would need to be funded. The promoters state that they anticipate that both the Homes and Communities Agency and Yorkshire Forward may be able to offer further funding towards this gap and they have begun a programme of meetings with key agencies to secure it. At the time this report has been completed, the promoter has not been able to provide evidence on the nature or the availability of funds needed to address the remaining funding gap. The promoter recognises the need to complete further work to secure the level of support and commitments needed before the potential viability of an eco-town at this location can be confirmed or otherwise. Sensitivity analysis The assessment has included completion of a series of sensitivity tests to identify the impact on the outcome calculated of the Base Case of varying select key assumptions. Further details of the full range of sensitivity tests completed will be included in the final report. However, the Department considered it worthwhile to highlight one of the tests run in this report.
It is important to understand the impact varying house price and other real estate values could have on the potential for the scheme to generate surpluses. Whilst over the shortterm property values move independently of building costs in the longer term this is not sustainable. Underlying costs and margins in the construction/house building supply chain have and will continue to compress below recent levels. Following the reduction in activity and values in the UK housing market, building costs have fallen over the last 6-9 months and the Departments advisers forecast this downward trend to continue through 2009 and into 2010. Looking at this and historic data it is clear there is a correlation, but costs are a lagging item and less elastic than prices/values. The Departments advisers have, therefore, applied a combined cost and value sensitivity test as follows: values are reduced by 10 per cent and costs are reduced by only 50 per cent of this (i.e. 5 per cent). The sensitivity test identifies that such a change could increase the level of additional funding required by 40-45 million (2008 prices), if all other assumptions are held constant. The analysis illustrates that the viability of the scheme may vary depending on a range of factors (in addition to the uncertainty around cost estimates in the baseline assessment above). This underlines that the current assessment can only illustrate potential and any future s106 negotiations will need to take into account updated information on both the cost and revenue side, including the outlook for the housing market. 3.6.3.3 Conclusions from the outline financial assessment The financial assessment indicates, therefore, that under most scenarios the development proposal only has the potential to generate sufficient value to cover some of the direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme. For the scheme to be viable it is likely to need some form of public subsidy, unless the promoter can further value engineer the scheme and find other 3rd parties to fund elements of the cost. While the promoter has begun the process of securing a combination of third party and public subsidies, they recognise there is more work to be done to secure these commitments. The promoter recognises the need to complete further work to secure the level of support and commitments needed, before the potential viability of an eco-town at this location can be confirmed or otherwise. We would also expect that the promoter would seek, if possible, to address and resolve this and other issues identified in this report should they move forward with an Outline Planning Application.

As set out in the Introduction to this report, the promoters scheme for an eco-town is at a relatively early stage of development and substantial detailed work will be required before the promoter will be in a position to submit an Outline Planning Application. As stated, a significant element of this further work will involve a structured engagement between the promoter and relevant government and other agencies, and in particular the LPA including, in due course, the negotiation of an s106 agreement.
That said, the range and scale of possible s106 obligations are material considerations in the assessment of the potential viability of the scheme and, therefore, it was important that initial discussions were held between the promoters and LPAs and other relevant parties to exchange information. The Departments advisers engaged in a series of meetings with promoters and LPAs and acted as a conduit for an exchange of information on s106 issues. The table below provides a summary of the meetings held with respect to Rossington. Date 27 June 2008 Participants he promoters team T wC, BH, DTZ, DL, DWS, P TLAS A oncaster Metropolitan D Borough Council O Yorkshire and the Humber G WS D he promoters team T ommunities and Local C Government epartment for Transport D wC, BH, DTZ, DL, DWS P Key issues covered eview of promoters R proposals for the eco-town at Rossington iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team
7 November 2008
20 November 2008

Promoter website: www.rossingtonecotown.co.uk/ Local authority website: www.doncaster.gov.uk/
3.7 Middle Quinton, Warwickshire

3.7.1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the initial assessment completed for the eco-town scheme proposed by St Modwen Properties and the Bird Group (the promoter) for Middle Quinton (the scheme). A summary of the key features for the scheme is set out below.

The following table summarises the key features and components of the promoters proposals for an eco-town at Middle Quinton. Element Land Description Middle Quinton lies south west of the cultural centre of Stratfordupon-Avon in Warwickshire. The site comprises 258 hectares of brown field land including some 140,000 m2 of existing buildings both commercial and residential. Until 2004 the majority of the site was used by the MoD. There is a recycling centre on site. In terms of transport links, the site is bounded by the B4632 to Stratford on the eastern side and a rail corridor on the western side. The nearest A road is the A46 and is 11km from the site. Until the mid 1970s, passenger rail services operated between Honeybourne and Stratford-upon-Avon via the rail corridor on the western boundary of the site. The rail corridor between the site and Stratford-upon-Avon was abandoned and now forms the Greenway; a segregated pedestrian and cycle route. Rail services between the site and Honeybourne continue to operate although for freight use only. The latest masterplan suggests that there will be five distinct areas including a town centre, a transport hub, lakeside and woodside developments and an allotment area. The scheme is being promoted by the developers St Modwen Properties and the Bird Group, who will be taking on the role as master developer for the site, delivering serviced plots to the market. The proposal is for a settlement of 6,000 homes. The promoter has provided limited phasing information. In completing the assessment the Departments advisers have phased the delivery between 2011 and 2025 at the rate of approximately 400 homes per year (including 33 per cent affordable) In addition to the planned residential development, the proposals include the provision of employment floorspace to provide over 4,500 jobs, 3 new primary schools, 1 secondary school, health care, leisure and recreation, retail provision and community infrastructure. Commercial uses are phased from 2011 to 2018 to support the residential trajectory.
Housing
Element Key elements of on and off-site infrastructure
Description Transport guided busway to connect the site with Stratford-upon-Avon to A the north and Honeybourne to the south-west. mprovements to conventional bus services through the I enhancement of existing routes and provision of demand responsive busses. Environment Underground vacuum waste disposal system, which will transfer waste to an existing on-site recycling plant Transport A detailed travel plan features a broad range of initiatives, as well as allowing for the monitoring of travel behaviour. he Scheme will be developed around walkable hubs with car-free T areas. ach home will be provided with a free bike and a bicycle-pool E giving access to free bikes will be provided Water strategy Grey water harvesting, leak detection systems, rainwater harvesting and water metering in conjunction with water bills that show water use. Energy and carbon roposals aim for a 40 per cent reduction in energy demand. P 54 per cent of remaining energy demand provided by building integrated renewables. The remaining 46 per cent is to be provided by an Advanced Thermal Treatment CHP plant fuelled by a mix of locally available waste and biomass crops. Guided busway system (or alternatives) to connect the eco-town to Stratford upon Avon and Honeybourne and beyond Smarter choices initiatives to encourage use of public transport nnovative waste and biomass disposal systems I chools S reen space G volving governance structure. E
Key ecoelements
The above represents only a brief summary of the key features of the Middle Quinton scheme and eco-town proposal. In addition to this summary the promoter has provided a number of documents on its web site that set out its overall vision for the scheme, and further details of the proposed scheme components. These can be accessed at www.middlequintonecotown.co.uk.

This section presents, at a summary level, the output from the outline financial assessment carried out for the Scheme. The figures show the range of potential net surplus cash flows (in 2008 prices) that the scheme may generate over a 30 year period if the assumptions used in the assessment (The Assumptions) hold true. 3.7.3.1 The Base Case Financial Assessment The figure below presents a range of potential outcomes calculated for the Scheme using the Base Case Assumptions. Figure 3.7.3.1: Potential scale of development surplus (m 2008 prices) calculated for the Scheme using the Base Case Assumptions
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Undiscounted
Figure 3.7.3.1 indicates that based on the Base Case Assumptions, the financial assessment indicates that the promoters proposals have the potential to generate a reasonable financial buffer against adverse movements in the assumptions. 3.7.3.2 The Base Case assumptions This sub-section summarises the key assumptions used in the Base Case assessment. Key timing and phasing assumptions The promoter has provided limited phasing information. In completing the assessment the Departments advisers have phased the delivery from 2011 for 15 years as follows: circa 400 per annum (including 33 per cent affordable). Commercial uses are phased from 2011 to 2018 to support the residential trajectory. Key Cost assumptions The key cost assumptions for the scheme that underpin the above are presented in table 3.7.5.2 below. The figures are rounded to the nearest 10 million and presented in broad
cost categories. These illustrate the Base Case range of potential development costs, together with the levels of financing and development profit assumed in the assessment over the 30 year assessment period and presented in 2008 prices. This table includes costs towards the lower and the higher end of the estimates prepared by the Departments advisers. These estimates are not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes and will change if the underlying assumptions they are based on also change. Table 3.7.3.2: Base Case Range1 of potential cost assumptions over the 30 year planning period (m 2008 prices, rounded to nearest 10m) Cost category Predevelopment Onsite Build costs2 Utilities (on and off site)3 less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties Transport Eco-features less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties Other s106 elements4 Landscaping & public realm Offsite Other Transport (hard costs)5 Transport (subsidies) Including fee, sales, marketing, land cost6, finance costs and assumed development profit etc. Low 560 60 (10) 20 20 (20) 30 10 60 10 210 950 High 10 640 80 (20) 20 30 (20) 40 10 80 10 260 1,140

1 The range of Low to High is not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes. At this stage we consider it reasonable to assume that this range could include the central 50 per cent of potential outcomes of costs based on the underlying assumptions used in preparing these indicative estimates, should any of these underlying assumptions change then the values in these ranges would change. 2 House building costs based on achieving CSH level 4 standards, the other costs of achieving the higher standards required by the PPS are included within other cost headings. 3 Utilities and eco-facilities costs are expressed as capital expenditure; potential contributions from third parties in return for the developer installing key elements of the utilities infrastructure or in making the investment themselves are separately identified. 4 s106 cash contributions are those costs identified in Appendix C not already included within the costs above. The values shown here are only on element of the s106 contribution that the developer would be providing as part of this scheme. The other costs in this table include costs that would not be incurred but for the s106 obligations, including amongst other things the cost of providing affordable housing, public open spaces, playing fields, etc. the Department recognises that s106 agreements will have costs for the promoter which are not represented by cash payments to third parties. 5 The Off-site Transport Costs include allowances where the Scheme would, in practice, be required to make a contribution towards the specific investment (e.g. contributions towards a Road, Motorway or Railway improvements). 6 Land cost has been assessed based on comparable data for land in the current use of the site selected by the promoter.
As indicated in Note 1 above, the range of potential costs shown in Table 3.7.3.2 illustrates the level of uncertainty in estimating costs at this early stage in the development of the scheme. These ranges apply to the Base Case and therefore exclude the impact of varying key assumptions. It is expected that the range of costs would narrow over time, with additional clarity on the necessary infrastructure solutions and any site-specific abnormal costs following more detailed investigation by the promoter in consultation with delivery partners. Description of key cost assumptions The promoter submitted a series of high-level cost estimates to support their proposal. This was reviewed by technical and costing experts. Given that the Promoter is seeking to act as a master developer selling serviced plots, there are areas where the promoter has adopted a different approach to the pricing of infrastructure works from that adopted by the Department and its advisers. That said, the promoters overall cost estimate appears to fall towards the middle of the Departments advisers cost range. In addition, a positive meeting was held with the promoter to help develop the Departments advisers understanding of the basis of the promoters estimates for the proposed scheme. As a result, any outstanding risks are relatively minor. They include: The Departments advisers consider that the promoter may have slightly underestimated the capital cost of providing the infrastructure (as proposed in detail within their submissions) for the dedicated bus route. The proposed bus route is mainly on land owned by others and therefore we believe it could represent a risk due to the need for 3rd parties negotiations. In addition, there is no allowance for bus priority measures in the towns served by the route. A park and ride facility has been discussed but not included within the costs. As a result, the Departments advisers have added about 25-35 million to the promoters estimate for this item. The promoter has included an allowance for operating contributions for a high frequency bus service and travel plan measures. The Departments advisers have used the promoters assumptions for these costs. The promoter is proposing to act as a master developer and will sell serviced plots to house builders and other developers. Whilst adopting a master developer role, the promoter has indicated that it would build out the town centre, employment floorspace, schools, healthcare facilities etc, and also potentially some of the residential plots. The promoter confirmed that the estimates it submitted do not include for the provision of roads, footpaths, landscaping, utilities and the like within the boundary of the development plots to be sold to housing developers. The promoter has stated that the cost for these items has been accounted for in their treatment of land values. However, the promoter states that costs for providing site wide strategic infrastructure have been included in its estimate. The approach adopted in the assessment is different. The Departments advisers have built up project costs and revenues from the basic scheme ingredients (e.g. the number houses built for a cost and sold for a price,
rather than selling the land on which another party would develop the real estate). The Departments advisers have therefore been required to estimate what the underlying pricing and cost assumptions would need to be in order to support the land values submitted by the promoter. Because of this difference in approach, there is a possibility that there will be a difference of view between the promoter and the Departments advisers as to the level of cost and its allocation between master developer and ultimate developers of housing and other real estate. Key Revenue assumptions Overall the promoters real estate revenue estimates for this scheme are slightly higher (10 per cent) than those provided by the Departments advisers for the Base Case. As noted below, the Departments advisers have also tested the sensitivity of the assessment outputs to a significant long-term lowering in these assumptions. Sensitivity analysis The assessment has included completion of a series of sensitivity tests to identify the impact on the Base Case outcome of varying select key assumptions. Further details of the full range of sensitivity tests completed will be included in the final report. However, the Department considered it worthwhile to highlight one of the tests applied in this report. It is important to understand the potential impact that varying house prices and other real estate values could have on the potential for the scheme to generate the required surpluses. Whilst over the short-term property values tend to move independently of building costs, in the longer term this is not sustainable. Underlying costs and development margins in the construction/house building supply chain have and will continue to compress below recent levels. Following the reduction in activity and values in the UK housing market, building costs have fallen over the last 6-9 months and the Departments advisers forecast this downward trend to continue through 2009 and into 2010. Looking at this, and historic data, it is clear there is a correlation, but costs are a lagging item and less elastic than prices/values. The Departments advisers have, therefore, applied a combined cost and value sensitivity test as follows: values are reduced by 10 per cent and costs by only 50 per cent of this (i.e. 5 per cent). This results of this sensitivity test for Middle Quinton highlights that such a change could reduce potential surpluses by 80-85m (2008 prices), if all other assumptions are held constant. Even with this level of reduction then, the scheme continues to generate a surplus (contingency) over and above the estimated direct and indirect costs of delivery. This analysis illustrates that, while in this instance the scheme continues to generate a surplus, the viability of an eco-town scheme may vary significantly depending on a range of factors (in addition to the uncertainty around cost estimates in the baseline assessment above). This underlines that the current assessment can only illustrate potential and any future s106 negotiations will need to take into account updated information on both the cost and revenue side, including the outlook for the housing market.
3.7.3.3 Conclusions from the outline financial assessment The financial assessment indicates, therefore, that the development proposal has the potential to generate sufficient value to cover the direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme without recourse to public subsidy. The proposal has potential to generate a surplus (contingency) over and above the estimated direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme and after taking account a range of uncertainties. We would expect that the issues identified above would be addressed and resolved if possible by the promoter as part of the preparations for an Outline Planning Application.

As set out in the Introduction to this report, the promoters scheme for an eco-town is at a relatively early stage of development and substantial detailed work will be required before the promoter will be in a position to submit an Outline Planning Application. As stated, a significant element of this further work will involve a structured engagement between the promoter and relevant government and other agencies, and in particular the LPA including, in due course, the negotiation of an s106 agreement. That said, the range and scale of possible s106 obligations are material considerations in the assessment of the potential viability of the scheme and, therefore, it was important that initial discussions were held between the promoters and LPAs and other relevant parties to exchange information. The Departments advisers engaged in a series of meetings with promoters and LPAs and acted as a conduit for an exchange of information on s106 issues. The table below provides a summary of the meetings held with respect to Middle Quinton. Date 11 July 2008 Participants The promoters team ommunities and Local C Government epartment for Transport D wC, BH, DL, DTZ, DWS P ychavon District Council, W Stratford on Avon District Council, overnment office for West G Midlands WS D he promoters team T ommunities and Local C Government epartment for Transport D wC, BH, DTZ, DL, DWS P Key issues covered eview of promoters R proposals for the eco-town at Middle Quinton
6 November 2008
iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team
14 November 2008
iscussion surrounding D latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team
The main elements of the proposed Scheme were distilled in a standardised s106 HoTs template and the expectations of each party, albeit at an early stage, as to the promoters initial s106 offer and the LPAs initial s106 expectations were recorded. The purpose of this template is to begin to provide clarity on likely s106 issues related to the assessed scheme and to aid further consideration by the promoter as to the likely requirements of the LPAs as the sites move forward through the planning process. The template is set out in Appendix C. The Department understands that the promoters team and the Joint Local Authorities Officers Group met in January 2009 to discuss the draft s106 HoT included in Appendix C and that an updated version of this template may now be available. As this occurred after the Cut-Off Date it cannot be included in this document. However, the promoter may make it available on their website.

Promoter website: www.middlequintonecotown.co.uk/links.htm Local authority websites: www.stratford.gov.uk/planning/planning-1872.cfm www.warwickshire,gov.uk/ www.worcestershire.gov.uk/home/wccindex.htm www.wychavon.gov.uk
3.8 North East Elsenham, Essex

3.8.1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the initial assessment completed for the eco-town scheme proposed by The Fairfield Partnership (the promoter) for North East Elsenham (the scheme). A summary of the key features for the scheme is set out below.

The following table summarises the key features and components of the promoters proposals for an eco-town at North East Elsenham. Element Land Description The NE Elsenham site is south of Cambridge and east of Milton Keynes, adjacent to the M11. The area of the site is around 265 hectares. It lies outside the green belt and comprises primarily agricultural land under arable cultivation. It does not contain any area with a specific landscape designation. The site has good transport links due to its proximity to the M11 (junction 8) and the nearby railway station at Elsenham. A key part of the transport strategy is an orbital bus route with links to neighbouring towns and to Stansted Airport. The town is being promoted by the Fairfield Partnership which has long-term development options with a number of local land owners. The promoter will be pursuing a role as Master Developer, delivering serviced plots of land to the market. The original proposal for North East Elsenham was for a new community of 3,000 dwellings with potential for future expansion promoted through the Local Development Framework (January 2008). The eco-town proposal is for 5,000 dwellings. The promoter has provided a phasing plan suggesting the delivery of serviced plots to enable 250 residential units per annum to be completed (including the draft PPS requirement of 30 per cent affordable and up to 40 per cent affordable) over 20 years from 2013. In addition to the planned residential development, the promoter plans to develop associated retail, commercial and community amenities. Serviced plots for commercial floorspace are phased over 10 years from 2013.
Housing
Element Key elements of on-off site infrastructure
Description Transport Upgrades to Elsenham Railway station, including a new taxi rank, improved parking for cars & bicycles, a new station entrance & forecourt. Network Rail is also proposing platform extensions. Improvements to North Hall Road, access points to Henham Road, Mill Road access to site, Elsenham Cross Junction bypass, and the M11 junction. A new orbital bus route linking Elsenham, Stansted Mountfitchet, Bishops Stortford & Stansted Airport is being proposed by the promoter. Environmental A proposed green ringof 104 hectares of green space around the development will enhance existing and promote newly created habitats, recreational opportunities and local food production and link the development to the wider countryside. Transport Improved cycle and pedestrian links to neighbouring villages and towns.
Key ecoelements
30 per cent affordable housing (could rise up to 40 per cent) 3 primary schools and 1 secondary school A green ring of public open space and buffer land which preserves separation from Henham New town park Town square and neighbourhood parks 15 hectares of sports pitches 14 hectares of equipped childrens play area and informal recreation space community orchard and allotments Real time public transport information Community, leisure and sports facilities; GP health centre Establishment of the Elsenham Co-Operative Ltd to manage and own certain community facilities Hotel and 53,000 sqm of employment floor space Comprehensive new drainage, utilities, telecommunications and energy infrastructure
The above represents only a brief summary of the key features of the North East Elsenham scheme and eco-town proposal. In addition to this summary the promoter has provided a number of documents on its web site that set out its overall vision for the scheme, and further details of the proposed scheme components. These can be accessed at www.elsenham-info.co.uk

This section presents, at a summary level, the output from the outline financial assessment carried out for the Scheme. The figures show the range of potential net surplus cash flows (in 2008 prices) that the scheme may generate over a 30 year period if the assumptions used in the assessment (the Assumptions) hold true. 3.8.3.1 The Base Case Financial Assessment The figure below presents the range of potential outcomes calculated for the scheme using the Base Case Assumptions. Figure 3.8.3.1: Potential scale of development surplus (2008 prices) calculated for the Scheme using the Base Case Assumptions
450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 20 10 0 50 40 30 70 60
Undiscounted
Figure 3.8.3.1 indicates that based on the Base Case Assumptions, the financial assessment indicates that the promoters proposals have the potential to generate a reasonable financial buffer against adverse movements in the assumptions. 3.8.3.2 The Base Case assumptions This sub-section summarises the key assumptions used in the Base Case assessment. Key timing and phasing assumptions The promoter has provided a phasing plan suggesting the delivery of serviced plots to enable 250 residential units per annum to be completed (including 30 per cent affordable) over 20 years from 2013. Serviced plots for commercial floor space is phased over 10 years from 2013. Key Cost assumptions The key cost assumptions for the scheme that underpin the above are presented in Table 3.8.3.2 below. The figures are rounded to the nearest 10 million and presented in broad
cost categories. These illustrate the Base Case range of potential development costs, together with the levels of financing and development profit assumed in the assessment over the 30 year assessment period and presented in 2008 prices. This figure includes costs towards the lower and the higher end of the estimates prepared by the Departments advisers. These estimates are not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes and will change if the underlying assumptions they are based on also change. Table 3.8.3.2: Base Case Range1 of potential cost assumptions over the 30 year planning period (m 2008 prices, rounded to nearest 10m) Cost category Predevelopment Onsite Build costs6 Utilities (on and off site)2 less cost assumed to be incurred 3rd parties Transport Eco-features less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties Other s106 elements5 Landscaping & public realm Offsite Transport (hard costs)4 Other (including fee, sales, marketing, land cost)3 Finance costs and assumed development profit Total over the 30 year planning horizon
Excludes: Taxation and operating costs, other than those identified as transport subsidies Notes: 1 The range of Low to High is not expected to include 100 per cent of all potential outcomes. At this stage we consider it reasonable to assume that this range could include the central 50 per cent of potential outcomes of costs based on the underlying assumptions used in preparing these indicative estimates, should any of these underlying assumptions change then the values in these ranges would change. 2 Utilities costs are expressed as capital expenditure, potential contributions from utility companies in return for the developer installing key elements of the utilities infrastructure are separately identified. 3 Land cost has been assessed based on comparable data for land in the current use of the site selected by the Promoter. 4 The Off-site Transport Costs include allowances where the Scheme would in practice be only require to make a contribution towards the specific investment (e.g. contributions towards a Road, Motorway or Railway improvements). 5 s106 cash contributions are those costs identified in Appendix C not already included within the costs above. The values shown here are only part of the s106 contribution that the developer would be providing as part of this scheme. The other costs in this table include costs that would not be incurred but for the s106 obligations, including amongst other things the cost of providing affordable housing, public open spaces, playing fields, etc.. the Department recognises that s.106 agreements will have costs for the promoters which are not represented by cash payments to third parties. 6 House building costs based on achieving a CHS level 4 standards, the other costs of achieving the higher standards required by the PPS are included within other cost headings.
Low 630 30 (10) 30 10 (10) 30 20 20 30 180 960
High 10 710 50 (10) 40 20 (10) 50 30 30 30 230 1,180
As indicated in Note 1 above, the range of potential costs shown in Table 3.8.3.2 illustrates the level of uncertainty in estimating costs at this early stage in the development of the scheme. These ranges apply to the Base Case and are therefore before including the impact of varying key assumptions. It is expected that the range of costs would narrow over time, with additional clarity on the necessary infrastructure solutions and any site-specific abnormal costs following more detailed investigation by the Promoter in consultation with delivery partners. Description of key cost assumptions The promoter has provided a detailed breakdown of scheme costs as requested. Overall the promoters cost estimate was slightly lower than the Departments advisers lower bound estimate. There are several areas of concern which need further investigation and would present two significant potential risks going forward: Costing of CSH level 4/6 housing to be delivered between 2011-2035 is challenging, particularly given current market conditions. The promoters own assumptions for building costs, particularly given the assumption that part of the cost of site highways is assumed to be included in the cost allowance, fell significantly below the lower bound of the Departments advisers cost assumptions, even given the allowances elsewhere in the promoters estimates for the provision of eco-features. The sum allowed by the promoter for on-site transport appears low. The promoter only allowed a relatively small sum for on site highways works and indicated that housing fronts roads, the cost of that road is taken into account in the house build cost. Based on the master plan layout submitted by the promoter, the Departments advisers estimated that the cost of providing primary and secondary roads would range between 20-30 million more than that estimated by the promoter. The promoter included a substantial provision of 107 million for eco-features, and, as noted above, some of this is related to costs of achieving CSH6 compliance. The majority of this cost provision is allocated to District Heating/CHP/biomass/wind power and appears to be a relatively prudent allowance. The Department would expect the promoter, like many promoters of large site developments in the UK over recent years, to seek to share a significant portion of the cost of providing eco-facilities and utilities with partners through the creation of an ESCo/MUSCo or potentially letting concessions for the proposed district heating/CHP/biomass/wind farm. These approaches are beginning to be used with some success across the country and, therefore the Department consider it reasonable to assume that a relatively high proportion of the costs of the eco-facilities and related infrastructure could be selffinancing and not need to be funded from development revenues. As the scheme progresses the ability of these elements to be self-funding will become clearer and might enhance scheme viability.
Key Revenue assumptions The promoter has provided a detailed breakdown of real estate revenues assumptions as requested. The Departments advisers reviewed the promoters assumptions and generated benchmarks for the site. Overall the promoters real estate revenue estimates for this scheme are slightly lower than those provided by the Departments advisers for the Base Case. Sensitivity analysis The assessment has included completion of a series of sensitivity tests to identify the impact on the Base Case of varying select key assumptions. Further details of the full range of sensitivity tests completed will be included in the final report. However, the Department considers it worth while to highlight a number of the tests applied in this report: The single greatest costing uncertainty surrounds the cost assumptions for meeting the required housing standard. The Departments advisers included a 15 per cent range in cost assumptions between the low and high range and we consider this to be a sufficient test. If, however, the promoter is able to procure housing built at costs in line with its assumption (including allowance for eco-facilities) then the level of potential development surpluses could increase by about 150m (2008 prices). There is a difference of view between the promoter and the Departments advisers as to potential sales values for housing. Applying the promoters pricing assumptions, but holding all other assumptions as in the Base Case, reduces the amount of potential surpluses by 200m (2008 prices). If the promoters price assumptions hold true and coincide with costs at the high end of the Departments advisers cost range, then the viability of the scheme could be at risk. It is important to understand the impact that varying house price and other real estate values could have on the potential for the scheme to generate surpluses. Whilst over the short-term property values move independently of building costs in the longer term this is not sustainable. Underlying costs and margins in the construction/ house building supply chain have and will continue to compress below recent levels. Following the reduction in activity and values in the UK housing market, building costs have fallen over the last 6-9 months and Departments advisers forecast this downward trend to continue through 2009 and into 2010. Looking at this and historic data it is clear there is a correlation, but costs are a lagging item and less elastic than prices/ values. The Departments advisers have, therefore, applied a combined cost and value sensitivity test as follows: values are reduced by 10 per cent and costs are reduced by only 50 per cent of this (i.e. 5 per cent). The sensitivity test identifies that such a change could reduce potential surpluses by 80m (2008 prices), if all other assumptions are held constant. Even with this level of reduction, the scheme appears to continue to generate a surplus (contingency) over and above the estimated direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme.
The analysis illustrates that the viability of the scheme may vary significantly depending on a range of factors (in addition to the uncertainty around cost estimates in the baseline assessment above). This underlines that the current assessment can only illustrate potential and any future s106 negotiations will need to take into account updated information on both the cost and revenue side, including the outlook for the housing market. 3.8.3.3 Conclusions from the outline financial assessment The financial assessment indicates therefore that the development proposal has the potential to generate sufficient value to cover the direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme without recourse to public subsidy. The proposal has potential to generate a surplus (contingency) over and above the estimated direct and indirect costs of delivering the scheme, even after taking account of the uncertainties detailed above. We would expect that the promoter would seek to address and resolve the other issues and uncertainties identified in this report, if possible, as part of the preparations for an Outline Planning Application.

As set out in the introduction to this report, the promoters scheme for an eco-town is at a relatively early stage of development and substantial detailed work will be required before the promoter will be in a position to submit an Outline Planning Application. As stated, a significant element of this further work will involve a structured engagement between the promoter and relevant government and other agencies, and in particular the LPA including, in due course, the negotiation of a s106 agreement. That said, the range and scale of possible s106 obligations are material considerations in the assessment of the potential viability of the scheme and, therefore, it was important that input was obtained from the promoters and LPAs and other relevant parties to exchange information. The Departments advisers engaged in a series of meetings with promoters and LPAs and acted as a conduit for an exchange of information on s106 issues. The table below provides a summary of the meetings held with respect to North East Elsenham.
Date 3 July 2008
Participants The promoters team PwC, DTZ, BH, DWS, DL, ATLAS Essex County Council, Uttlesford District Council, DWS The promoters team Communities and Local Government Department for Transport PwC, BH, DTZ, DL, DWS
Key issues covered Review of promoters proposals for the eco-town at North East Elsenham Discussion surrounding latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team Discussion surrounding latest proposals and analysis undertaken by promoters team
5 November 2008
19 November 2008

Promoter website: www.elsenham-info.co.uk/elsenham_eco_town_submission.html Local authority websites: www.uttlesford.gov.uk/main.cfm www.essex.gov.uk/
Section 4
Individual site assessments of SA alternative schemes
4.1 North West Bicester, Oxon
4.1.1 Introduction
Following the landowner/developer promotion of the Weston Otmoor eco town in Cherwell District, Cherwell District Council (CDC) requested that Government undertake an in principle assessment of what it considered to be a better alternative eco town location at NW Bicester. This location was described in material published by CDC and CLG on 4 November 20082. The request for assessment was made without prejudice to wider planning considerations such as the appropriateness, or otherwise, of Cherwell as a general location for the level of development entailed in an eco town proposal. CDC is now undertaking a concept study to explore the potential of the location in more detail. A draft report on the study was published on 2 March and is now available as a technical input to the current consultation on Eco Towns. In the light of this further work CDC will decide, through its response to the consultation, whether to formally propose the location for inclusion in the PPS. This report was prepared by Halcrow Group Ltd in conjunction with Michael Beaman Ltd.

The vision for NW Bicester has, to a large extent, been guided by the draft PPS on eco-town requirements. The sites location on the edge of Bicester, and the opportunities this brings, adds a further dimension to this. Considering these together, the vision which emerges is that of a settlement with the potential to bring the benefits of an eco-town to a much wider audience. Specifically, the NW Bicester eco-town will be a place where people can: live in a sustainable community walk easily to local facilities, school, work and shops enjoy a range of linked green spaces have choice of transport modes be strongly connected to the town centre through the road and green space network live in energy efficient buildings with highly sustainable credentials
2
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/westonotmoor
Section 4 Individual site assessments of SA alternative schemes 91
and where these benefits have the potential to be extended, to a greater or lesser degree, into the existing town. The Masterplan Concept incorporates the following land uses Summary Employment Residential Local Centre Education Open Space Infrastructure Total Area 31.80 ha 125.00 ha 9.91 ha 17.16 ha 138.23 ha 23.00 ha 345.10 ha % 9 36 3 5 40 7 100
In spatial terms the masterplan contains the main features below: Bio-mass planting Landscaping and bio-mass planting define the western extent of the community and help to integrate it into the surrounding area The concept plan layout is set within a strong landscape structure and a network of green spaces which follow existing landscape features, such as watercourses, trees and hedgerows In terms of built form the layout incorporates a connected block pattern of streets and footpaths. Development will be outward facing with active edges and perimeter blocks. Buildings should be designed to enliven the street scene through the creation of street frontages and entrances and ground floor windows fronting onto the street An overall residential density of 40 dwellings per hectare has been applied with approximately two thirds of the homes, the secondary school and two primary schools located to the south of the rail line. The remaining homes and an additional primary school is located to the north of the rail line, with the Energy Centre. Employment and community facilities are located either side of the rail corridor Local centres with neighbourhood retail and community facilities are located on both parts of the site The masterplan concept assumes a balanced mix for achieving the employment target of 5,000 gross new jobs in the eco-town. This could be achieved as follows: 60 per cent emphasis on knowledge based sectors 35 per cent emphasis on services sectors 5 per cent emphasis on logistics and distribution sectors
The movement hierarchy is as follows: Strong green space structure to provide network of footpaths and cycleways Provision of a new northern perimeter road and bridge crossing over the railway line Enhancements to the Howes Lane junction and realignment of Howes Lane Realignment of Bucknell Lane to relieve the existing junction and to create a larger employment area alongside the railway Primary access roads into the site to link employment areas, schools and community facilities Major access roads through residential area to provide a route for public transport and maximise public transport catchment Minor access roads and home zones to serve residential areas. The Energy Strategy is based firstly on reducing demand, then secondly on supplying energy efficiently and securely from low carbon sources. All buildings will be constructed to the PassivHaus standard where possible. This means that insulation levels, air leakage detailing and glazing specification will be constructed to very demanding specifications and consequently space heating requirements will be minimised. A core zone of buildings will be connected to a District Heating System (DHS) for all space heating and hot water functions. This will be supplied from an Energy Centre fuelled by a biomass boiler, bio-gas CHP system (with an Anaerobic Digester system for all sewage, waste and food waste), a gas fired boiler back up and thermal store. All buildings in this zone will have rooftop PV systems. Outside the core zone all homes will have rooftop PV panels, solar thermal panels and wood fired boilers. Non-residential buildings will have ground source heat pumps. All buildings will be connected to a private wire network and a number of off-site wind turbines are likely to be required to achieve zero carbon overall.
4.1.3 Viability
The following analysis is based on the assumption that the mixed use development to the North West of Bicester would comprise of 87.5 ha of homes for sale and 37.5 ha of affordable homes, most of which would be shared ownership. The scheme would be designed to meet sustainability objectives but beyond that there would be no requirement for innovative and untested building design. At this stage the analysis is based on a wide range of assumptions and provisions. Estimates of current development land values usually involve a large margin of error and in this case that difficulty is compounded by the need to project these values into the future at a time when market predictions are particularly difficult. At present the property market is in deep decline and it is unlikely that developers would invest in taking the scheme forward. Therefore, the aim at this stage is to establish whether there is a prima facie case that a developer might be attracted to undertake this scheme once the market recovers. This is achieved using a high level analysis of the schemes economics and an assessment of the commercial risks involved.
4.1.4 Method
The economics of development have been analysed using a Net Present Value (NPV) model which aims to assess the lands value for development. This differs from the conventional residual land value appraisal used in the property industry because it provides a better replication of the business approach of the volume housebuilders. But all of these methods are very sensitive to the various assumptions made and at this stage we have not undertaken a sensitivity analysis. The model adopts the following assumptions to assess the viability of the proposed eco-town development in North West Bicester. Further details on these assumptions are provided in section 4.1.6 of this document. Cost Assumptions Standard site preparation and secondary infrastructure for the 346 ha development are estimated at 250,000 per hectare3. The model includes specific cost implications for primary on site infrastructure, social infrastructure (including developer contributions) and the necessary green infrastructure to facilitate the delivery of the proposed eco-town. The primary, social and green infrastructure amounts to approximately 125 million for the proposed development or 25,000 per dwelling (for the proposed 5,000 market and affordable units). A detailed breakdown of the cost schedule is presented in section 4.1.6. The model also incorporates a cost assumption for fess at 5 per cent of primary, standard secondary, social and additional green infrastructure proposed for the development. The model assumes that meeting zero carbon standards in 2010 would add 8.5 per cent to costs with a further 5 per cent in 2013. The implied assumption is that the achievement of higher Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) standards would have to be paid for by a reduction in costs due to production efficiencies. Income Assumptions The model assumes residential values will not return to their 2007 peak until 2013 (based on Savills published research) and will grow thereafter at 2.5 per cent p.a. (Barker report see Appendix) The model assumes that land prices will take longer to recover than house prices and that peak levels will not be achieved again until 2017. The revenue projections for marketable residential land (87.5 ha) have been derived as a function of annually forecasted house values and cost of building these units. These calculations also assume a development density of 40 homes per hectare of approximately 100 sq m each.
These may include drainage, ground works, providing services and transport access and providing basic facilities such as playgrounds, playing fields and parking space etc.
The annual house value projections built in the model reflect current trends and documented long term projections. These value assumptions do not include a premium for the eco homes. The model also assumes that the cost of building a zero carbon dwelling will be approximately 1,814 per sq m in 2013. This assumption relates to a 13 per cent higher per unit cost than the base assumption of building a standard home in 2007/08 (1,600 per sq m). The model also assumes that the 37.5 ha of affordable housing land has zero value4. The model assumes a standard 1 million per hectare value assumption for the proposed 37.2 ha of commercial and retail land in the North West Bicester Eco Town. This value is informed by the current local commercial market situation. It has not been assumed that commercial land values will increase in real terms over the period. Other Assumptions It has been assumed that a lead developer will aim to secure planning permission, prepare the site for development, provide the necessary infrastructure and then sell serviced plots of land for building development at the market price. It has been assumed that full scale development would commence in 2014. The entire development would take 20 years with on average 250 homes and 4,400 sq m of commercial development being completed each year5. Hence, the cost and revenues for the development have been equally dispersed in the development over 20 year periods: Fees: 2011 to 2030 All infrastructure costs: 2013 and 2032 Income from residential and commercial land sales: 2014 to 2033 The model assumes a 20 per cent discount rate to assess the Net Present Value (NPV) of the proposed scheme. This approach is consistent with that adopted by volume housebuilders. Note: The model does not make any input (cost) assumptions for potential land values. This is generated as an output in Net Present Value terms.
It is assumed that serviced land for affordable housing is provided free of charge to RSLs who will be expected to make a full contribution to the cost of the enhanced social and environmental infrastructure. Any surplus on the sale of shared ownership homes can be used to cross subsidise social rented accommodation. It is not clear whether or not this would obviate the need for HCA grant as that would require further modelling. By way of comparison, this is rather lower than planned at Camborne in Cambridge. It might be possible to accelerate this but the beneficial effect on the cash flow might be offset by lower house prices due to increased supply.
4.1.5 Conclusions on viability

The analysis suggests that the value of the land required for the development proposed is marginally positive (approximately 7,000 per hectare or around 2.5m for the scheme as a whole). This low figure is primarily the result of the nature of the development proposed and the high level of cost that will be incurred. But in the context of the margin of error involved in such calculations it is a small surplus that it is a marginal proposition and merits more detailed analysis with a view to longer term delivery. Assumptions about residential values are by far the most significant factor in the model. A variation in residential values by plus or minus 10 per cent would have a major impact on overall viability. There are also significant unknowns about the cost of meeting zero carbon requirements, and how these may reduce with economies of scale. However, this factor is less significant to the overall conclusions than the assumptions about residential values. There are several factors that could affect the economics of the scheme to either improve or deteriorate. These are outlined below. On the positive side: The cost of achieving both zero carbon and higher design standards has been factored into the costs but no explicit assumption has been made that this will add to sale values which would increase receipts. In practice, a developer will seek to improve the economics of any scheme by optimising the detail of the mix and layout of what is proposed as well as the financing arrangements. A high level analysis such as this cannot assess the positive effect of such tweaking. It is possible that some of the Section 106 costs could be reduced by using mainstream funding where possible. For instance, education costs which are based on Oxfordshire CC SPD seem high and might even be reduced by direct provision of necessary schools. RSLs making full contributions to the cost of enhanced social environmental infrastructure like the one that would be delivered by the scheme. No explicit assumption has been made about grant funding towards the environmental features, transport infrastructure and affordable housing in the scheme or the biddable funding streams that exist. Potential funding on the grounds of carbon savings which is a key national target. Judicious public sector support and intervention can make a big difference. A logical approach here might be for HCA to forward fund early stage infrastructure in return for rights to development land downstream. The net cost to the HCA would be zero and this would have major benefits to the developer in terms of easing cash flow and mitigating risks. The value for affordable housing land.
Potential stamp duty savings for environmentally friendly buildings that could lead to higher land values. The model is based on a relatively high residential build cost (1600 per square metre) to allow for the extra costs of meeting zero carbon standards. Exceeding current CSH standards is expensive but by the time the scheme is developed it is likely that environmental standards will be tighter and the costs required to meet them lower as a result of production efficiencies. The model makes no allowance for revenue from energy generation, since this is difficult to quantify at present. In practice this will generate some revenue to offset the costs assumed in the model. On the negative side: A particular concern is the assumed land values in the context of the timing of market recovery although this is perhaps more of a threat to the timetable than the intrinsic viability of the scheme. The evidence to support our estimate of the value of new homes in 2007 was imperfect and evidence suggests that recovery in land prices can lag recovery in house prices. The basic layout and infrastructure has not yet been fully costed and the analysis does not include contingencies. Experience suggests that as cost plans are developed, the list of items that need to be paid for grows. In this case, the menu of necessary offsite infrastructure is undeveloped at this stage. In the case of a development such as this, risk will rank alongside notional viability as a major issue for developers. Given the possibility that the property market will be frail at the time that any scheme on this land is promoted, a real effort would need to be made to limit the developers exposure to cost increases arising from uncertain or changing planning requirements and to permit sufficient flexibility in the timing of delivery.
4.1.6 Appraisal Explanatory Notes

The Model Many of the volume housebuilders who might be expected to take on a scheme of this scale will aim to sell a substantial portion of the land as development plots fully prepared and serviced for house building. Residual land value calculations based on normative assumptions about values and costs tend to undervalue the price that these development plots will fetch in a competitive market so assuming a programme of land sales can enhance projected returns as well as improving cash flow. Specialist lead developers will take this approach to its logical conclusion and simply aim to sell development plots for others to build on.
The volume housebuilders who might be expected to take on the lead developer role in a scheme of this scale are likely to base the critical decisions on a project that might span over decades on the annual return on their capital required over the life of the project. So the overall phasing strategy and the timing of costs and sales are critical to viability. Typically this target return is around 20 per cent although a lower figure is sometimes accepted for affordable housing provision since there is less price uncertainty. This return is gross of financing costs because finance is usually secured at corporate level (in contrast, commercial developers and smaller housebuilders will often use expensive, project specific funding). The model responds by analysing the Net Present Value of the projected cash flow using the 20 per cent target return as a discount rate. This introduces its own biases into the calculation but is a better approximation of the real calculation at the point at which an investment decision is made. Assumptions about Residential Development Receipts Sales receipts are the most important variable in the economic equation that determines land values. In mid 2008 the specialist residential research department at Savills produced a report entitled UK Residential Development Land in which they forecast a return of buyer confidence in most mainstream housing markets with values likely to be restored to their 2007 peak in most of the regions before 2014. (We) anticipate a return of developer confidence to boost land values ahead of this date but it is unlikely that land values will return to their 2007 peak by then. We have used Savills forecast as a starting point. The issue then becomes what the peak land values were in Bicester. We do not have evidence to calculate past or current land values in Bicester, which is not covered by standard Valuation Office Agency (VOA) analysis. In any event in order to compare the typical land values reported by the VOA with the value of the notional prepared and serviced sites that would be provided at the new development it would be necessary to make an adjustment for the effect on reported land prices of site characteristics and planning requirements. This is not straightforward. We therefore sought to estimate peak house prices in Bicester and from these house prices we subtracted typical costs for development to assess the notional value per housing plot and by extrapolation the value of a typical hectare of serviced land for housing for sale. We then projected these forward over the projected timescale for development assuming that the highest values would be reached again in Bicester before 2014 in accordance with Savills projection. No generic allowance was made for underlying inflation in the economy, typically measured by the RPI. But two other critical long term adjustments were made:
The assumption was made that house prices will tend to rise at the rate of wage inflation which is usually higher than the rate of price inflation. The Barker Report pointed to a long term difference of around 2.7 per cent. In the model we assumed that, after 2014, the long term increase in house prices in real terms would be 2.5 per cent We also assumed that meeting CSH standards in 2010 would add 8.5 per cent to costs with a further 5 per cent in 2013. The implied assumption is that the achievement of higher CSH standards would have to be paid for by a reduction in costs due to production efficiencies. In estimating new house prices the best data is evidence from the sale of directly comparable property from another new development. At present the only scheme we have identified near Bicester is in Upper Arncott where Martin Grant Homes are marketing basic 3 bedroom houses for around 190,000. Assuming that this price would be discounted to achieve sales, this suggests that net receipts might equate to around 2,100 sq m. Asking prices at relatively recent schemes within Bicester also point to similar levels. Assuming a 15 per cent (or greater) fall has already taken place, this suggests peak values at Bicester would have been around 2,500 sq m. (i.e. 250,000 for a substantial 3 bedroom house). Valuation Office Agency data suggests that in Bicester the price of second hand homes peaked in 2007 at around 230,000 for semi detached homes and 190,000 for terraced homes which provides some support for this general range of figures. We therefore conclude that house prices might return to around 2,500 sq m in Bicester before 2014. This figure is taken to be receipts net of sales costs. At this level the model suggests that residual land values should have reached around 3,600,000 per ha in 2007. The model assumes that this level of land values is achieved again in 2017. Again, this echoes Savills projection that land prices will take longer to recover than house prices. Assumptions about Commercial and Retail Development Receipts The proposed scheme comprises office, industrial and distribution land. Bicester has a small office market and there is no readily available, reliable and comparable information on prospective land values. It has rather more industrial and distribution space. The relative political popularity of employment creating schemes coupled with the balance of supply and demand for new offices in marginal out of town locations such as Bicester tends to mean that land values are just adequate to pay for necessary infrastructure and provide a basic reward to landowners for pursuing a change of use. There is also limited rental data available. On this basis we attribute a notional land value of 1m ha to serviced development plots.
Both Bicester and nearby Banbury have active industrial and distribution space markets. A recent example in Bicester is the Arena 14 scheme where the current asking price seems to be around 1,070 sq m freehold. Valuation Office Agency data suggests that in the early part of 2008 land values in nearby Oxford (where property prices are not dissimilar) were at around 900k ha. Assumptions about Development Costs Normal site preparation costs cover strategic drainage, distributor roads and utilities, structural landscaping and public open space. We have assumed that all of these normal costs can be covered by an allowance of 250,000 per gross ha, with the lower costs associated with green areas offset by higher costs in developed areas. This assumes that there are no major problems with drainage and it will be possible to build off conventional foundations. The additional costs assumed to arise from the special and specific nature of this scheme together with the cost infrastructure that might need to be provided directly or through Section 106 Agreements are listed in the yellow worksheet in the model. The basis of the list was a schedule of items that we understand was proposed by Arup in connection with the Weston Otmoor scheme. Many of these items are normally provided by a housebuilder as part of their normal on site works and we have subsumed them within our generic budget for secondary infrastructure. Arup appear to have relied heavily on Spons for their estimates with the result that they are at best only a partial reflection of the costs involved. We have added additional items that are specific to this scheme or which Arup appear to have overlooked and adjusted costs to (a) omit budgets for items that are conventionally paid for by the developer as part of the scheme and (b) substitute cost estimates based on our own benchmark data (some of Arups costs were based on use of Spons formulae which in our experience can be misleading). The result is an estimate that the additional costs that will be incurred in providing this scheme with enhanced environmental and standard social infrastructure amount to some 129m (see table below). This is equivalent to around 26,000 per house on the assumption that charges are not levied on the employment space.
Cost Factor: Description Cost of achieving CSH Cost of achieving Home Zone standards Allowance for enhanced design Allowance for microgeneration Bury overhead power lines CHP Plant SUDS On site SUDS Off site Biomass Planting Dual A4095 Perimeter Road Works to rail bridge Pedestrian Underpass under railway Car parks Footpaths Cyclepaths Provision for rapid transport Subsidy for bus services Library Adult Learning Centre Elderly Day Care Elderly Care Homes Physical & learning disability day centres Hospital GP Surgeries/Health centre
Budget
Basis 0 In Residential Land Values Projection 0 Incl in Secondary Infr
25,000,000 Assume 5,000 per dwelling/ Aestethics/Homes for Life 0 Incl in achieving CSH 3,300,000 Provision @ 31m per km 10,000,000 Provision 0 Included in secondary infr. 1,000,000 Provision 1,000,000 Provision 0 Not Built in the Model 7,788,000 Halcrow est. 1,440,000 ditto to incl earthworks 1,000,000 Halcrow est. 0 provided on plot. 0 on site incl. in secondary infr. 0 on site incl. in secondary infr. 5,000,000 Provision 10,750,000 2.15m p.a. for 5 years average. 1,150,000 Based on SE Library Tariff 2007 approx. 0 incl in above. 1,000,000 Provision 0 Private provision 250,000 Provision 0 Mainstream public investment 560,000 50 per cent public provision in health centre with 8 GPs @ 185k per GP 0 Private provision 0 Private provision 0 Private provision
Dental Surgeries Pharmacies Complementary Health and Care Services
Cost Factor: Description Small Police Station Police Neighbourhood Team Bases Fire Station Youth Facilities Community Hall Sports Hall Places of worship Early Years provision Primary School Secondary School 6th Form Public Squares Sports Pitches: Formal sports provision Sports Pitches: Pavilions Sports Pitches: equipment Amenity Space/Informal sports provision Woodlands/BioFuel Woodland/possible cemetery Structural Landscape/Linear Public Open Space Allotments Children Play Facilities: play area Children Play Facilities: equipment Waste Collection
Budget
Basis 0 Below provision threshold
100,000 Provision 0 Below provision threshold 1,000,000 Provision for special facilities 3,520,000 0.4 sq m per dwelling @1700 sq m 2,800,000 Sport England Kitbag approx. 0 Land only provision 2,000,000 Provision for nurseries, childrens centre etc. 19,335,000 Oxfordshire SPD @ 3867 for 3 bed dwelling 25,845,000 Oxfordshire SPD @5169 for 3 bed dwelling 3,830,000 Oxfordshire SPD @766 for 3 bed dwelling 0 on site incl. in secondary infr. 0 on site incl. in secondary infr. 500,000 Provision 50,000 Provision for special facilities 0 on site incl. in secondary infr. 0 In Environ. Infr 0 In above 0 on site incl. in secondary infr. 0 on site incl. in secondary infr. 0 on site incl. in secondary infr. 0 on site incl. in secondary infr. 125,000 Basic collection infr incl. recycling point @ 250 per home (OCC standard is 100) 1,000,000 Provision @ 200 per house 129,343,000 25,869 per Dwelling
Art Total

Local authority websites: www.cherwell.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=3890 www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/wps/portal/publicsite www.oxfordcity.co.uk/
4.2 Rackheath, Norwich

4.2.1 Introduction
The Rackheath eco-town proposal was submitted by Broadland District Council and the Greater Norwich Development Partnership as an alternative in the course of the Sustainability Appraisal, working with Building Partnerships and Barratt Strategic. A concept statement prepared by Building Partnerships has been accepted by Broadland District Council as a basis for consultation. A number of the assumptions and cost estimates set out in the appraisal below (which is based on the concept statement) will need to be reviewed as the project develops. For example, the appraisal below assumes a minimum of 30 per cent affordable housing reflecting the draft PPS. However, if the local need is higher than 30 per cent, Broadland District Council in accordance with paragraph 25 of the draft PPS will look to apply its up to date policy on affordable housing which requires the provision of 40 per cent. This will be subject to further discussion. This financial report was prepared by Barratt Strategic.

Site Rackheath Eco-Community lies to the North East of Norwich. The site comprises approximately 293 hectares (725 acres) of land that was used as a Second World War American airfield. The site is bounded to the North West by the A1151 Norwich to Wroxham Road and to the south east by the Norwich to Salhouse Road. On the east of the site is the railway providing passenger services between Norwich and Sheringham with Salhouse railway station located on the eastern edge of the site. The line also provides a freight service between Norwich and North Walsham. Developers Barratts are the Rackheath Eco-Community developers. The site is being promoted by Building Partnerships Ltd. Land uses 5,150 homes including 870 in the existing community with an aspiration to achieve up to 40 per cent affordable housing. The residential element includes an exemplar of 250 units in 2010-2012 with phase one commencement on completion of a renewable energy centre in 2012 and development continuing until about 2025. The site would be phased to grow in a northerly direction and would provide approximately 450 houses per annum. In addition to the residential element, the current masterplan shows a town centre and a transport hub together with renewable energy centre and commercial uses. The commercial uses will enhance Rackheath Industrial Estate by providing an area of 23 hectares (57 acres) for offices, light industrial and manufacturing with B8 discouraged. A planning application for the first employment buildings in the area, the Dakenham Project, providing approximately 1,765sq m (19,000 sq ft) of offices is due to be submitted in April.
An integrated landscape and ecology strategy provides extensive areas of open space and an ecological corridor between Norwich and the Norfolk Broads to the north east. Key elements of on and off-site infrastructure Transport A new station at Rackheath to provide a focus for all public transport services; Cycle routes to Norwich, Broadland Business Park, Wroxham and Salhouse; High-quality links for pedestrians and cyclists, coupled to extensive use of home zones to create an eminently safe walkable community. Community The new transport hub and a Community Trust building located at either end of a high street containing the district centre retail and commercial outlets; Two primary schools, one forming part of an education campus which will eventually contain a secondary school. Environment Landscape and open space to recreate ecological corridors between Norwich and the Norfolk Broads with over 100 ha to be made available as public greenspace; Construction of a water body to provide ecological benefits and form part of the water strategy. Key eco-elements Community Walkable distances to transport, jobs and community facilities; A Community Trust to manage the communal elements and promote low carbon lifestyles. Transport A rail service every 15 minutes to Norwich, serving a new station at Rackheath; New bus services with bus stops within 300 metres of every house. Running every 10 minutes to Norwich City Centre and Norwich Airport Industrial Estate, using high quality and environmentally friendly vehicles; Comprehensive Travel Planning to encourage use of non-car modes, administered by a Travel Plan Co-ordinator and closely tied to carbon budgeting; Significant incentives to travel in a sustainable manner. Water All buildings to incorporate water efficiency measures; Rainwater and grey water harvesting and recycling systems to achieve water neutrality;
Comprehensive adoption of sustainable drainage techniques to manage stormwater flows. Energy A biomass energy centre (combined heat and power plant) with a generating capacity of 20MW to provide heating and energy for the entire community and surplus power for export to the National Grid; A community heating pipe network to supply all the heating and hot water needs of the Eco-Community with further potential to deliver absorption based cooling; An energy management system to provide real time energy monitoring to enhance efficiency and stimulate further improvements on carbon reduction; A Personal Carbon Trading approach called ARCHER (Action to Reduce Carbon from Household Emissions at Rackheath) to be run by the Community Trust. Greenspace The enhancement of priority habitats and species, notably through reinstatement of heathland, and the creation of habitat corridors between the fringes of Norwich and the Broads; Development of a Local Biodiversity Action Plan; Establishment of a Friends of Rackheath Conservation Group to encourage the occupiers of the Eco-Community to become stewards of their natural environment. Waste An integrated waste management system to maximise re-use and recycling of waste; A waste recycling centre within the community to sort the waste for re-use and recycling; Behavioural change fostered by the community management company to reduce waste at source. Construction Adopting the principles of Material Resource Efficiency; Selection of specifications with lowest life-cycle impacts which accord with Level 4 targets under the terms of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Using the railway spur to import materials and components to site for the duration of the development programme; Use of on-site aggregates in construction to minimise lorry movements.
4.2.3 Appraisal Summary

Section 1: Appraisal Summary Project : Rackheath February 2009
Item Revenue (Residential) REVENUE Gross Open Market (net +5%) REVENUE Affordable Total Revenue (Residential) Revenue (Other) REVENUE Commercial/Employment Land REVENUE Other Total Revenue (Residential) Development Costs BUILD COSTS EXTERNAL WORKS CODE LEVEL COMPLIANCE SHOWHOMES/MARKETING INFRASTRUCTURE/106 SELLING EXPENSES/SALES INCENTIVES at 5% FINANCE COSTS GROUP/DIVISIONAL OVERHEADS Total Development Costs NET PROFIT Land TOTAL GROSS LAND VALUE SDLT VAT Residual Net Land Value Key Information Net Acres Residential Open Market Units Social Units Total Units
Total 731,201,283 185,026,915 916,228,198 18,368,125 16,750,000 35,118,125 296,183,136 62,028,851 12,237,921 9,258,038 318,009,460 54,840,096 59,554,833 54,973,692 867,086,026 78,012,992 6,247,304 238,674 41,768 5,966,862
per ft2 270.48 185.05 247.41
per net acre 3,031,006 766,981 3,797,988
Comments
7.50% 6.00% 8.51%
79.98 16.75 3.30 2.50 85.87 14.81 16.08 14.84 234.14 21.07 1.69 0.06 0.01 1.61 Appraisal Notes
1,227,751 257,125 50,729 38,377 1,318,226 227,325 246,869 227,879 3,594,282 323,383 25,897 989 173 24,734
Section 3: Energy/District heating/Water within infrastructure budget Section 2 Open Market Revenue Only
4.00% 0.70%
33.3% 30.0%
241.24 2,902 1,243 4,145

Appraisal Principles Residual land value appraisal. No allowance made for revenue or cost inflation. Estimated contract period 188 months. Total plots 4,145 with 30 per cent social units. Total residential coverage ~3,700,000 ft2. Plot Revenue An average sales rate/ft2 has been established and increased by 12 per cent to reflect market conditions 18 months ago. A broad range of dwelling categories have been allowed for in order to maintain an appropriate sales rate on approximately 4 outlets at any one time. Social revenue Indicative values have been established through approaching a number of RSLs. The average grant allowance takes into account the code level cost implications. Other Revenue Employment and light Industrial land within the site boundary has been valued by taking a gross to net factor of 75 per cent to allow for servicing and the net area taken at an average of 250,000/net acre. Provisional figures have been allowed for the relatively small amount of retail facilities. Primary Care Facility assumes a net cost of zero, although very limited information available at present. Cost allowed for within the infrastructure budget. The infrastructure budget allows for the provision of foul water treatment, potable water provision and waste collection and recycling. A provisional income of 15m has been allowed. This is subject to further investigation. Build Costs The build costs allow for the plot construction costs, all phase related external works and preliminaries. All non-phase related items are included within the infrastructure budget. Infrastructure and 106 Obligations With input from Davis Langdon an Infrastructure and 106 budget has been developed.
This budget allows for all non-phase related items and covers all of the following: On-Site Primary Roads/Site Access/Cycle and Pedestrian Routes Off-site road and junction improvement works Train Station Works Foul and Storm Drainage On-site energy generation and district heating Potable & Grey Water Re-cycling and Provision All other Services such as telecommunications Education facilities in the form of 2 primary schools and a secondary school Community Facilities Library, Sports Facilities, Community Space, Surgery etc Waste Treatment Infrastructure to employment/light industrial land Structural landscaping Public Open Space Play Areas Sports Pitches and associated facilities Lake and other water features Contribution towards upgrading existing housing stock Heathland reclamation and ecological enhancement works Project Management and Fees Phasing/Timings The programme allows for an infrastructure lead-in of around 10 months prior to the commencement of the 250 unit demonstrator site. The following phases require completion of key elements of infrastructure prior to completions and therefore the second phase commences 30months after the start of the infrastructure works. It is assumed that for the majority of the build period, there will be an average of 4 outlets at any one time giving an average of 300 units/year (100 social units/200 open market units). Code Level Compliance The appraisal allows for code level 6 compliance within the energy category for all units and code level 4 for all other categories up to 2016. From 2016 onward all units will be code level 6 compliant.
The energy requirements are fulfilled by allowance for a biomass gasification plant with district heating to all residential and non-residential units with a facility for potential absorption refrigeration to provide cooling. Excess load transferred back to the grid. Code level 6 units allow for an alternative form of construction in the form of Structural Insulated Panels, triple glazing and mechanical ventilation. An allowance of 26 per cent discount to current costs has been allowed based upon economies of scale, more competitive labour costs and a learning curve factor illustrated within the Communities and Local Government Cost Analysis for Sustainable Homes July 2008.

Promoter website: www.rackheatheco-community.com/index.php Local authority websites: www.broadland.gov.uk/ www.norfolk.gov.uk/ www.northnorfolk.org
4.3 Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire

In the April consultation document, Eco-towns Living a Greener Future, a further review of alternative locations was announced. In consequence three locations were considered in the Sustainability Appraisal for the Rushcliffe area (see 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 of the Introduction6). Of these, a description of proposals and an initial evaluation for the RAF Newton site is set out below. As far as the Department is aware proposals for Cotgrave Place are not currently being taken forward through the eco-towns process. A proposal for Kingston was originally submitted in response to the Eco-towns Prospectus; it was not short-listed in the April consultation document but considered in the SA.
Kingston
Banks Developments, in partnership with the Kingston Estate (who own the land), is promoting proposals for a new settlement of at least 6,000 dwellings in the western part of Rushcliffe Borough, close to major sources of employment and the new East Midlands Parkway Intercity Railway Station. The new settlement would be developed on land between Kingston-on-Soar and West Leake, leaving those places as physically separate communities. Banks Developments will make an announcement concerning its intentions for the Kingston project after the final eco-towns PPS is published. This will include information on the consultations which would be undertaken with interested parties and local communities in pursuing the project further. A financial evaluation is not currently available for Kingston but further details of the scheme can be obtained at www.banksdevelopments.com/property/sites/midlands_and_ yorkshire/kingston_ecotown.
Newton-Bingham 4.3.1 Introduction

The Newton eco-town project is led by the Crown Estate in partnership with Defence Estates and Newton-Bingham LLP. It has come forward in response to the review of potential eco-town locations in the Rushcliffe area (see Sustainability Appraisal). The following report was prepared by Entec UK Ltd.

The following table summarises the key features and components of the promoters proposals for an eco-town at former RAF Newton.
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/rushcliffe.pdf
Element Land
Description The site of the proposed Eco-town is situated nine miles to the east of Nottingham at the junction of the A46(T) and A52, on the former RAF Newton airbase. The estimate total area development of the Eco-town would be 750ha and include designated brownfield land. By using the transport, economic and settlement geography of former RAF Newton, a new community could complement existing development, yet have a clear identity of its own. Landowners in the area have developed a Partnership which delivers a significant landholding, meaning that there is room for the Eco-town to evolve to make best use of opportunities for selfcontainment, whilst maximising the benefits of enhancing the quality and range of transport connections. The proposal is for a settlement of 6,000 homes (40 dwellings per hectare). In completing the assessment we have phased the delivery from 2013 for 12 years, circa 500 per annum (including at least 30 per cent affordable). Commercial uses are phased from 2013 to 2023 to support the residential trajectory. In addition to the planned residential development, the promoters plan to develop associated retail, commercial and community facilities (including new educational provision and health/leisure facilities). This would include the development of a town centre in keeping with the local environment. Commercial uses are phased from 2013 to 2023 to support the residential trajectory. Community facilities would be phased from 2019 to 2025 in line with residential development. Transport Development of new bus only routes to link the proposed Ecotown with transport hubs and higher order centres. Improvements to local rail stations and connectivity from the Ecotown to these. Contributions to improvements to local road network (A46/A52) Environment Opportunities for the pursuit of carbon, water and waste neutrality through the provision of sites for renewable energy generation, recycling and urban drainage. Development of a combined heat and power plant. Development of Eco-park focusing on recycling
Housing
Key elements of on and off-site infrastructure
Element Key ecoelements
Description Transport A detailed travel plan features a broad range of initiatives, as well as allowing for the monitoring of travel behaviour. The proposal includes development of green bus only routes linking the Eco-town with higher order settlements and local transport hubs. Car-free and low car zones Improvement of local public transport networks Designated cycle routes Implementation of car clubs Water strategy Reductions in potable water used down to 105 l/p/d can be achieved through the design of individual dwellings and incorporation of more efficient fixtures, fittings and appliances. Energy and carbon Aim to achieve the standards set out in the draft Eco-town PPS (November 08) Green Space Development of new public open space, including parkland to highlight the inherent character of the site
Draft Key elements of s106 package offered
Sustainable transport routes to higher order centres and other public transport routes Community facilities (including educational and health provision) Green space Evolving governance structure.

Table 4.3.3.1 Base Case Range1 of potential costs assumptions over the 30 year Planning period (M 2008 prices, rounded to nearest 10m) Cost category Predevelopment On site Build costs1 Utilities (on and off site) less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties2 Transport3 Eco-features4 less cost assumed to be incurred by 3rd parties Other s106 elements5 Education & Health Landscaping & public realm Offsite Transport (hard costs) Transport (subsidies) Other (including fee, sales, marketing, land cost etc)6 Finance costs and assumed development profit7 Total over the 14 year Project Life
Notes: 1 Including cost of 5,500 Homes, 500 Live Work, Industrial and Commercial areas, Cost of achieving Code levels 4 -6. 2 IOur scheme provides for a Wind Farm which we have assumed is cost equal. Therefore no provision has been made for it in these figures. 3 IIncluding the cost of Rail Service & Stn Upgrade and works to A52, Internal and external road structure. 4 IIncludes Green Bridge, Flood Mitigation measures and Walking & Cycling Infrastructure. 5 IIncludes Bus Priority measures, Shuttle Bus Service, Community Centre, Library, Sports & Leisure 6 IInc prof fees 12 per cent, Agents Fees 1 per cent, Sol Fees 0.5 per cent, Land cost (taken from residual) at 20m. 7 IDevelopers Profit included at 20 per cent of costs. 10 per cent Contingency has been included within the figures for Build Costs, Utilities, Transport, Eco Features, Landscaping, Off-site Transport. The Appraisal runs between the period Jan 2013 and Dec 2027.
Median 680 20 0 90 20 0 20 40 10 10 0 140 250 1,280
Table 4.3.3.2: The Base Case Financial Assessment RAF NEWTON Eco-town Appraisal Summary REVENUE Residential Revenue Commercial Revenue TOTAL REVENUE DEVELOPMENT COSTS Construction Costs Cost of Code Level/Carb Neut Contingency 10% Marketing Infrastructure/106 Professional Fees Selling Costs Finance Costs (positive) TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS Net Profit Developers Profit @ 20% Residual Land Value
Notes: All figures include growth at 2.5% pa
Totals 1,201,600,000 208,500,000 1,410,100,000 538,700,000 163,300,000 93,900,000 400,000 237,300,000 114,200,000 21,200,000 14,300,000 1,154,700,000 255,400,000 235,000,000 20,400,000
4.3.3.1 The Base Case Assumptions Key Timing and Phasing Assumptions We have phased delivery between 2013 and 2027. This assumes a delivery on average of 430 houses per annum which includes 33 per cent affordable. Commercial uses are phased from 2019 through to 2025. The proposal is split in to eight separate phases, six residential and two commercial. The residential phases have been started in chronological order, however it is possible that a further phase may be brought forward at the start of the project if this is considered desirable by the phase developers.
The Infrastructure and Eco-Town Costs have been phased in the appraisal according to when the expenditure is likely to occur, to support the remainder of the development. Description of Key Cost Assumptions The Partners are proposing to act as Master Developers and sell serviced plots to different developers. Please note that detailed cost estimates for either build costs or Infrastructure has not been carried out at this stage. We have however calculated our appraisal based on a built up project cost, but these costs are based on assumptions.
4.3.4 Engagement with Key Stakeholders

Date July 08 Participants Rushcliffe Borough Council Planning Authority Nottinghamshire County Council Government Office East Midlands Highways Agency Nottinghamshire Housing Corporation Sport Nottinghamshire English Partnerships East Midlands Development Agency Natural England Elected members of Rushcliffe Borough Council Local communities and general public All inclusive Launch of website on Eco-town proposal Highways Agency Nottinghamshire County Council Government Office East Midlands Network Rail Key issues covered Transport (road, rail and sustainable) Provision of community facilities Housing numbers Education provision
July 08 August September 08 November 08 December 08
Generic Eco-town proposal and process Generic Eco-town proposal and process Generic Eco-town proposal and process Transport with focus on local road networks
January 09
Improvements to local rail stations Development of new rail station within the area
Date January 09
Participants All inclusive Launch of information point within the local library Highways Agency Government Office East Midlands Nottinghamshire County Council
Key issues covered Generic Eco-town proposal and process Transport modelling and forecasting for the area surrounding proposed Eco-town
February 09

Key Common Assumptions GDP/RPI House Price/Cost Inflation The growth rate and cost inflation of 2.5 per cent per annum has been incorporated into the appraisal. Please note however our appraisal lasts for 14 years between 2013 and 2027. Treatment of Revenue-Generating Eco Facilities We have assumed that a wind farm will be erected either on-site or close by off-site by an ESCo. In this instance our assumption is that 100 per cent of the capital cost of these facilities will be paid for by others. We have incorporated no revenue from this in the appraisal. Treatment of Utility Costs We have incorporated a provision of 20m for services/utilities. We have not assumed that there will be any reimbursement of these capital costs by the MUSCo or the utility provider. Affordable Housing We have assumed 33 per cent affordable housing, split equally between shared ownership and social rented. Finance Assumptions The land is separately owned by the partners to the scheme. We therefore have not allowed for a 70 per cent initial funding requirement. However, within the remainder of the calculation we have assumed 7 per cent debit interest rate. Developers Profit Assumptions In accordance with the Common Assumptions we have assumed 20 per cent Developers Profit on all costs. However we believe that developers are likely to accept a return of closer to 15 per cent which allow a greater amount for the residual land cost or overall profit.
Land Cost Assumptions We have assembled all of the land required for the RAF Newton Eco-town. The development will be brought forward by a collaboration between the present land owners, Newton Nottingham LLP, The Crown Estate and Defence Estates. Our calculations therefore have been worked out on a Residual Land Value basis rather than making any assumption as to the value of the land.

Promoter website: www.newtonecotown.com/ Local authority website: www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/ www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/
Section 5
Next steps
This report provides an overview of the findings from the assessment of the financial issues associated with promoters submissions. The assessment presented in this report is an assessment snap shot of promoters schemes at a certain point in the projects lifecycle. The results presented in this assessment should therefore be treated with caution. The reliability of conclusions to be drawn from data provided at an early stage of the development cycle, and projected over 30 years, is necessarily, limited. If a location is identified for an eco-town and a promoter decides to put forward a scheme for the location, the proposals considered in this report can be expected to be refined further and modified to reflect findings from key elements of the Outline Planning Process and further engagement with key local stakeholders. Promoters schemes can also be expected to develop further to reflect changes in the market and in the capabilities and resources of current and potential future delivery and investment partners.
Appendix A Further details of the Departments advisers for this assessment 119
Appendix A
Further details of the Departments advisers for this assessment
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) is one of the worlds leading professional services organisations. The member firms of the PwC network provide industry-focused assurance, tax and advisory services to build public trust and enhance value for its clients and their stakeholders. PwC has a long-term commitment to working with government and the public sector. PwCs Government and the Public Sector division is currently advising a number of major central and local government departments and public sector organisations. The firm has government specialists possessing a detailed knowledge of government and public services. It has over 1,300 practitioners in PwCs public sector practice, over half of whom operate in its advisory and consulting business, with the remainder in assurance and tax. It is a major provider of consulting services comprising: strategy, policy, research and economics, financial management, people, outsourcing and shared services, procurement, technology, governance, risk and controls and programme/ project management. In addition, the firm is a leading provider of financial advisory services to the public and private sectors on real estate, housing, PPP, commercialisation and project finance projects around the world.
DTZ
DTZ is a leading global property services adviser. DTZ has 12,500 staff operating across 162 cities in 45 countries with a comprehensive service offering across the EMEA and Asia Pacific regions, and a presence in the Americas. The Groups client-focused activities include offering occupational and development markets services, capital markets solutions, valuation services, professional services and consulting and research. DTZ is the brand name of DTZ Holdings plc which has been admitted to trading on the London Stock Exchange since 1987.
Buro Happold
Buro Happold is a professional services firm who specialise in providing integrated multidisciplinary engineering solutions for all aspects of the built environment. Its aim is to produce high-quality engineering design, complete commissions both to cost and to programme. The practice provides comprehensive general and specialist engineering consultancy across three key areas: buildings, infrastructure and environment.
Davis Langdon
Davis Langdon is a leading international project and cost consultancy, providing managed solutions for clients investing in infrastructure, property and construction. The firm, which has over 5000 staff in some 100 offices worldwide, is currently working on some of the most complex and challenging projects encompassing sectors as diverse as commercial property, education, health, leisure and residential. All of the services Davis Langdon provides are focused on reducing client risk, improving value and assuring outcomes on projects in all market sectors of the built environment.
Denton Wilde Sapte

Denton Wilde Sapte is recognised as having one of the best planning teams in the country. It advises on all aspects of the planning system, including strategic planning, environmental impact assessment, planning applications, section 106 agreements, inquiries and High Court challenges. It also assists clients with issues as diverse as highways matters, compulsory purchase orders, PFI/PPP projects, procurement and freedom of information work. The firms acts for a wide variety of public and private organisations, including local authorities, development corporations and government departments; as well as developers, occupiers, investors and property owners. In recent years, the firm has advised (and continues to advise) on a number of urban extensions, town centre regeneration schemes, schemes to improve housing conditions and high-profile leisure projects.
Appendix B Key issues, assumptions and limitations 121
Appendix B
Key issues, assumptions and limitations
B.1 Key issues and assumptions
The following key issues and assumptions are material to the assessment undertaken of all proposed schemes and should be taken into account by the reader when considering the output from the assessment. Continuation of the known market system It is a general assumption made in this assessment that the future functioning and norms of the property and housing development and financing market over the assessment period (the next 25 years) will continue in a similar vein to the norms established prior to the onset of the credit crunch(i.e. prior to August 2007). Assessments in periods of high volatility The impact of the ongoing severe squeeze in the availability of credit and current highly volatile market conditions make any assessment of the future highly unreliable. It is not possible to predict with any certainty when the current adverse market conditions will improve; when land and property values and house prices will hit bottom, or what the speed will be of the recovery and any norms in future market conditions. As a result any assumptions used around absorption rates on house sales and sales pricing or in relation to financing and financing costs either made by the promoters or made in the assessment process are highly likely to be unreliable in the short to medium term and are not to be considered predictions of what actual market performance will be if and when these schemes are brought to the market. Reliance on new or unidentified Public Funding A number of promoters state the requirement to rely on public funding to make their scheme viable. Where this is the case a few of these promoters have not provided a definitive indication of the level or type of such funding needed. This needs to be more clearly articulated in these schemes as does the potential sources and availability of such funding. Only committed or proven credible sources or public funds (e.g. Social Housing Grant) or applications made to existing funding sources are to be considered viable.
The Department provided clear guidance that in preparing their proposals promoters should assume that no new or unidentified public funding would be available. Therefore, as noted above, if under most cases considered the financial assessment indicated that the promoters proposal had a good potential to require significant unidentified public funds to pay for the potential direct or indirect cost of the scheme proposed and its transport and s106 impacts, or insufficient evidence has been provided on the sources of funds needed to plug any funding gaps, then the financial assessment concludes that in its current form the proposal could require significant public funds to meet the costs of delivering the scheme.
Status of promoters submissions

Promoters submissions ranged: from those that were preliminary in nature, with little evidence of detailed, site specific, technical or financial work presented as part of promoters submissions, to those where evidence was provided that allowed the assessment team to gain considerable comfort that the promoters thinking (and the associated technical investigations and decision made) was well grounded and reasonably robust. In order to test the assumptions underpinning some of the promoters assumptions, alternative assumptions and costs have had to be used, generated from benchmark data and alternative policy guidance. Such alternative assumptions can in no way be considered as suitable as decisions and planning assumptions generated by promoters, who in developing these assumptions would need to have also addressed the associated impact of the issue being studied. Status of promoters engagement with LPAs As with the previous issue, a very wide range of engagement was found across the schemes assessed and, as a result, in a number of cases the LPAs had had no visibility of promoters proposals for the sites in their administrative area. Therefore, in a number of cases the LPAs had not begun to consider what the impact of these proposals might be or the level of s106 commitments to be provided by the developers for these schemes. Timing and phasing Given the early stage of development of some of the submissions received, only a few of the promoters submissions included robust timing or phasing plans for the development, or indications of who was to be responsible for each element of the on and off site infrastructure and related facilities. This has limited the assessment in these cases since it has not allowed due consideration of: key implementation practicalities (e.g. when the promoter considered they would secure outline planning and the key preceding and subsequent steps in their overall programme);
the promoters view of the ideal timing for key elements of infrastructure and major sunk cost investments; or the overall funding profile it is the often significant up-front costs of key infrastructure elements and utilities connections that have to be funded with largely developers equity and the time required to secure sufficient real estate development and sales and the associated uncertainties that determines whether or not one particular development proposal is more likely to be viable than another. Achieving Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) level 4 or 6 Across the 8 sites assessed in this final phase the promoters are proposing to build new homes that should easily be achieving CSH level 4, and together with the associated other eco-elements and proposed modal shift (see next issue) are expected to enable CSH level 6 to be achieved. Eco-elements and revenue generating assets Across the 8 sites assessed in this final phase the promoters are proposing a wide range of Combined Heat and Power, District Heat, Renewable Electricity Generation and waste to energy solutions; together with a range of public transport solutions from BART and light rail to somewhat draconian demand management measures to seek to ensure a modal shift from car to other forms of transport. As a common assumption, it has been assumed that all revenue generating assets or similar eco-elements are cost neutral to the development project. Testing promoters assumptions The team has engaged in a process of testing the viability of promoters assumptions and, where promoters have omitted a cost assumption that is critical to the financial assessment, the assessment has relied on industry benchmarks and the Department policy guidance to fill these significant gaps. It is important to note that while key additional assumptions have been prepared by highly experienced and qualified specialists referencing robust data sources, they do not represent alternative assumptions generated from specific investigations, discussions with 3rd party statutory providers or engineering assessments. All assumptions prepared to fill information gaps need to be confirmed by specific studies and investigations undertaken by the respective promoters and until this is done there is significant uncertainty as to the appropriate scale or value of cost assumption that would be appropriate to use.
B.2 Limitations
The Departments advisers adopted certain Conditions and Assumptions upon which its assessments of potential viability have been prepared. In the event that any of these Assumptions prove to be incorrect then the assessments will need to be reviewed. Status of advice The figures reported are subject to various reservations, conditions and assumptions which are clearly set out in the report and/or below. The assessment financial models have not been externally audited. Nothing contained within the Departments advisers advice and/or report comprises an opinion of Value as described by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and whilst this assessment is considered to be appropriate to meet the agreed objectives, the figures and the assessment are not suitable for any other purpose, and should not be used in any other context. Title Neither the Department nor its advisers has had access to the title deeds of any of the properties. The Departments advisers have made the assumption that title for each scheme is good and marketable and free from rights of way or easements, restrictive covenants, disputes or onerous or unusual outgoings unless otherwise stated. The Departments advisers have made the assumption that each property is free from mortgages, charges or other encumbrances. Condition of structure and services, deleterious materials The Departments advisers have made the assumption that all buildings to be constructed will be structurally sound and free from any defects. The Departments advisers have made an Assumption that all buildings will be free from any rot, infestation, adverse toxic chemical treatments, and structural or design. The Departments advisers have made an Assumption that the buildings when constructed will be free from high alumina, cement concrete, calcium chloride, asbestos or any other deleterious material. The Departments advisers have made an Assumption that the load bearing qualities of each site are sufficient to support the buildings be constructed thereon. The Departments advisers have also made an Assumption that there are no services on, or crossing any of the sites in a position which would inhibit development or make it unduly expensive and that there are no abnormal ground conditions, nor archaeological remains present, which might adversely affect the present or future occupation, development or value of each property.
The Departments advisers have made an Assumption that all services, including gas, water, electricity and sewerage proposed by the promoters will have sufficient capacity for the relevant scheme and will function satisfactorily. The Departments advisers have made the assumption that all construction will be satisfactorily completed and that all buildings will be built under the NHBC Build Mark Scheme, Zurich Municipal New Build and rebuild schemes or the Premier Guarantee Scheme. Floor areas and inspections Where the Departments advisers have applied floor areas provided by the promoters, the Departments advisers have made an Assumption that the actual built floor areas will correspond to the projected floor areas and will be in accordance with the current Code of Measuring Practice prepared by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Statutory requirements and planning The Departments advisers have made the assumption that the proposed scheme has the benefit of a granted planning consent which will not be challenged under Judicial Review. Leasing The Departments advisers have made the assumption, except where stated otherwise, that there are no leases or other occupational agreements affecting any of the properties. Information The Departments advisers have made the assumption that the information provided by the promoters is both full and correct, except where stated otherwise by us to the contrary. The Departments advisers have made the assumption that details of all matters relevant to value within the promoters knowledge have been made available to us and that such information is up to date. Taxation No adjustment has been made to reflect any liability to taxation that may arise on disposal, nor for any costs associated with disposal incurred by the promoters. Furthermore, no allowance has been made to reflect any liability to repay any government or other grants, taxation allowance or lottery funding that may arise on disposal. Properties to be developed The Departments advisers have relied upon information relating to construction and associated costs in respect of work necessary for development and completion of each scheme as advised by the promoters. The Departments advisers have made the assumption that all works of construction would be satisfactorily carried out in accordance current British Standards and any relevant codes of practice. The Departments advisers have also made an Assumption that a duty of care and all appropriate warranties will be available from the professional team and contractors, which will be assignable to third parties.
Appendix C
Draft Heads of Terms Template
Promoters and local planning authorities have, in most cases, engaged in a series of technical meetings to begin to develop their thinking on their respective potential s106 requirements. The promoters stressed that the draft section 106 Heads of Terms will need to be negotiated with their respective local planning authorities, if their proposals progress through the planning application. This may necessarily require some aspects of the section 106 offer to be reassessed. The draft section 106 Heads of Terms templates below prepared by the Departments advisers reflect promoters current offers and include some of the anticipated expectations of the local planning authorities in view of their understanding of eco-town proposals as of autumn 2008.
C1 Weston Otmoor
C1 Weston Otmoor 1.1 PROGRAMME (a) Core Obligations to be performed before commencement of development. (i) Production of all strategic plans (to the extent not already approved) (b) Core obligations to be performed prior to occupation of any development (i) Provision of phased elements of infrastructure Timetable to be set by County Council and District Council following discussions with developer Health care services would be required from a very early phase of development LPAs Expectation Highway Infrastructure to be provided as specified on Page 23 of Parkridges Final Bid Presentation Non Technical Summary. Promoters Offer SECTION 1 OBLIGATIONS BINDING THE WHOLE OF THE SITE
(ii) etc
Appendix C Draft Heads of Terms Template 127
C1 Weston Otmoor (c) Obligation to prepare, discuss and maintain a delivery programme
LPAs Expectation An extract from PCT response to eco-towns Living a Greener Future consultation document is set out below. The Strategic Masterplan in its present format does not contain enough detail to allow comment but in its general format is unacceptable as it appears to separate primary and secondary schools from their required playing fields. Children would not be expected to have to travel by tram to and from these facilities which appear to be located in the Sports village. Needs to include sites for key infrastructure facilities Results from the transport modelling work are demonstrating that strategic access arrangements are unsatisfactory therefore proposed strategic access is an issue.
Promoters Offer
1.2 STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN Obligation on development to be designed and planned in accordance with the Strategic Masterplan
The promoter comments that it is not the case that the playing fields will be separate from the primary and secondary schools.
(a) (b)
Strategic Highways Strategic access issues
The promoter comments that the statement that Results from the transport modelling work are demonstrating that strategic access arrangements are unsatisfactory therefore proposed strategic access is an issue is factually incorrect as the Transport Assessment shows our proposals to work. Detailed plans to show all boundaries to key infrastructure sites required.
(c) (d)
Strategic landscaping Boundaries
(e)
Balance/maxima of land uses
C1 Weston Otmoor (f) (g) Key mitigation measures Inclusion
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Inclusion should be a key theme. See Annex 1 below.
1.3 STRATEGIES AND PLANS (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Strategic Design Statement Sustainability Strategy Drainage Strategy Utilities Strategy Construction Method Statement Flood Risk Assessment PCT principles guiding estates Oxfordshire Primary Care Trusts Capital investment decisions will be informed by a set of principles to guide investment decisions. These have been agreed by the whole local health economy for future estates planning, and are set out as below
(h)
Full Transport Assessment including movement network and demand management strategy. Parking Strategy This is to include all uses including residential leisure business etc Area wide travel plan strategy Access statements
(i)
(j) (k)
C1 Weston Otmoor (l) Strategic Management Plan for Biodiversity. Landscape Character Assessments URBAN DESIGN GUIDES Obligation for reserved matters and other submissions to be broadly in accordance with Strategic Design Statement Housing/design coding
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
(m) 1.4
(a) (b)
To include requirements to ensure homes are built to life time housing standards and can be adapted to needs of people with physical disabilities. Inclusion of domestic sprinklers.
(c) (d)
Commercial design guidance Community Facilities design guidance To be agreed with District and County Councils incorporating required standards.
(e)
Transport See Annex 1 below for issues Infrastructure Design arising from the Disability guidance Discrimination Act that will need to be adhered to but will have an as yet unquantified cost implication.
C1 Weston Otmoor 1.5 EDUCATION (a) Primary Schools
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
12No. x 2-form-entry (2FE) Up to 8 primary schools (including Foundation Stages) provision with co-joined playing fields. Also potential upgrade to address wraparound care needs (say 10 per cent). Schools should be standalone facilities without additional community facilities within or attached to them 12 No. @ 7.762M each 93.147M in total @ 1Q08 values 2.22 hectares (net useable area) for each, including playing field, located at local hubs Year 1: 2No. Year 2: 1No. Year 3: 2No. Year 4: 1No. Year 5: 2No. Year 6: 1No. Year 7: 1No. Year 8: 1No. Year 9: 1No. Year 10: 2No. x 1200 pupil (8FE) facility (Yr Groups 7-11) 2No. x 900 (6FE) pupil facility (Yr Groups 7-11) 2No. x 500 pupils post year groups 11. Schools should be stand alone facilities without additional community facilities within or attached to them. Assessment shown in traditional secondary/sixth form provision but may be in other form e.g. part as 1419 yrs facility.
(i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location
(iii) Timing
(b)
Secondary School
Up to 3 secondary schools
C1 Weston Otmoor (i) Capital contribution
LPAs Expectation 2No. x 1200 pupils = 25.428M each 2No. x 900 pupils = 19.727M each 2No. x 500 pupil post Yr group 11 = 15.844M each 121.998M in total @ 1Q08 values
Promoters Offer
(ii) Site area and location
2No. x 7 hectares for 900 place school 2No. x 8.5 hectares for 1200 place school 2No. x 0.5 hectares for post 16, sharing playing fields with one of secondary schools At centre of local hubs Year 1:1No. (8FE & sixth) Year 4:1No. (6FE) Year 7:1No. (8FE & sixth) Year 10:1No (6FE) Provision for 545 children 7.044M Within local hubs To coincide with completion of related residential areas 1No. x 100 pupils special school with hydrotherapy pool 9.549M @ 1Q08 values In centralised location Year 3
(iii) Timing
(c)
Pre-school facilities (Early Years) (i) Capital contribution (ii) Location (iii) Timing
(d)
Special Educational Needs (i) Capital Contribution (ii) Location (iii) Timing
C1 Weston Otmoor (e) Temporary provision
LPAs Expectation Prior to the facilities being available on-site there may, depending upon phasing of development, be a need to transport children/ students to offsite facilities. In so doing it may also be necessary to improve/ expand facilities offsite to enable that temporary need to be addressed. In such cases the extra costs arising from such necessities should be met from the development proposal at Weston Otmoor. Must be designed and laid out to reduce risk of crime
Promoters Offer
1.6 PUBLIC REALM (a) Creation, management and maintenance of public realm including green separation areas New common land open spaces; Recreation facilities including play areas, pocket parks and a sports village Community orchards and woodland; Community based farming facilities and market gardens Structural landscaping On-site landscaping
(b)
Future ownership and control provisions Formation and funding of a managing agency (residuary body for ownership of land/trust for maintenance contributions)
County Council wish to retain control over joint use of any school playing fields
(c)
C1 Weston Otmoor (d) Local Stakeholder involvement/ Partnership Consultative Forum Capital contribution to existing local projects Inclusive public spaces OPEN SPACE/ GREEEN INFRASTRUCTURE
LPAs Expectation Strategic Partnership body required to be set up
Promoters Offer
(e)
(f) 1.7
For any major development the PCT would expect the following examples to be considered and thought through at the early planning stages in order to support sustainable communities and improve the health and well being of the population of Oxfordshire. Good/Improved access to local services and facilities e.g. health, education, recreation, cultural, etc rotecting the P environment/ Reducing energy consumption mproving infrastructure I (roads etc) educing car travel/ R encouraging walking cycling/tackling fuel poverty ccess to open/green A spaces ffordable housing/ A suitable housing, e.g. for an aging population/ homelessness Increasing diversity in population
See 1.6(a)
C1 Weston Otmoor
LPAs Expectation Creating safer communities/reducing fear of crime and polarised communities Reducing rural isolation (e.g. improved transport links/access) and social isolation (e.g. community facilities) Overall the PCT would favour opening up opportunities to provide more services and facilities and developing the possibility for co-location of services across organisations/ providers.
Promoters Offer
(a) (b)
LEAPs, NEAPs, LAPs and MUGAs Formal sports pitches (including artificial surfaces) Sports pavilion: (i) capital contribution (ii) provision of (serviced) land (iii) construction
56 hectares of public open space
(c)
(d) (e)
Tennis courts, bowling greens Informal play areas (e.g. skateboard park) Allotments Green gym Walking and running loops Rights of Way Other Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) would expect a contribution of at least 3M for the provision of a wide range of off-site green infrastructure. See Annex 2 below for more details Interconnected greenways
(f) (g) (h) (i)
C1 Weston Otmoor 1.8 (a) BIODIVERSITY/ NATURE ES mitigation measures
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Provision of biodiversity and Habitat Action Plan Additional habitat creation Protection of adjacent SSSI. It would be a requirement that a management committee be set up on which representatives of the County and District Councils would sit and determine measures to develop and improve the ecological and biodiversity interests in the eco-town, with a working budget.
(b)
Maintenance provisions
(c) 1.9 (a)
Ownership and management INCLUSIVE PUBLIC TRANSPORT Any specified major transport mode, i.e. tram, guided busway, road. Parkridge to provide bus services as specified or alternatively to provide a financial contribution for their provision in perpetuity from first occupation. Parkridge to provide free tram travel and free train/ tram travel for all residents in perpetuity to Oxford and Bicester, as referred to in Page 13 of Final Bid Presentation, Non Technical Summary Rebuild Motorway Junction (M40, Junction 9); East West rail line (Oxford to Milton Keynes); On-site Tram system; Park and ride (6,000 car spaces) to take existing traffic of the M40 and A34; Public transport subsidies; Chord line in Bicester to facilitate direct services from Oxford and Weston Otmoor to London Marylebone; New station at Weston Otmoor; New North Oxford Halt at either Pear Tree or Water Eaton Park and Ride to interchange with existing and new network of buses to employment areas.
C1 Weston Otmoor (i) Financial Contribution (aa) Capital support (bb) Early years revenue support: length of period (cc) Payment dates (ii) Timing for construction of transport mode
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Unknown at this stage. From the outset: Dualling of the East West Rail line; Construction of Weston Otmoor station; The rebuilt M40, J9; Development of Park & Ride (P&R); Implementation of tram routes and links to station Additional requirements for public transport provided at Annex 3 below. These additional requirements cost in the region of 6.5 million. There needs to be funding for the development and implementation of a strategy for community transport, To be identified & included in TA.
(b)
Buses: revenue support
(c)
Community transport funding
(d)
Cycle: cycle storage facilities and cycleways external links Pedestrian links: strategic masterplan issue Rail
(e)
To be included in the TA
(f)
See Annex 4 below for details on rail and tram/train
C1 Weston Otmoor 1.10 OFF-SITE HIGHWAYS
LPAs Expectation Section 278 agreements required with the appropriate highway body for Junction 9, bridges, diversion of the Weston on the Green / Wendlebury road, cycle paths, footpaths, traffic calming in local villages, bus stops on the A34 and so on. Alternatively, appropriate financial contributions (to be assessed) and bonds if the County Council is to undertake the work. This is not an exhaustive list but represents some of the major items.
Promoters Offer See 1.9 (a) above Traffic management system Bridging the A34
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Timing of works temporary works permanent works off site traffic management?
1.11 UTILITIES ON AND OFF-SITE PROVISION (a) (b) (c) Energy sustainability plan Energy Innovation fund Water supply (i) On site (ii) Off-site (iii) Water Conservation measures Water harvesting; Water saving appliances; Use of potable and nonpotable water meters; Water management strategy for landscape and water features Potential Community Carbon Fund
C1 Weston Otmoor (iv) Fire hydrants for emergency services use only (d) Foul water
LPAs Expectation To be installed at developers expense The likely discharge from the expected sewerage treatment works (of the development) will increase the flood plain around Oddington and raises flooding and drainage issues Employment area located by the stream may create issues on the Chestertons and Wendlebury.
Promoters Offer
New wastewater treatment plant The promoter does not consider that there are any flooding or drainage issues arising from the proposed new plant. No net increase in the rate and quantity of storm water run-off
(e)
Surface water
(f) (g) (h) (i)
Gas Electricity Telecoms Intranet/broadband technology/ICT provision/LANs See the document produced for Parkridge by Capita Symonds Weston Otmoor Vehicle Management System Concept design report. All elements will need to be costed. Real time information system in each house On-site CHP/CCHP being considered
1.12 DRAINAGE
SuDS techniques to be used include: Permeable paving, filter strips, swales linking to bio retention areas, ponds, wetlands, detention basins, soakaways, green roofs, underground storage
(a) (b)
Off-site balancing ponds On-site water parkland
C1 Weston Otmoor (c) Flood control and relief channels
LPAs Expectation The likely discharge from the expected sewerage treatment works (of the development) will increase the flood plain around Oddington and raises flooding and drainage issues. The whole of the development must accord with a SUDS. See Annex 5 below for more detail.
Promoters Offer The promoter does not consider that there are any flooding or drainage issues arising from the proposed new plant.
(d)
Sustainable Urban Drainage system
(e)
Adoption, management and maintenance
The bridges are an additional issue see Annex 6 below. If the whole of the development is to be private, a Private Road Agreement must be entered into by the developer/land owner prior to commencement of work on site an Advanced Payment Code will also be sought. This could be as much as 250M but could be phased. All internal roads must be constructed to OCC specifications and Incorporate Manual for Streets. Lighting must be constructed/installed to OCC specifications commuted sums will be required if the development is not private. See comments on Biodiversity/Nature
(f)
Biodiversity and landscaping provision around water bodies Water conservation plan
(g)
C1 Weston Otmoor 1.13 WASTE MANAGEMENT (a) Household waste recycling site Recycling promotion fund Civic Amenity Strategic Waste Management
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Waste deposit points; waste recycling and reusing schemes
(b) (c) (d)
There is a need for a new or expanded Strategic Waste Management site to service the development and others in the Bicester area. Costs are estimated to be between 1m 3m.
1.14 EMERGENCY SERVICES (a) Fire station 0.250M to upgrade existing station at Bicester to serve Weston Otmoor if all dwellings are not fitted with sprinklers. Emergency services to have free and easy access through the proposed toll system Police and community reporting centres.
(b) (c) (d)
Police station Ambulance station Timing of provision of sites
1.15 RETAIL AND SERVICE CENTRES
Masterplan is for a linear High Street with the majority of community buildings, the secondary schools, the civic offices, shops leisure and business space sited along this route.
C1 Weston Otmoor (a) Town Centre (i) Floorspace specification (ii) food store Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floorspace (iii) Nos of units and floorspace size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership (d) Local centres (i) Floorspace specification (ii) Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floorspace (iii) Nos. of units and floorspace size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership 1.16 COMMUNITY FACILITIES (a) Library/Lifelong learning (i) Co-location (ii) Capital contribution (iii) Site area and location
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
To be planned with primary schools and other facilities in central/civic and local hubs
Within Civic Hub with other community facilities 4.705M @1Q08 values 0.15 hectares in Civic Hub
C1 Weston Otmoor (iv) Transfer of land (v) Timing (vi) Ownership (b) Social Services/ Health facilities (i) Construction (ii) Ownership (iii) Commuted sums (iv) Co-location
LPAs Expectation Yes trigger to be agreed Within Year 1 of development commencing County Council
Promoters Offer
Co-location of public amenities is a key element of future health planning and a cornerstone of Oxfordshire PCTs principles of future estate strategy. 5No. in total 3.240M for 1 main hub centre and 4 satellite centres Civic hub and at 4 of local hubs Main hub within Year 1 and satellites at Year 3, Year 5, Year 7, Year 9 0.528M @ 1Q08 values Within Civic hub By Year 2
(c )
Childrens Centres (i) Capital Contribution (ii) Location (iii) Timing
(d)
Adult Learning (i) Capital Contribution (ii) Location (iii) Timing
(e)
Day Centre/Resource 2No. in total required Centre (i) Capital Contribution (ii) Location (iii) Timing 2No. x 1.059M = 2.118M @ 1Q08 values Along High Street Year 2, Year 4 and Year 6
C1 Weston Otmoor (f) Youth Facility (i) Capital Contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing Place of Worship (Provision for a number of different faiths) (i) site location (ii) Transfer of land Community meeting centre/ neighbourhood centre(s) (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (g) (h) (i) Site area(s) and location Burial Ground Site area and location (ii) Capital contribution (iii) Land Transfer (iv) Management and maintenance (j) Community development (i) Community development/ youth worker funding
LPAs Expectation 3.721M 0.2ha adjacent local centre Yes End of year 1 for facility
Promoters Offer
(g)
(h)
C1 Weston Otmoor (k) Museum Services
LPAs Expectation Financial contribution of 0.3M @ 1Q08 to County Council Museum Service to accommodate additional demand put on its resources by new settlement Oxfordshire PCT (OPCT) would strongly caution against any reference to terminology which includes health campus. The OPCT would want a service led development from which any subsequent building configuration would be developed. Wherever growth occurs this puts pressure on health services and requires expansion of provision. The PCT would need to consider current location of services, e.g. GP practices, capacity scope to expand, accessibility of services, equitable spread of services, efficiencies resources/economies of scale, etc. We have assumed for the purposes of this consultation that the eco-town population is a wholly new population (from outside the County).
Promoters Offer
(l)
Primary Care Centre/ Health campus
(i) Capital Contribution
C1 Weston Otmoor (ii) Site area & location
LPAs Expectation Primary: We have assumed that 15,000 new dwellings will increase the population in this area up to 40,000 people (based on the developer and OCC forecasts). The average patient list size per whole time (wte) GP in Oxfordshire is 1,850 people and there an expansion of the population in this area could require up to 22 wte GPs. Pharmacy, dental and optometry services would also be required.. These services would require practices to be established for this new population. Community: An increase in number of GPs by this number would in all probability warrant additional Health Centre/Surgery buildings. The population would also require access to a range of bed and non bed based community services commissioned appropriately to population needs. No assumptions have been made concerning building-based community service facilities at this stage and there would be a need for future assessment and decision on this issue. Tier 2 service provision may also be required.
Promoters Offer The Promoter does not believe it is realistic to assume that every single resident of every single house will be new to Oxfordshire. This is likely to have a significant knockon effect to much of the LPAs expectations.
C1 Weston Otmoor
LPAs Expectation There are no existing primary care facilities or service providers close to this development which could obviously expand to meet the needs of the eco-town population. The PCT would in all probability therefore seek a contribution from the developer towards the cost of additional healthcare facilities arising from this proposed development:
Promoters Offer
(iii) Transfer of Land
1. A provisional estimate of the Capital costs for primary care provision is 14M. This is based on service provision for 22 GPs and associated staff at 7M. This would complete premises to NHS standards including floor covering, lighting, cabling to CAT 5 standards, sinks and other fixtures. This does not include other fittings or the longterm revenue cost of running an increased primary care practice. 2. The calculation used for GP capital costs could be used as a proxy for other primary services, which would be provided through a similar number of dentists, optometrists and pharmacists (which could = 20 in total).
C1 Weston Otmoor
LPAs Expectation 3. Capital costs for community and second tier services have not been included in this proposal. The PCT may seek a contribution from the developer towards any capital costs later deemed appropriate to population needs. 4. The revenue costs of running an increased health service are estimated at around 53M per annum. This estimate is based on 7 per cent of total costs reported in the LAs annual report 07/08 (p43), uplifted for inflation, on the basis that an additional 40,000 people increases total population by 7 per cent in the area. The costs break down into service provision as set out below. A contribution would be required for every years lag before the PCTs central resource allocation adjusted in relation to the increased population filters through the system. This would probably therefore be for a minimum period of 3 years.
Promoters Offer
C1 Weston Otmoor (iv) Timing
LPAs Expectation Site location would need to take account of viable access by diverse existing and new populations. Special account would need to be taken of those people who would be accommodated in dwellings described in section 2.1 as well as young families. Services would probably need to be co-located and offered in health centres which accommodate multiple GPs (not multiple branch surgeries). An Equalities Impact Assessment would need to be undertaken by the PCT before commenting on any site location plans. Additional land may therefore be required for this development of healthcare service provision. Assuming that there are no unusual planning requirements and that the land is suitable for conventional building methods, we would estimate that a typical build cost for primary care surgery space is 1,350 per m2 at todays prices, and that 30 per cent of costs are for land. In addition, pharmacy, dental and optometry services would be required as well provision for community staff to work from site(s). This would require more space. Unless local GPs can expand, in the short-term provision would need to be operational for first new inhabitants.
Promoters Offer
C1 Weston Otmoor 1.17 TOWN TRUST/ COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY (a) Structure and life plan to be agreed early on Initial: (i) constitution (ii) funding (iii) role Later stages (i) constitution (ii) funding income (iii) role Transfer and management of property Additional roles ESCO, maintenance of roads, provision of public transport etc. Community chest
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Weston Otmoor Trust to be a company limited by guarantee and to be initially endowed. Stakeholders to include LPAs, public sector bodies, voluntary and community groups, faith groups and residents.
(b)
(c)
(d)
Trust will own and manage and maintain key community assets
(e)
(f)
Endowment to be made to Weston Otmoor Trust and sinking funds to be established Funding for OCC staff to monitor and enforce demand management / travel planning / parking and other obligations.
1.18 MECHANISMS FOR MONITORING PERFORMANCE ON OBLIGATIONS (a) Strategic Performance indicators Annual Reporting Procedure Default provisions
(b) (c)
C1 Weston Otmoor (d) Rectification
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
SECTION 2 OBLIGATIONS BINDING IDENTIFIABLE HOUSING TRANCHES/ PHASES 2.1 (a) AFFORDABLE HOUSING Overall per cent Provision (i) Social housing for rent per cent (ii) Intermediate tenures per cent (iii) Key worker 40 per cent 70 per cent 30 per cent More affordable housing, particularly for key workers, elderly and families in deprived areas, etc is required. The health and social care needs of people in supported and very sheltered housing will require special consideration. As above Housing needs to be fit for purpose and population need, e.g. extra care housing, suitable for disabled people, support independent living, support elderly to stay in homes as long as possible, including lifetime homes provision. 30 per cent
(iv) Supported
(v) Very sheltered (vi) Lifetime
(b) (c) (d)
Dwelling mix/tenure Distribution around site Triggers
C1 Weston Otmoor 2.2 EXTRA CARE HOUSING (a) Overall per cent Provision
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
117 per 1000 people over 75+ in Oxfordshire require extra care housing. Latest 2007 Oxfordshire population estimates 75+ people make up 7.23 per cent of Oxon 5No or 6No. x 60-flat Extra Care Housing mixed tenure (including an element as affordable housing) units 0.25-0.3 hectares close to High Street 5No = 37.340M 6No. = 44.808M 82 place nursing home 62 place residential nursing home 82 beds = 5.125M 62 beds = 3.875M Close to High Street Years 5-6
(b)
Dwelling mix
(c) (d)
Site Area and Location Capital Contribution
2.3 NURSING HOMES
(i) Provision (ii) Capital Contribution (iii) Location (iv) Timing 2.4 SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION FOR PEOPLE WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES (i) Capital Contributions (ii) Location (iii) Timings
100 units in clusters of 6 bed units 17 @ 0.723M each 12.291M
Within residential areas adjacent to High Street Year 6, Year 8 and Year 10
C1 Weston Otmoor 3.1 SPECIFICATION OF USES, TRAVEL FOR WORK AND PARKING STRATEGY Specification of uses
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
SECTION 3 OBLIGATIONS BINDING EMPLOYMENT SITES
(a)
Mixed use development to reduce number of trips within the site and promote sustainable travel See Annex 7 below See Annex 8 below
(b) (c) (d) 4.1 (a)
Travel for Work Plans Demand Management Parking Strategy
SECTION 4 OBLIGATIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER AGENCIES COMMITMENTS TO DELIVERING INFRASTRUCTURE, FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE Commitments to deliver new infrastructure The PCT would probably need to seek a contribution from the developer towards the cost of additional healthcare facilities arising from this proposed development as per 1.16c above.
(b)
Commitments to seek sources of external funding for infrastructure Commitments to assist throughout Commitments to spend S106 monies appropriately The PCT could not recommend approval of this application until it has been clearly determined how such an expansion is to be financed
(c) (d)
C1 Weston Otmoor 5.1 Indexation 5.2 Ransom Strips 5.3 Consent 5.4 5.5 Parties to the 106 agreement Return of Unspent Contributions
LPAs Expectation Yes from cost bases
Promoters Offer
SECTION 5 SEPARATE PLANNING ISSUES
CDC & OCC et al
5.6 Payment of LPA fees
Yes
Oxfordshire PCT statement

The PCT can provide an indication of the levels of investment that might be required if we were to be developing a service from scratch for a population of this nature, assuming that all residents were new migrants into Oxfordshire. Nothing that is said in this document should be taken as a firm statement of intent or a commitment to a particular level or type of service provision. We understand that the content of this document is simply intended to give Government an indication of what the implications would be for the health service of developing an eco-town in Cherwell. Promoters response to the PCTs statement we do not believe it is realistic to assume that every single resident of every single house will be new to Oxfordshire. The following Annexes have been provided by the LPA to be read in conjunction with their input to the table above.
Annex 1 Urban Design Guides Social Inclusion

Reference Section 1.4 of the Draft s106 HoT document: 1. Social inclusion to best practice standards should be assumed throughout the site. In order to translate this into provision, a member of the National Association of Access Consultants (020 7735 7845) should be part of the design team from concept to detailed delivery and after handover. 2. Regular consultations with representative groups at many stages of development are embedded into the design process an opportunity to interject at many times throughout the design process and on all issues. (DEAs could assist in linking a group specifically if needed). 3. National and local planning standards/ best practice to be met.
4. Integrated inclusive housing to at least Lifetime homes standards with all the necessary supportive features such as close parking for blue badge holders. 5. All industrial and commercial buildings to also assume inclusion as a key theme. 6. All public transport will have to be fully accessible and inclusive. Where travel distances are beyond ability (every 50m for blue badge holders) seats and resting places will be provided. 7. Highways are designed to be inclusive and consulted on with specialist interest groups such as MDA, OAB etc as well as mobility consultation groups. New products such as pavements which assist drainage should be researched and used. 8. Provisions for cycles may allow some doubling up of provisions but as a general rule cycle and pedestrians should have safe areas for movement. 9. Schools will offer fully inclusive provisions including integrated / inclusive services for children with mobility, sensory or learning difficulties.
Annex 2 Open Space / Green Infrastructure

Reference Section 1.7 of the Draft s106 HoT document. Headline aims to include the following: 1. a community that is integrated into the local landscape and with many ways to access and enjoy the surrounding countryside as well as natural green spaces within the site 2. green routes within settlement that provide safe, traffic-free connections between residential and commercial areas for linear access as well as circular and feature routes 3. connections to surrounding access and public rights of way network 4. increases in off-site traffic-free routes so that there can be two way recreation journeys between new and old settlements 5. Provide open, naturalistic areas at the boundaries of the settlement to provide buffers (landscape, noise, biodiversity etc) before the wider countryside is reached. In addition, the following Guidance Note indicates further expectations of OCC in this area: Guidance Note: Public rights of way, countryside access and development Public rights of way (PRoW) are significant multi-use recreational and transport assets and, particularly on the urban fringe, offer a means of access to the surrounding local countryside.
It is important that the aesthetic and utilitarian qualities of public rights of way and countryside access are preserved and where possible, enhanced, to better meet the publics needs. 1. Development may affect public rights of way and countryside access. It is imperative that designers, developers and planners involve county council rights of way officers at an early stage, and throughout a developments lifecycle. 2. Developments should not damage or reduce public rights of way and countryside access provision, either directly or indirectly. Residential and commercial developments should be integrated with the existing public rights of way in ways that allow the continued and increased use of the routes as part of a wider network. 3. Where possible, development should contribute to the provision of new links and/or improvement of the existing PRoW network in order to cater for any increased population, additional pressure of use, and community benefit. The key types of improvements that could be funded through planning obligations and other mechanisms may include: a. Making existing routes on the development site easier to use and more attractive, by providing surface treatments, landscaping and planting measures and better infrastructure items (gates, bridges, signage, information, lighting etc) that are appropriate to the user type, character and location of the area. b. Providing additional linking and recreational routes within and surrounding a development sites area of influence to make the network more joined up and easier to use. This could be alongside the road, through green corridors, along watercourses or through accessible open space. Wherever possible such provision should be dedicated in perpetuity as public rights of way under s.25 Highways Act 1980, as Access Land under s16 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, or through a suitable mechanism. c. Providing for the extension and improvement of PRoW and countryside access opportunities in the locality, in line with (a) and (b). 4. There may also be issues in urban and semi-urban situations that could be addressed in part through effective site allocations, site design and associated management. Some of these are: a. the need for areas to absorb day to day dog exercising and its associated impacts it is particularly important to safeguard the more natural countryside areas surrounding urban areas, including woodland, farmland, livestock and wildlife by providing exercise buffer areas. b. Enabling the public to enjoy dog-free recreation a linked issue is that many people find dogs to be intimidating in a parkland or countryside setting, which means the
dogs presence is a barrier to their participation and enjoyment. In addition, dog faeces are a major hazard and annoyance for families with pushchairs, wheelchair users and all other users or potential users of the urban fringe and countryside which means that separate exercise areas, management solutions and dog-free zones should be planned in at an early stage. c. Enabling more understanding and responsible use The countryside in close proximity to urban and semi-urban areas often suffers from the impacts of misunderstanding, neglect or abuse. These impacts can be in the form of vandalism, fire setting, rubbish dumping, misuse of vehicles and animal and bird scaring. Often these impacts affect humans too particularly local farmers and land managers, as well as making other users feel less welcome and secure. In these areas thought and provision should be made to having a more managed and controlled area. This can provide a stepping stone for less experienced users to get to know what the countryside is able to offer them, and may also act as a robust buffer to prevent the types of problems damaging the wider countryside. (for examples of other solutions see An urban fringe action plan for Southern Swindon, published 2006 by the North Wessex Downs AONB) 5. There should be early discussion with officers at the Countryside Service, Oxfordshire County Council to explore these principles in detail ahead of any detailed design or planning application.
Annex 3 Public Transport

Reference Section 1.9 of the Section 106 document: The Parkridge proposal ignores the existence of key inter-urban services 27 and x5 which run along the A34, five or six times per hour. The South West Bicester development is funding an enhancement to service 27, so this will operate 4 times per hour all day, in addition to route x5 to Milton Keynes and Cambridge, 2 times per hour. There needs to be stopping places for these services on the A34, close to the internal public transport circulation system. In this way, people will be able to travel to/from Weston Otmoor on the existing bus network. This facility is especially important in the very early stages of development, before other bus services are provided. Its also an important link to Kidlington, Gosford, and certain areas of Bicester. Provision of two stops in laybys on the A34, together with the necessary deceleration and acceleration slips, with good quality shelters to protect people against the weather, noise and spray, lighting staircases, ramps to the higher level, would cost around 2 million. These costs are analogous to those for a two platform rail station with similar access arrangements. Secondly, the proposed tram service into Bicester Town is woefully inadequate, both
in terms of frequency and in terms of accessibility to the wider Bicester residential and employment areas. A local bus service (in addition to the existing 27 route) should be provided, circulating around the site and then linking with the Bicester Business Park, Bure Place shopping centre and Bicester North station (for onwards connections to Banbury and the north). A service of four buses per hour should be provided; at certain times these buses should link to educational and workplace establishments as appropriate. A 15 minute frequency bus service to Bicester from the development, and circulating around the development itself, would require 3 buses to operate a robust and reliable service. This allows 45 minutes for the round trip to Bicester North station, which should be adequate to cope with the A34/A41, junction 9 and congestion within Bicester Town Centre. The evening and Sunday specification should be for a bus every 30 minutes, with some attempt to coordinate with train times to/from Banbury and Birmingham. Providing costings is difficult but a rough estimate based on operating costs for 10 years example is in the region of 4.5 million.
Annex 4 Public Transport Rail

Reference Section 1.9 of the Section 106 document Heavy Rail 1. To have in place a fully-funded agreement with Network Rail under which Network Rail will provide, at the cost of Parkridge, sufficient additional rail infrastructure to ensure that the passenger train services described in both column 3 and column 4 of the table headed rail access phasing (Figure 5 of the Transportation Proposals Summary from Parkridge) can be provided to a performance standard at least equal to that laid down in franchise and other agreements applicable at the time, by the applicable date given in column 9 of that table, this infrastructure to include the works described in columns 5 8 of that table and all other works which Network Rail may require in order to provide the services described. 2. To have in place a fully-funded agreement with a train operating company to provide, at the cost of Parkridge, the passenger train services described in column 3 of Figure 5; including securing and maintaining the necessary rolling stock and all necessary approvals and authorities for operation of the services on the National Rail network, all to be the responsibility of Parkridge to secure; and including having in place an agreement by which residents of Weston Otmoor shall be able to travel free of charge on the services between Oxford, Weston Otmoor and Bicester (including arrangements for passing through any station barriers, provision of any necessary ticketing and all other arrangements, all to be at the cost of Parkridge; all to be available and operating by the date given in column 9 of Figure 5 and to continue to be provided for a lifetime (?70 years). 3. To ensure that convenient bus links are available, from a railhead or railheads served by the above passenger train services, to enable service users to continue their journey without significant delay to principal hospitals, further education sites, employment sites
and other major attractors, all to be arranged and funded by Parkridge and to continue for as long as the train services are operating. Note: in 1 3 above train includes tram-train where applicable, on the basis that, should tram-trains not be authorised for operation on the National Rail network by the applicable date, a heavy rail train of at least equivalent passenger capacity shall be provided instead. Internal Trams 1. There will need to be very similar obligations to those stated for Heavy Rail in respect of the internal trams, but with a direct obligation on Parkridge to deliver themselves (rather than through Network Rail or a TOC). 2. This will need to include an obligation on them to secure all necessary authorities to operate, etc, to ensure that adequate facilities for maintenance are provided, and to ensure that the system is designed in a way which minimises noise and visual intrusion. 3. There also needs to be an obligation, in respect of any additional off-site stations for them also to be designed, built and operated in full accordance with all legislation and without significant noise, traffic or visual intrusion impacts on residents and businesses in the vicinity of the site.
Annex 5 Utilities on and off site provision Drainage

Reference Section 1.12 of the Section 106 document Flooding 1. Wendlebury has flooding problems now no additional water into the stream by Wendlebury is acceptable; 2. An EA assessment must be carried out on the effect of the proposal especially down stream and on neighbouring villages; Drainage 1. The whole of the development must accord with a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS); there is concern that due to water travelling down stream the proposed large car park will flood; 2. A commuted sum figure towards the maintenance of the whole site under a SUDS scheme can only be roughly estimated due to the lean information available therefore it has been assumed that the surfacing for the site will be porous blocked paving, with swales & ditches etc costing million+; 3. The river bridge shown on the master plan will require maintenance etc this design will have to be assessed by both Oxfordshire County Council & the Highway Agency due to
A34; 4. Improvements to junction 9 will require drainage works any design will have to be assessed by both Oxfordshire County Council & the Highway Agency. 5. Railway line may be affected.
Annex 6 Utilities on and off site provision Drainage

Reference Section 13 of the Section 106 document Bridges 1. Ownership of the bridges? As over A34 should be Highway Agency with surfacing etc the responsibility of the private development (or OCC if to be public highway)? 2. Concerns with structures on/along one of the bridges + location i.e. close to junction 9 will bridge be too dark, require lighting underneath for drivers etc? 3. Maintenance if not Highway Agency who will maintain? Commuted sums may be required. 4. Must be constructed to Highway Agency specifications.
Annex 7 Obligations binding employment Sites travel plans

Reference Section 3.1 (c) of the Section 106 document 1. Due to its very nature, the concept of travel plans and travel planning would be at the heart of all aspects of the development from the outset and would be integral to the design. 2. The developer, at an early stage in the process, to provide a site-wide travel plan in addition to more detailed plans for each of the site uses. The travel plan should be worked up alongside the TA and would form part of pre-app discussions so that agreement is reached on plans that all stakeholders are happy with. 3. The plans should include such information as expected trip levels, origins and destinations, details of surveys and on-going monitoring, SMART targets and action plans for each mode, strategies for engaging with residents, employees etc (e.g. approaches to personalised travel planning, the provision of travel info, publicity of sustainable modes), details on how the design of the site caters for sustainable travel from the outset and the identification of a travel plan manager and possibly co-ordinators. This is not an exhaustive list and we would want to review our precise requirements once we had more information from the developer. 4. We would seek considerable funding to monitor the travel plans.
5. With regard to school travel, we would normally request a contribution towards the Better Ways To School programme. However, it would be expected that in this case the vast majority of school related movement would remain on-site and therefore the ability to travel to school sustainably should be picked up by other sustainable travel options made available for travel around the site and the design of the site should cater for sustainable travel to school. As mentioned above, we would need to see information on predicted trips before giving a definite view. 6. The proforma asks about our approach to the operation and funding of car/cycle/scooter clubs. We would expect the developer to establish and fund cycle and scooter clubs, with the travel plan co-ordinator having responsibility for maintaining them. With regard to car clubs, there are a number already in existence which the developer could tap into, although with a site of this size it would be practicable for a car club to be developed specifically for the site. Again, it would be the developer/travel plan manager/coordinators role to fund and operate the club.
Annex 8 Obligations binding employment Sites demand management

Reference Section 3.1 (c) of the Section 106 document Demand management measures that must be in place: 1. An agreement to enable the County Council to have direct access to all their (eco-town) monitoring and demand management data, collected in and around the eco-town before construction. Funding to enable this to happen. 2. The staff to operate the demand management system must be arranged prior to construction, and the demand management centre must be in place and staffed before the first occupation. 3. Demand management equipment such as barriers, ANPR, etc must be in place prior to the first occupation and have an associated Maintenance contract in place. 4. All Demand Management equipment must be to National Standards and protocols. 5. A partnership agreement should be drawn up and in place, before construction, to enable the Demand Management Centre and the County Councils Traffic Management Centre to work together. 6. An Emergency plan needs to have been developed, and agreed with neighbouring traffic authorities, to highlight the actions of the Demand Management Centre during an equipment or system failure; to be agreed and in place before construction. 7. A customer service interface needs to be in place and operational prior to first occupation.
8. Emergency access agreements need to be place, and agreed with the Police, Fire and Ambulance services, before construction. 9. An Agreement to allow general traffic to use roads and pass through free of charge when there is a major incident on the A34 / M40 and a utilisation agreement of these roads should be in place before the first occupation. 10. A replacement programme, and funding regime, should be in place before first occupation, which details how the technology equipment will be kept up to date, and in line with the latest standards. Contributions towards: 1. Towards County monitoring equipment to enable us to monitor the impact of the Town on our network and manage the traffic interaction with the new town. 2. Parking restrictions/CPZ measures in Weston-on-the-green 3. Contribution to additional signage on the Countys network 4. Contribution to Traffic Management measures in the surround area 5. A delayed contribution towards the Council or Highways Agency implementing its own demand management measures if more than 1000 vehicles are released onto the strategic network.
Annex from Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust

The consultation document seeks views on the way in which the eco-town concept is being developed, the different potential benefits that an eco-town could offer and preliminary views on the 15 locations going forward for further assessment. The submission for Weston Otmoor provides a brief summary of what is proposed within the eco-town development, however from a health perspective there are very few details which would allow us to comment in detail on the questions set out in the consultation document. We would expect this is be remedied for the next stage of consultation when we have the opportunity to comment in greater detail. We hope that the summary below of where we see there being gaps are helpful. The eco-town criteria sets out the following requirements: Health Services Eco-towns should provide healthy and sustainable environments that encourage healthy
living. All residents should have access to high quality health and social care facilities. The proposal makes provision for healthcare within its bid, but details are not specified. Notably, a development of this size is likely to have a population size of 25,000 to 35,000 (note: since estimated at 40,000) which would require significant primary care service provision including GP, Dental, pharmacy, optician and community nursing access. For example, between 13 and 20 GPs, plus other practice infrastructures would be needed to service this population. The only area touched on within the proposal which references healthier living is increasing walking and cycling opportunities. Further more, the potential impact on Bicester needs to be thought through. We dont yet know where these people are going to come from, but assuming some migration from Bicester, there will be an impact on the infrastructure needs there and potential destabilisation of existing health services there. We would expect an eco-town development to be mindful of NICE public health guidance, in particular; physical activity and the environment. There are national evidence based recommendations on how to improve the physical environment to encourage physical activity which can be found at http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/ PH008PhysicalActivityAndTheEnvironment There should be adequate play areas and environments for children and young people which are appropriate for all and which meet very differing needs for 0-5s 5-12s and 12- 19 for example. These facilities need to promote physical and social development and give maximum opportunities for physical activity to maximise health and well being. They should not just be seen as small area with some play equipment but should be environments which offer play value. They should also promote social inclusion and ensure good access and opportunities for children, parents and carers with disabilities. Innovation and Public Services Eco-towns should pilot and test new methods of public service delivery in addition to the consideration of overall sustainability and being responsive to the issue of climate change. Currently, there are no details provided on these aspects. Community Building and Empowerment Developments should be fully inclusive of all sectors of the community; this is expected to deliver high quality open space, access to comprehensive community facilities, employment, both within the site and linkages to other economic centres and education. Future residents will be expected to be fully involved in the development of the community and endowments and trusts should be established to enable these community principles to be delivered. The submission states that the proposal will promote a culture of belonging and ownership. There is a statement that highlights the need to develop a community relationships and networks with a particular emphasis on the role of young people. The
proposal also talks about the high priority placed on environmentally sustainable design, but details are lacking. APPENDIX TO PCT DRAFT STRATEGY 2008-13: Principles Guiding Future Investment In Estates The PCT and its partner organisations have been working together jointly to oversee development of healthcare estate in Oxfordshire. We are jointly committed to: Maximising Efficiency, Use and Value of Estates Maximising the: o Use of estates by considering the opportunities for co-locating services with other organisations and agencies, both within and outside the health and social care economy for example childrens centres within schools; Value of estates by looking at options for sharing infrastructure such as back office functions, HQ and staff accommodation and IT systems.
Recognising the challenges of delivering care pathways that cut across different service providers and premises and through more joined up working ensuring that this does not negatively impact on patient access; Ensuring that estates management retains flexibility when considering the mechanisms for leasing, owning and procuring premises and so that we do not create barriers to the delivery of timely and appropriate care. Ensuring Flexible, Responsive, Outcome Driven Services Moving from services which are historically tied to buildings in terms of how they are delivered, to services that are more mobile/ adaptable for patients to access by exploring new ways of working where appropriate for example Telecare or Telemedicine; Ensuring that estates projects take into account the need to design out known barriers to services; Shifting service and care provision from traditional secondary care facilities to services delivered outside of hospital that are closer to home for patients, by working collaboratively with partners where this is clinically and economically appropriate; Ensuring services can respond to wider social issues both now and in the future such as demographic change within the older population, housing growth and child deprivation.
Promoting a Sustainable Estate Minimising our carbon footprint by exploring new ways of mobile or remote working and reducing car travel; Reducing the impact of climate change by looking towards sustainable resources and premises which are energy efficient and reduce waste; Reusing land and buildings where possible to improve the viability of other services in urban or rural areas and contribute to community regeneration; Taking into account local transport plans and making access easier to services and workplaces by ensuring alternatives to car journeys such public transport routes, minibus services and cyclist facilities; Increasing the range of local services and/or co-location of these with existing facilities to reduce the need for patients to travel. Supporting Partnership Working Establishing a close working partnership with the public, other organisations, local authorities, universities and the communities we serve though stakeholder engagement, there by improving communications and sending out consistent messages; Forming stronger links between planning and service managers to ensure integration of work programmes across departments and organisations. The PCT will be co-ordinating joint working on estates development, and this will include development of a framework for working together in localities and for identifying priority estates projects.
C2 Ford Airfield
The promoters section 106 offer includes education, sustainable transport, green travel plans, public open space, playing field contributions, childrens play areas, community infrastructure, public art, libraries, fire and rescue etc. However, in the absence of further information and clarification of the provisions received within the specified deadline, further comments from the local planning authorities on the draft s106 Heads of Terms template have not been pursued. C2 Ford Airfield 1.1 PROGRAMME (a) Core Obligations to be performed before commencement of development. (i) Production of all strategic plans (to the extent not already approved) (b) Core obligations to be performed prior to occupation of any development (i) Provision of phased elements of infrastructure (ii) etc (c) Obligation to prepare, discuss and maintain a delivery programme STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN Obligation on development to be designed and planned in accordance with the Strategic Masterplan Strategic Highways Strategic access issues Strategic landscaping LPAs Expectation Promoters Offer
SECTION 1 OBLIGATIONS BINDING THE WHOLE OF THE SITE
1.2
(a) (b) (c)
C2 Ford Airfield (d) (e) (f) 1.3 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 1.4 Boundaries Balance/maxima of land uses Key mitigation measures STRATEGIES AND PLANS Strategic Design Statement Sustainability Strategy Drainage Strategy Utilities Strategy Construction Method Statement Flood Risk Assessment URBAN DESIGN GUIDES Obligation for reserved matters and other submissions to be broadly in accordance with Strategic Design Statement Housing/design coding Commercial design guidance Community Facilities design guidance Transport Infrastructure Design guidance Primary Schools (with additional community facilities) Capital contribution Site area and location
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
1.5 EDUCATION (a) 2 primary schools
(i) (ii)
C2 Ford Airfield (iii) (b) Timing Secondary School (with additional community facilities) (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Timing (c) Pre-school facilities (i) Capital contribution (ii) Location (iii) Timing 1.6 PUBLIC REALM (a) Creation, management and maintenance of public realm including green separation areas (b) (c) Future ownership and control provisions Formation and funding of a managing agency (residuary body for ownership of land/ trust for maintenance contributions) Local Stakeholder involvement/ Partnership Consultative Forum Capital contribution to existing local projects OPEN SPACE/ GREEEN INFRASTRUCTURE LEAPs, NEAPs, LAPs and MUGAs
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer 1 secondary school
(d)
(e) 1.7
(a)
LAPs, LEAPs, Super LEAPs and NEAPs are provided for within the promoters s.106 offer.
C2 Ford Airfield (b) Formal sports pitches (including artificial surfaces)
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Over 150 hectares of green space is proposed plus private gardens and outdoor areas and incidental planted areas within the housing blocks. Over 50 hectares of this will be formal open space incorporating pitches, equipped playgrounds and other childrens play spaces and 4 neighbourhood parks, each at least 2 hectares in size.
(c)
Sports pavilion: (i) capital contribution (ii) provision of (serviced) land (iii) construction
(d) (e) (f) (g) (h) 1.8 (a)
Tennis courts, bowling greens Informal play areas (e.g. skateboard park) Allotments Green gym Walking and running loops BIODIVERSITY/ NATURE ES mitigation measures A new wetland area adjacent to the River Arun. A range of waterways in the form of a recreated canal and wetland spaces. Retained and extended woodland.
(b) (c)
Maintenance provisions Ownership and management
C2 Ford Airfield 1.9 PUBLIC TRANSPORT (a) Any specified major transport mode, i.e. tram, guided busway, road.
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Green Travel Plan Improved railway station and transport interchange at Ford. Turn up and go shuttle bus. Costal Fastway bus service to provide integration between bus and rail.
(i) Financial Contribution (aa) Capital support (bb) Early years revenue support: length of period (cc) Payment dates (ii) Timing for construction of transport mode (b) (c) (d) Buses: revenue support Community transport funding Cycle: cycle storage facilities and cycleways external links Pedestrian links: strategic masterplan issue Footways and cycle ways to be extended. Level crossing at Ford replaced by a bridge.
(e)
1.10 OFF-SITE HIGHWAYS (a) (b) (c) (d) Timing of works temporary works permanent works off site traffic management?
C2 Ford Airfield 1.11 UTILITIES ON AND OFF-SITE PROVISION (a) Energy sustainability plan
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
An Integrated Resource Strategy for energy, water and waste. An on site Energy Centre water neutral water cycle.
(b) (c)
Energy Innovation fund Water supply (i) On site (ii) Off-site (iii) Water Conservation measures
(d) (e) (f) (g) (h)
Foul water Surface water Gas Electricity Telecoms (i) Intranet/ broadband technology/ICT provision/LANs
1.12 DRAINAGE (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Off-site balancing ponds On-site water parkland Flood control and relief channels Sustainable Urban Drainage system Adoption, management and maintenance Biodiversity and landscaping provision around water bodies See 1.11 above.
(f)
C2 Ford Airfield (g) Water conservation plan
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
1.13 WASTE MANAGEMENT (a) Household waste recycling site Recycling promotion fund Civic Amenity Fire and rescue services. An integrated waste and resource management facility.
(b) (c)
1.14 EMERGENCY SERVICES (a) (b) (c) (d) Fire station Police station Ambulance station Timing of provision of sites
1.15 RETAIL AND SERVICE CENTRES (a) Town Centre (i) Floorspace specification (ii) food store Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floorspace (iii) Nos of units and floorspace size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership (d) Local centres
C2 Ford Airfield (i) Floorspace specification (ii) Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floorspace (iii) Nos. of units and floorspace size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership 1.16 COMMUNITY FACILITIES (a) Library/Lifelong learning (i) Co-location (ii) Capital contribution (iii) Site area and location (iv) Transfer of land (v) Timing (vi) Ownership (b) Social Services/Health facilities (i) Construction (ii) Ownership (iii) Commuted sums (iv) Co-location (c) Primary Care Centre/ Health campus (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Contribution
Health facilities
C2 Ford Airfield (d) Youth Facility (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (e) Place of Worship (provision for a number of different faiths) (i) Site location and areas (ii) Transfer of land (f) Community meeting centre/neighbourhood centre(s) (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (g) (h) Site area(s) and location Burial Ground (i) Site area and location (ii) Capital contribution (iii) Land Transfer (iv) Management and maintenance (i) Community development (i) Community development/youth worker funding 1.17 TOWN TRUST/ COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
C2 Ford Airfield (a) (b) Structure and life-plan to be agreed early on Initial: (i) constitution (ii) funding (iii) role Later stages (i) constitution (ii) funding (iii) role Transfer and management of property Additional roles ESCO, maintenance of roads, provision of public transport etc. Community chest
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
1.18 MECHANISMS FOR MONITORING PERFORMANCE ON OBLIGATIONS (a) (b) (c) (d) Strategic Performance indicators Annual Reporting Procedure Default provisions Rectification Expects a monitoring scheme.
SECTION 2 OBLIGATIONS BINDING IDENTIFIABLE HOUSING TRANCHES/ PHASES 2.1 (a) AFFORDABLE HOUSING Overall per cent Provision (i) Social housing for rent per cent (ii) Intermediate tenures per cent (iii) Key worker 40 per cent 60 per cent (average) 40 per cent (average) 40 per cent 50 per cent 50 per cent
C2 Ford Airfield (iv) Supported (v) Very sheltered (vi) Lifetime (b) (c) (d) 3.1 Dwelling mix/tenure Distribution around site Triggers SPECIFICATION OF USES, TRAVEL FOR WORK AND PARKING STRATEGY Specification of uses Travel for Work Plans Parking Strategy COMMITMENTS TO DELIVERING INFRASTRUCTURE, FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE Commitments to deliver new infrastructure Commitments to seek sources of external funding for infrastructure Commitments to assist throughout Commitments to spend S106 monies appropriately Indexation
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
(a) (b) (c) 4.1
SECTION 4 OBLIGATIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER AGENCIES
(a)
(b)
(c) (d)
SECTION 5 SEPARATE PLANNING ISSUES 5.1 Bonds for major infrastructure.
5.2 Ransom Strips 5.3 Consent
C2 Ford Airfield 5.4 5.5 Parties to the 106 agreement Return of Unspent Contributions
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
C3 Whitehill Bordon
This is an unusual scheme, at least in terms of the consideration of section 106 packages, because the promoter is also the local planning authority. It might also be the case in the future that the local planning authority is the major land owner. Consideration will have to be given to the way in which planning benefits are negotiated and, possibly, secured. If, as East Hants District Council (EHDC) predict, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is in place and the Council has produced the necessary infrastructure plans by the time development begins, that is likely to overcome many of the difficulties. Note that, as well as proposing 5,500 new homes, the scheme involves refurbishing up to 6,400 existing homes. The promoter comments that the following table should not be considered as a definitive list. C3 Whitehill Bordon 1.1 PROGRAMME (a) Core Obligations to be performed before commencement of development. (i) Production of all strategic plans (to the extent not already approved) (b) Core obligations to be performed prior to occupation of any development (i) Provision of phased elements of infrastructure (ii) etc (c) Obligation to prepare, discuss and maintain a delivery programme Promoter/LPA Offer
1.2 STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN Obligation on development to be designed and planned in accordance with the Strategic Masterplan (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Strategic Highways Strategic access issues Strategic landscaping Boundaries Balance/maxima of land uses Key mitigation measures
C3 Whitehill Bordon 1.3 STRATEGIES AND PLANS (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Strategic Design Statement Sustainability Strategy Drainage Strategy Utilities Strategy Construction Method Statement Flood Risk Assessment
Promoter/LPA Offer
1.4 URBAN DESIGN GUIDES Obligation for reserved matters and other submissions to be broadly in accordance with (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 1.5 (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (b) (i) (ii) (iii) (c) (i) (ii) (iii) Strategic Design Statement Housing/design coding Commercial design guidance Community Facilities design guidance Transport Infrastructure Design guidance EDUCATION Primary Schools (with additional community facilities) Capital contribution Site area and location Timing Secondary School (with additional community facilities) Capital contribution Site area and location Timing Pre-school facilities Capital contribution Location Timing Either the expansion of the existing school or a new (5 form entry) secondary school. 2 no. 3 form entry plus 1 no. 2 form entry
C3 Whitehill Bordon 1.6 PUBLIC REALM (a) Creation, management and maintenance of public realm including green separation areas Future ownership and control provisions Formation and funding of a managing agency (residuary body for ownership of land/trust for maintenance contributions) Local Stakeholder involvement/ Partnership Consultative Forum Capital contribution to existing local projects OPEN SPACE/ GREEEN INFRASTRUCTURE (a) (b) (c) (d) (b) (c) LEAPs, NEAPs, Local Parks District Parks
Promoter/LPA Offer
(b) (c)
(d) (e) 1.7
Formal sports pitches (including artificial surfaces) Sports pavilion: (i) capital contribution (ii) provision of (serviced) land (iii) construction
Currently owned by MoD.
(d) (e) (f) (g) (h)
Tennis courts, bowling greens Informal play areas (e.g. skateboard park) Allotments Green gym Walking and running loops NB. It is stated aim of the scheme to safeguard existing SPAs. Measures to encourage recreation.
1.8 BIODIVERSITY/NATURE (a) (b) (c) ES mitigation measures Maintenance provisions Ownership and management
C3 Whitehill Bordon 1.9 PUBLIC TRANSPORT (a) Any specified major transport mode, i.e. tram, guided busway, road. (i) Financial Contribution (aa) Capital support (bb) Early years revenue support: length of period (cc) Payment dates (ii) Timing for construction of transport mode (b) (c) (d) (e) Buses: revenue support Community transport funding Cycle: cycle storage facilities and cycleways external links Pedestrian links: strategic masterplan issue / Bridle ways Timing of works
Promoter/LPA Offer Improvement of existing (but unused) military rail connections to network.
Internal public transport. Creating new and improving existing infrastructure. Creating new and improving existing links. New relief road and selected (unidentified) improvements to strategic links and junctions.
1.10 OFF-SITE HIGHWAYS (a)
(b) (c) (d)
temporary works permanent works off site traffic management? An ESCO is proposed which would build the estimated 6 CHP units and supply power to commercial and residential users.
1.11 UTILITIES ON AND OFF-SITE PROVISION
(a) (b) (c)
Energy sustainability plan Energy Innovation fund Water supply (i) On site (ii) Off-site (iii) Water Conservation measures
(d) (e)
Foul water Surface water
Existing STW will need to be upgraded.
C3 Whitehill Bordon (f) (g) (h) Gas Electricity Telecoms (i) Intranet/broadband technology/ ICT provision/LANs 1.12 DRAINAGE (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c) (d) (a) Off-site balancing ponds On-site water parkland Flood control and relief channels Sustainable Urban Drainage system Adoption, management and maintenance Biodiversity and landscaping provision around water bodies Water conservation plan Household waste recycling site Recycling promotion fund Civic Amenity Fire station Police station Ambulance station Timing of provision of sites Town Centre (i) Floorspace specification (ii) food store Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floorspace (iii) Nos of units and floorspace size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/marketing (vi) Ownership
Promoter/LPA Offer
1.13 WASTE MANAGEMENT
1.14 EMERGENCY SERVICES
1.15 RETAIL AND SERVICE CENTRES New town centre proposed.
C3 Whitehill Bordon (d) Local centres (i) Floorspace specification (ii) Convenience/Comparison retail and services floorspace (iii) Nos. of units and floorspace size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/marketing (vi) Ownership 1.16 COMMUNITY FACILITIES (a) Library/Lifelong learning (i) Co-location (ii) Capital contribution (iii) Site area and location (iv) Transfer of land (v) Timing (vi) Ownership (b) Social Services/Health facilities (i) Construction (ii) Ownership (iii) Commuted sums (iv) Co-location (c) Primary Care Centre/Health campus (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (d) Youth Facility (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (e) Place of Worship (provision for a number of different faiths)
Promoter/LPA Offer
NB. The Council proposes using the existing MoD facilities in the short-term. Museum of the Future.
C3 Whitehill Bordon (i) Site location and areas (ii) Transfer of land (f) Community meeting centre/ neighbourhood centre(s) (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (g) (h) Site area(s) and location Burial Ground (i) Site area and location (ii) Capital contribution (iii) Land Transfer (iv) Management and maintenance (i) Community development (i) Community development/youth worker funding 1.17 TOWN TRUST/COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY (a) (b) Structure and life-plan to be agreed early on Initial: (i) constitution (ii) funding (iii) role Later stages (i) constitution (ii) funding income (iii) role Transfer and management of property Additional roles ESCO, maintenance of roads, provision of public transport etc. Community chest
Promoter/LPA Offer
Whitehill-Bordon Community Development Trust (or successor) would own local facilities (e.g. generating or waste) the profits from which would be reinvested in the provision of facilities for the town.
(c)
(d) (e)
(f)
C3 Whitehill Bordon 1.18 MECHANISMS FOR MONITORING PERFORMANCE ON OBLIGATIONS (a) (b) (c) (d) Strategic Performance indicators Annual Reporting Procedure Default provisions Rectification
Promoter/LPA Offer
SECTION 2 OBLIGATIONS BINDING IDENTIFIABLE HOUSING TRANCHES/ PHASES 2.1 (a) AFFORDABLE HOUSING Overall per cent Provision (i) Social housing for rent per cent (ii) Intermediate tenures per cent (iii) Key worker (iv) Supported (v) Very sheltered (vi) Lifetime (b) (c) (d) Dwelling mix/tenure Distribution around site Triggers 40 per cent 20 per cent 20 per cent
SECTION 3 OBLIGATIONS BINDING EMPLOYMENT SITES 3.1 SPECIFICATION OF USES, TRAVEL FOR WORK AND PARKING STRATEGY (a) (b) (c) (d) Specification of uses Travel for Work Plans Parking Strategy Local Labour Up to 7000 new jobs. For the whole development.
SECTION 4 OBLIGATIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER AGENCIES 4.1 COMMITMENTS TO DELIVERING INFRASTRUCTURE, FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE (a) Commitments to deliver new infrastructure
C3 Whitehill Bordon (b) (c) (d) Commitments to seek sources of external funding for infrastructure Commitments to assist throughout Commitments to spend S106 monies appropriately
Promoter/LPA Offer
SECTION 5 SEPARATE PLANNING ISSUES 5.1 Indexation 5.2 Ransom Strips 5.3 Consent 5.4 Parties to the 106 agreement 5.5 Return of Unspent Contributions 5.6 Payment of LPA fees
C4 Pennbury
The comments received from the local planning authorities are based on the information made available to them and their understanding of the scheme proposal as of winter 2008. C4 Pennbury 1.1 PROGRAMME (a) Core Obligations to be performed before commencement of development. LPAs Expectation Promoters Offer The PPS recommends that eco-towns be considered through the plan-led system. Approval of a new LDF core strategy and relevant LDDs would establish the strategic context, policy framework and required deliverables. The PPS recommends that eco-towns be considered through the plan-led system. Approval of a new LDF core strategy and relevant LDDs would establish the strategic context, policy framework and required deliverables. Agree to the principle of sequencing to deliver infrastructure. Exact phasing will be determined through LDF policy. Agree to the principle of sequencing to deliver infrastructure. Exact phasing will be determined through LDF policy. Agree
(i) Production of all strategic plans (to the extent not already approved)
(b)
Core obligations to be performed prior to occupation of any development (i) Provision of phased elements of infrastructure
(ii) etc (c) Obligation to prepare, discuss and maintain a delivery programme
C4 Pennbury 1.2 STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN Obligation on development to be designed and planned in accordance with the Strategic Masterplan (a) Strategic Highways
LPAs Expectation HDC: the strategic master plan must demonstrate the relationship with the LDF and the AAP and just build in flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances
Promoters Offer Detail to be agreed with the local authorities as master plan is developed
Detail to be agreed with the local authorities as master plan is developed Detail to be agreed with the local authorities as master plan is developed Detail to be agreed with the local authorities as master plan is developed Detail to be agreed with the local authorities as master plan is developed Detail to be agreed with the local authorities as master plan is developed Detail to be agreed with the local authorities as master plan is developed
(b)
Strategic access issues Strategic landscaping
(c)
(d)
Boundaries
(e)
Balance/maxima of land uses Key mitigation measures
(f)
C4 Pennbury 1.3 STRATEGIES AND PLANS (a) Strategic Design Statement
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
A strategic design statement would be shaped by a Design and Development Advisory Panel (DDAP) established by The Co-operative Group on short listing and involving key stakeholders and experts. The DDAP would evolve into the eco-town Community Company during town construction and the Community Company would take on responsibility for adherence to the Strategic Design Statement Eco-town construction would not have a negative impact on the capacity of existing infrastructure and would add capacity in order to support the eco-town scheme. The eco-town master plan would be designed according to the sustainability approach set out in the Masterplan Vision Document (page 60) Water supply and drainage strategy. Eco-town construction would not have a negative impact on the capacity of existing infrastructure and would add capacity in order to support the eco-town scheme.
(b)
Sustainability Strategy
(c)
Drainage Strategy
C4 Pennbury (d) Utilities Strategy
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer The renewable energy strategy would involve Biomass powered Combined Heat and Power, wind energy and anaerobic digestion (see Section 1.11 (g)) Eco-town construction would not have a negative impact on the capacity of existing infrastructure and would add capacity in order to support the eco-town scheme. Agree in principle to resolve questions about material movement.
(e)
Construction Method Statement Flood Risk Assessment HDC: SFRA should be funded by developer
(f)
95 per cent of the site lies outside of the flood plain, so it is recognised that there is limited flood risk FRA to be undertaken for the eco-town site but it is recognised that joint working with local authorities could result in FRA for a wider area: this would not be solely funded by the landowners
1.4
URBAN DESIGN GUIDES Obligation for reserved matters and other submissions to be broadly in accordance with
C4 Pennbury (a) Strategic Design Statement
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer To be developed for the eco-town as part of the master plan. Expected to play a role in producing a high design quality throughout the eco-town The eco-towns design would create a strong sense of place through a consistent approach to design both in terms of architectural style and selection of building materials. This would relate well to the existing vernacular architecture. Homes to comply with full Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 from the outset and Code level 6 for energy from the outset. All homes to comply with code level 6 from 2016 onwards All homes to be Lifetime Homes compliant All homes to be Building for Life Silver compliant All homes to be English Partnerships Space Standards compliant Developed for the ecotown as part of the master plan Developed for the ecotown as part of the master plan Part of transport worksite part of master plan Smarter Choices Travel Company 7 x 420 place schools
(b)
Housing/design coding
(c)
Commercial design guidance Community Facilities design guidance Transport Infrastructure Design guidance Primary Schools (with additional community facilities)
(d)
(e)
1.5 EDUCATION (a)
C4 Pennbury (i) Capital contribution
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer The funding provided for schools will be in line with local education authority requirements. We would expect to build and operate through a partnership arrangement
(ii) Site area and location (iii) Timing
Leics: a minimum of 13.5 ha will be required
13.3 ha Education provision will keep pace with the number of children in the eco-town in order to ensure that there is one school place in the eco-town for every child living there
Leics CC: if schools are to have community facilities (sporting and/or social) then allowance will have to be made in both amount of land and capital costs. Similarly for childrens centres (b) Secondary School (with additional community facilities) (i) Capital contribution 2 x including at least one eco academy, with 1100 places in each The funding provided for schools will be in line with local education authority requirements. We would expect to build and operate through a partnership arrangement 16.2 ha
C4 Pennbury (iii) Timing
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Education provision will keep pace with the number of children in the eco-town in order to ensure that there is one school place in the eco-town for every child living there To be commercially provided within community facilities and as part of employment provision
(c)
Pre-school facilities
(i) Capital contribution (ii) Location (iii) Timing To be provided from the outset on a commercial basis HDC: should include a public access strategy Public open space in the eco-town will amount to 179 hectares and involve: 2 district parks, 8 local parks, 30 LEAPS and 10 NEAPS and 27 hectares of informal open space. In addition, there will be a Great Park around the eco-town and as in part within the eco-town. The Great Park will involve 1286 hectares of agriculture and open countryside. This will be used commercially and farmed by the Co-op Future ownership of the public realm to be developed but assume Community Company
1.6 PUBLIC REALM (a) Creation, management and maintenance of public realm including green separation areas
(b)
Future ownership and control provisions
C4 Pennbury (c) Formation and funding of a managing agency (residuary body for ownership of land/ trust for maintenance contributions) Local Stakeholder involvement/ Partnership Consultative Forum
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer To be developed but assume Community Company
(d)
To be developed but assume Design and Development Advisory Panel will involve and engage with local stakeholders and forums leading to the formation of an eco-town Community Company Open to discussion to divert resources where there are existing local projects Leics CC: provision needs to be made for proper management of the historic environment
(e)
Capital contribution to existing local projects
1.7
OPEN SPACE/ GREEEN INFRASTRUCTURE
OWBC wish to see contributions to public realm improvements in Oadby and Wigston town centres and for local industrial estates. HDC ask how the ongoing maintenance of these facilities will be funded
C4 Pennbury LEAPs, NEAPs, Local Parks District Parks
LPAs Expectation OWBC wish to see capital contribution towards improvements to Brocks Hill Visitor Centre and Oadby Grange Country Park
Promoters Offer Maximum allowance as follows 30 LEAPS to be provided 30no sets of LEAP play equipment 12.6 ha (1.26 ha planting, 6.3ha play surfacing, 5.04 ha grass) 10 NEAPS to be provided 10No sets of NEAP play equipment 21.6 ha (2.16 ha planting, 10.8 ha play surfacing,8.64 ha grass) 8 Local parks 14.4 ha in total (3.6ha soft landscape, 10.8ha hard landscape) 2 District parks 28.8 ha (4.32 softscape, 24.48 hardscape) Including 1 bandstand per park 14 football pitches 10 hockey pitches 2 cricket squares 18 rugby pitches 1 all weather sports pitch
(b)
Formal sports pitches (including artificial surfaces)
(c)
Sports pavilion:
OWBC wish to see capital contribution towards leisure and sports facilities
6 lane swimming pool (lanes 25 metres in length) 6 clubhouse/changing facilities 2 permanent grandstands for football and rugby pitches 2 dry sports halls Have assumed a capital contribution but commercial market to be explored 10 hardcourt tennis courts 4 bowling greens
(i) capital contribution (ii) provision of (serviced) land (iii) construction (d) Tennis courts, bowling greens
C4 Pennbury (e) Informal play areas (e.g. skateboard park) Allotments Green gym Walking and running loops BIODIVERSITY/ NATURE
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Playing fields 54 ha Areas of informal open space 27 ha 5* 1.8ha community orchards and gardens
(f) (g) (h) 1.8
Great Park (1286 ha) and 179 ha public open space within developed area of eco-town) involving reconnection of fragmented ecosystems through green corridors and river corridors. Reintroduction of local species, habitat recreation, promotion of agri-environment and stewardships schemes Private open space (private gardens, playing fields and open space linked to employment sites) will amount to approximately 146 hectares and will also make a significant contribution towards biodiversity Provision of woodland, wetland, park and grassland areas and green roofs, SUDS Further requirements to be agreed subject to outcome of detailed Environmental Statement To be discussed but potential role for Community Company To be discussed but potential role for Community Company
(a)
ES mitigation measures
(b)
(c)
C4 Pennbury 1.9
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer The deliverable transport solution for the eco-town involves investment in a bus-based rapid transit route to Leicester city, bus services to city region destinations, park and ride together with residential and employment parking restraint and comprehensive, intensive and long-term implementation of a range of Smarter Choices measures. An eco transport hub is proposed linking the various sustainable transport measures and a base for the Smarter Choices Transport Company
PUBLIC TRANSPORT Leics CC: provision must be made for offsite works, including bus/train priority measures, city centre terminus and city centre bus stops HDC: better public transport provision, particularly to Market Harborough Station, is requested
C4 Pennbury
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Real time public transport information (will involve on and off-site works) 7no rapid transit stops within eco-town (110 bus stops within the eco-town) 4 main transport interchanges 23 express buses/bus rapid transit vehicles (phase 1= 7 buses, phase 2=13 buses, phase 3= 23 buses see page 30 Transport Assessment) There will be local bus services to complement existing bus services including services to major destinations in and around Leicester: General Hospital and Evington, Fosse Park, Oadby and Wigston: 7 single decker diesel/ hybrid (70 capacity) 8 Park and ride buses 5 Local community buses to be provided in the ecotown as feeder services and to provide access for those with restricted mobility: 400 trees along Gartree Lane 110 extra CCTV and wayfinding maps at bus stops
C4 Pennbury (a) Any specified major transport mode, i.e. tram, guided busway, road.
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer A dedicated bus rapid transport route (BRT), which links to Leicester City Centre is a key element of the transport solution. Modelling work undertaken by Leicestershire County Council demonstrates that a bus-based system would be an appropriate solution. A tram scheme would however provide wider benefits: social inclusion, regeneration and transport choice for the wider city region: funding will be provided for a tram feasibility study if a solution can be found, funding for delivery of a bus-based rapid transit will be transferred to a tram scheme.
(i) Financial Contribution (aa) Capital support (bb) Early years revenue support: length of period (cc) Payment dates (ii) Timing for construction of transport mode (b) (c) Buses: revenue support Community transport funding Bus and/or train revenue support In phase one, express bus services will be provided. Bus rapid transit route will be delivered in phase two. To be discussed To be discussed
C4 Pennbury (d) Cycle: cycle storage facilities and cycleways external links
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Cycling will be a key element of the eco-town: 5km cycleways off-site 10km cycleways on-site 44km cycle route alongside primary and secondary roads Cycle storage provided at residential properties, local amenities, and all public transport stops in the ecotown Cycle parking at key external destinations reviewed in conjunction with highway authorities: university campuses, Leicester railway station, Leicester city centre, sport venues, hospitals Smarter Choices Travel Company will provide cycle training, loans, repair and servicing Design will encourage walking, therefore, pedestrian measures will be integrated with internal highway network 11km
(e)
Pedestrian links: strategic master plan issue Bridle ways
C4 Pennbury 1.10 OFF-SITE HIGHWAYS
LPAs Expectation Leics CC: quality and attractiveness of bus service relies on improvements to A6, which may require third part land Leics CC: associated public realm improvements related to station/new Business quarter to gateway project. HDC require funding for additional car parking at Market Harborough station.
Promoters Offer Primary and secondary road works: junction improvements and 30 extra bus laybys on A6; links from eco-town to A6 and A47, 120 pedestrian priority crossings (primary roadworks), 320 extra pedestrian priority crossings (secondary roadworks) Park & Ride facilities for 1000 cars Improvements to Leicester City Railway Station. New terminal at Leicester City Centre Humberstone Gate interchange 5No bus network stops outside of the eco-town (Oadby University Campus, Stoneygate, Knighton Park Road, University, Railway Station
(a) (b) (c) (d)
C4 Pennbury 1.11 UTILITIES ON AND OFF-SITE PROVISION
LPAs Expectation Link to Leicester City CHP infrastructure
Promoters Offer A new utility network will be required to serve the proposed eco-town, comprising potable and non-potable water main, combined clean and waste water treatment plant, SUDS, primary and feeder substation, telecom ducts, third party networks and estate management, gas mains connected to Combined Heat and Power plant and potentially an automated waste disposal system Renewable energy strategy (see section 1.11(g) below)
(a) (b) (c)
Energy sustainability plan Energy Innovation fund Water supply Commuted sums for offsite CO2 reduction
There will be a co-ordinated approach to the water cycle. The Water Cycle Strategy will determine approach Off-site reservoir and water main upgrade Combined water and waste water treatment plant Grey and rain water recycling Education programmes for eco-town residents to understand water efficiency Combined water and waste water treatment plant SUDS
(i) On site (ii) Off-site (iii) Water Conservation measures
(d) (e) (f)
Foul water Surface water Gas
C4 Pennbury (g) Electricity
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Current demand analysis indicates the need for 32MVA provided as one new 33/11kv substation 6 11KV substations/ transformers Combined Heat and Power Plant (heat and electricity) at land south of Great Glen: 17MW capacity with annual output of 130 GWH) Up to 12no wind turbines in the Great Park: 24MW capacity with annual output of 52GWH Anaerobic digester (heat and electricity) Included below Fibre to home network to all homes to enable lifelong learning, community interaction, telehealth, real time transport information. As part of SUDS As part of SUDs As part of SUDS To be provided. Detailed design to be produced alongside detailed master plan Community Company
(h)
Telecoms (i) Intranet/ broadband technology/ICT provision/LANs
1.12 DRAINAGE (a) (b) (c) (d) Off-site balancing ponds On-site water parkland Flood control and relief channels Sustainable Urban Drainage system
(e)
Adoption, management and maintenance
C4 Pennbury (f) Biodiversity and landscaping provision around water bodies Water conservation plan
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer To be provided. Detailed design to be produced alongside detailed master plan To be produced from water cycle strategy to be produced pre-application stage
(g)
1.13 WASTE MANAGEMENT (a) Household waste recycling site Land 1ha Base infrastructure provision HDC: funding required for household waste collection Leics CC: a suitable plot of land (1Ha) required for facility, including element of waste transfer and capital funding (1m) Domestic and nondomestic facilities for storage and collection of waste There will be a target of achieving zero landfill. This will be achieved (in part) by education, by an anaerobic facility for domestic waste and a materials recycling facility. Further work is required to determine whether a MRF would be financially viable 1.14 EMERGENCY SERVICES (a) (b) (c) (d) Fire station Police station Ambulance station Timing of provision of sites Contribution
(b) (c)
Recycling promotion fund Civic Amenity
C4 Pennbury 1.15 RETAIL AND SERVICE CENTRES (a) Town Centre
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
HDC: strategic retail impact assessment is required. Size and function to be tested through core strategy
A traditional town centre retail mix is proposed. Retail floorspace would be in the region of: Convenience: 11,000m2 gross Non food 24,000m2 gross Non convenience and comparison: 15,000m2 gross It should be noted that these floorspace estimates are approximate: retail provision would be developed in conjunction with local authorities over the course of the three construction phases, responding to changing retail trends and local authority requirements A bank, pharmacy and foodstore would be provided from day one as part of a community hub
(i) Floorspace specification (ii) food store Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floorspace (iii) Nos of units and floorspace size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership
C4 Pennbury (d) Local centres
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer 4no Local centres NB: local shops will be linked to local food production
(i) Floorspace specification (ii) Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floorspace (iii) Nos. of units and floorspace size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership 1.16 COMMUNITY FACILITIES (a) Library/ Life long learning (i) Co-location 27 hectares amount of land allocated 1no library connected to eco-academy Further/higher learning co-located with the eco academy 1.5 ha
(ii) Capital contribution (iii) Site area and location (iv) Transfer of land (v) Timing (vi) Ownership (b) Social Services/ Health facilities Exact model to be determined in discussion with local health providers. Likely to include health centres, tele-health, provision in non-traditional settings
C4 Pennbury (i) Construction (ii) Ownership (iii) Commuted sums (iv) Co-location (c) Primary Care Centre/ Health campus (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (d) Youth Facility
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Provided as part of the Community Hub and additional 27 hectares of land allocated for community infrastructure
(i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (e) Place of Worship (provision for a number of different faiths) (i) Site location and areas (ii) Transfer of land (f) Community meeting centre/ neighbourhood centre(s) (i) Capital contribution Community Hub Community Hub Land for additional community infrastructure (27 ha in total)
C4 Pennbury (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (g) (h) Site area(s) and location Burial Ground
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Notional allocation of 20 ha of land. The intention is to develop a commercial plan for delivery of a cemetery and crematorium
(i) Site area and location (ii) Capital contribution (iii) Land Transfer (iv) Management and maintenance (i) Community development (i) Community development/ youth worker funding Community workers
Community window (website) HDC: clear parameters for its use required Community Fund (funding pot to support establishment of local interest groups) DDAP and advisory panel to help define appropriate management structures will convert to Community Company, the composition of which will itself change as the eco-town develops and grows
1.17 TOWN TRUST/ COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY
HDC: funding requested for such democratic bodies
C4 Pennbury (a) (b) Structure and life plan to be agreed early on Initial: (i) constitution (ii) funding (iii) role Later stages (i) constitution (ii) funding income (iii) role
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Co-Op, HCA, LPAs gradually involving residents and other community-based groups
(c)
Co-Op, HCA, LPAs, residents and other community-based groups Service charge (but rebates will be possible to influence behaviour)
(d)
Transfer and management of property Additional roles ESCo, maintenance of roads, provision of public transport etc. Community chest Smarter Choices Travel Company for transport, ESCo under discussion for energy See Community Development
(e)
(f)
1.18 MECHANISMS FOR MONITORING PERFORMANCE ON OBLIGATIONS (a) Strategic Performance indicators Annual Reporting Procedure Default provisions Rectification
(b) (c) (d)
SECTION 2 OBLIGATIONS BINDING IDENTIFIABLE HOUSING TRANCHES/ PHASES 2.1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING LCC wish to see commuted sum for offsite affordable housing in the City and wider HMA in response to identified needs
C4 Pennbury (a) Overall per cent Provision (i) Social housing for rent per cent
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer 30 per cent 4,500 3,375 (75 per cent) Of which, 167 sheltered/ supported 1,125 (25 per cent) Of which, 55 sheltered/ supported See above See above
(ii) Intermediate tenures per cent
(iii) Key worker (iv) Supported (v) Very sheltered (vi) Lifetime (b) Dwelling mix/tenure HDC: will need to reflect changing need over time
See above Expecting to work with local authorities to identify appropriate opportunities Housing development will be tenure blind. Method of achieving flexibility of housing stock to enable homes to be switched between affordable and market will be explored. Expecting to work with local authorities to identify appropriate opportunities
(c)
Distribution around site Triggers SPECIFICATION OF USES, TRAVEL FOR WORK AND PARKING STRATEGY
(d) 3.1
SECTION 3 OBLIGATIONS BINDING EMPLOYMENT SITES Smarter Choices company will be an enabler
C4 Pennbury (a) Specification of uses
LPAs Expectation Leics CC: wish to see restriction on uses conflicting with City regeneration sites. OWBC require capital contribution towards upgrading and maintaining existing industrial units
Promoters Offer Further work to be undertaken on Employment Strategy
(b)
Travel for Work Plans
Smarter Choices Travel Company will develop and implement for employment and schools 2,500 car parking spaces in total. Smarter Choices Travel Company will manage car and cycle parking Local labour and employment initiatives
(c)
Parking Strategy
(d)
Local Labour
SECTION 4 OBLIGATIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER AGENCIES 4.1 COMMITMENTS TO DELIVERING INFRASTRUCTURE, FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE Commitments to deliver new infrastructure Commitments to seek sources of external funding for infrastructure Commitments to assist throughout Commitments to spend S106 monies appropriately
(a)
(b)
(c) (d)
C4 Pennbury 5.1 Indexation 5.2 Ransom Strips 5.3 Consent 5.4 5.5 Parties to the 106 agreement Return of Unspent Contributions
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
5.6 Payment of LPA fees Additional not noted in the standard spreadsheet: Pennbury Construction/ Transport LPAs expectations Leics CC also comment that coordinated construction management programmes must be in place, particularly for work to highways Promoters Offer Construction consolidation centre Local sourcing policy for construction materials Delivery route and time restrictions
Transport
Freight consolidation centre Home delivery system involving provision of local area collection and pick up points within the eco-town
C5 Clay Country eco-town (St Austell)

The approach to the provision of section 106 benefits, and the likely cost, has naturally had to take account of the split site approach. Most of the land required, however, is owned by the promoter. The comments received from the local planning authorities are based on the information made available to them and their understanding of the scheme proposal as of summer/autumn 2008. C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell) 1.1 PROGRAMME (a) Core Obligations to be performed before commencement of development. (i) Production of all strategic plans (to the extent not already approved) Core obligations to be performed prior to occupation of any development Provision of phased elements of infrastructure etc Obligation to prepare, discuss and maintain a delivery programme LPAs Expectation Promoters Offer
(b)
(i)
(ii) (c)
1.2 STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN Obligation on development to be designed and planned in accordance with the Strategic Masterplan (a) (b) Strategic Highways Strategic access issues
C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell) (c) (d) (e) (f) Strategic landscaping Boundaries Balance/maxima of land uses Key mitigation measures
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
1.3 STRATEGIES AND PLANS (a) (b) Strategic Design Statement Sustainability Strategy Bespoke Energy & Carbon Masterplan is proposed (based on materials submitted during process)
(c) (d) (e) (f) 1.4
Drainage Strategy Utilities Strategy Construction Method Statement Flood Risk Assessment URBAN DESIGN GUIDES Obligation for reserved matters and other submissions to be broadly in accordance with Strategic Design Statement Housing/design coding Commercial design guidance Community Facilities design guidance Transport Infrastructure Design guidance
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell) 1.5 EDUCATION
LPAs Expectation LPAs SPG applies a levy of 1500 per dwelling but are seeking to increase this to 1700
Promoters Offer
(a)
Primary Schools (with additional community facilities) (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Timing
(b)
Secondary School (with additional community facilities) (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Timing
One secondary school to be provided
(c)
Pre-school facilities (i) Capital contribution (ii) Location (iii) Timing
1.6 PUBLIC REALM (a) Creation, management and maintenance of public realm including green separation areas Future ownership and Transfer of non strategic control provisions open spaces to Parish Councils if they are willing to take them on
(b)
C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell) (c) Formation and funding of a managing agency (residuary body for ownership of land/ trust for maintenance contributions) Local Stakeholder involvement/ Partnership Consultative Forum Capital contribution to existing local projects OPEN SPACE/ GREEEN INFRASTRUCTURE
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer (see 1.17)
(d)
(e)
1.7
NB. Up to 60 per cent of the sites will be designated as open space in various forms. Required Required Required Required Children will have safe places to play and they will be integrated with the trail networks to create play trails throughout the site. The focus will be on nature-based and creative play, rather than traditional equipment. Leisure Park
LEAPs, NEAPs, Local Parks District Parks
(b)
(c)
(d) (e)
Tennis courts, bowling greens Informal play areas (e.g. skateboard park)
C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell) (f) (g) (h) Allotments Green gym Walking and running loops
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
NB: marina facilities are proposed at Par docks 1.8 BIODIVERSITY/ NATURE A Green Infrastructure Plan will create a regionally appropriate and sustainable landscape and to provide open space and connecting routes for biodiversity
(a) (b) (c)
ES mitigation measures Maintenance provisions Ownership and management Low Carbon Transport Plan depending on the scheme to be provided, possible obligations will include: external and internal cycle/ pedestrian routes rail upgrade on Truro to Bodmin Line, with new station at Blackpool and dedicated bus link between Bodmin Parkway and Bodmin town centre upgrades to existing bus services electric cars (including car club) loop bus rapid transit system between all of the sites
1.9 PUBLIC TRANSPORT
C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell) (a) Any specified major transport mode, i.e. tram, guided busway, road. (i) Financial Contribution (aa) Capital support (bb) Early years revenue support: length of period (cc) Payment dates (ii) Timing for construction of transport mode (b) (c) (d) Buses: revenue support Community transport funding Cycle: cycle storage facilities and cycleways external links Pedestrian links: strategic masterplan issue Bridle ways
LPAs Expectation Upgrading existing bus
Promoters Offer
And improvements
Secure cycle parking facilities, community bike rental initiatives, e-bikes
(e) (f)
1.10 OFF-SITE HIGHWAYS
A391 realignment, secondary link roads, Trewoon bypass, western link road
(a) (b) (c) (d)
C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell) 1.11 UTILITIES ON AND OFF-SITE PROVISION (a) Energy sustainability plan
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
A renewable energy generation plan, dealing with macro-(wind farm anaerobic digestion etc) midi or community scale (solar thermal, heat pumps) and micro-generation (CHP, ground source) is proposed
(b) (c)
Energy Innovation fund Water supply (i) On site (ii) Off-site (iii) Water Conservation measures Real time water consumption monitoring Water cycle management plan (developed in outline).
(d) (e) (f) (g) (h)
Foul water Surface water Gas Electricity Telecoms (i) Intranet/ broadband technology/ICT provision/LANs High speed broadband throughout SUDS to be incorporated as part of masterplan
1.12 DRAINAGE (a) (b) Off-site balancing ponds On-site water parkland
C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell) (c) (d) (e) Flood control and relief channels Sustainable Urban Drainage system Adoption, management and maintenance Biodiversity and landscaping provision around water bodies Water conservation plan
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
(f)
(g)
1.13 WASTE MANAGEMENT (a) Household waste recycling site Waste management strategy with the aim of meeting an interim target of recycling and reuse of 74 per cent
(b) (c)
Recycling promotion fund Civic Amenity Developer will work with emergency services to design in low crime and emergency service good practice.
1.14 EMERGENCY SERVICES
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fire station Police station Ambulance station Timing of provision of sites
C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell) 1.15 RETAIL AND SERVICE CENTRES (a) Town Centre (i) Floor space specification (ii) food store Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floor space (iii) Nos of units and floor space size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership (d) Local centres (i) Floor space specification (ii) Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floor space (iii) Nos. of units and floor space size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership 1.16 COMMUNITY FACILITIES (a) Library/ Lifelong learning (i) Co-location (ii) Capital contribution
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Virtual and physical components will be used to support learning
C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell) (iii) Site area and location (iv) Transfer of land (v) Timing (vi) Ownership (b) Social Services/ Health facilities (i) Construction (ii) Ownership (iii) Commuted sums (iv) Co-location (c) Primary Care Centre/ Health campus (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (d) Youth Facility (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (e) Place of Worship (provision for a number of different faiths) (i) Site location and areas (ii) Transfer of land
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell) (f) Community meeting centre/ neighbourhood centre(s) (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) (g) (h) Timing Site area(s) and location Burial Ground (i) Site area and location (ii) Capital contribution (iii) Land Transfer (iv) Management and maintenance (i) Community development (i) Community development/ youth worker funding
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell) 1.17 TOWN TRUST/ COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY (a) (b) Structure and life plan to be agreed early on Initial: (i) constitution (ii) unding (iii) role
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Governance through: Strategic Body the concept stage (local authorities, private sector, community representatives) Advisory Bodies the planning stage (planning, including emergency services) Development Body the procurement and implementation stage Community Body the management stage (local members and representatives of the residents)
(c)
Later stages (i) constitution (ii) funding income (iii) role
(d)
Transfer and management of property Additional roles ESCO, maintenance of roads, provision of public transport etc. Community chest Not for profit sources of funding for trust fund
(e)
(f)
1.18 MECHANISMS FOR MONITORING PERFORMANCE ON OBLIGATIONS (a) Strategic Performance indicators Annual Reporting Procedure Default provisions Rectification
(b) (c) (d)
C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell)
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
SECTION 2 OBLIGATIONS BINDING IDENTIFIABLE HOUSING TRANCHES/ PHASES 2.1 (a) AFFORDABLE HOUSING Overall per cent Provision (i) Social housing for rent per cent (ii) Intermediate tenures per cent (iii) Key worker (iv) Supported (v) Very sheltered (vi) Lifetime (b) (c) (d) Dwelling mix/ tenure Distribution around site Triggers Other initiatives proposed relating to housing include: self-build (to capture skills), training to reduce cost of implementing new technology Development seen as an opportunity to encourage two areas of job creation: E-technology Sustainable tourism, leisure and recreation (link to Eden) 78,000 m of employment Yes, including showers, cycle lockers etc. 49 per cent 40-50 per cent within overall housing mix.
SECTION 3 OBLIGATIONS BINDING EMPLOYMENT SITES 3.1 SPECIFICATION OF USES, TRAVEL FOR WORK AND PARKING STRATEGY
(a) (b)
Specification of uses Travel for Work Plans
C5 Clay Country ecotown (St Austell) (c) (d) Parking Strategy Local Labour
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
NB: Proposed Live Work packages covering IT, shared business support facilities, childcare, micro-credit network.
SECTION 4 OBLIGATIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER AGENCIES 4.1 COMMITMENTS TO DELIVERING INFRASTRUCTURE, FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE Commitments to deliver new infrastructure Commitments to seek sources of external funding for infrastructure Commitments to assist throughout Commitments to spend S106 monies appropriately
(a)
(b)
(c) (d)
SECTION 5 SEPARATE PLANNING ISSUES 5.1 Indexation 5.2 Ransom Strips 5.3 Consent 5.4 5.5 Parties to the 106 agreement Return of Unspent Contributions
C6- Rossington
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council has engaged in discussions with the promoter to discuss the likely section 106 requirements. This is an ongoing and continuing process. Technical groups have been formed to help facilitate these discussions and the promoter is aware of certain concerns, expectations and/or requirements the local planning authority may have.
C6 Rossington 1.1 PROGRAMME (a) Core Obligations to be performed before commencement of development. (i) Production of all strategic plans (to the extent not already approved) (b) Core obligations to be performed prior to occupation of any development (i) Provision of phased elements of infrastructure (ii) etc (c) Obligation to prepare, discuss and maintain a delivery programme
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
1.2 STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN Obligation on development to be designed and planned in accordance with the Strategic Master plan (a) (b) (c) (d) Strategic Highways Strategic access issues Strategic landscaping Boundaries
C6 Rossington (e) (f) Balance/maxima of land uses Key mitigation measures
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
1.3 STRATEGIES AND PLANS (a) Strategic Design Statement
Topic groups formed for energy, waste management, transport and movement, community, sports, faith, public realm and housing tenure
(b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h)
Sustainability Strategy Water Cycle Strategy Utilities Strategy Construction Method Statement Flood Risk Assessment Energy Strategy Waste Strategy (i) Transport Strategy/ Green Travel Plan URBAN DESIGN GUIDES Obligation for reserved matters and other submissions to be broadly in accordance with Strategic Design Statement Housing/design coding Commercial design guidance Community Facilities design guidance Transport Infrastructure Design guidance
1.4
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
C6 Rossington 1.5 EDUCATION (a) Primary Schools (with additional community facilities)
LPAs Expectation Development should not create or exacerbate a lack of capacity
Promoters Offer 2 primary schools (+ land budgeted for their delivery) 1 will be provided, but there is a possibility that the existing schools are under capacity so a contribution may be more appropriate this will be subject to further discussions and consultations.
(i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Timing (b) Secondary School (with additional community facilities) (i) Capital contribution
1,200 contribution for each dwelling to enhance existing provision in Rossington Financial contribution for other education Other includes higher, or further education
(ii) Site area and location (iii) Timing (c) Pre-school facilities (i) Capital contribution (ii) Location (iii) Timing
Financial contribution to fund development of a Construction Skills Academy 1.6 PUBLIC REALM (a) Creation, management and maintenance of public realm including green separation areas 50 ha parkland on the greenbelt
C6 Rossington (b) (c) Future ownership and control provisions Formation and funding of a managing agency (residuary body for ownership of land/ trust for maintenance contributions) Local Stakeholder involvement/ Partnership Consultative Forum Capital contribution to existing local projects
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
(d)
(e)
Community contributions to be allocated towards a community dowry to provide and enhance facilities.
1.7
OPEN SPACE/ GREEEN INFRASTRUCTURE LEAPs, NEAPs, LAPs and MUGAs Formal sports pitches (including artificial surfaces) Sports pavilion: 10-15 per cent of Development should be open space provision of at least 40 per cent open space
(a)
(b)
(c)
sport hub (potential including skate park, sports pitches and BMX track)
(i) capital contribution (ii) provision of (serviced) land (iii) construction (d) (e) Tennis courts, bowling greens Informal play areas (e.g. skateboard park)
C6 Rossington (f) (g) (h) Allotments Green gym Walking and running loops
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer 60 allotments (2 ha) Further assessment of what is required. (to be included within the biodiversity/nature section -1.8) Creation of Bio Park in Holmes Carr Wood Extension and enhancement of woodland Enhancement of river corridor and riverside walk Holmes Carr Wood has existing management plan in place, but limited implementation May require additional management
1.8 BIODIVERSITY/ NATURE (a) ES mitigation measures
(b) (c)
(d)
Creation of Walkway through Holmes Carr Wood Any specified major transport mode, i.e. tram, guided busway, road. Requirements assessed on their own merits
1.9 PUBLIC TRANSPORT (a) New roundabout, bridge across river, dual carriageway from new roundabout to the site boundary Quality bus corridor and link to junction 3 of M18
(i) Financial Contribution (aa) Capital support (bb) Early years revenue support: length of period (cc) Payment dates (ii) Timing for construction of transport mode
C6 Rossington (b) Buses: revenue support
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Buses: financial support for bus service replacement of buses on site bus infrastructure off site bus infrastructure local mini bus service in Rossington
(c) (d)
Community transport funding Cycle: cycle storage facilities and cycleways external links Pedestrian links: strategic masterplan issue Travel Plan cycle pathways and improvements pedestrian and cycle footbridge Travel Plan to provide: A bus pass for every home A bike for every home Membership to a car club Employment of a Green Travel Plan Officer
(e)
Requirements assessed on their own merits
Contribution towards delivery of next stage of FARRRS:
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Timing of works temporary works permanent works off site traffic management? M18 widening and improvements to J3 of M18
C6 Rossington 1.11 UTILITIES ON AND OFF-SITE PROVISION
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Water source electric heat pumps linked to on-site wind power for on-site electrical generation Unsure as to what this means or requires.
(a) (b) (c)
Energy sustainability plan Energy Innovation fund Water Cycle Strategy (i) On site (ii) Off-site (iii) Water Conservation measures Foul water included within Water Cycle Strategy Surface water (included within water cycle strategy
(f) (g)
Gas Electricity 3 wind turbines (possibly 4 depending on the outcome of further discussions and definition of zero carbon)
(h)
Telecoms (i) Intranet/broadband technology/ICT provision/LANs
1.12 DRAINAGE (a) Off-site balancing ponds Sustainable Drainage is covered below no need for off-site balancing ponds. new wetland area
(b) (c)
On-site water parkland Flood control and relief channels
C6 Rossington (d) (e) Sustainable Urban Drainage system Adoption, management and maintenance Biodiversity and landscaping provision around water bodies Water conservation plan
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Needs further discussions with Local Authority
(f)
(g)
aim is to achieve 80 litres per person per day from a potable water supply (reduction for average of 145 litres) New eco-town standards require only developments in water stressed areas to achieve 80l/p/d Rossington is not in a water stressed area and only is only required to achieve 105l/p/d
1.13 WASTE MANAGEMENT (a) (b) Household waste recycling site Recycling promotion fund Waste Management topic group created to inform choice of governance and management model Waste strategy to be finalised following publication of the TCPA Waste Worksheet this may have implications for how the Section 106 considers the waste strategy.
(c)
Civic Amenity
C6 Rossington 1.14 EMERGENCY SERVICES (a) (b) (c) (d) Fire station Police station Ambulance station Timing of provision of sites
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
1.15 RETAIL AND SERVICE CENTRES (a) Town Centre (i) Floor space specification (ii) food store Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floor space (iii) Nos of units and floor space size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership (d) Local centres (i) Floor space specification (ii) Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floor space (iii) Nos. of units and floor space size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership 3 neighbourhood hubs
C6 Rossington 1.16 COMMUNITY FACILITIES (a) Library/Lifelong learning (i) Co-location (ii) Capital contribution (iii) Site area and location (iv) Transfer of land (v) Timing (vi) Ownership (b) Social Services/Health facilities (i) Construction (ii) Ownership (iii) Commuted sums (iv) Co-location (c) Primary Care Centre/ Health campus (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (d) Youth Facility (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (e) Place of Worship (provision for a number of different faiths)
LPAs Expectation Dealt with on an ad-hoc basis
Promoters Offer
C6 Rossington (i) Site location and areas (ii) Transfer of land (f) Community meeting centre/neighbourhood centre(s) (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (g) (h) Site area(s) and location Burial Ground (i) Site area and location (ii) Capital contribution (iii) Land Transfer (iv) Management and maintenance (i) Community development (i) Community development/youth worker funding 1.17 TOWN TRUST/ COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY (a) (b) (i) Structure and life plan to be agreed early on Initial: constitution (ii) funding (iii) role Later stages (i) constitution (ii) funding income (iii) role
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
This will have to be discussed in more detail
financial contribution for community dowry
(c)
C6 Rossington (d) Transfer and management of property Additional roles ESCo, maintenance of roads, provision of public transport etc. Community chest
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
(e)
(f)
1.18 MECHANISMS FOR MONITORING PERFORMANCE ON OBLIGATIONS (a) (b) (c) (d) Strategic Performance indicators Annual Reporting Procedure Default provisions Rectification
SECTION 2 OBLIGATIONS BINDING IDENTIFIABLE HOUSING TRANCHES/ PHASES 2.1 (c) AFFORDABLE HOUSING Distribution around site 30 per cent Once the preferred approach is established we will be able to assess both the distribution and phasing.
(d)
Triggers
C6 Rossington 3.1 SPECIFICATION OF USES, TRAVEL FOR WORK AND PARKING STRATEGY Specification of uses
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
(a)
12,000 sqm Green Collar and Bioscience office space 10,000 sqm light industrial space including seedbed and incubator facilities 15,000 new manufacturing site for modern methods of construction at Bankwood 6,000 sqm retail
(b) (c) 4.1
Travel for Work Plans Parking Strategy COMMITMENTS TO DELIVERING INFRASTRUCTURE, FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE Commitments to deliver new infrastructure Commitments to seek sources of external funding for infrastructure Commitments to assist throughout Commitments to spend S106 monies appropriately
(a)
(b)
(c) (d)
C6 Rossington 5.1 Indexation 5.2 Ransom Strips 5.3 Consent 5.4 5.5 Parties to the 106 agreement Return of Unspent Contributions
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
C7 Middle Quinton
The comments received from the local planning authorities are based on the information made available to them and their understanding of the scheme proposal as of autumn 2008. The Department understands that the promoters team and the Joint Local Authorities Officers Group met in January 2009 to discuss the draft s106 HoT included in Appendix C and that an updated version of this template may now be available. As this occurred after the Cut-Off Date it cannot be included in this document. However, the promoter may make it available on their web site. C7 Middle Quinton 1.1 PROGRAMME (a) Core Obligations to be performed before commencement of development. (i) Production of all strategic plans (to the extent not already approved) (b) Core obligations to be performed prior to occupation of any development (i) Provision of phased elements of infrastructure (ii) etc (c) Obligation to prepare, discuss and maintain a delivery programme LPAs Expectation Promoters Offer
1.2 STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN Obligation on development to be designed and planned in accordance with the Strategic Masterplan (a) Strategic Highways
C7 Middle Quinton (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Strategic access issues Strategic landscaping Boundaries Balance/maxima of land uses Key mitigation measures
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
1.3 STRATEGIES AND PLANS (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 1.4 Strategic Design Statement Sustainability Strategy Drainage Strategy Utilities Strategy Construction Method Statement Flood Risk Assessment URBAN DESIGN GUIDES Obligation for reserved matters and other submissions to be broadly in accordance with Strategic Design Statement Housing/design coding Commercial design guidance Community Facilities design guidance Transport Infrastructure Design guidance Primary Schools (with additional community facilities) 2 no. 3 form entry 3 no.
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
1.5 EDUCATION (a)
C7 Middle Quinton (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Timing (b) Secondary School (with additional community facilities) (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Timing (c) Pre-school facilities (i) Capital contribution (ii) Location (iii) Timing (d) Other
LPAs Expectation 8.5m each 2 Ha
Promoters Offer
1.5 in year 3; 0.5 in each years 5, 7 and 9 1 x 6 form entry (11-18 incl VI form) 30m 8 Ha Years 5-6 As part of primary 1 no.
30m
Establishment of university facility for ecotown science. Required.
1.6 PUBLIC REALM (a) Creation, management and maintenance of public realm including green separation areas Future ownership and control provisions Formation and funding of a managing agency (residuary body for ownership of land/ trust for maintenance contributions) Local Stakeholder involvement/ Partnership Consultative Forum Capital contribution to existing local projects
(b) (c)
Through Community Interest Company (CIC) Through Community Interest Company (CIC)
(d)
Through Community Interest Company (CIC)
(e)
C7 Middle Quinton 1.7 OPEN SPACE/ GREEEN INFRASTRUCTURE (i) (j) (k) (l) (b) LEAPs, NEAPs, Local Parks District Parks
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Required. Required. Required. Required. Required.
(c)
With secondary school
(d) (e) (f) (g) (h)
Tennis courts, bowling greens Informal play areas (e.g. skateboard park) Allotments Green gym Walking and running loops Required. Provided. Provided.
1.8 BIODIVERSITY/ NATURE (a) ES mitigation measures Biodiversity enhancement schemes and habitat creation schemes are required. Ecology spine, meadows, woodland blocks and formal woodland
(b) (c)
C7 Middle Quinton 1.9 PUBLIC TRANSPORT
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer A smarter choices initiative is proposed, giving residents access to personalised travel planning, real time passenger information and car club. It would also include discounts on public transport and increased parking charges. Guided busway to Stratford-upon-Avon along Greenway and is Stratford town centre. Pinch points require replacement of bridges. A guided busway would also operate south to Honeybourne. A tram/train shuttle service to Evesham via Honeybourne is contemplated as an alternative.
(a)
Any specified major transport mode, i.e. tram, guided busway, road.
(i) Financial Contribution (aa) Capital support (bb) Early years revenue support: length of period (cc) Payment dates (ii) Timing for construction of transport mode (b) (c) Buses: revenue support Community transport funding Provided (and fuelled from on site source). 8.5 over 15 years.
C7 Middle Quinton (d) Cycle: cycle storage facilities and cycleways external links Pedestrian links: strategic masterplan issue Bridle ways
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Free cycles/cycle works.
(e) (f)
Throughout the site
1.10 OFF-SITE HIGHWAYS (a) (b) (c) (d) Timing of works temporary works permanent works off site traffic management?
Stratford Western Relief Road
Southern park & ride (3m)
1.11 UTILITIES ON AND OFF-SITE PROVISION (a) (b) (c) Energy sustainability plan Energy Innovation fund Water supply (i) On site (ii) Off-site (iii) Water Conservation measures (d) (e) (f) (g) Foul water Surface water Gas Electricity Produced using advanced thermal treatment (ATT) plant associated with waste recycling facility.
(h)
Telecoms (i) Intranet/broadband technology/ICT provision/LANs
C7 Middle Quinton 1.12 DRAINAGE (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Off-site balancing ponds On-site water parkland Flood control and relief channels Sustainable Urban Drainage system Adoption, management and maintenance Biodiversity and landscaping provision around water bodies Water conservation plan
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
(f)
(g)
1.13 WASTE MANAGEMENT (a) Household waste recycling site Recycling promotion fund Civic Amenity
4m. Yes and local biomass and underground vacuum system.
(b) (c)
1.14 EMERGENCY SERVICES (a) (b) (c) (d) Fire station Police station Ambulance station Timing of provision of sites Full-time 2 pump station (4-7m). District police station (8.59.5m plus land).
C7 Middle Quinton 1.15 RETAIL AND SERVICE CENTRES (a) Town Centre (i) Floor space specification (ii) food store Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floor space (iii) Nos of units and floor space size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership (d) Local centres (i) Floor space specification (ii) Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floor space (iii) Nos. of units and floor space size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership 1.16 COMMUNITY FACILITIES (a) Library/Lifelong learning (i) Co-location (ii) Capital contribution (iii) Site area and location (iv) Transfer of land
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Required.
C7 Middle Quinton (v) Timing (vi) Ownership (b) Social Services/Health facilities (i) Construction (ii) Ownership (iii) Commuted sums (iv) Co-location (c) Primary Care Centre/ Health campus (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (d) Youth Facility (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (e) Place of Worship (provision for a number of different faiths) (i) Site location and areas (ii) Transfer of land (f) Community meeting centre/neighbourhood centre(s) (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Required.
Provided. 4m.
Required.
Required.
Provided.
Required.
2.875m.
C7 Middle Quinton (g) (h) Site area(s) and location Burial Ground (i) Site area and location (ii) Capital contribution (iii) Land Transfer (iv) Management and maintenance (i) Community development (i) Community development/youth worker funding 1.17 TOWN TRUST/ COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY (a) (b) Structure and life plan to be agreed early on Initial: (i) constitution (ii) funding (iii) role Later stages (i) constitution (ii) funding income (iii) role Transfer and management of property Additional roles ESCO, maintenance of roads, provision of public transport etc. Community chest
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Required.
Provided: role and composition develops as eco-town progresses.
(c)
Election by voting. Annual charge.
(d)
Yes.
(e)
ESCO, managing and maintaining public realm, transport schemes, community and sports facilities.
(f)
C7 Middle Quinton 1.18 MECHANISMS FOR MONITORING PERFORMANCE ON OBLIGATIONS (a) (b) (c) (d) Strategic Performance indicators Annual Reporting Procedure Default provisions Rectification
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
SECTION 2 OBLIGATIONS BINDING IDENTIFIABLE HOUSING TRANCHES/ PHASES 2.1 (a) AFFORDABLE HOUSING Overall per cent Provision (i) Social housing for rent per cent (ii) Intermediate tenures per cent (iii) Key worker (iv) Supported (v) Very sheltered (vi) Lifetime 50 per cent 2 bedroom; 30 per cent 3 bedroom; 20 per cent 4 bedroom (b) (c) (d) Dwelling mix/tenure Distribution around site Triggers Required 35 per cent 33 per cent Discounted rent. Shared ownership.
C7 Middle Quinton 3.1 SPECIFICATION OF USES, TRAVEL FOR WORK AND PARKING STRATEGY Specification of uses Travel for Work Plans Parking Strategy Local Labour COMMITMENTS TO DELIVERING INFRASTRUCTURE, FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE Commitments to deliver new infrastructure Commitments to seek sources of external funding for infrastructure Commitments to assist throughout Commitments to spend S106 monies appropriately
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer 40,000 m2
(a) (b) (c) (d) 4.1
Yes.
(a)
(b)
(c) (d)
SECTION 5 SEPARATE PLANNING ISSUES 5.1 Indexation 5.2 Ransom Strips 5.3 Consent 5.4 5.5 Parties to the 106 agreement Return of Unspent Contributions
C8-North East Elsenham

The promoter has stressed that the master plan is still evolving. Together with the evolution of the master-plan, the outcome of feasibility assessments and further discussions to take place with the local planning authorities it is likely that some aspects of the draft section 106 package may need to be reassessed and/or re-determined. Against this backdrop, the draft section 106 Heads of Terms template sets out the promoters anticipated section 106 offer. The comments received from the local planning authorities are based on the information made available to them and their understanding of the scheme proposal as of autumn 2008. C8 North East Elsenham 1.1 PROGRAMME (a) Core Obligations to be performed before commencement of development. (i) Production of all strategic plans (to the extent not already approved) (b) Core obligations to be performed prior to occupation of any development (i) Provision of phased elements of infrastructure Access and routes for construction traffic agreed LPAs Expectation Promoters Offer
All bonds in place including worse case scenario mitigation measures Access to the site and agreed junction improvements identified All new bus services identified and funded
new transport infrastructure to match build-out with appropriate triggers subject to Council agreement delivery subject to market conditions and finance availability (social housing) Establishment of Elsenham Co-operative Ltd (ECL) following grant of outline planning permission
(ii) etc (c) Obligation to prepare, discuss and maintain a delivery programme Open book process required for this.
C8 North East Elsenham 1.2 STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN Obligation on development to be designed and planned in accordance with the Strategic Masterplan (a) (b) Strategic Highways Strategic access issues
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Comprehensive Transport Management Plan to be prepared in phased manner Green Ring around development Full Water Cycle Study and ecology surveys to inform strategic master plan
(c) (d) (e) (f)
Strategic landscaping Boundaries Balance/maxima of land uses Key mitigation measures
1.3 STRATEGIES AND PLANS (a) Strategic Design Statement (b) (c) (d) (e) Sustainability Strategy Drainage Strategy Utilities Strategy Construction Method Statement
Some studies have already been undertaken or are underway to inform site selection, others will support outline planning application and others will be submitted pursuant to planning conditions.
(f)
Flood Risk Assessment
C8 North East Elsenham (g) Other Waste Strategy, Sustainable Economic Development Strategy and Energy Strategy also to be prepared URBAN DESIGN GUIDES Obligation for reserved matters and other submissions to be broadly in accordance with
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
1.4
Using principals of the Essex Design Guide and Urban Place Supplement. ECC Urban Design have attended several meetings with the promoters are examining how they can be further involved in the eco-town development.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Strategic Design Statement Housing/design coding Commercial design guidance Community Facilities design guidance
These elements may be integrated into overarching Strategic Design Guidance
(e)
Transport Infrastructure Design guidance
Not specified 3 primary schools: 2015: 2 form entry 2020: 2 form entry 2025: 3 form entry
1.5 EDUCATION
(a)
Primary Schools (with additional community facilities)
Precise pupil yield calculations cannot be made in the absence of dwelling mix information. Assuming a development of predominantly houses, but some flats, around seven forms of entry would appear likely. Three schools, 2 x 2fe and 1 x 3fe, should thus be planned at this stage.
C8 North East Elsenham (i) Capital contribution
LPAs Expectation The cost of the primary schools would need to be determined by site specific feasibility studies. Based on April 2008 DCSF cost per place figures (adjusted for Essex) a figure iro 20m should be anticipated (not allowing for land or abnormal costs). If the schools are, in keeping with the eco-town philosophy, to be built to high sustainability criteria a higher figure should be agreed. Each two form entry school should sit on a site of 2ha and the three form entry school should have a 2.9ha site. These areas allow for commensurate on-site Early Years and Childcare provision. The schools should be appropriately distributed within the development so as to minimise travel distances. Each site must comply with ECCs site suitability checklist and be approved as part of a comprehensive school feasibility study commissioned by ECC and funded by the proposer (note six month process).
Promoters Offer Yes
At least 2 ha. Location to be confirmed (see attached illustrative master plan for indicative location).
C8 North East Elsenham (iii) Timing
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
The first school (2fe) should Estimated 2015, 2020 be completed one year and 2025 based on first after commencement occupation in 2012/2013. of the development. Further provision would need to coincide with approximately 1,400 completions and additional forms of entry every 700 units thereafter. Precise pupil yield calculations cannot be made in the absence of dwelling mix information. Assuming a development of predominantly houses, but some flats, a school offering around 1,200 places including sixth form will be needed. In order not to undermine a nearby (small) secondary school, a larger site will be sought to facilitate a possible relocation of existing provision. Such an approach would provide critical mass for the secondary school to be established early in the development thus encouraging sustainable travel patterns from the outset. Redevelopment of the existing school site in Stansted Mountfitchet could be considered to provide land to extend the existing leisure centre. 1 10 form entry in 2015/16 subject to negotiation
(b)
Secondary School (with additional community facilities)
C8 North East Elsenham (i) Capital contribution
LPAs Expectation The cost of a secondary school with 1,200 places would be iro 24m again based on April 2008 DCSF cost per place figures (adjusted for Essex) not allowing for land or abnormal costs. If the school is built in keeping with the eco-town philosophy, a higher figure should be agreed.
Promoters Offer To be negotiated.
A site of around 11ha to be negotiated. (See is required allowing for illustrative master plan for sixth form provision and indicative location.) potential relocation of existing provision. A site in the south west of the proposed development would balance the needs of the existing community with those of the ecotown. The site must comply with ECCs site suitability checklist and be approved as part of a comprehensive school feasibility study commissioned by ECC and funded by the proposer (note minimum of six months required). Delivery should be planned early in the development to avoid unsustainable travel patterns being established. to be negotiated
(iii) Timing
C8 North East Elsenham (c) Pre-school facilities
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Each primary school should incorporate commensurate pre-school provision. A full Childrens Centre would be appropriate as part of the secondary school. Further, to provide choice, the community hall should allow for use by playgroups and mother & baby groups et al and the commercial district should have a space suitable for a private nursery. Based on an anticipated 450 place requirement, using ECC figures at April 2008 6.5m. Plus contribution from employment sites as noted below. Incorporated with other land requirements included in school site areas above. Phased with school provision and throughout development build cycle. This District Council Leisure Centre operated by Leisure Connections is co-located on the existing Mountfitchet Maths and Computing College site. It is a PFI project and its income stream includes use of its facilities by the secondary school. Relocation of the MMCC to Elsenham would necessitate a review of the financial model. Yes
(i) Capital contribution
(ii) Location
Location to be confirmed but proposed to co-locate with primary schools. Assumed as per primary schools.
(iii) Timing
Mountfitchet Romeera Leisure Centre
C8 North East Elsenham 1.6 PUBLIC REALM (a) Creation, management and maintenance of public realm including green separation areas
LPAs Expectation Public Art 1 per cent of overall cost of the total development. Public Rights of Way to be identified when affected.
Promoters Offer Green Ring of public open space Henham Buffer land which preserves separation from historic core of Henham, new Town Park, town square and neighbourhood parks Elsenham Co-operative Ltd (ECL) (see below)
(b) (c)
Future ownership and control provisions Formation and funding of a managing agency (residuary body for ownership of land/ trust for maintenance contributions) Local Stakeholder involvement/ Partnership Consultative Forum Capital contribution to existing local projects 600-700K for swimming pool and 400-500K for athletics track and additional parking at Stansted Romeera Leisure Centre Future maintenance needs to be addressed
ECL
(d)
Through Design and Delivery Panel and ECL
(e)
Not yet known
1.7
OPEN SPACE/ GREEEN INFRASTRUCTURE LEAPs, NEAPs, LAPs and MUGAs Formal sports pitches (including artificial surfaces) Sports pavilion: MUGA with lighting 120K
15 ha of sports pitches, 14 ha of equipped childrens play area and informal play space Provision as per master plan in line with 6 acre standard. Provision as per master plan in line with 6 acre standard.
(a)
(b)
(c)
C8 North East Elsenham (i) capital contribution (ii) provision of (serviced) land (iii) construction
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer 1.7 (c) (d) and (e) detail and mix of sports facilities to be confirmed. Will be funded and delivered on phased basis alongside the build-out. Community sports hub proposed to be co-located with secondary school.
(d) (e) (f)
Tennis courts, bowling greens Informal play areas (e.g. Youth shelter skateboard park) Allotments and community orchard provided as part of Green Ring not part of proposals but could be accommodated within Green Ring if desired as part of overall mix of sports provision In liasion with ECC PRoW and Estates Adoption Allotments and community orchard proposed as part of Green Ring. Footpath, cycle routes and bridleways etc. to be provided as part of Green Ring and green infrastructure within development.
(g)
Green gym
(h)
Walking and running loops
C8 North East Elsenham 1.8 BIODIVERSIT Y/ NATURE
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Hay meadows, grazing Essex County Council Natural Environment team paddocks, ponds and will expect to be consulted wetlands about the biodiversity priorities for the new habitats There is significant scope for habitat enhancements. Retain important habitat features identified in ecological survey assessment i.e.- disused sandpit, copses, pond, ditches and hedgerows. Also create new: native woodlands, hedgerows, grasslands and wetland features; wildlife corridors, linking with existing habitats Opportunities on & around buildings e.g. green roofs, SUDS schemes. Habitat creation and enhancement Further survey work is required for protected species & BAP/ Section 41 species which should guide some of the mitigation/ compensation. habitat enhancement and encouragement of wildlife to be provided within Green Ring
(a)
ES mitigation measures
(b)
Maintenance provisions Establishment and longterm management of new and existing habitatssufficient funding and a long-term management plan should be provided (including monitoring). Ownership and management
ECL
(c)
ECL
C8 North East Elsenham 1.9 PUBLIC TRANSPORT
LPAs Expectation Development may need to be phased in order to fit in with Network Rail Programme Yes to be agreed (issues with existing development public transport service)
Promoters Offer Real time public transport information Improvements to Elsenham rail station new high quality interchange to be provided. Programmed improvements scheduled to be provided by Network Rail between 2009-2014. Closure of level crossing to vehicular traffic High quality high frequency Orbital bus route linking site to Stansted Mountfitchet, Bishops Stortford and Stansted Airport. High quality bus interchange at Elsenham railway station
(a)
Any specified major transport mode, i.e. tram, guided busway, road.
High quality link to serve Dunmow.
(i) Financial Contribution (aa) Capital support (bb) Early years revenue support: length of period Minimum 10 minute frequency during peak periods from first occupation Bus service subsided by master developer from first occupation. Precise level and duration of contribution not yet know but will subsidise up to break even. Bus frequency to be confirmed but up to 15 minute frequency, coordinated with phasing. Not known at this stage
(cc) Payment dates (ii) Timing for construction of transport mode (b) Buses: revenue support
To be agreed
Fully met by developer
C8 North East Elsenham (c) Community transport funding Cycle: cycle storage facilities and cycleways external links Pedestrian links: strategic masterplan issue
LPAs Expectation Fully met by developer
Promoters Offer Not yet known if required due to local and new bus services. To be negotiated. Pedestrian and cycle strategy Pedestrian and cycle strategy A series of measures as outlined on pages 53-55 of WSP draft TA including: Upgrade of Parsonage Rd and B1256 signal junction; Widening of Hall Rd; Bus priority on the approach to Stansted Mountfitchet on the B1051; Changes to the on-street car parking at Stansted Mountfitchet; Bus lane and priority at new signal junction onto B1051; Re-routing bus service via Forest Hall Rd Majority of off-site improvements will form enabling works towards start of development. Exact phasing to be agreed. To be informed by Comprehensive Transport Management Plan.
(d)
To be identified
(e)
To be identified
Not agreed at this time, further work required to identify appropriate junction improvements. Such improvements to be funded by developer and linked to any agreed phasing. All bonds in place including worse case scenario mitigation measures prior to occupation
(a)
Timing of works
(b) (c) (d)
temporary works permanent works off site traffic management?
C8 North East Elsenham 1.11 UTILITIES ON AND OFF-SITE PROVISION
LPAs Expectation Integrated energy/water/ organic waste approach
Promoters Offer Choice will depend on further feasibility investigations but may include: CHP/CCHP Aquifer thermal energy storage; Biomass Solar water heating Photovoltaic panels; Wind turbines Via ECL Water Cycle strategy
(a) (b) (c)
Energy sustainability plan Energy Innovation fund Water supply (i) On site (ii) Off-site (iii) Water Conservation measures
All items under 1.11 New and reinforced supplies provided for all water, drainage and utilities SUDs to be provided within Green Ring and green infrastructure
(d) (e)
Foul water Surface water
(f) (g) (h)
Gas Electricity Telecoms Fibre optic network with potential to serve existing communities Real time energy monitoring systems
(i) Intranet/broadband technology/ICT provision/LANs
C8 North East Elsenham 1.12 DRAINAGE
LPAs Expectation Either adoption with maintenance payment or agreed with private management, where managing highway surface water discharge
Promoters Offer
(a)
Off-site balancing ponds
Drainage controlled at source. Any requirement for balancing will be on site. Wetlands may form part of Green Ring subject to need for on site attenuation Not needed. Issue will be tested by Water Cycle Study. within Green Ring ECL
(b)
On-site water parkland
(c)
Flood control and relief channels Sustainable Urban Drainage system Adoption, management and maintenance Biodiversity and landscaping provision around water bodies Water conservation plan
(d) (e)
(f)
ECL
(g)
ECL Waste Strategy Using the formula contained in the ECC Developers Guide (288 per dwelling) would yield 1.44m on 5000 dwellings. Some to be spent on site and the remainder to help provide AD facilities in Essex( NB This yet to be confirmed ) to be provided and managed by ECL
1.13 WASTE MANAGEMENT (a) Household waste recycling site
(b)
Recycling promotion fund
Not required
C8 North East Elsenham (c) Civic Amenity 1.14 EMERGENCY SERVICES (a) (b) Fire station Police station
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Not known
if/as required Police station appropriate if/as required to size of development fitted with full IT and communication equipment and office furniture, along with increase of vehicle provision. Or financial contribution in line with Police calculation formula for proposed 6450 new dwellings 2,644,500 if/as required if/as required
(c) (d)
Ambulance station Timing of provision of sites
1.15 RETAIL AND SERVICE CENTRES (a) Town Centre Current assumptions include retail (6,500 sq metres), anchor food store employment, residential and community uses such as hotel, library, place of worship, medical centre and discovery centre to be reviewed as part of ongoing master plan to be reviewed as part of ongoing master plan To be negotiated In part, by ECL who will promote and own some units
(i) Floorspace specification (ii) food store Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floorspace (iii) Nos of units and floorspace size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership
C8 North East Elsenham (d) Local centres (i) Floorspace specification (ii) Convenience/ Comparison retail and services floorspace (iii) Nos. of units and floorspace size limitations (iv) Timing (v) Promotion/ marketing (vi) Ownership
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer to be reviewed as part of ongoing master plan Mix and floorspace not known at this stage To be negotiated ECL Potentially by ECL
Hotel in 2017 under current assumptions for TA 1.16 COMMUNITY FACILITIES (a) Library/ Lifelong learning There is a public library and separate adult community learning facilities in Stansted Mountfitchet which is just over 2 miles distant from Elsenham. It is unlikely that the Council will wish to see separate facilities for each as a result in Elsenham. Neither facility in Stansted is up to current standards and a contribution would be sought to improve the facilities (probably making them into a single facility, perhaps as part of a larger community facility) in Stansted for the benefit of both communities. Community Arts Centre next to Mountfitchet Romeera Leisure Centre if secondary school moves, which could be managed by Leisure Connections as part of the PFI scheme
C8 North East Elsenham (i) Co-location
LPAs Expectation Yes as described above to be in Stansted unless the development in Elsenham creates a larger population concentration there than in Stansted 1.75m As above Stansted Mountfitchet or Elsenham. Approx. 500 sq.mtrs. Current library is leased; the adult community learning facility is ECC freehold, and could be part of a larger deal No issues at present; however as part of the development a new facility should be timed to coincide with growth of population
Promoters Offer To be provided in town centre. Form scale timing and detailed location to be negotiated.
(ii) Capital contribution (iii) Site area and location (iv) Transfer of land
Yes See above
ECL
(v) Timing
See above
(vi) Ownership
To be discussed See above Essex Records Office: Heritage welcome pack 75k (assuming 5000 dwellings) ERO 18/dwelling in new development contribution (2006 prices), Saffron Walden Museum 18/ new dwelling development contribution (2006 prices), Community Arts Officer post 35k inc. on-costs p.a. (TBC)
C8 North East Elsenham (b) Social Services/Health facilities
LPAs Expectation We have looked at the template and spoken with Uttlesford re Section 2.1 Affordable Housing. Generally sub-regional housing strategies have looked for 10 per cent of total affordable as supported housing, in addition in that district we currently have no extra care schemes (v.sheltered). Ideally would envisage an extra care scheme comprising 40 -60 units of one and two bed flats.
Promoters Offer Community leisure and sports facility as part of secondary school and Green Ring
(i) Construction
Community sports facility to be provided alongside secondary school. 8 GP Health Centre Y To be provided in town centre. Form scale timing and detailed location to be negotiated. ECL 2015/16 To be discussed 875k for 250 sq. mtr. building without land. 625k if land is provided. Within new eco-town, possibly within community centre. See above
(ii) Ownership (iii) Commuted sums (iv) Co-location (c) Primary Care Centre/ Health campus (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location
(iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing (d) Youth Facility (i) Capital contribution
(ii) Site area and location (iii) ransfer of land
C8 North East Elsenham (iv) Timing
LPAs Expectation Required at an early stage. Preferable to have local youth committee involved in planning of the facility.
Promoters Offer
(e)
Place of Worship (provision for a number of different faiths) (i) Site location and areas (ii) Transfer of land
In town centre
(f)
Community meeting centre/neighbourhood centre(s) (i) Capital contribution (ii) Site area and location (iii) Transfer of land (iv) Timing
Various community buildings in neighbourhoods Yes To be discussed Yes To be negotiated To be discussed
(h)
Burial Ground (i) Site area and location (ii) Capital contribution (iii) Land Transfer (iv) Management and maintenance (i) Community development (i) Community development/youth worker funding Resident travel planning officer
To be discussed
1.17 TOWN TRUST/ COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY (a) Structure and life plan to be agreed early on
Elsenham Co-operative Ltd
Elsenham Co-operative Ltd
C8 North East Elsenham (b) Initial:
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer Largely within the control of the Fairfield Partnership but will pass to new residents
(i) constitution (ii) funding (iii) role
Supporting community development workers to welcome new residents and establish networks; managing renewable energy infrastructure; managing sports and community facilities; promoting social and education programmes; delivering and coordinating transport programmes and polices; promoting entrepreneurial activity. Constitution prior to reserved matters. Estate charges, service charges, public sector income, trading income, investment endowment income and rent from retail premises
(c)
Later stages (i) constitution (ii) funding income (iii) role
(d)
Transfer and management of property Additional roles ESCo, maintenance of roads, provision of public transport etc. Community chest
(e)
(f)
To be negotiated
1.18 MECHANISMS FOR MONITORING PERFORMANCE ON OBLIGATIONS (a) Strategic Performance indicators
To be monitored by Design and Delivery Panel
C8 North East Elsenham (b) (c) (d) Annual Reporting Procedure Default provisions Rectification
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
SECTION 2 OBLIGATIONS BINDING IDENTIFIABLE HOUSING TRANCHES/ PHASES 2.1 (a) AFFORDABLE HOUSING Overall per cent Provision (i) Social housing for rent per cent (ii) Intermediate tenures per cent (iii) Key worker (iv) Supported (v) Very sheltered (vi) Lifetime (b) (c) (d) Dwelling mix/tenure Distribution around site Triggers At least 30 per cent but could be up to 40 per cent To be negotiated To be negotiated To be negotiated To be negotiated as part of general housing mix To be negotiated as part of general housing mix Yes To be negotiated as part of general housing mix See illustrative master plan attached To be negotiated
C8 North East Elsenham
LPAs Expectation Local economic development strategy
Promoters Offer
3.1
SPECIFICATION OF USES, TRAVEL FOR WORK AND PARKING STRATEGY Specification of uses 53,000 sq m of employment floorspace in predominantly B1 and some B2 uses. Resident Travel Plan officer Standards to be in accordance with ECC/ EPOA Parking Standards Design and Best Practice
(a)
(b) (c)
Travel for Work Plans Parking Strategy
SECTION 4 OBLIGATIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER AGENCIES 4.1 COMMITMENTS TO DELIVERING INFRASTRUCTURE, FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE Commitments to deliver new infrastructure Commitments to seek sources of external funding for infrastructure Commitments to assist throughout Commitments to spend S106 monies appropriately Yes n/a
(a)
(b)
n/a
(c) (d)
n/a n/a
C8 North East Elsenham SECTION 5 SEPARATE PLANNING ISSUES 5.1 Indexation 5.2 Ransom Strips 5.3 Consent 5.4 Parties to the 106 agreement
LPAs Expectation
Promoters Offer
Yes
To be retained
Yes
Uttlesford DC, Essex CC, Marchfield Developments, Fairview New Homes, ECL, other agencies as/if required Yes To be discussed
5.5
Return of Unspent Contributions
No Yes
The Local Authority comments above assume that a Community Infrastructure Levy is not in place at the time of agreement.
Glossary
Abbreviation
AAP BREEAM CHP CIF CLG CSH ES ESCo GDP HA HCA HOTs LDD LDF L(E)AP LPA MUGA MUSCo NHBC PPS RICS RPI S106 SA SFRA SPA SSSI SUDS TA Area Action Plan BRE Environmental Assessment Method Combined Heat and Power Community Infrastructure Fund Communities and Local Government Code for Sustainable Homes Environmental Statement Energy Service Company Gross Domestic Product Highways Agency Homes and Communities Agency Heads of Terms (relates to s106 Agreement) Local Development Document Local Development Framework Local (Equipped) Area for Play Local Planning Authority Multi Use Games Area Multi Utility Service Company National House Building Council Planning Policy Statement Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Regulatory Price Institute Section 106 Agreement (under Town & Country Planning Act) Sustainability Appraisal Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Special Protection Area Site of Special Scientific Interest Sustainable Drainage System Transport Assessment
ISBN 978-1-4098-1101-5
ISBN: 978-1-4098-1101-5
9 781409 811015

Towns: Financial Viability Study of The Eco-Towns Programme

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Towns: Financial Viability Study of The Eco-Towns Programme

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

eco-towns

Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

March 2009 Department for Communities and Local Government

4 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

1.2 The Departmental context and project limitations

1.3 The Departments advisers

1.4 Structure of the report

6 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

1.5 Consultation arrangements

8 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

Section 2 Overview of interim site assessments 9

10 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

Section 2 Overview of interim site assessments 11

2.2 Technical provision for site issues and infrastructure

2.3 Ability to meet draft PPS standards

12 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

2.4 Outline financial assessment

Section 2 Overview of interim site assessments 13

14 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

Section 2 Overview of interim site assessments 15

16 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

2.4.3 Key common assumptions

Section 2 Overview of interim site assessments 17

Treatment of utility costs

S106 obligations Finance assumptions Developers profit assumptions

Land Cost assumption

2.4.4 Sensitivity analysis

18 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

3.1.2 Summary of the proposed scheme

Section 3 Individual site assessments 19

Commercial and other

Key elements of on- and off-site infrastructure

Key elements of s106 package offered

20 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

3.1.3 Financial assessment

Discounted (to take account of timing, risk and investment requirements)

Section 3 Individual site assessments 21

22 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

Section 3 Individual site assessments 23

24 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

Section 3 Individual site assessments 25

3.1.4 Engagement with key stakeholders

26 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

Date 7 July 2008

27 November 2008 12 December 2008

Section 3 Individual site assessments 27

3.1.5 Further information

28 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

3.2 Ford Airfield, West Sussex

3.2.2 Summary of the proposed scheme

Commercial and other

Section 3 Individual site assessments 29

Element Key elements of on- and off-site infrastructure provision

Key elements of s106 package offered

30 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

3.2.3 Financial assessment

Discounted (to take account of timing, risk and investment requirements)

Section 3 Individual site assessments 31

Total over the 30 year planning horizon

32 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme

Section 3 Individual site assessments 33

34 eco-towns Financial viability study of the eco-towns programme