contents proposal.april2… · web viewstantec uk limited (‘stantec’) is pleased to respond to...

Slough, RBWM, South Bucks and Chiltern Councils

Wider Area Growth Study Part 2 – Spatial OptionsConsultancy proposal

April 2020

Stantec UK LimitedCaversham Bridge HouseWaterman Place Reading RG1 8DN


ii

Project Reference 48989

THIS DOCUMENT IS FORMATTED FOR DOUBLE-SIDED PRINTING..


April 2020 iii

CONTENTS1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1

2 STUDY METHOD............................................................................................................3

Stage 0 Inception.............................................................................................................3

Stage 1 Analysis..............................................................................................................3

Stage 2 Conclusions and reporting...............................................................................23

Timetable.......................................................................................................................26

3 THE CONSULTANTS...................................................................................................28

The Team......................................................................................................................28

References....................................................................................................................34

People............................................................................................................................35

4 PROJECT MANAGEMENT..........................................................................................39

How we deliver to time..................................................................................................39

How we deliver to specification.....................................................................................40

Risks..............................................................................................................................41

BUDGET AND CONTRACT...................................................................................................42


April 2020 1

1.1 Stantec UK Limited (‘Stantec’) is pleased to respond to the invitation from Slough, RBWM, South Bucks and Chiltern Councils for Part 2 of the Wider Growth Areas study.

1.2 The central issue for the study is that the client authorities, especially Slough, probably do not have enough identified development capacity to meet their housing needs within their own boundaries. The study will aim to identify specific development opportunities outside those boundaries, within the study area identified by our team in part 1 of the study.

1.3 Berkshire and especially eastern Berkshire, along with South Buckinghamshire, is one of the most constrained parts of the UK. Long standing under investment in strategic infrastructure along with major environmental constraints means that the Councils struggle to accommodate new development.

1.4 However it is this type of high value area the Governments new housing method seeks to promote more new homes in. More new homes require more employment land, which further puts pressure on the land supply. In addition the Councils are asked to consider how to accommodate the needs of an expanding (TBC) Heathrow airport.

1.5 In a sharp departure from plans being led by sustainable capacity and placemaking the new system is driven by top down housing targets with the expectation Councils will respond and flex their policies and sweat their capacity to deliver. There is no escaping the fact that this will be an uncomfortable process and challenge many established assumptions about where development can and cannot go. The work will be controversial and the findings, however well packaged, will be disruptive. But that is what national policy is currently designed to do.

1.6 This study could get bogged down in such issues. Regardless of how politics and national policy plays out it remains important that the Councils can clearly demonstrate that they have maximised their sustainable development capacity. The evidence here needs to move beyond barriers and constraint sand start to think about how this area could, through careful investment and new infrastructure, open up new supply which with the right planning strategy could be sustainable.

1.7 The work also needs to consider where new networks could be put in place and explore new thinking about how technology and climate change solutions may provide a ‘new normal’ and open up new opportunities for sustainable development.

1.8 It is highly likely this will come at a cost and require public funding at some point. In this part of the world there is no ‘spare’ capacity. This work needs to start the evidence trail as to why funding may be needed and why, without this, the Councils may not be able to meet future development needs as directed by Government. There is an ‘escape route’ the NPPF whereby Councils don’t have to meet needs in full, but the evidence bar is set very high.

1 INTRODUCTION


April 2020 2

1.9 Our team is well placed to rise to the challenge. Our specialist experts work in the area every day, and have a proud record of producing creative solutions and sound advice. They are also in frequent contact with local stakeholders. Our team has been designed with this in mind so we can make the most of our established contacts and extensive background knowledge of the area, the emerging and adopted plans and the existing evidence base.


April 2020 3

Stage 0 Inception2.1 At the inception meeting we would suggest four main agenda items. The first, which

would apply to any consultancy project, is for the Steering Group to tell us more about objectives, priorities and policy context, expanding on the study brief. Secondly, we expect to agree details of the study method. Especially important will be the list of constraints to be taken into account, and the hierarchy or relative importance of those constraints. Also to be agreed are the spatial options, or types of development, to be tested in the next stage of work. As a starting point, in relation to housing development we would suggest:

New settlements:

• Small garden village: 1,500-3,000 homes

• Larger garden village: >3,000-10,000 homes

• Garden town: >10,000 homes

Urban extensions: 1,000-5,000+ homes

Other strategic sites / clusters: 500-1,000 homes

2.2 As a third agenda item, we will ask the Steering Group to share information, including the latest evidence available for each client authority (especially any unpublished drafts) and any helpful knowledge the group may have about the other authorities in the study area.

2.3 Fourthly and finally, we would like to table an initial outline (contents page) of the final report, for the Steering Group to consider. Our experience suggests that this will be a highly valuable starting point.

Stage 1 AnalysisStage 1.1 Housing and employment needs

2.4 At this initial stage, as required by the brief we will assess housing and employment land needs or requirements for local authorities across the study area. We will also compare those needs / requirements with the identified land supply, to arrive at estimates of unmet needs over the study period.

2.5 Our assessment of future needs will be based on adopted and emerging plans and their respective evidence bases. For the commissioning authorities, those evidence bases include the GL Hearn Local Housing Needs Assessment (2020), Berkshire FEMA study (2016) and additional work on employment land provided by our team in 2018. This additional work comprises Sensitivity Testing of Employment Land Needs by PBA (now Stantec and Supplementary Market Analysis Employment Land Review by AspinallVerdi. For the non-commissioning authorities there is also recent evidence available, given that Bracknell Forest intends to submit its Local Plan later this year; and the Hillingdon adopted its Part 2 Local Plan in January (albeit it is subject to early

2 STUDY METHOD


April 2020 4

review) and is also covered by the recently examined New London Plan. Wycombe District, now part of Buckinghamshire Council, also has a recent Local Plan, adopted in 2019. We are very familiar with this evidence though our other work in the area, including our Employment Land Study for Bracknell, Wokingham and West Berkshire (currently in final draft).

2.6 In relation to identified supply, we will use GIS to map significant current planning commitments (outstanding permissions), and adopted and emerging allocations. This will be the first layer in the GIS database that will be our main analytical tool. Later we will add further layers, to show potential additional supply and spatial options.

2.7 Based our local knowledge and our general experience, we do appreciate that the evidence on needs and provision across the area will be fragmented, subject to many uncertainties, and inconsistent between different. We will overcome these problems so far as possible, to arrive at serviceable estimates of needs and supply. In relation to major uncertainties that have a major impact on our conclusions, wherever possible we will provide worst-case / best-case estimates – always a helpful tool in planning intelligently for uncertainty.

2.8 One area of uncertainly relates to the expansion of Heathrow to provide a third runway. The Steering Group may want us to assume that this will not happen, since the project in its present form has been found unlawful. Alternatively, if the group considers that the Government may bring it back, we will advise in broad terms on its potential impact, based on existing studies for Heathrow Airport Limited, the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group and others. We are very familiar with this material from our Hounslow Employment Land Review (currently in final draft), whose assessment of employment land needs includes a ‘Heathrow expansion scenario’.

2.9 Another source of uncertainty is that assessed housing needs may change, given that the Government is committed to a review of the standard method this year, and also the latest demographic projection (2018-based Sub-National Population Projection) shows very different results to the 2014-based version that the current standard method is based on. It would be possible within this study to model the impact on the study area’s housing needs of alternative new version of the standard method. But at the present stage we think this would be fruitless, because we know so little about the Government’s intentions regarding the method. If there are any changes during the period of the study, we will of course adjust our method accordingly.

2.10 Perhaps the greatest uncertainty of all is the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. We know that the pandemic will have a dramatic impact on the economy (a major recession is likely) and on demographic change (very few people will move house, during the rest of 2020 at least). But it is too early to quantify an alternative future. Subject to the Steering Group’s agreement, we would propose in this study to stick to existing assessments of future needs and supply, setting aside the pandemic. The findings of the study will need to be reviewed when we have new economic forecasts, new demographic projections and new government guidance – including a new standard method – to show how plan-makers should respond to those predictions.


April 2020 5

Stage 1.2 Existing spatial options2.11 At this stage we will review spatial development options already considered in

existing and emerging plans across the study area. We will also identify potential development sites identified in evidence base documents but not allocated in plans, and add details of those sites to our GIS database.

2.12 The data inputs for Stage 1.2 will come from land availability studies (SHLAAs, SHEELAS, ELAAs etc) and Sustainability Appraisals. The information on sites already considered will feed into the analysis of future opportunities in Stages 1.3-1.4 below, and the analysis of broad options already considered will help inform the formulation and appraisal of new options in Stage 2.

Stage 1.3 Greenfield opportunities – broad areas2.13 Our next step will be to identify potential development locations over and above the

land supply currently committed and allocated in adopted and emerging plan. For this we will use a two-stage process. Firstly we will apply a coarse sieve to identify broad areas of search, and secondly we will apply a fine sieve to identify specific development locations.

Constraints mapping – coarse sieving2.14 We will identify broad areas of potential development opportunity, based on high-level

analysis of strategic constraints. For this we will use a new layer of GIS mapping to show designations and other constraints, including:

Green Belt

flood risk (Flood Zones 2 and 3);

biodiversity (SAC, ANOB, SSSI, SINC, and any other NPPF Foot Note 7/9 designations);

archaeology and historic environment (Registered Historic Park and Garden, Scheduled Ancient Monument, Ancient Woodlands);

ground instability/landfill/prior extraction/mineral safeguarding areas;

underground pipelines and energy transmission infrastructure;

allocations/consents for other major development (in the study area and on its boundary).

2.15 The final selection of GIS constraint layers will be determined following input from our SA / HRA team, to ensure this provides a robust basis for future assessments.

2.16 Most of these data are already held by our GIS team. We will also use a hierarchy of constraints, probably comprising three layers:

Absolute constraints – where the NPPF indicates that development should ordinarily be restricted, and where it is unlikely that adverse impact can be mitigated;


April 2020 6

Major constraints –where there is a serious barrier to development, so development should be avoided if possible, but adverse impacts may be mitigated;

Other constraints: where obstacles to development may be overcome with good planning.

2.17 The application of this hierarchy will again involve input from our SA / HRA team leader, to ensure that suitable criteria are used to help identify likely significant effects on the environment (in SEA terms) and Likely Significant Effects on European Sites (in HRA terms).

2.18 We will combine the different constraints into an overall verdict, or score, for each broad area. Depending on the findings of the analysis and the preference of the Steering Group, we may identify two categories – constrained and less constrained (very few areas, if any, are entirely unconstrained, even if we leave aside the Green Belt).

2.19 Alternatively we may use three categories – very highly constrained, highly constrained and less constrained – as illustrated in the map below, which is from our study for Swale Borough Council in Kent. Areas in the intermediate category, labelled ‘highly constrained’, may be considered for development if the ‘less constrained’ areas do not provide enough capacity to meet need. This would respond to the statement in the study brief that no stone should be left unturned in the search for development opportunities.

Swale: environmental constraints


April 2020 7

2.20 The least constrained areas will be identified as broad areas of opportunity, on which further analysis will focus.

2.21 Throughout the analysis we will separate the Green Belt from other constraints, presenting both ‘Green-Belt-on’ and ‘Green-Belt off’ versions of areas of opportunity. This will be helpful because, as mentioned by the study brief and in line with the NPPF, development in the Green Belt requires a special kind of justification, based on exceptional circumstances and demonstrating that the authority has examined fully all reasonable options for meeting its identified development need.

2.22 As well as constraints, we will map market house price data, which give a simple and powerful indicator of the market appetite for housing development in different areas. Again we illustrate this below with an example from Swale – where the data suggested that viable development opportunities are more likely to be found towards the south and east of the borough.

Swale: Sales price, semi-detached houses

Strategic transport review

2.23 Having identified broad areas of opportunity, we will carry out a high-level review of transport infrastructure, to identify how far the existing network is capable of serving each area. We will first identify known strategic constraints, starting with pressure points at M4 and M25 junctions. We will then review the pipeline of committed and proposed infrastructure improvements, and their broad impact on the capacity pf the system. For this we will use existing evidence, which is extensive, and consultation with relevant stakeholders.


April 2020 8

2.24 Additional issues are likely to arise in relation to the new areas of opportunity. These areas, for example in the open countryside to the north or south of Slough and Bracknell towns, may be beyond the reach of the existing highway network – whose predominant orientation is east to west.

2.25 As part of the assessment of broad areas, we will gauge how far transport capacity will be a barrier to future development – not just for individual development sites, but in relation to the collective transport impact of those sites. Depending on the findings of the analysis, we will produce a broad outline of a new network that would provide connectivity for the broad areas identified.

2.26 In this analysis we will take account of possible disruptive changes, which may fundamentally alter how people travel in the next 15-20 years. In our view three areas of change will be especially important:

The sharing society – which already includes the growth of car clubs, the rise of Uber to become the world’s largest taxi firm without owning any vehicles and the emergence of new car hire models – e.g. individuals hiring out their own cars when they are not using them;

Autonomous and connected vehicles – seen by the UK Government as a key area where the UK can lead the world. It is likely that fully autonomous taxis and shuttle buses will run in certain places by 2021. Autonomous vehicles will reduce driver costs by about 60%, resulting in new routes, more frequent services and much more choice for passengers;

Mobility as a service (MaaS)– means that for any given journey people can choose from a comprehensive menu of modes, such as cycling, public transport and car hire, with estimates of price and time provided. MaaS provides a viable alternative to car ownership; trials in Gothenburg back in 2012 produced high customer satisfaction and reduced car use by some 40%.

Capacity assessment2.27 Finally we will make a capacity analysis of the broad areas identified, producing an

initial estimate of the numbers of homes and amounts of employment floorspace each area could produce, over and above development land already identified. The assessment will a high-level one, again using GIS. It will be based on transparent assumptions that reflect experience and best practice around residential density, schools, public open space, local retail, community facilities and commercial plot ratios.

2.28 This method for assessing capacity is crude, in that it does not consider site-specific factors. But it will be useful as a first step, to gauge broad potential and areas fir further investigation. It takes account of the typology of broad areas (new settlement, urban extension, other strategic site / cluster). It also allows infinite flexibility to test alternative assumptions, for example about densities, and to test alternative spatial options.

2.29 The output of Stage 1.3 will be a map of broad areas that may accommodate greenfield development, together with a first-draft land-use budget that estimates thee


April 2020 9

potential capacity of each area. The findings will be assembled in GIS and presented as plan-based analysis, with an accompanying statement of method and assumptions. At the next stage we will subject those broad areas to more detailed testing.

Stage 1.4 Greenfield opportunities – fine sievingOverview

2.30 At the next step, we will make a more detailed assessment of the broad areas identified earlier, to exclude from each broad area those pieces of land which are unsuitable for development due to constraints or unacceptable impacts. The remaining tracts of land within each broad area will represent the potential opportunities for deliverable and sustainable development. We refer to these areas of opportunity as ‘parcels’.

2.31 For this analysis we have drawn together a team of technical experts, with much professional experience of informing and delivering development. Most of those experts are based at Stantec’s Reading office and many of them have already worked for the authorities commissioning this study.

2.32 Our sustainability team, led by Duncan Smart (SA / HRA lead), will work with the individual experts to ensure the specific site work covers all topics prescribed in the SEA regulations and provides robust and proportionate assessment information to enable the identification and reporting of any clear likely significant environmental, ecological or wider sustainability effects. This will inform the production of high-quality SA and HRA deliverables whilst avoiding the need for further site-specific SA or HRA work later in this project.

2.33 Our experts are familiar with the main models to be used in this project, including the new Lower Thames Flood model and the commissioning Councils’ transport models, because they have already worked for those Councils, to assess planning applications or promote development – including the new Park and Ride for Slough which draws on both transport and flood teams.

2.34 Each expert will engage with relevant stakeholders, to verify the scope of their analysis and the methods they plan to use. For this, the experts will draw on their existing contracts at Highways England, the Environment Agency etc.. Before undertaking any assessment they will ensure that the relevant stakeholders agree with the data and sources to be used in the analysis, and has the opportunity to suggest additional or alternative approaches.

2.35 Each expert will also consult with relevant environmental / conservation groups on a one to one basis, to ensure that the analysis reflects those bodies’ knowledge, concerns and advice. This will be in addition to the stakeholder workshop.

The RAG matrix2.36 We will use a traffic light matrix (Red Amber Green, RAG) to provide concise and

transparent analysis of development impact and risks. The matrix will also be tailored to allow the identification of likely significant effects, in accordance with SA and HRA requirements. Because much of the assessment is qualitative and driven by professional opinion, each row of the matrix will provide narrative on the scope for


April 2020 10

overcoming or mitigating barriers to development, and the costs and time implications of doing so.

2.37 The ultimate capacity of each individual parcel may need to be presented as a range dependent on the availability of mitigation. For example, in a ‘business as usual’ scenario only small-scale development may be possible; but major investment, shared across multiple sites (or publicly funded) could ‘unlock’ additional capacity. This is especially relevant to transport constraints. For many parcels, the local network may be able to support only modest growth; but major investment, in a new road or public transport route running through the study area, may unlock development of a much larger scale.

2.38 The exact format of the RAG table will be agreed with the Steering Group following a review of the available technical evidence by each ‘expert’ and a provisional assessment matrix assembled by the Stantec team. We will circulate the draft format as ‘decision paper’, giving group members the opportunity to ask for changes or additions.

2.39 Below, we briefly outline our approach to each area of the assessment.

Transport and connectivity2.40 The current strategic network is not designed to access large parts of the study area,

and the local network is unable to accommodate significant growth without investment. Therefore transport is likely to be a key issue for almost all the potential development parcels.

2.41 For each parcel we will consider:

The current availability of, or need for new, strategic road infrastructure – to connect potential sites into the strategic network (M4, M40, M25 etc)

The current availability, or need for, new, local infrastructure appropriate for relevant local journeys to places we may expect people to work, shop or visit regularly. This is likely to be connectivity to the related major towns or employment locations and may not be dependent on the primary road network.

Current and potential new accessibility to fixed link public transport assets including the rail network and Heathrow.

Scope to provide new public transport links – including new bus links to, from or through the land parcels, to provide local sustainable transport options

Scope to provide other sustainable links to likely off-site destinations (places of work, shops and higher tier service centres) including walking and cycling options.

2.42 Where development would involve abnormal costs to for access and connectivity, we will provide a view of costing to inform our deliverability assessment.

2.43 As noted in the brief; it is very likely that considerable public investment in sustainable transport infrastructure will be required to enable development of the scale needed. This study will be the first step in making the case for such investment. Our team are experienced in providing funding bids / business cases on behalf of clients. In our


April 2020 11

report, we will use this experience to highlight the factors that funding bodies are interested in.

Landscape2.44 We will use existing landscape assessments to provide a view of the sensitivity of the

land parcel to accommodate new development and guide the assessment away from areas considered less suitable. Areas with low capacity to accommodate new development will perform poorly in our RAG assessment.

2.45 The analysis will require a large measure of professional judgment, because the land parcels are likely to extend across different landscape character areas and so parts of a parcel may be constrained whereas other parts not. So we will use the available evidence to form an option as to the capacity of the parcel that reflects the landscape constraints – this may mean only parts of the larger parcel is deliverable and the indicative capacity, and potential scale of growth adjusted down to reflect this.

2.46 We will also consider the topography of each site, not only to assess whether it limits development capacity, but because topography also impacts on the potential impact of development.

Heritage2.47 Under this heading, we will consider whether the presence or proximity of heritage

assets and their setting may constrain the scale, location and type of development which would be appropriate. The assessment will include listed buildings, conservation areas, undesignated archaeological sites and landscapes, additional elements of the settings relating to scheduled ancient monuments, registered battlefields, registered historic parks and gardens and locally important historic parks and gardens.

2.48 This process also requires an element of judgement as opposed to a formulaic approach, because the setting of an asset is not absolute, but open to interpretation. So for example a land parcel could fall within the vista of a designated asset by nature of the topography and landscape setting of that asset. Another site, at the same distance from the asset, may not be affected because it is hidden by the topography or other features.

Utilities

2.49 Utilities are unlikely to be a definitive obstacle to development, because providers are under a statutory duty to meet development needs. However, where connection points are absent this can cause delay in delivering schemes, and therefore the RAG assessment will look to guide development to sites that are easier to connect. Therefore, our utilities assessment will focus on the availability of major connection points in proximity to each parcel.

2.50 We will use utilities networks and record maps to essential to gain understanding of the major utility constraints present on the area plan. The above information also provides indication of what areas are readily serviced with Utilities and which areas


April 2020 12

require significant reinforcement to the existing infrastructure in order to deliver the growth demands anticipated.

2.51 Our utilities team will liaise with the incumbent providers in the area and discuss the Strategic Policies and the proposed growth in the Opportunity Area.

2.52 The local network of electricity supply is owned and operated under licence by UK Power Networks. We will obtain details of their long-term development statements and advise on the spare electricity capacity available in the area.

2.53 Thames Water own and maintain the water supply and sewerages network in the area. We will check for where there are clean / sewage treatment works and strategic trunk water mains and advise of any major constraints.

2.54 Cadent Gas is the owner and operator of significant gas infrastructure within the Slough area and have the license holder obligations. We will seek their advice on strategic services and highlight the assets that may impact or provide opportunities to the growth and area.

2.55 Telecoms networks are complex and generally have multiple ownerships. We will approach the main providers such as BT Openreach and Virgin Media to determine the current level of connectivity and plans to upgrade the local area infrastructure

Flooding2.56 We know from experience that flooding is a significant issue and constraint to

development in this area.

2.57 Our local flood team will identify high level opportunities and constraints, including from secondary sources of flooding such as non-main rivers. They will identify where flood risk may restrict development or where mitigation will impact on scale of development.

2.58 The local team is aware of the main constraint and opportunities and have worked for Bracknell Forest to provide their flood risk and drainage advice, are working for Slough on the new park and ride site and in RBWM work for Eton College, CEMEX and for the EA as regards the Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton Flood Alleviation Scheme which included the Jubilee river. They are actively using the new Lower Thames Model.

2.59 Our RAG assessment will reflect the fact that commercial development may still be appropriate on parcels where housing is not permitted. As with other strands of this assessment our flood analysis may remove land parcels from further consideration or reduce the capacity of the parcel to accommodate growth.

Ecology2.60 The ecology component of the site assessment process will both consider potential

impacts on important ecological features generally and also specifically address the relationship between site options and European Sites. This will inform HRA reporting and avoid the need for further assessment of likely significant effects from individual sites on European Sites (in HRA term) to be undertaken later in the project. It should


April 2020 13

however be understood that in relation to HRA this project only needs to provide a proportionate ‘assessment evidence base’ to inform future decision making and formal HRA processes, rather than a formal HRA being required at this stage.

2.61 A high-level desk-based assessment will be conducted to identify likely key ecological constraints and opportunities for each identified parcel. designated areas for nature conservation, presence of protected/ notable species and/or valuable habitats.

2.62 Information will be gathered from relevant online sources such as MAGIC Map, online aerial photography and NBN gateway. Relevant policies and conservation objectives will also be identified from relevant sources including the Local BAP. This will be supplemented by local data, including non-statutory nature conservation sites and we assume the client group can provide us with the relevant data.

2.63 The RAG assessment will be used to highlight where constraints are likely to prevent, limit or slow development. Overall suitability will be developed through the consideration of these criteria and the application of professional judgement. Each of the sites will be assessed on the following:

Potential impacts to statutory designated sites including: RAMSAR, SSSI, SACs, SPAs and ancient woodland. This would include an indication of potential future requirements in relation Habitats Regulations Assessment.

Potential impacts to non-statutory local wildlife sites

Potential impacts to European Protected Species and their habitats e.g. bats, great crested newt, otter and water vole and dormice.

Potential impacts to notable habitats and species.

2.64 Reflecting the high-level nature of the site options, the assessment of potential ecological effects will focus on identifying likely ‘impact pathways’ between site options and individual ecological features (as listed above). This will specifically include qualitative analysis to confirm the qualifying features of identified relevant European Sites and explore potential impacts from site options on the qualifying features (i.e. the impacts pathways). Where the analysis indicates that a site option has the potential to result in Likely Significant Effects (in HRA terms) on a European Site, the implications of this for the feasibility of the option and the potential need for mitigation will be discussed.

Placemaking and sustainable communities2.65 This is a vital part of the assessment and one often overlooked in assessments led by

technical analysis and spreadsheets. It is also much more refined than simply measuring distances between different possible assets because new development is expected to provide significant new infrastructure. So the analysis needs to be flexible and informed by other elements of the assessment and make allowance for major

2.66 As a starting point to guide the assessment, we need to establish what new social and community infrastructure we will reasonably expect to be provided ‘on site’ given the capacity of the land parcel.


April 2020 14

2.67 We have an established approach to this – developed through many rounds of infrastructure funding studies that identifies the scale of new housing required to provide onsite provision.

Social infrastructure: example

2.68 Where provision would be expected onsite this would either be neutral or positive in the assessment ‘traffic light matrix’. It may be positive because the new provision addresses an existing deficit in the area and is therefore beneficial to the wider community. So the proposal could deliver a school in close proximity to communities that lack nearby provision.

2.69 Where the capacity of a parcel is too low to support on site provision the analysis needs to consider where the nearest logical alternative provision is and the merits of accessing this. So a 500-unit scheme, on the edge of established service centre would be preferable in the assessment to a 500 unit scheme several miles away.

2.70 Also as positive features in the assessment we will consider whether new transport routes to / from a land parcel may run through other, currently poorly connected communities and so have a much more positive impact than may first be expected.

2.71 To help guide this stage of assessment we will review the current infrastructure evidence bases (including the IDPs) to identify gaps, shortfalls and opportunities where new housing (or commercial development) could, depending on scale and location, continue positively or negatively towards social and community infrastructure.

2.72 We will also identify the key service centres that currently meet local and strategic needs which we will use to consider how accessible a land parcel is for that scale of service. This is important where the scale of development possible in the land parcel may not provide onsite opportunities. This is likely to take the form of the large villages for local services and towns for higher order services but, in discussion with the client team may flex to reflect circumstances – not all large villages support secondary schools for example.


April 2020 15

2.73 Given the geography of the area and the likely areas of search we think it is important to recognise that development could change the areas character and sense of place. Major new development may erode settlement gaps and the sense of place in village communities for example or a collection of development parcels could urbanise rural parts of the study area. Expanding or enveloping existing communities with new strategic development obviously changes the sense of place and character of those communities.

2.74 This is obviously subjective, but it is important that the assessment recognise that new development will change existing communities’ sense of place, and that those communities be aware that this is actively being considered in this assessment. Also this should be flagged as an area for future work. Because this will be locally sensitive and runs the risk of concluding all development has a negative impact on local communities’ sense of place, we will look to discuss with the client group whether this should be assessed in the RAG matrix or presented as issues we highlight need further work with the relevant community.

Viability and deliverabilityOverview

2.75 This element of the analysis works slightly different to the RAG analysis above. In summary we first need to establish whether development is viable in the area – before any abnormal costs are taken into account.

2.76 Then whether there is sufficient value in the parcel to help pay for abnormal costs including any significant offsite transport infrastructure needed to make the land parcel deliverable – based on our earlier assessments and indicative costs in our RAG assessment.

2.77 The approach we outline below is flexible enough to be applied throughout the study area, based on the prevailing sales values in the area and the need for major infrastructure.

2.78 The assessment may also suggest ‘poolingl’ a collection of parcels that in isolation cannot pay for infrastructure but collectively could. This will be used to inform the spatial options.

Method

2.79 To support the spatial options AspinallVerdi will undertake high level viability testing. The purpose of the viability testing is to inform which areas can broadly viably support the cumulative impact of:

Infrastructure provision

Climate change mitigation

Biodiversity mitigation

2.80 Along with informing policy changes such as development density and redevelopment or brownfield sites.


April 2020 16

2.81 AspinallVerdi’s viability testing will draw on the local authorities existing viability evidence bases:

Chiltern District Council & South Bucks District Council Local Plan and CIL Viability Assessment, June 2019 by Dixon Searle

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council Borough Local Plan 2017 - Local Plan Viability Update, April 2017 by HDH Planning & Development Ltd

2.82 So far as we know, Slough Borough Council does not have a recent whole-plan viability study.

2.83 To undertake the viability testing AspinallVerdi will create a bespoke Microsoft Excel model. The model calculates the Residual Land Value (RLV) for each scenario with results displayed in a series of tables. In simple terms, the residual method works on the basis that a developer knows the end value of the scheme and knows the development costs (construction, interest and developer's profit). By deducting the total costs from the end value, the developer knows what can be bid for the land. The formula is expressed as:

Residual land value = gross development value minus development costs

Development costs in turn are the sum of construction, professional fees, interest and developers’ profit.

2.84 This approach to assessing the scheme viability is in accordance with RICS Guidance. Once the appraisals are run, a comparison of the residual land value is made against the benchmark land value. If the residual land value equals or is greater the benchmark land value, the scheme is deemed viable. If the residual land value falls below the benchmark land value then the scheme is unviable. An example of the viability output is set out in the table below i.e. in this case the residual land value of £1.528 million is £128,000 higher than the assumed threshold land value of£1.4 million meaning the balance is positive.

Appraisal viability summary: example


April 2020 17

2.85 In addition to the above, we will run a number of sensitivity tables for each scenario. We will agree with the client team the different variables to test. But we will expect the sensitivity tables will include variation in sales values and changes in infrastructure costs.

2.86 These sensitivity tables negate the need to run multiple appraisals for each scenario and allows comparisons to be made when two viability inputs are changed (an example of the sensitivity table is set out below). The sensitivity table is interpreted as follows:

In each sensitivity table, there are two variables, in the example below the variable across the top is changes in sales values and down the side are changes in infrastructure costs on a per unit basis.

Each coloured cell represents the scheme surplus/deficit for a given sensitivity scenario. In each sensitivity testing cell table, you will find the corresponding scheme surplus/deficit from our appraisal.

In the example, we see that in the scenario where sale values are £5,000 psm development can support infrastructure costs of £30,000 per unit but when sale values fall to £4,500 psm the surplus available to fund infrastructure falls to£20,000. A comparison can be made as to which areas achieve the corresponding sale values.

Development appraisal sensitivity table: example

Likely scenarios

2.87 We will base their viability testing on a number of generic scenarios to reflect the hierarchy development areas set out in the brief. For each of the development areas, we will agree with the client team broad development typologies to use as the baseline in the testing, with sensitivity testing (see detail above) to assess variation of the inputs. For budgeting purposes, they have assumed the eight scenarios - examples of which are set out in the table below.


April 2020 18

New settlements:

• Small garden village: 3,000 dwellings

• Larger garden village: 5,000 dwellings

• Garden town: 10,000 dwellings +

Urban extensions:

• 1,000 dwellings

• 2.500 dwellings

• 5,000 dwellings Other sites

• 250 dwellings

• 500 dwellings

2.88 If additional scenarios are required these can be agreed with the client team but may incur additional fees.

2.89 With regards to urban sites, due to the significant variation in existing land uses, drivers in sale values (e.g. schools, access to railway stations etc.) and variation in abnormal costs we propose not to run multiple appraisals but to address this element through analysis of several case studies. We will expect development to be generally viable on urban sites across the study area and there are other factors (e.g. height) rather than viability preventing developers from not increasing development density. We will analyse a number of urban developments across the study area and establish the factors preventing greater intensity development coming forward.

2.90 With regards to employment space, in our experience development is generally viable across the study area. But there is not normally a surplus to fund significant infrastructure.

2.91 For the purposes of this assessment, because of the number of possible permutations (large town centre office, small town centre office, out of town office, large warehousing small warehousing etc) we suggest assuming commercial development is viable but does not generate a surplus that can be used for off-site infrastructure. We will check this assertion with the client team and the employment land evidence base.

2.92 There are exceptions to this ‘rule of thumb’ – where there are development sites large enough to deliver large-scale warehousing or in close proximity to Heathrow. We will highlight where this is the case and to what expect a surplus may be available.

Viability testing appraisal inputs

2.93 The team will review the existing viability evidence base documents and where possible, and justifiable, will use the same inputs in the broad spatial options – this approach will ensure consistency with the previous testing. Where there are variations with viability inputs across the local authority areas or new evidence to justify a change, AspinallVerdi will gather data to support the ‘new input’ used in the testing. AspinallVerdi’s review of the viability inputs will be presented in a table to provide a robust and transparent approach - an example of the table is set out below.


April 2020 19

Viability testing: example inputs

2.94 We will work with the client team to ensure current and potential future policy costs are reflected in the testing. In particularly to address the brief we will expect the inclusion of costs for:

Electric charging points - on plot parking for a house via a wallbox: £1,000 per charging point. Ground/charging pole in multi-car car park: £10,000 per charge point (each charge point can serve 4 spaces).

Biodiversity – in previous work, AspinallVerdi have found that Biodiversity Net Gain Consultation IA FINAL for publication provided the following costs and justifications:

Costs per hectare for both onsite and offsite measures are an assumed £900 for surveys and 30 years’ creation and maintenance costs (£19,698), taken from a joint RSPB, National Trust and Wildlife Trusts study, discounted to a net present value (NPV) lump sum at the Green Book rate of 3.5%.

For offsite measures on newly created habitat, rural land purchase costs are included. RICS data gives an average 2017 price for agricultural land of £21,947 per hectare. We are exploring ways to incentivise or require local offsets. This has cost implications because the price of the land used for habitat creation will be above or below average depending on geographical location of the development.

For offsite habitat, the amount of land required to offset an area of development is uncertain, with different sources suggesting that this can be greater or less than 1:1. We assume 1:1 ratio – that is 1 ha development is offset by 1ha of habitat creation off-site. This increases to 1.1ha when the 10% net gain uplift is included.’


April 2020 20

Carbon reduction – The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government issued the consultations document - The Future Homes Standard 2019 Consultation on changes to Part L (conservation of fuel and power) and Part F (ventilation) of the Building Regulations for new dwellings: Impact Assessment in October 2019. Contained in the document, amongst other things, are two clear approaches to carbon reduction and the associated costs as follows:• Option 1 - ‘Future Homes Fabric’. This would be a 20% reduction in CO2 -

£2,557 per dwelling

• Option 2 - ‘Fabric plus technology’. This would be a 31% reduction26 in CO2 -£4847 per dwelling – but they expect developers would choose less costly ways of meeting the Option 2 standard, such as putting in low-carbon heating now. This would cost less than the full specification, at £3,134 for a semi- detached house.

2.95 With regards to sale values we will establish whether there is a need to vary the viability testing by sale values. To support this assessment we will undertake a market report which will be appended to the study to justify the values used in the testing. The market report will draw on published data from the Land Registry. Using the Land Registry data (new and re-sales over a -year period), we will create ‘heat maps’ of house prices, as illustrated earlier.

2.96 Those heat maps show data for very small areas, the data is not ‘fixed’ against ward/postcode boundaries thus allowing for finer grain analysis of the areas of higher, mid and lower valuer areas. We will overlay those price data over the map of broad areas of search, so that we can vary the testing by sale values.

2.97 Following the high-level analysis of residential values, we will then undertake finer detailed analysis of the Land Registry new build achieved values (last (say) 24 months sales) cross-referenced, on an address-by-address basis to the floor areas published on the EPC database in order to derive the achieved values (£ per square metre). We will use this to define market values for ‘typical’ new-build house types based upon development monitoring data, EPC data and/or the nationally described housing standards.

2.98 In addition to the above, we will ‘sense-check’ the assumptions using analysis of current new build developments that are ‘on-site’ currently and telephone consultations with local estate agents.

2.99 AspinallVerdi will bring the analysis together, to establish the suitable sale values to use in the testing, and the degree of variation in values to use in the sensitivity testing.

Land value

2.100 The Councils’ previous viability studies used the Existing Use Value (EUV) plus Premium method to determine land value. The EUV plus Premium approach is recognised as the most appropriate method to determine the land value for planning purposes as recognised by Planning Practice Guidance on viability and the RICS Professional Statement, Financial viability in planning: conduct and reporting, May


April 2020 21

2019. AspinallVerdi will use the land values from the previous studies as a starting position in their testing. They will use the sensitivity tables in the appraisals to show how variation in land values impact viability.

Viability testing outputs

2.101 Following the viability testing, AspinallVerdi will feed their results into the study to help establish which broad spatial areas are more viable and could support greater policy and/or infrastructure costs along with potential justification to support higher density development in an urban context.

Output of parcel-specific assessments2.102 The main output of Stage 1.4 will be a draft RAG assessment for each parcel, which

includes justification for the assessment including where the evidence suggests reducing the ‘headline’ capacity of the parcel to reflect constraints.

2.103 As an appendix, we will provide a record of the stakeholders we have consulted and how their inputs have influenced the assessment.

2.104 We will map the result of the assessment and calculate their total estimated development capacity, providing two alternative scenarios:

A ‘business as usual’ scenario – where parcels are deliverable without major new infrastructure

A policy-on view, where we assume new infrastructure can be provided and paid for.

The technical workshop2.105 Once we have completed the draft RAG analysis, we propose a technical

workshop to refine its content, using the knowledge and experience of Council officers. Experience has taught us that this type of session brings forth large amounts of valuable information about sites and areas, as officers have local knowledge and understanding far beyond what is recorded in formal documents.

2.106 Participants at the workshop will of course include the study’s Steering Group. It should also include officers from each commissioning authority, including planners dealing with particular sites and projects, and other relevant disciplines including regeneration, transport and housing. The main agenda item will be to discuss and agree the draft RAG table line by line, expanding and correcting the information we have on each broad area of greenfield opportunity.

2.107 We will also table for discussion other emerging assumptions findings of the analysis, especially regarding urban intensification opportunities, housing density scenarios and the potential for additional housing in town centres.

2.108 On each agenda item, we will start with a brief presentation of our work to date and unanswered questions. But the bulk of the time will be spent listening to what officers have to say.

2.109 Ideally we would collect the same kind of officer knowledge about areas that are in the study area, but beyond the boundaries of the commissioning authorities. Most of


April 2020 22

this land area is in Bracknell Forest district and the London Borough of Hillingdon. Smaller areas comprise Bourne End, Marlow and surrounds in the former Wycombe district, and small parts of Runnymede and Surrey Heath districts.

2.110 Of these ‘non-commissioning authorities’, the former High Wycombe district is now part of the new Buckinghamshire Council, so we expect that officers familiar with the area will attend the technical workshop. For the other non-commissioning authorities, we will aim to collect information through individual conversations with officers. Alternatively, the Steering Group may consider inviting those authorities to the technical workshop.

Draft spatial options2.111 After the technical workshop we will translate the earlier analysis into a series of

spatial options, showing perhaps three alternative ways in which identified development needs can be met. At this stage we do not pre-judge what the options might be. The example below shows the options we provided for Swale.

Swale: alternative spatial options

2.112 The draft spatial options will be tabled at the Steering Group meeting in July, together with the findings of the urban intensification analysis, which is described below.

Stage 1.5 Urban intensification2.113 To assess development and redevelopment opportunities in existing built-up areas,

we will rely on existing evidence and bases and the knowledge of local authority officers. There is a wealth of knowledge on this topic, and no scope within the study budget for adding to that knowledge through original research.

2.114 To estimate potential development in urban areas, over and above the planned land supply, we will begin with a review of evidence base documents, including land availability studies (SHLAAs, HLAs, HEDNAs, employment land reviews etc) and


April 2020 23

major proposals, including town centre redevelopment and estate regeneration. Among the non-commissioning authorities, the main opportunities are likely to be in Bracknell Forest – which is due to submit its draft Local Plan in the summer – and Hillingdon – whose development capacity is documented by the London SHLAA and other evidence considered in the examination of the new London Plan1.

2.115 A second source of potential capacity, mainly for housing, may be increased development densities at sites that are already allocated in current and emerging plans. We will discuss at the client workshop what increases, if any, may be realistically achievable, and model the total additional supply that could potentially result.

2.116 In a third and final stream of analysis, we will consider how far the current pandemic may accelerate the fall in demand for retail space, and also for pubs, restaurants and the like. Judging by recent news, it is possible the current wave of closures in those sectors will lead to a permanent loss of demand for retail and leisure uses. If so, future opportunities to redevelop town centres for housing may be on a greater scale than previously expected. We will explore the possible impact of this factor on total land supply, creating one or two scenarios for discussion at the client workshop.

Stage 2 Conclusions and reportingStage 2.1 Steering Group meeting

2.117 At the Steering Committee meeting scheduled for the week beginning 20th July, we will table for discussion:

The draft spatial options for greenfield development developed at Stage 1.4

Draft land budgets that show how the identified development needs can be met, also taking account of the urban capacity estimated at Stage 1.5 and adopted and emerging supply estimated earlier.

2.118 Once amended and agreed by the Steering Committee, the options will be presented at the stakeholder event and taken forward into the draft and final reports.

2.119 Also at the Steering Group meeting, as required by the brief, we will report on work progress generally and agree the format and content of the stakeholder event.

Stage 2.2 Stakeholder event2.120 At the stakeholder event, invitees will of course include local planning authorities in

the study area, neighbouring authorities and other organisations involved in planning and economic development. In our view they should also include environmental and conservation groups, as specified at para 2.5 of the study brief.

1 It might seem surprising that housing development in Hillingdon can help meet the housing needs of Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead. The explanation is that, if Hillingdon delivers new housing over and above past trends, fewer people will move out from Hillingdon to Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead than past trends would suggest. Since the assessed housing need is based on rolling forward (projecting) past migration trends, this will mean that some of the assessed need for Slough / Windsor/ Maidenhead will be met in Hillingdon.


April 2020 24

2.121 At earlier stages of the study, our specialist team members will have contacted many of those organisations for technical inputs. But in our view the wider consultation with them is best undertaken at this relatively late stage in the project. This is because by this stage development options will have been narrowed down to a manageable list of sites. If we consult at the beginning of the study, our experience suggests that virtually all parts of the area that are not already built up may be seen as candidates for development. The likely result is unnecessary alarm, including unhelpful coverage in the local press.

2.122 To accommodate the variety of interests taking part in the event, we will suggest that the agenda combine both break-out groups and plenary sessions. The exact design of the event will depend on whether it is held virtually or face to face.

Stage 2.3 Sustainability and Habitat Regulations Appraisals2.123 The brief suggests the SA and HRA are distinct steps or phases of this work.

However, as noted above in relation to Stage 1.3 we think these principles need to flow through all our previous stages of the assessment. Sites that are currently unstainable, and cannot be made so, should not ‘pass’ earlier stages of analysis.

2.124 We have therefore embedded SA and HRA into the project from the outset and, as detailed above, at each stage the team will assess their technical element of ‘sustainability’ under the guidance of our SA Lead, Duncan Smart, who will also attend the workshop to finalise the draft RAG table. Areas with ‘showstoppers’ will fall away and areas with caveats / required mitigation highlighted along with comments on the achievability and deliverability of any required mitigation. The analysis will reflect the fact that major development will be expected to provide local services, including education and retail, so focus on the critical issues that differentiate areas – for example accessibility to the major town centres and employment locations including Heathrow.

2.125 Each potential development site parcel that reaches stage 2 will therefore already have been subject to a proportionate level of SA and HRA analysis, including the identification of any clear likely significant effects, showstopper issues, strategic mitigation requirements or other major issues. This will allow the SA and HRA work in Stage to focus on providing comparative assessments of the impacts, issues and benefits of selecting different types of sites in a final portfolio. Drawing on earlier site assessment results, this assessment will provide a comparison of the sustainability of different site combinations, including consideration of where new communities may be preferable to urban extensions or intensification – perhaps because of ecological pressures around existing settlements or because land value capture is easier for new large sites and thus they may be able to make a more meaningful contribution to affordable housing or infrastructure.

2.126 As a first stage to this assessment we will work with the client group to confirm which scenarios or groups of scenarios to test. We need to do this because we need to narrow the range of possible permutations for the SA and HRA processes. To make a manageable process we think we need to assess groups of similar sites or options


April 2020 25

collectively. In practice the final portfolio will be a mix of various options, but this assessment shows the relative merits of each route or typology.

2.127 The comparative SA and HRA will focus on identifying likely significant cumulative impacts (beneficial and adverse) from the selected site options. Drawing upon the earlier site-specific assessment results, further qualitative analysis will be undertaken to consider cumulative development pressures on designated sites and the ‘strategic fit’ between the site options and addressing key sustainability issues across the sub- region (e.g. links to regeneration priorities). This will include assessment of any potential cumulative impact pathways and Likely Significant Effects (in HRA terms) on identified European Sites. Where any Likely Significant Effects are identified the comparative assessment will also consider appropriate HRA mitigation, including setting indicative requirements for the provision of SANG (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace) and SAMM (Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Measures) where needed in order for a site option to remain feasible.

2.128 Equally important to traditional measures of ‘sustainability’ is whether the locations are able to positively contribute to ‘placemaking’ – both protecting the existing but also scope to enhance or add to the wellbeing and sense of place in existing communities. This aspect can be lost in a ‘narrow’ form of SA linked to statutory requirements, but in the context of undertaking SA primary as a planmaking tool at this stage, placemaking differences between site options will be examined as part of the comparative assessment.

Stage 2.4 Draft documents2.129 At this point we will deliver draft versions of the documents required by the brief –

which comprise an Overview Report, Duty to Cooperate Report and technical evidence base. As required by the brief, we will then present the drafts face-to-face, first to the Steering Group and then to elected Members of the commissioning Councils.

2.130 As part of the Overview report we will advise on governance arrangements, considering both planning (e.g. the option of joint Local Plans) and delivery (e.g. the case for Local Delivery Vehicles and what form they might take). In this we will refer to good (and bad) practice from other areas we have knowledge and experience of.

Stage 2.5 Final documents2.131 Finally we will revise the draft documents in the light of the discussion at the

presentations, and other client comments received, to produce the final version. As well as the documents listed in the brief, if the Steering Group would like we will provide a very short and non-technical Executive Summary, for the benefit of non- specialists and people in a hurry. All reports will be clear, concise, written in plain English and generously illustrated with maps, charts and images.

Timetable2.132 Our proposed timetable is pictured overleaf. It incorporates the deliverables and

deadlines specified in the study brief.

April 2020 27


TimetableWeek 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Beginning 11/05 18/05 25/05 01/06 08/06 15/06 22/06 29/06 06/07 13/07 20/07 27/07 03/08 10/08 17/08 24/08 31/08 07/09 14/09 21/09 28/09 05/10 12/10 19/10 26/10

Stages

0 Inception

1 Analysis

1.1 Housing and employment needs

1.2 Existing spatial options

1.3 Greenfield opportunities - broad areas

1.4 Greenfield opportunities - site specifics

1.5 Urban intensification

2 Conclusions and reporting

2.3 Sustainability & Habitat Regulations Appraisals

2.4 Draft documents

2.5 Final documents

Deliverables

Time inputs

0.0 Inception meeting

2.2 Stakeholder event

2.1 Steering Group meeting


April 2020 28

The Team3.1 If we are appointed, Stantec UK L:td (formerly PBA) will be the lead consultant

responsible to the client for successful delivery of the project. AspinallVerdi will provide viability analysis and Wyvern will provide analysis of heritage and landscape, working as sub-consultants to Stantec.

3.2 As a team, we have a wealth of recent experience in the preparation of similar studies and strategy/policy development. This includes extensive experience in Berkshire, so that we understand the issues facing the client group, and have a head start on understanding the context within which this study has been commissioned.

3.3 We have also worked together on many similar studies that focus on how policy can create the right conditions to support the delivery of long-term strategic placemaking, rather than just meeting numerical targets.

Experience in Berkshire and the study area3.4 We have good working relationships with many of the client group, which provides us

with a good understanding of their current and emerging evidence base.

3.5 Extremely relevant to this commission is our Stage 1 WAGS report by PBA (now Stantec0, which identified the study area for this work.

3.6 In addition we are supporting RBWM through their plan examination – focusing on economic needs but also ensuring alignment with the housing evidence.

3.7 1.We have also completed a series of reports across most of Berkshire (ex Slough and Reading) updating their economic needs – including for Bracknell Forest where we have updated their employment land review (2020)

3.8 Most of this work has been undertaken with AspinallVerdi providing commercial advice property market advice and also viability advice.

3.9 As noted in the method, our technical teams support the client Councils on various technical frameworks – including assessing planning applications for RBWM and progressing the Slough Park and ride site. This also applies to the major infrastructure providers including Thames Water where we are on their consultant panel.

3.10 In London, we provided evidence for the GLA on the economic need for new employment land – as part of the London Office Policy Review and the London Industrial Land study.

3.11 This has recently been taken forward in this area, as we have updated LB Hounslow employment land evidence – that is actively promoting the release of greenbelt land to support the expansion of Heathrow (2020)

3 THE CONSULTANTS


April 2020 29

3.12 As part of this we have been working with the JEBIS Heathrow evidence to identify the likely employment land need to support releases of greenbelt in this part of the area. One issue with the Heathrow evidence is that is not borough specific and so we have needed to form a view as to how much land Hounslow should look to release

Experience elsewhere3.13 Below are selected examples of our most relevant experience beyond Berkshire and

West London.

Swale – Choices for Housing Growth

3.14 PBA (now Stantec) recently completed a suite of work for Swale Borough Council which looked at the Councils capacity to deliver its next round of housing growth. This includes estimating future housing and employment needs and then looking to identify growth locations that were considered sustainable, deliverable and meeting the local communities objectives see ‘inclusive growth’.

3.15 Similar to the present project, the starting point was constraint mapping but then refined via a detailed RAG assessment of the possible options and the identification of a possible number of alternative scenarios.

3.16 This project went one step further this here – the possible scenarios were offered to the market via a public consultation event (the prospectus) which sought developer interest in the land we considered was available and sustainable for development. Developers were invited to build on our provisional assessment and provide additional technical evidence to demonstrate how they could bring forward possible parcels in line with the Boroughs sustainable development objectives.

3.17 Working with Aspinall Verdi and our team of technical experts, the various options were assessed for deliverability and viability resulting in a possible portfolio of 20,000 new homes across five possible sites – including a new science park and provision for a new motorway junction funded by the development

3.18 The first stage assessment is: https://services.swale.gov.uk/meetings/documents/s8862/Appendix%20I%20to%20P BA%20Report%20Item%208Feb18.pdf

South Essex Growth Locations Study (SGLS)3.19 Stantec led a team to provide the South Essex Strategic Growth Locations Study

which will inform their forthcoming JSP.

3.20 The SGLS forms the first piece of evidence for the JSP. It will inform the forthcoming South Essex JSP, which will in turn inform the local plans for each authority that will flow from this. This work follows on from the signing of the memorandum of understanding in January 2018 and relates to the Vision which ASELA are still preparing. One of the strategic priorities was developing a spatial strategy for South Essex.

3.21 The SGLS provides a strategic long-term view about the scale and location of development that could theoretically be accommodated and may be possible to


April 2020 30

deliver across South Essex. The study acknowledges that there are difficulties bringing strategic development to the market in this part of Essex (South Essex is a much less viable market than here). So the work looks at how the Councils can make development more viable and draw on the planning and funding streams potentially available to them.

3.22 The study is in final draft awaiting signoff from the consortium of South Essex Councils but will hopefully be available soon. The work is politically sensitive because, as with this project, it identifies possible new growth locations. But as structure the work has

Identified an overall strategic housing development potential based on a strategic constraints-led approach under series of different spatial options. These spatial options follow a sequential approach, focusing first on brownfield land within settlement boundaries, before going onto to consider brownfield land outside settlements, development in accessible locations, the scope for extensions to existing settlements and finally the potential for new settlements.

Adopted a place-based approach to refining that overall development potential, focusing growth in more sustainable locations. This refined approach focuses on those options which are not presently part of South Essex’s housing land supply and which is necessary to close the supply gap.

Examined the high-level infrastructure implications of potential strategic growth. This focuses primarily on the transport implications but also provides an overview of utilities and social infrastructure.

Identified a potential phasing or trajectory for this strategic growth which links into the infrastructure requirements and the market’s ability to deliver

Provided High-level viability analysis which will form a starting point for more detailed testing as the exact scale and distribution of growth is developed through JSP process. This viability analysis factors in a charge per dwelling based on the high-level view of infrastructure requirements.

Consideration of alternative mechanisms and interventions to the market to deliver growth in South Essex

Finally, the study sets out a series of recommendations for how the findings could be taken forward for the JSP and identifies areas of further work.

Maidstone New Garden Communities Assessment3.23 We are in the process of completing an assessment of new strategic growth options

for Maidstone Council. This Phase 1 report – assessing the suitability and sustainability of 7 possible growth locations in the Borough is due to report shortly. In summary we have discounted three of the possible options on grounds of sustainability (including one site in the AONB) or lack of deliverability. Four locations are progressing to a next stage of assessment and to inform this we have provided a review of strengths and weaknesses of each location and outlined the further work we expect developers to undertake, to demonstrate that their schemes are deliverable.


April 2020 31

Supporting strategic housing growth in North Essex3.24 PBA (now Stantec) have been advising a consortium of North Essex councils

(Colchester, Chelmsford, Braintree and Tendring) on housing need requirements since early 2015. Objectively assessed housing need requirements were identified for the councils, including extensive work in Tendring to resolve issues arising from significant unattributable population change. The first report was published in 2015, which has subsequently been updated as new information has become available. PBA have been retained by most of the constituent authorities to provide them with support as their plans have emerged, and also on S78 appeals.

Greater Birmingham housing need and capacity study3.25 PBA (now Stantec) were commissioned by the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP

to undertake a housing need and capacity study for the nine local authorities in the LEP area. This study was expanded to include the Black Country LEP authorities and now covers 13 local authorities at the core the West Midlands. Its findings on housing need were supported by the Inspector who examined the Birmingham Development Plan.

3.26 We were re-appointed to test the relationship between the LEP growth aspirations for Greater Birmingham, Warwickshire, large parts of Staffordshire and parts of Worcestershire with our previous OAN recommendations. The work was on behalf of the LEPs and Combined Authority. It is probably the largest OAN assessment outside London and the GLA SHMA with nearly 20 individual planning authorities involved.

3.27 Following on from this work, in the last two years, we have completed SHMAs for Solihull, and the Black Country and South Staffordshire, which takes this strategic Greater Birmingham work to the detailed level, including addressing many of the issues that raised in the brief for this piece of work. Most recently, we have been appointed by Bromsgrove to undertake their growth strategy work which draws together housing and employment work to devise a deliverable plan for the authority.

3.28 We are now updating various evidence to support the release of greenbelt sites for housing, facilitate DtC discussions to meet unmet needs (housing and employment) and also support the release of land for a new Strategic Rail Freight Terminal.

West Midlands Combined Authority - using infrastructure to reinforce housing and job site delivery

3.29 This job demonstrates expertise at a large geographical area and looking at issues which are precisely transferrable to the current commission. It covers the same types of projects, stakeholders, individuals and political context.

3.30 Our objective was to understand how the West Midlands Combined Authority might use infrastructure investment to maximise the delivery of jobs and housing development. It was intended to create a work programme for the Combined Authority which would create real added value.


April 2020 32

3.31 Our first step was to analyse growth plans in the West Midlands to 2031. The picture was fractured. Plans were intellectually coherent, but it was hard to pull together a consistent, area-wide view about which growth sites are the most important.

3.32 We worked to understand the West Midlands’ transport plans. Again, the picture was complex: this is a big area, with plans covering a long timescale to 2031. We focused the list of schemes with a series of tests designed to identify which schemes might genuinely assist in the development of housing and jobs sites. The tests looked at whether the projects were in a growth area, and then whether they were of the right type, scale and location to assist development.

Focusing effort around the new West Midlands Opportunity Areas

3.33 We then used the above analysis to understand how land use planning and infrastructure investment might mutually reinforce each other to create the viable growth capacity that the West Midlands needed. We isolated a list of key sites and schemes where that process might take place, and suggested that the Combined Authority adopt London-style Opportunity Area designations.

3.34 Having arrived at an agreed list of Opportunity Areas, we suggested that the Combined Authority would need to build up a package of governance, land use and infrastructure planning, and funding and financing support. The objective was to create development momentum at the sites.

3.35 We set out a series of series of supporting infrastructure packages which support the Opportunity Areas, and a set of Metro, Sprint, road and rail investment packages. We set out a series of longer term, more radical options, based around what we called an ‘outside in’ and an ‘inside out’ strategy for the West Midlands.


April 2020 33

Development infrastructure funding studies3.36 At Stantec, we are particularly proud of the way that our teams can co-operate highly

effectively to arrive at an integrated, coherent, cross-disciplinary view when required. DIFS (Development Infrastructure Funding Study) are a good example of where these disciplines come together. These DIFS take growth at major development areas – including Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea DIF study (which saw the Northern Line Extension realised), Old Oak Common (for the HS2 and Crossrail),Solihull UK Central (HS2), and most recently at the East Midlands HS2 interchange at Toton and at the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area and provide a global view of what infrastructure costs and development costs arise from growth; when that infrastructure is required; how much it costs; and how it can be funded.

Strategic planning skills were used to assess demand for growth in the area. We assessed the social infrastructure requirements of housing and jobs growth the Isle of Dogs. We set out an integrated view of how infrastructure would be used to deliver the objectives set out in the vision statement.

Transport planning skills were used to assess the transport and value creation requirements needed to meet deliver the proposed levels of development. We assessed the transport requirements of growth at the Isle of Dogs, worked with cost consultants, phased and prioritised the transport interventions needed, and looked at how the infrastructure might be funded.

Civil engineering skills were used to establish the extent and nature of the existing utility supply networks within the site, around the site boundary and in the immediate vicinity. We contacted the relevant network operators to obtain plans of the existing networks and identifying physical constraints. We identified the likely demand profiles and identified the costs associated with any necessary diversions.

Environmental and geotechnical skills were used to assess ground contamination, noise, ground conditions, and heritage.

Isle of Dogs and South Poplar transport infrastructure interventions 2017-41


April 2020 34

3.37 A key element of these studies has always been assessing different options for growth, including developing trajectories for how that growth might come forward, and working with the client group to understand the priorities for evaluating those options. This experience means that we are well placed as a team to not only take an informed view on the infrastructure implications of development but also to use in conjunction with the delivery issues that face Berkshire.

3.38 This type of evidence base is favoured by the GLA as a route to bring forward strategic development in the capital. This background, along with the teams wider London experience providing GLA policy evidence will be vital to help liaise with the London Boroughs part of this work.

References3.39 Stantec are known to the client team through our earlier work (Stage 1) and also

because we are supporting RBWM through their plan making process.

3.40 As referees external to the client group, we would suggest:

James Freeman, Head of Planning at Swale Borough Council (Choices for Housing Growth, Swale new Garden Communities, Swale ELR and Swale Housing Needs): [email protected]

Matt Melville, Policy Officer at Basingstoke and Deane (we have provided a number of evidence base documents covering housing and employment – and presented difficult findings to their Members): [email protected]


April 2020 35

PeopleCore team

3.41 The project team has been carefully assembled to best respond to the brief and needs of the client group. Stantec will act as lead consultant with support from Aspinall Verdi for viability and delivery evidence. This is a well-established pairing and most of the AV team are former employees of PBA/Stantec who decided to specialise in viability and deliverability evidence. Emma Rouse to support the team as regards heritage impacts.

3.42 Stantec is a consulting practice of engineers, planners, scientists and economists, delivering development and infrastructure projects on behalf of our clients. Our ethos is built around the importance of successful relationships. We ensure that Directors are personally involved in projects thus ensuring effective leadership, skills and resources.

3.43 The single point of contact for the project will be Richard Pestell who will act as Project Manager and will lead the project team on a day-to-day basis. Richard has managed most of our Berkshire planning and economics work and is leading our inputs into the RBWM plan. He will be supported by Jo Lee (lead expert for place making and sustainability in the RAG assessment) and Robert Nairn (see below).

3.44 As noted above Richard Pestell is director the study, as he did with Stage 1 WAGS. He has also managed or directed most of our relevant recent examples including Swale, Maidstone, Birmingham and Black Country, and out recent suite of employment land reviews / evidence for most of the Berkshire Council. He also managed the Hounslow Employment Land Review where we considered the growth needs of Heathrow.

3.45 As with our earlier work here he will be supported by Cristina Howick. Cristina Howick is an economist and a Director in the London office of Stantec. Over the last 15 years she has led the development of economic evidence bases for planning such as housing market assessments and employment land reviews and directed over 40 such evidence base studies for local authorities, sub-regions and regions. She is the main author of the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) technical advice note on objectively assessed need and housing targets.. Cristina’s developer /housebuilder clients include Barratt / David Wilson Homes, Gladman, JS Bloor, Persimmon, Rydon Homes and Welbeck Strategic Land among many others.

3.46 Joanna Lee (Associate) is a chartered town planner with over 20 years’ experience. Jo provides expertise in the preparation and content of strategic and detailed policy issues, particularly in relation to housing requirement and supply, as well as drafting development plan documents and policy responses for a range of clients. She specialises in policy, local plan and evidence work but also provides planning advice and support for planning applications. She project manages PBA’s work for the Planning Advisory Service and in this role has worked with over 40 Local Planning Authorities across the country advising on plan making, project management, the evidence base and five-year land supply issues. She has appeared at a number of


April 2020 36

Local Plan Examinations in Public for both developers and local authorities, most recently at the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan. As well as being the main planning policy lead, Jo will provide Richard with support on project management but also lead on the sustainability and place making aspects of the RAG analysis. She will also liaise with our GIS team, based in Reading, to collate the constraint and opportunity data needed. Jo manages the South Essex Growth locations study noted in our experience.

3.47 Robert Nairn will provide support to the team, including collating data and undertaking the sustainability and place making elements of the RAG assessment – assisting Richard and Jo. Robert is a planner in our London office and works on assembling the extensive evidence for our Development Infrastructure Funding Studies.

Technical experts3.48 Our transport work will be led by Simon Speller – a Director of Transport in our

Reading office. Simon has extensive experience of promoting new developments & infrastructure projects. Simon has worked for variety of private developers, land- owners and public sector clients and has a wide-ranging experience of the promotion of sites through both Local Plans & planning applications. He is working in a number of strategic new garden communities including the Cotswold Garden Village which is a Government backed Garden Village development in West Oxfordshire. The site is allocated in the Local Plan as a growth area with further details to emerge through an Area Action Plan. The proposals include a mix of uses including 2,200 new homes, a primary school, the main employment site in the District and a new Local Centre.

3.49 He has also provided transport evidence to support the Waterbeach new town (10,000 units), urban extensions to Guildford, South Oxford Science Village and for Slough Estates. His team also advices RBWM on planning applications.

3.50 The SA and HRA Lead will be Duncan Smart, an experienced chartered planner and project manager with particular interests in environmental planning and sustainable development. Duncan is Stantec UK’s national SA Lead and has extensive experience of undertaking co-ordination roles within multi-disciplinary projects. He brings a detailed understanding of SA and HRA requirements, case law and methodologies, and is experienced in assessing strategic site options to support emerging plans across the UK. Over 2017 – 2019 Duncan led the SA of the Sunderland Core Strategy & Development Plan (adopted January 2020) and the North Ayrshire Local Development Plan (LDP) (adopted December 2019). Duncan is also currently leading integrated SAs & HRAs for the Bridgend, Neath Port Talbot and Conwy LDP Reviews in Wales. His work is informed by an in-depth understanding of the inter-related legal, planning and environmental complexities, as well as design and viability considerations, which all need to be addressed in successful plan making.

3.51 The ecology elements of the project and RAG assessment will be led by our inhouse team of ecologists, managed by Duncan McLaughlin an Ecologist and Chartered Environmentalist with over 12 years’ experience relating to biodiversity issues in the context of environmental management, development schemes and the land use


April 2020 37

planning system. I have worked extensively in the UK, Europe and Asia, and have a particular experience in ornithological survey and assessment and habitat translocation.

3.52 Heritage assessment will be provided by Emma Rouse. She is an experienced trained landscape archaeologist and a specialist on the historic landscape of England and a member of the of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. She has 15 years’ experience in the interpretation and analysis of historic data including historic characterisations, historic mapping, nationally designated sites, historic environment records, and national mapping programme data. She regularly provides heritage and archaeological desk-based assessments in advance of planning applications. She is also an experienced heritage expert witness at planning inquiries on behalf of Local Planning Authorities. Emma will work as subcontractor to Stantec because out inhouse team is currently fully committed on other projects and cannot commit to meet your deadlines,

3.53 John Paul Friend will provide landscape expertise. He is an associate lecturer at the University of Gloucester training he next generation of landscape architects and specialising in LVIA assessments. He has provided landscape evidence to support large urban extensions and acts as expert witness at planning appeals where landscape impact is an issue.

3.54 Larry Aiyedogbon, associate utility engineer in our Reading Office will provide the utility expertise. As noted elsewhere Stantec support a number of the utility providers in the study area via their respective consultant frameworks. Larry will with his wider team to address the scope of utility infrastructure for the RAG assessments.

3.55 Flooding inputs will be managed by Amy Hemsler. Leading the national flood risk modelling team out of our Reading office, Amy has over 15 years of experience in the fields of water and flood risk. Based locally she is very familiar with the issues in the study area, with the EA and their Thames Flood models. Amy’s expertise is in developing sustainable flood management solutions that optimise the potential of a development site (while also reducing flood risk to existing communities and providing environmental enhancements). Over the course of her career, she’s worked with a range of private sector clients, providing advice and undertaking flood risk assessments and environmental statements. Amy is experienced in applying national policy and guidance regarding flood risk from pre-application discussions through the planning process to discharge of conditions and obtaining environmental permits.

3.56 Viability and deliverability expertise will be provided by Stuart Cook RICs, from Aspinall Verdi. Stantec and staff at Aspinall Verdi have worked together for many number of years. Aspinall Verdi is a specialist practice of Chartered Surveyors and Town Planners providing integrated property development, regeneration and town planning services to a wide range of regional and national clients across both the public and private sectors. Aspinall Verdi is an independent practice, which prides itself on providing professional unbiased advice. The practice offers pragmatic robust consultancy and deliverable solutions to the most difficult of challenges, based upon our extensive involvement in property development and regeneration. Aspinall Verdi


April 2020 38

have many years of experience working with Stantec appraising commercial sites for current and future suitability for continued or alternative uses.

3.57 In Berkshire, Stuart Cook provided the property market inputs for our recent suite of economic evidence base documents including for RBWM and Bracknell Forest


April 2020 39

4.1 We understand that this is a rapidly moving environment and will always seek to respond flexibly – especially in the current circumstances. We pride ourselves on our flexible, helpful approach. We do not see this job as a pre-programmed project management exercise; instead, we will work with you to get you the project you need.

How we deliver to time4.2 We are careful and experienced project managers. We will use ‘Decision Papers’ to

clarify decisions, and get a speedy and efficient response. The client group will have to take many difficult decisions during this study.

4.3 This approach is especially valuable where there is more than one client. This is because we need a firm understanding of agreed actions and decisions in order to move the project forward, but the client group also needs to be confident that there is agreement between all parties.

4.4 Here we are fortunate that the team is already known to the client group and various ongoing projects including work to deliver RBWM plan. This means we are already in regular contract the with lead project

4.5 We have a range of project management techniques that allow us to delivery large and complex projects.

4.6 Structure: We ensure that Directors are personally involved in projects thus ensuring effective leadership, skills and resources. Our member leads are not only shareholders, but are also technical and have a hands-on approach to each commission to retain ownership, accountability and also quality of service delivery.

4.7 Team resourcing: We have set up a solid, senior project management team which is able to deal with the pressures that this job will generate.

4.8 The majority of our resources are internal to Stantec or, for viability, part of a well-established team with Aspinall Verdi. The Aspinall Verdi team have worked alongside Stantec / PBA to deliver our viability advice for over 10 years. For this project this manages the risk of engaging many third-party contractors and the communication delays that this introduces – the whole team can work from one network and using the same shared files and background evidence for example.

4.9 Careful project management: We are careful and experienced project managers, and our experience of similar work means that we know what tasks need to be performed. Our strategy is to work backwards – to understand what needs to happen and by when. This ensures we hit the deadline.

4.10 Project reviews and progress reporting: Project reviews are undertaken during the life of a project, to assess the progress and status of the project, to ensure it remains within scope, schedule, cost, and that it continues to meet the expectations of the client. We believe clear and consistent communications with our clients and regular feedback on our performance is essential to support continual improvement in our

4 PROJECT MANAGEMENT


April 2020 40

services. We will submit fortnightly email progress reports using a PRINCE2 compliant template.

4.11 ‘Early Warnings’: Fortnightly progress reports will incorporate an ‘Early Warning’ section. This is to be used by both Client and Consultant. In the event that a project risk is realised during the course of the programme or an event occurs that was unforeseen and has a direct bearing upon either the time, quality or deliverability of the project then either the Client or Consultant will need to inform the other party of this impact and if needs be convene a meeting to agree the necessary course of action.

How we deliver to specification4.12 We will seek a consistent, evolving understanding of what you are looking for.

Delivering here is about our attitude to the job rather than any particular formal technique. We will seek to deliver to the specification we set out in this document. We know that circumstances change, your needs change, and we will seek to respond flexibly and helpfully. For this project we need to be flexible because new issues are sure to emerge, and others go away following a detailed review of the extensive background evidence. We may be able to simplify the assessment where we find for example some constraints or opportunities are universal.

4.13 We rely on judgement – not just spreadsheets. One of the major temptations in a study of this type is to rely on the mechanical application of pre-set formulas and indices to calculate infrastructure requirements and assess suitability. We take a more sensitive approach, which works with the client team to unlock local knowledge about what provision is already in place, how we might use shared infrastructure to integrate new communities with the old, how multi-purpose infrastructure might create efficiencies, and when the infrastructure might really be needed.

4.14 This reliance on judgment is even more important in the current climate because almost all previous ‘facts’ are likely to be reviewed – what we may have assumed is viable to deliver is now uncertain for example. Our reliance on evidenced judgements, as opposed to more formulaic approach, provides the team with the scope to highlight how their judgments may be sensitive to change. Also to allow us to better join the threads between different technical strands. For the communities who may ultimately be affected by development it demonstrates that the there is some ‘intelligence’ being applied throughout the process and their land has not been highlighted simply because it happens to be 800 metres from a bus stop etc..

4.15 We will provide perceptive and thoughtful outputs from a senior team. Key staff members will have worked on previous similar projects and importantly have a strong track record of working in this area – so we are bringing this experience along. As noted in the method the team is selected to bring staff with the background knowledge already available to them – especially for transport, ecology and flooding where familiarity with the networks, models and baseline position will help guide the work from day one and trailer the output to your specification.


April 2020 41

Risks4.16 The risk matrix below shows main risks and propose mitigations for this project. We

will discuss this risk matrix at our inception meeting, and at progress meetings thereafter. There are a series of risks involved with any project, but these expand in a project of this complexity. As a result, we control risks carefully.

4.17 We use fortnightly progress reports and Risk Registers. We will develop a risk management register from the outset that will be updated throughout the study. This is a live document. We will ensure that we get all the team’s combined input in order to capture all risks and be effectively managed.

4.18 Progress reports will incorporate an ‘Early Warning’ section. This is to be used by both Client and Consultant. In the event that a project risk is realised during the course of the programme or an event occurs that was unforeseen and has a direct bearing upon either the time, quality or deliverability of the project then either the Client or Consultant will need to inform the other party of this impact and if needs be convene a meeting to agree the necessary course of action

Risk matrix


April 2020 42

4.19 The cost of the assignment as proposed will be £XX,XXX including all fees and out-of- pocket expenses but excluding VAT, which will be charged in addition.

4.20 A detailed budget is below, showing charging rates and indicative time inputs by team member. We will use the same charging rates for any additional work that may be required.

4.21 We have reviewed the terms of the standard contract provided by RBWM. If our bid is successful, we will be seeking fine tuning on these to ensure they are appropriate for the provision of our services.

4.22 We have no conflicts of interest that would affect this project.

BUDGET AND CONTRACT

April 2020 43


BudgetR Pestell C Howick J Lee R Nairn C Moore D Smart

AspinallVerdi

(team) JP Friend E RouseFlooding

(team)Transport

(team)Utilities (team)

Ecology (team) Total

Stages Days

0 Inception

broad areas

site specifics

2 Conclusions and reporting

2.1 Option development & Steering Group meeting

1.0 1.0 2.0 1.5

2.2 Stakeholder event 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.0

2.3 Sustainability & Habitat Regulations Appraisals 6.0

2.4 Draft documents 5.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0

2.6 Final documents 3.0 1.0 3.0 10.0 1.0

Total days 11.5 6.0 8.0 32.0 9.0 11.0 10.5 6.0 6.0 3.0 10.0 3.5 4.0

£

Charging rate £/day 1,100 1,300 900 500 600 800 800 350 350 800 800 800 800

Fees 12,650 7,800 7,200 16,000 5,400 8,800 8,400 2,100 2,100 2,400 8,000 2,800 3,200 86,850

Out-of-pocket expenses 1,000

Total cost excluding VAT 87,850

0.0 Inception meeting 1.0 1.0

1 Analysis

1.1 Housing and employment needs 2.0

1.2 Existing spatial options 2.0 3.0

1.3 Greenfield opportunities -

2.0 6.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 1.0

1.4 Greenfield opportunities -

3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 7.0 3.0 3.0

1.5 Urban intensification 6.0 2.0

contents proposal.april2… · web viewstantec uk limited (‘stantec’) is pleased to respond to...

Documents