Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Feb 2013) - Runnymede Borough Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

proceed according to the timescales set out. Unidentified school expansions remain subject to change 5.39 When considering how different areas will be affected over the plan period, schools serving the Virginia Water and Englefield Green planning area have a small shortage of places that is projected to rise to half a form of entry by 2014, a full form of entry by 2016 and two forms of entry by 2020. The forecast increase in demand for reception places means Trump Green Infant School has been identified as a school to expand over the next few years to provide additional provision. Statutory notices have been published expanding Trumps Green Infant School from a one form entry (1FE) infant school to become a two form entry (2FE) infant school, with a Published Admission Number (PAN) of 60, from 1 September 2013. 5.40 There will also be a new primary education facility at the former DERA site to serve the needs of the proposed development and the surrounding area. The specific details of this facility are not yet known. 5.41 Due to the shortage of junior places in the Egham & Thorpe and Virginia Water & Englefield Green planning areas, Thorpe C of E Infant School has received approval from Surrey County Council Cabinet members (in July 2012) to change its status to a primary school from September, 2013. This will see children staying on up to year 6 rather than leaving after year 2 as they do currently (creating an additional 120 junior places). 5.42 The Addlestone & Ottershaw areas are projected to have a deficit of places of one form of entry by 2014 although this is influenced by demand in adjacent planning areas. Statutory notices have been published for Darley Dene Infant School (Addlestone) to change from a one entry (1FE) infant school to become a 1 FE primary school, with a PAN of 30, from 1 September 2013 (this will create an additional 120 junior places). 5.43 On 24 May 2012 the Secretary of State announced which schools will have their condition needs addressed through the Priority School Building Programme. Four primary schools were selected in Surrey, but this does not include any primary or secondary schools within Runnymede. 5.44 A final decision on all published Statutory Notices will be made at the Cabinet Member meeting on 21 November 2012. Costs and funding sources 5.45 The table below summarises the expansion plans proposed at the Borough’s primary schools. Funding ID IDPF002 IDPF003 IDPF004 Description Trumps Green Infant School expansion St Ann’s Heath Junior School expansion Thorpe C of E Infant School expansion Estimated Cost £1,129,230 SCC £1,304,888 SCC £1,505,640 SCC Key Provider(s) IDPF005 Darley Infant School expansion £1,505,640 SCC IDPF006 Primary school at the former DERA site Unknown at this time Developer/SCC IDPF007 One additional 1fe primary expansion (school unconfirmed at this time) Unknown at this time SCC Page | 37 Runnymede IDP DRAFT – February 2013
IDPF008 One additional 1fe infant expansion (school unconfirmed at this time) Unknown at this time SCC IDPF009 Infant to primary expansion (additional junior places only)- school unconfirmed at this time Unknown at this time SCC Total Funding required (as estimated by SCC) £10,163,259 5.46 The cost of providing a primary school at the former DERA site would initially be met by the developer and SCC. 5.47 When calculating the cost of the remainder of the listed proposals, the cost of primary places has been calculated in the following way. Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) cost multipliers have been used to estimate the expected cost per pupil of typical school building projects for primary schools. These figures are commonly used by Local Authorities to estimate school building projects. In 2008/09 the capital cost of a primary school place was £12,257. The figure is based on 2008/09 prices and therefore needs to be index linked. Based on the Building Cost Information Service figures, the cost of general school building projects decreased by 8.6% between Q3 2008 and Q3 2011 (£/m2). A location factor of 1.12 is applicable to projects in Surrey to reflect the higher costs in the South East when compared to the national average. 5.48 The following calculations therefore provide a cost per place for a primary school accurate from Q3 2011. SCC has not updated this calculation to present day to keep the assessment of costs consistent with those provided to other Boroughs and Districts. It should be noted that the following per place calculation does not factor in the costs of land acquisition, site abnormalities or any other exceptional costs that might be incurred. However, it is deemed a reasonable benchmark for a typical primary school building project. £12,257 x 0.914 x 1.12 = £12,547 per primary place (£376,417 per class) 5.49 Based on the above information, it is expected that the total cost of providing primary places to meet housing growth in Runnymede 2012 –2022 would be £10,163,259 (£376,417 x 27). Risk Assessment 5.50 Similar to EY risk, the main risk to this type of infrastructure is considered to be demand for places outpacing supply. As expansion plans at 4 of the Borough’s primary schools will take place within the next 5 years, and as a new primary school is to be provided at the former DERA site, it is considered that there is a low risk of this situation occurring. Conclusion Risk ID Description Probability Severity IDPR002 Unaccounted increase in demand for places 5.51 Overall there is considered to be sufficient infrastructure in the Borough (or planned infrastructure) to meet the increase in Borough’s population over the first delivery period of the Local Plan. The majority of the development at the former DERA development, which would, in all likelihood have the greatest impact on provision, is Low Low Page | 38 Runnymede IDP DRAFT – February 2013
Page 1 and 2: IDP Infrastructure Delivery Plan Fe
Page 3 and 4: Executive Summary 1 The Infrastruct
Page 5 and 6: 13 With regard to Higher Education,
Page 7 and 8: 25 Despite the forecasts for housin
Page 9 and 10: the Borough’s SANGS over the plan
Page 11 and 12: Kent, Surrey and Sussex. There is o
Page 13 and 14: provision will occur over the plan
Page 15 and 16: CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..
Page 17 and 18: Costs and funding sources .........
Page 19 and 20: Conclusion ........................
Page 21 and 22: Local Plan ........................
Page 23 and 24: Chapter 1. Introduction What is the
Page 25 and 26: o Conclusion. 1.12 The report is su
Page 27 and 28: LPAs should work collaboratively wi
Page 29 and 30: Runnymede Borough Councils Sustaina
Page 31 and 32: Figure 2-Total CO2 emissions for Ru
Page 33 and 34: Groups and Partnerships Local Econo
Page 35 and 36: Services (RAVS), which is the coord
Page 37 and 38: Assessment” (CCRA) is intended to
Page 39 and 40: Table 4 - Location of Potential Res
Page 41 and 42: • The Haven Sure Start Children's
Page 43 and 44: 5.18 As noted in the Local Plan sec
Page 45 and 46: Figure 7- Primary, Junior and Infan
Page 47: eception places’ column refers to
Page 51 and 52: Figure 9-location of secondary educ
Page 53 and 54: 5.62 SCC is planning on the basis t
Page 55 and 56: 5.77 Students within Runnymede can
Page 57 and 58: Local Plan community learning (ACL)
Page 59 and 60: Chapter 6. Transport Introduction 6
Page 61 and 62: Figure 11 - Runnymede's Strategic R
Page 63 and 64: Risk Assessment 6.13 The production
Page 65 and 66: Table 7 - Cars and vans in Runnymed
Page 67 and 68: Figure 14- SHMA Population Age Proj
Page 69 and 70: • Englefield Green and Egham-cont
Page 71 and 72: IDPF022 IDPF023 IDPF024 IDPF025 Roa
Page 73 and 74: 6.54 All of the stations in the Bor
Page 75 and 76: 6.64 Across Surrey, it is expected
Page 77 and 78: Borough is presented in Table 16 be
Page 79 and 80: 6.89 In addition, the Egham Sustain
Page 81 and 82: Table 11 - Five Dimensions of Trave
Page 83 and 84: 6.114 Surrey CC advise that a benef
Page 85 and 86: IDPF049 IDPF050 IDPF051 IDPF052 IDP
Page 87 and 88: 6.127 As aforementioned earlier in
Page 89 and 90: Chapter 7. Health Introduction 7.1
Page 91 and 92: above average patient targets (both
Page 93 and 94: Future provision 7.28 The cumulativ
Page 95 and 96: Table 13 - % Population aged 65 and
Page 97 and 98: Local Plan the Council and County t
Page 99 and 100:
Costs and funding sources 7.55 The
Page 101 and 102:
Chapter 8. Utilities Introduction 8
Page 103 and 104:
Local Plan 8.17 The location polici
Page 105 and 106:
Risk Assessment 8.30 The main risks
Page 107 and 108:
Chapter 9. Waste Management Introdu
Page 109 and 110:
in very special circumstances. It s
Page 111 and 112:
Chapter 10. Green Infrastructure In
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 19- National and County desi
Page 115 and 116:
predominantly lowland heath land an
Page 117 and 118:
• Hare Hill open space: divides t
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Figure 20 -natural and semi urban g
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Chapter 11. Leisure Facilities Intr
Page 127 and 128:
Other • Refurbishment/replacement
Page 129 and 130:
IDPF108 IDPF109 IDPF110 IDPF111 IDP
Page 131 and 132:
11.28 It is considered unlikely tha
Page 133 and 134:
Chapter 12. Culture and Heritage In
Page 135 and 136:
Figure 22- (map 2 of 2) historic an
Page 137 and 138:
12.16 The Surrey Arts Partnership i
Page 139 and 140:
Chapter 13. Emergency Services Intr
Page 141 and 142:
expected in the Borough up to 2026.
Page 143 and 144:
Funding ID IDPF127 IDPF128 IDPF129
Page 145 and 146:
percentage of the population receiv
Page 147 and 148:
13.37 Chertsey Ambulance Station ha
Page 149 and 150:
Flooding and Flood Defences Existin
Page 151 and 152:
of works within the context of a 10
Page 153 and 154:
Chapter 14. Community Services and
Page 155 and 156:
with sufficient public transport pr
Page 157 and 158:
14.21 The Bourne Car Park in Virgin
Page 159 and 160:
14.35 Changes in the nature of libr
Page 161 and 162:
• Increased IT costs, in infrastr
Page 163 and 164:
14.63 RBC has been responding to th
Page 165 and 166:
14.77 Community Transport: Runnymed
Page 167 and 168:
• reduced budgets internally with
Page 169 and 170:
following centres and as part of th
Page 171 and 172:
14.114 Recently, two churches (Chur
Page 173 and 174:
14.126 Whilst cremation is an alter
Page 175 and 176:
Chapter 15. Delivery Governance Arr
Page 177 and 178:
consultation at each stage of produ
Page 179 and 180:
16.6 The table below outlines the t
Page 181 and 182:
Type of infrastructure Component Sc
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Left Intentionally Blank
Page 213 and 214:
Term EY FE (either 1, 2 or 3) GiA G
Page 215 and 216:
Term SOIS SPA SRN SSSI SWML SWT TAS
Page 217 and 218:
TERM Planning Policy Statement PPPs
Page 219 and 220:
Ottershaw Chase 2012/13 Make a feat
Page 221 and 222:
Hare Hill 2013 -2017 2013/14 Homewo
Page 223 and 224:
Planned Maintenance 2014-2017 (plea
Page 225:
All enquiries about this paper shou
show all

Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Feb 2013) - Runnymede Borough Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?